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

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) :: 1.	What action, if any, has the Government taken towards accepting the recommendation's set forth in the final Report of the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions and presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of His Majesty in March, 1917, showing that it is not desirable that the operations of the steamship companies carrying passengers and freight between the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom should remain longer without some measure of Government supervision ?
2.	Does the Government intend to give effect to this legislation?
3.	What action, if any, has the Government taken to assist the Imperial Government in bringing about Government control of ocean carriers doing business (or from time to time doing business) between ports in the United Kingdom and ports in the Dominion of Canada?


Right Hon.   S@: The recommendations referred to have been considered by the Government and the subject matter discussed with other Overseas Premiers and the Premier of Great Britain. An Imperial Shipping Committee was appointed by the British Government in June, 1920, to inquire into and report on all matters connected with ocean freights and facilities and on all matters connected with the development and improvement of sea communications between the different parts of the Empire. On this committee Canada and other Overseas Dominions are represented. This committee has been in session and a preliminary report has been made on ship-owners' liabilities under bills of lading and matters pertaining thereto. This will doubtless be followed by reports on other phases of the subject being investigated by the above-named committee. After this investigation is finished and the reports made, what action, if any, is to be taken by the Government will have to be

determined after the reception and consideration of these reports of the committee.


RETURNED SOLDIER CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. MCDONALD:: 1.	Have any representations been received from any Civil Service organization on allowing to returned soldiers Civil Servants the statutory increases they would have received had they spent in the Civil Service the period they'were on active service overseas?
2.	If so, have these representations been given consideration, and by whom?
3.	Have any recommendations been made, and is any action to be taken in this matter?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Do not arise.


L. T. MARCIL
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Referring to question answered on April 25, 1921, concerning settlement made with L. T. Marcil. who was injured on the Canadian Pioneer, will the Canadian Governmet Merchant Marine, Limited, give the name of the Insurance Company and the nature of the settlement arrived at in that case?
2.	What was the nature of the injury and was it of a nature to permanently incapacitate this man?
3.	What was the amount paid?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	The Dominion Gresham Guarantee and Casualty Co., 302 St. James Street, Montreal.
Mr. Marcil was referred to that company for any settlement he might be entitled to.
2.	Louis Marcil, aged 63, employed as foreman longshoreman, was walking downstairs at No. 1 grain elevator, Montreal, when some one called him. He turned around to see what was wanted, and in doing so fell downstairs and is reported to have sustained internal injury. The department understands the medical evidence submitted in this case indicates the injury slight, but that Marcil has suffered from double hernia for the past forty years and also dyspepsia for the past seven years, which combination is considered to be the cause of his present incapacity.
3.	The department is informed that the Dominion Gresham Company settled with Marcil for the sum of $60 in full satisfaction of all claims.


BONUS TO CIVIL SERVANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I would like to ask the Government if it
has arrived at any decision as to whether the bonus to civil servants will be continued in whole or not?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: The decision of the Government in that regard was stated to Parliament many weeks ago; it has not been changed.


William Daum Euler: I thought a hearing vias
given to a deputation from the Civil Service on the matter, and that the Government was to announce its decision later on.


Arthur Meighen: We have heard a very great deal on the subject but the Government's decision is unchanged.


OLEOMARGARINE RESOLUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to an item which has been standing on the Order Paper for two and a half months, notice of a resolution to continue the privilege of manufacturing and dealing in oleomargarine. I desire to know whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the measure?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it is.


VICTORIA DAY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) :: I would
like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended that the House shall sit on the 24th of May?


Arthur Meighen: It is not usual for the House to sit on the 24th of May, but there may be circumstances that would make it wise to do so this year. I would be glad to hear the opinion of hon. members in 'general.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 17, the debate on the motion of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. S. Fielding:
Mr. DUNCAN CAMPBELL ROSS (West Middlesex) :: Mr. Speaker, it is not my
intention to make any extended remarks in regard to the Budget which the Min-

ister of Finance has brought down. In a general way I would like to observe that the Budget, as I see it, is not going to bring any relief to the great consuming masses of the people of this country but will place additional burdens on their backs. I had hoped that the Government would have undertaken some revision of the tariff which would have resulted in a reduction of the taxation levied on the necessities of life, which cost so large a proportion of the income, not only of the labouring and farming classes, but also of those who form what may be called the middle classes of society. However, we have been disappointed in this regard notwithstanding the many promises made throughout the country by the Government and its supporters.
Permit me to say that we are faced at the present time with a very difficult situation indeed, and one which is bound to have a very prejudicial affect upon the country, more particularly in the matter of agricultural production. It is not my intention to review at great length the events of 1911, but I think it is recognized to-day -not only by this House but by the people generally-that had the reciprocity pact of that year been accepted by this country it would have been one of the greatest booms that Canada ever enjoyed. That has been proved, to some extent, by the action of the Government itself, which, although it helped to repudiate reciprocity in 1911, subsequently adopted some of its important provisions. The removal by the United States of the duties on cattle, sheep and hogs, resulted in the live stock 'industry in this country making very great strides. In the western part of the province of Ontario the cattle, sheep and hog industry was greatly helped by the taking down of the tariff barriers; but the prospect of a reimposition of those duties has caused in the minds of our farmers a feeling of perturbation; they do not know exactly where they are going to find markets if the tariff barriers are raised again, and they are most anxious that they should continue to enjoy the benefits which they have experienced partially but which they would have had in toto had the reciprocity agreement been accepted by Canada. I hope it is not too late for measures to be taken looking to that end. What is proposed at Washington is only a temporary tariff, and it would be well to enter into negotiations with the Government there to see whether some arrangement cannot be entered into whereby we might have trade relations which would be to the benefit of both coun-
tries. I do not mean by that that we should go hat in hand and ask in a pleading or humiliating way for concessions on the part of the United States administration. But we have things they want and they have things which we need, and if we can enter into any arrangement for commercial intercourse on mutually advantageous terms, it would be of the greatest possible benefit to the live stock industry of this country. As I say, the Fordney Bill is only a temporary measure. These two countries are peculiarly situated, they are neighbours for three or four thousand miles, and it is to be hoped that their longstanding friendly relations will never be interrupted. So I think the time is probably overripe-it is ripe, anyway-for the Government to take some action with a view to restoring to our cattle raisers the benefits of the American market which they have hitherto enjoyed.
If the Government do not think well to take such action, they must provide another outlet for our cattle, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that during his visit to the Old Country-and I wish him all good fortune in the undertaking- he should attempt in a reasonable businesslike way, without meddling in their domestic affairs, to impress upon the British Government the mutual benefit of doing away with the embargo on our cattle. The matter has already been taken up with the. British authorities, but coming from the Prime Minister the prestige of his position would give added weight to his representations, and I am sure he would succeed in inducing the British people to see that justice is done to our cattle raisers. There can be no doubt that the so-called facts which induced the British Government to impose that embargo do not now, and in fact never did, exist, and its removal would confer a two-fold benefit, it would provide an outlet for our cattle, and at the same time it would enable the British people to get cheaper meat.
This debate, Mr. Speaker, has wandered pretty far afield, but throughout its course I have noticed that the Government seem to be very much bothered about us on this side of the House. Even the Prime Minister thinks we are getting into difficulties, and he would like to make it appear that we and our friends to the left are about to enter into an unholy alliance, and are intent on taking down the tariff barriers that now surround the country. He charges us with inconsistency and, in common with some of his supporters, seems to

be very solicitous in regard to the attitude which my hon. friend's on this side have taken. He seems so very solicitous that really I cannot understand his anxiety. He is bothered about the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and is afraid that he will not retain his seat. That is a rather kindly solicitude coming from the Prime Minister for an hon. member who is opposed to him.


Mr. McMASTER:: Crocodile tears.


Duncan Campbell Ross: Yes, crocodile tears. He seems to be bothered about my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Rinfret) also, and about my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Gordon). He seems to think that we are not sincere, and he presumes to admonish us in regard to our sincerity and consistency. With all respect to the right hon. gentleman, I would tell him that it would be well for him to scrutinize some of his own supporters. He would probably find then that he had his hands full, and he might have some tremors as to just what line some of them would take on a protection motion. For my own part, I do not see how my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) can, consistently stick to the Prime Minister on this occasion; nor can I see how my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Argue) can follow the Prime Minister in view of the statements he has made in times past as to the trade policy that this country should adopt; nor do I see how my hon. and gallant friend from Skeena (Mr. Peck) can support the Prime Minister, if he is to be consistent with former declarations made on the platform and in this House. But I may come closer to the Prime Minister, to members of his own cabinet. I have very grave doubts-rather I have not any doubts-if he wishes to be consistent, in regard to the attitude of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) on this amendment.
The right hon. Prime Minister last week made a very long and clever speech, but it was not the best that I have heard him deliver in this House. At times I was surprised at his lack of logic, remembering his peculiarly subtle mind, and it seemed to me that he forgot that vituperation is not argument, nor is declamation logic. There is a principle in the British constitution that there should be solidarity in the cabinet, and, looking at the past history of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, I really cannot see how he can refuse to support the amendment moved by the hon.
member for Shelburne and Queen's. It is only seven short years ago that he was one in the fighting phalanx on this side of the House. He carried the banner of Liberalism particularly high, and especially the banner of tariff reform as espoused (by the Liberal party in this House and in the country. I have heard him on more than one occasion declaiming for the benefits of free agricultural implements, for a lower tariff all round, for assistance to the great consuming masses, and I have heard him rail at the Manufacturers' Association in no uncertain tones. But now the scene is changed. The attainment of power and his new environment seem to have made him another man. Contrasting his political past with his political present he seems to be a sort of political Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in regard to the tariff policy. Not so very long ago he indulged in this House in quite a tirade against my hon. friends to my left. And in passing I would like to compliment their leader, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) on his speech of yesterday, which I think is one of the best I have ever heard in this House. The Minister of Militia was gibing the farmers with not being loyal to the industries of this country, and consequently, I presume, not loyal to Canada herself. He intimated that they did not want to buy Canadian made goods, but prefered American, and he thought that was an outrageous policy for them to pursue. Now, what has been the policy of the Minister of Militia? As long as I have known him, until this sudden change, he had been a consistent supporter of the principles of the Liberal party. Let us look at his political history for a few moments, and while in doing this I may be adding to the material which has already been put on Hansard by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), I think it well to do so, to show just how far there can be solidarity in this cabinet in regard to tariff policy. The Minister of Militia, speaking in this House on March 1st, as reported on page 443 of Hansard, used this language:
But what is this organization doing? What is the party supported by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) doing to-day? Look at the millions upon millions of dollars that are going out of this country every year-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must point out to the hon. member that it is a part of the unwritten law of parliament that a member, in speaking, cannot refer to anything said or done in a previous debate


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
BK<	_
during the same session and that he is not in order in quoting from a previous debate.
Duncan Campbell Ross: Well, Mr. Speaker, I bow
to your ruling. But I may point out that the hon. minister, after indulging in this tirade against the farmers, intimated that the removal of the duty on farm implements would result in the destruction of all implement manufacturing industries in this country, and that it would make valueless all the capital invested in them. He said that the manufacturers would lose everything they had put into those industries; that the Americans would come here and steal our market; that Canadian labour would not be used, and that our money would be spent in buying American goods. I am sorry that I cannot quote his exact words, but I think that is just about what he said; I am sure he will not deny it. Now, in March, 1914, a motion was made by Mr. Knowles, then a member of the House, to put agricultural implements on the free list, and in the course of the debate on that motion the Minister of Militia made another very positive speech. He generally makes positive speeches and sometimes issues challenges to hon. gentlemen holding different views; in this case his remarks were just as positive as usual. To-day he is absolutely opposed to the admission of agricultural implements free of duty, on the ground that it would be unpatriotic. Well, I do not see anything in the condition of the country at the present time to make any difference between what would be unpatriotic now and what was unpatriotic in 1914. Here is what the present Minister of Militia said in 1914:
There is only one thing left for him to do-
Referring to the Prime Minister.
-and that is to reduce the tariff on agricultural implements to a minimum. In my view, that will not toe as satisfactory as the complete abolition of the duties upon agricultural implements. But from the statement of the Prime Minister at six o'clock, his followers from the western provinces who represent agricultural constituencies, and his followers from the province of Ontario who represent the Wellingtons, the Dufferins, the Oxfords and the Waterloos, can tell their constituents that the great boon of free agricultural implements has been denied to them this day by the Prime Minister of Canada, who is the mouthpiece of the Government.
These were the words used by the present Minister of Militia on March 11, 1914, in this House. At that time he was not Minister of Militia; he was the great tribune of the people. He went on to say:
[The Deputy Speaker.]
I rose on this occasion chiefly because I think that some member from the province of Ontario should interject some remarks into this debate to show that the demand for agricultural implements is by no means limited to the western provinces of Canada. The riding which I have the honour to represent in this House is about equally made up of urban and of rural inhabitants. I am satisfied that, irrespective of party, the people engaged in agriculture in the county of Wellington, north or south, would hold up both hands for the boon of free agricultural implements.
When my hon. friend goes back to his constituency some time in the course of a year or two, what will the people of North and South Wellington say to him in regard to this volte-face in the matter of free agricultural implements-a condition necessary to the proper carrying on of agricultural work by his farmer friends? The hon. gentleman went on to say:
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, the demand is as broad as is the country. I then ask the Government: Why not accede to a demand of that kind when your revenue is going to suffer so little and when no Canadian industry is going to be injured?
In 1914 the hon. gentleman referred to this question as a very grave one. In 1921, speaking on this very same "grave question," he contends in all seriousness that if we have free agricultural implements all the agricultural implement industries of this country will he wiped out. In 1914 he said:
I then ask the Government: Why not accede to a demand of that kind when your revenue is going- to suffer so little and when no Canadian industry is going to be injured?
The hon. gentleman at that time was [DOT] even more ardent in his support of the motion than its sponsor, Mr. Knowles. It is generally understood that agricultural implements cover only such articles as mowers, reapers, and a few other things; their number is not large so far as the tariff schedules are concerned. But in 1914, in the speech to which I have been referring, the hon. gentleman went on to say:
I,	for one, believe that of all the industries in Canada the agricultural implement industry is the one now best able to stand without the support of any customs tariff at all. I made a little list of twenty-five articles which are generally and properly considered agricultural implements.
I know that some hon. members in referring to agricultural implements include only reapers, mowers, binders and a few other articles, but T cannot see why the list should not be much more extended.
So the hon. gentleman at that time wanted to extend the application of the

Sb3E>
term "agricultural implements" to some twenty-five different articles and have them all made free of duty. He promised to give a list of these articles in response to a question put by Mr. Sharpe, but I do not see that the list was ever given. So there we have some of the history of the hon. gentleman so far as his stand on this ''ery important question of agricultural implements is concerned.
But that was not the latest stand which he took on the subject prior to this year. Even as late as 1917 his conversion had not been effected; he was still in favour of free agricultural implements. In 1917 a motion was moved in this House by Hon. Frank Oliver, of which the following is a part:	-
That in the opinion of this House it would he in the public interest if the Customs Tariff Act were so amended as to provide:
1.	That wheat, wheat flour, and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list
2.	That farm implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery, and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
The hon. Minister of Militia expressed his approval of that policy. There seems, therefore, to be a good deal of inconsistency and' considerable lack of harmony on the tariff question, even among the followers of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen). He had better look after his own house and not bother about hon. gentlemen on this side
As I have said, the Minister of Militia has always been one of the greatest opponents in this House of the principle of protection. We can find this out by looking through the old debates-and they are very interesting-when the minister makes statements in regard to the tariff policy of this country. He says to-day-at least I presume he does, because I suppose he is following his leader, as this is a very important matter and the Cabinet should be of one mind in regard to it-that he and his Government are in favour of the principle of protection. That is not what he used to say. In the olden days, if I remember aright, the Minister of Militia was in favour of a revenue tariff, but to-day he is going further; he wants to help the privileged classes; he is more closely associated with the Manufacturers' Association or, at any rate, more friendly to them, and he has abandoned those clients and friends of his of the olden days, the great consuming masses and the farmers of his riding.
What did he say in 1911-12 in regard to
2241	[	'
this question. At that time there was before the House a very important measure, introduced, I think, by the then Prime Minister, to establish a permanent tariff commission in this country. The present Minister of Militia was not in favour of that measure, and on the second reading of the Bill providing for the establishment of a permanent tariff commission the minister made certain observations. I want to dwell upon this point because it shows such a complete change of heart on the part of the minister. All through these speeches of his he has been referring to the burden that the tariff will place on the great consuming masses, on labour and so on, but to-day he seems to have forgotten these people entirely. At page 2602 of Volume II of Hansard of 1911-12, the present Minister of Militia spoke as follows:
But apart from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, has any call come from any other section of the country?
That is, for the appointment of a permanent tariff commission.
I ask my hon. friend the Minister of FSnanc4: Have any agricultural societies in Canada asked for the establishment of a permanent tariff commission? Have any of the dairymen's associations-*
In those days he was looking after the different associations connected with agriculture and the raising of live stock.
-any of the live stock associations, swine breeders' or sheep breeders' associations, any western associations, the Grain Growers' Association, the Dominion Grange-have any of these men asked for it? Have any of the great consuming classes asked for such a measure?
That was the position of the Minister of Militia in 1911-12. He was the protector of the consuming masses, of the grain growers, the sheep breeders, the swine breeders, and he had a little soft spot in his heart even for his present enemies across the way. That was not all that he said at that time. At page 2603 of the same volume of Hansard he used these words:
It does, Sir, seem to me a strange thing that the first important official act, the first act, at all events, of any consequence or any magnitude, performed by the Minister of Finance in this House since his appointment to that high position a few monthes ago, should be the introduction of a Bill to establish a permanent tariff commission in Canada, a Bill which, on his own statement, both in form and in substance, I think I am safe in saying, is practically borrowed from the highest protectionist country in the world, from the United States of America. It is a strange comment, a strange sequel, upon events which happened just about a year ago in Massey Hall, Toronto, at a tremendous gathering called by so-called Liberals to protest

against the proposed reciprocity agreement with the United States.
They were "so-called Liberals" because they did not believe in reciprocity. I suppose, as regards others who believed in those days in reciprocity, in greater freedom of trade, free farm implements and a number of other things, and who do not do so now, it would not be kind to call them "so-called Liberals"-they have become hard-shell Tories, pure and simple. A little further on the minister went on to say, speaking of the Minister of Finance of that day:
He will remember, as I do, that one member of the House of Representatives said: I support this Bill because it is the best way to sustain the glorious doctrine of protection.
Thus showing that he himself was bitterly opposed to that "glorious doctrine" of protection, which he is espousing so bravely and loyally to-day. A little further on he used these words:
A tariff commission board seems to be a necessary adjunct to the high protective system, and I do not think I am going one jot beyond the truth when I say that this Bill is brought in here

almost the first important Bill of the first session of this Parliament- as a quid pro quo for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to redeem the promises made to them for their generous and lavish support during the election on September 21 last.
I wonder if one can apply those words to-day. I wonder if this stand as regards protection is not another bid from hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to get the Canadian manufacturers and the big interests of this country to back them again as they did in 1911, and by misrepresentations about various things sweep them again into power. It looks very much as if this were a duplication of their effort of 1911; but I prophesy that you cannot fool the people all the time, and failure will confront my hon. friends whenever the election day comes. A little further on the hon. gentleman used these words:
Is that not plain enough? Do the people not believe that the Government's proposal means that the Board of Tariff Commissioners shall, from time to time, make reports upon which this Government will act, and that these reports, in the very nature of things, will be in the interest of higher duties or greater protection to the industries of Canada,-or, in the words of the Prime Minister, will be designed to give the industries of Canada more than a fair chance? If they give them more than a fair chance, somebody is going to suffer. It is at the expense of somebody else.
At whose expense is it to be? Certainly, at the expense of the great consuming masses of this country.

That is a clear admission that, by the Government's adherence to a policy of protection, to which at that time my hon. friend did not adhere, the great masses of the people were going to be injured. A little further on he made use of - these words:
The fact, therefore, is that we are going to have three permanent tariff commissioners, a board just as permanently appointed as a bench of judges is appointed; and that the qualification is that they shall be loyal subjects and followers of the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of Canada. They are to be Conservatives first, last, and all the time, and if they are, they have also got to be protectionists and high protectionists. We may make up our minds to it that we are going to have a board made up of individuals who rightly or wrongly hold opinions in favour of a highly protective system in this Dominion.
Mr. Blain:	Is not my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) a protectionist himself?
Mr. Guthrie: I believe in a certain amount of protection ; a tariff for revenue. A tariff for revenue affords enough protection in my community and in my opinion it is sufficient.
Later on, in the course of that address, the hon. member spoke of his being in favour of a revenue tariff. Consequently, as late as 1912, my hon. friend was not in favour of the protective principle except as far as there was incidental protection in a revenue tariff. Further on he says:
My own opinion is that, while it may fall somewhat short of the ideal of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, it is a perfect "lemon" for the farmers and workers of Canada.
That is the establishment of a tariff commission which meant "protection" as he said.
They will be fooled and hoodwinked by such a measure. They have a right, I believe, to look for better treatment at the hands of the right hon. Prime Minister.
The hon. member then moved the six months' hoist. All this was a struggle to prevent protection from becoming a factor in the tariff policy of this country. The whole political policy of the Minister of Militia up to a session or so ago when he joined this Government, has been to tear down the tariff walls around this country and make trade freer. But a wonderful change has come over the hon. gentleman since he entered this Government and became Minister of Militia.
Just at this point I would like to touch on some criticisms that the Minister of Militia has made on the attitude we on this side of the House have taken with regard to certain of his Estimates. My hon. friend from Kent (Mr. MeCoig)

3537 moved that the vote of $1,500,000 in the minister's Estimates for annual drill should be cut in two. The Minister of Militia took great exception to that, and in a very eloquent peroration tried to leave the impression on the country that we on this side of the House were not friendly to the boys in the trenches, but were endeavouring to make them do their duty twice; it was suggested that we had not their interests at heart. Now I presume it is known to this House and to the country that just as many Liberals and sons of Liberals died on the fields of France and Flanders as Conservatives and the sons of Conservatives. The suggestion that was made from this side of the House to cut that vote in two was made solely in the interests of economy. It was a good suggestion, and I heartily approved of it. I think the minister's argument on that occasion destroyed itself, because he said: Unless we do the thing properly, we might as well save the money. Now, if any boy can get much benefit by taking six days' drill, I will have to be shown something more than I know at present of the drills that have taken place in this country from year to year.
But that is not altogether the point. Our argument was this: In 1921 Canada is in a different position from what she has been in for many a year. The war is over; peace is established, and, we believe, firmly established. Not so very long ago I had the pleasure of listening to one of the Prime Ministers of the greatest selfgoverning dominions, and he said that he did not believe we would have another war in this generation. So we have come back to a peace basis, and we do not need to be looking for trouble and spending money on military matters to the extent we did in the past. It is not as if we were in Europe, with an armed camp all around us. We are isolated here in Canada. We are not unfriendly with the country to the south of us. We are a peaceable people, and we desire peace, and on grounds of economy alone, if for no other reason, I believe it would be wise for us to save this money we are expending on military matters, and use it for expanding our trade, and in other more profitable ways that will readily suggest themselves to the minds of all hon. members.
What attitude did the present Minister of Militia take in regard to a similar vote in this House in 1914? The Minister of Militia of that day, now the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) had an
item in his Estimates of $2,000,000 for annual training. My hon. friend the present Minister of Militia seemed at that time to be the critic of militia Estimates, and he was very much in favour of reducing this item of $2,000,000 for military training; so much so, that he thought it would be a good argument to back up his position by referring to the past record of the gentlemen with whom he is now associated, and he went back to the time when my hon. friend who is now Minister of Trade and Commerce Sir George Foster) was Minister of Finance, and pointed out what he did under similar circumstances. Then he went on to advocate that military drill should be cut out on grounds of economy. I will give you his exact words:
On their face these Estimates are wrong. There is a statement that there is less spent this year than last. I remember in the old days of the Conservative party, prior to 1896. That was a year very much like this. There was a falling revenue and an increasing expenditure. Times were hard and unemployment was general throughout the land. How did the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) who was then Minister of Finance, face the situation? Did he increase the military expenditure? No. he did not send the men out to drill that year and he saved between $600,000 and $700,000 to the people of Canada 'by one stroke of the pen. A similar situation confronts us to-day-a falling revenue, a rising expenditure and the militia expenditure, of all others, rising faster in proportion than the expenditure of any other department of the Government.
Further on he said:
Look at the other requirements of Canada calling for our attention to-day.
I contend that here we have an absolute confirmation of the rightfulness of the position we have taken with regard to the proposed expenditure on drill. The conditions are even worse to-day; our revenues are falling, hard times are upon us, unemployment is general throughout the country; and if there is one thing that this Government needs to study at the present time it is economy. I submit that the position taken by the Minister of Militia in this House this session with regard to this item for drill was absolutely out of accord with the position he took in 1914.
In the year 1912 also the present Minister of Militia was desirous of reducing other military Estimates. He even went so far, as you will see by page 6452, Volume 4, of the Debates of 1912-13, as to say in reply to the suggestion of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) for a naval holiday:
Yes, and take a holiday in naval matters, and go forward with this Bank Act and-the private

legislation and the other pressing measures which are before the country and which have been held up by the Government.
So in those days when my hon. friend was on this side of the House he was a great champion of reduction in military expenditures. I say that our attitude is much more justified at this time by the situation in which this country finds itself to-day.
I shall not detain the House much longer, as I have already spoken longer than I had intended. There is just one thing further that I wish to say. There seems to be on the other side of the House a great deal of fear among many hon. members who have spoken as to the attitude of hon. members of the Progressive party. That fear seems to pervade the mind and heart not only of the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) but of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan), the hon. member for Prontenac (Mr. Edwards) and quite a few other hon. gentlemen opposite. There seems to be some suspicion in their minds that the Progressive elements in this country might form an alliance; that our friends to my left at some time in the future, either before or after the election, might join with us in endeavouring to give good government to this country. I do not know that that is such a horrible prospect to contemplate. I do not know that such an alliance would strike terror into the hearts of the people. I do not know but that worse things might happen to this country. Which would be the better for this country-a union or alliance of the moderating wisdom of experienced Liberalism with the progressive ideals of ardent and advanced agrarianism, or an alliance of decrepit, decayed, and moribund Toryism with the selfish, reactionary ideals of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association? It seems to me that the former are pretty vigorous parents, and that they would breed a pretty sound offspring. I think that they would do in Canada what was done in 1896; they would bring prosperity, progress and contentment to the masses of the people, and they would bring flourishing industries into Canada and make this country a great nation. On the other hand, our friends opposite, by the alliance which apparently they desire to make, could only bring forth an offspring that would mean a continuation of special privilege in this country and that would not make for the contentment of the masses, but would rather, on the contrary, impose upon them, in the future, the taxation they have had to bear in the past. My hon.
IMr. Ross.]
friends, by that alliance, would do nothing to promote flourishing business; they would simply bring stagnation to business and trade, and instead of building up a great nation, they would help to reduce this promising country to the stature of a dwarf nation. I do not care whether or not this alliance is consummated between the Agrarians and this party; but I do say, Mr. Speaker, that after the next Parliament, it is my belief that either a union of these two great vitalizing elements in this country will go forward to carry out the policy enunciated in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), or, if they do not unite to prosecute that policy, then there will be in Parliament either an Agrarian party, or a Liberal party which will carry out this policy and build up the country, making it more happy and prosperous than it is at present, or than it could otherwise hope to be.


Mr. W. H. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.) :: I did not expect that I should be called upon so suddenly to take part in the debate. I had not thought it possible that I should . have to follow immediately an hon. member on this side of the House; I had no idea that our friends across the way had contemplated so early a surrender. My reason for not contributing to the debate at an earlier stage is the fact that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), one of the twelve members representing the people of Alberta in this House, is usually accorded the right to precede those members in an important debate such as this, in view of his eloquence and his knowledge of economic affairs. I had been waiting for some hon. member from my province to get up and in some measure endeavour to make an argument against the views advanced by the hon. member for Red Deer, but so far not one of them has accepted the challenge.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that in Canada to-day things are not what they were a few years ago; things are on the retrograde rather than progressive 4 p.m. in Alberta, as in other parts of the Dominion. But one would imagine, from the silence of the representatives of that province, that we were back in the year 1896 when there was only one representative for the whole province of Alberta-although, let me say, he was some representative. Nothing ever transpired in reference to his province on which he did not have something to say; I suppose it is hardly necessary for me to state that I refer to Hon. Frank Oliver. But

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that even at that time, away back in 1896, we were not about as well represented in Parliament as we have ever been since. We had then one energetic and active man to take care of our interests. If things were in a prosperous state, or if we had some reasonable ground for hope that conditions would be bettered by the administration of this Government we could excuse the inactivity of hon. gentlemen who sit behind them. I may say, in passing, that I am a pretty old resident of that province, having spent some forty years there, and during all that time-and my experineces were father hard in the early eighties-I do not believe that the people ever had to struggle as hard to make ends meet as at the present [DOT] time. It was surprising to those who came at a later date and were able to prosper in that province to be told of the hard times which we had experienced in the old days; they thought we were telling them a -tale in which there was more romance than truth. But they are beginning to realize, as We did, what real hard times mean, and what it is to have a Tory Government in power. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that difficult conditions to-day are not peculiar to Canada, but are world-wide; but I contend that with a proper government we should still be able to carry on. The Government has tampered With everything. They have tampered with the administration of lands., tampered with the regulations in regard to oils, tampered with the development of our country, and tampered with the oil and mining leases, until to-day no investor has courage enough to come in and take a chance. Day after day I have received letters of complaint from various classes of people; sometimes from farmers, sometimes from men interested in mining rights, sometimes from men interested in coal,- and sometimes from timber men; and last, but not least, from oil prospectors. I have rereceived letters, arid I have no doubt hon. gentlemen opposite from that province have also received like letters, condemning the Government for every change and amendment they have made in the mining regulations. I have one particular letter which I will not read in full, but I may read a resolution which was passed by a meeting of citizens on this subject. The resolution is as follows:
We, therefore, submit the following resolutions :
1. There should be no Government reservations at the present time In the North West Territories. Should the Government adhere to the idea of a reserve, then the lessee should have
the prior rights to such reservations, upon payment of what royalty the Government demand.
2.	There should be no burdensome money payments required during development or before marketing of the oil becomes possible.
3.	The Government should rely mainly upon royalties for control of petroleum production, rather than upon rentals and reservations.
4.	Canada's present dependence upon foreign oil supply, and her unfavourable trade balance, suggest and require that every possible assistance and encouragement should be given to the business of developing our own oil resources.
5.	The best encouragement that the Government can offer at the present time is the adopting of a set of fixed regulations that cannot be altered except by Act of Parliament.
6.	The Government should so frame its petroleum policy as to offer every possible encouragement to foreign capital to come to, Canada.
7.	The Government would be well advised in appointing a Commission for the purpose of investigating the difficulties and practical possibilities of the MacKenzie River Basin Oil Fields; one of such Commission should be from Alberta and familiar with the geographic, climatic and transport difficulties of the North; in the interim, pending the Commission's report, the more onerous restrictions should be amended so that there will be no interference with development work going on this year.
Now let me read a further communication on this subject;
A large number of men of the city of Edmonton, who are conversant with all the development that has taken place in Western Canada, and who are looking forward anxiously to the opening up and development of Canada's * Natural Resources, beg to submit for your consideration the following observations re the issue of Oil and Gas Permits and Leases in the North-West Territories :
1.	Although capital prefers specific contracts before investment, no lease will be granted until oil has been actually found. (Section 1 and 22.)
2.	Prospecting permits cover a maximum of only four square miles, which is insufficient to warrant the heavy outlays necessary in far Northern fields. (Section 2.)
3.	Prospecting permits lapse and revert to the Government without notice upon casual or clerical defaults, and, in any event, at the end of four years, whether drilling is still proceeding or not. (Sections 16, 19 and 21.)
4.	A lease will be granted for only one-quarter of the area secured under permit. The balance becomes Crown reserve. (Section 23.)
5.	A separate drill must be set to work upon every permit acquired or held by each and every owner. This is a physical impossibility. Transportation into the North Country is limited by climatic conditions to 12 weeks. E.G., it took 27 days for the Imperial Oil, Limited, utilizing every possible resource of men and of money, at a time when there was no congestion of traffic, to transport one drill outfit over Smith Portage. (Section 15.)
6.	Rental charges must always be paid, and vigorous pumping of oil must continue at all times whether facilities for delivery of oil to a market are available or not. The only alternative is wastefully to pump into open pits. (Section 46.)
It does not matter what a man's calling may be-whether he is engaged in farm-

ing, mining, or anything else-it is difficult for him to do business in that country owing to the hampering and restrictive effect of the Government regulations.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Strathcona) :: Will the hon. gentleman give the name of the writer of the letter?


William Henry White: It is signed by Mr. H. L. Mclnnes, who for many years was president of the Conservative Association at Edmonton. I have no doubt my hon. friend knows him very well.


James McCrie Douglas: Is the
hon. gentleman aware that changes have been made in the regulations in the direction asked for?


William Henry White: I am very glad if that is the case. It may have the effect of awakening the Government to the necessity of making further changes in the regulations.
I now wish to draw attention to the necessity of providing adequate transportation facilities in the West. The impression exists very generally in the East that the railroads in the West were built solely for the benefit of the western people. The fact is that most of the existing roads were built before there were any settlers in the West to speak of, the number located there at that time was very few. As I said a few moments ago, as late as 1896, when a considerable number of railroads had been built, there was only one representative in this Parliament from the province of Alberta, and, I think, two from the province of Saskatchewan. These railways were built at the instance of the eastern people who should assume the responsibility therefor to as great an extent as the people of the West-western people should not be called upon to bear the entire burden. Let me point out to hon. gentlemen the extent to which increased rates on transportation facilities bears more heavily on the West than on the East. There are districts in the province of Alberta where the grain has to be marketed at a distance of approximately one thousand miles from the place of production. On the other hand, in the province of Ontario the farmer's market is not at a greater distance, probably, than fifty miles. In the West we have to pay railway rates on a thousand-mile journey, whereas in the East the railway rate only applies to a fifty-mile journey. The result of such heavy railway freight rates was demonstrated the other day by one of the members of the Agrarian party, I think the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) who showed that on a

shipment of a carload of oats the producer received nothing and in addition had to pay $38 to make up the charges of the commission merchant. Whatever the reasons may be, that is the situation we are up against in the. West-we have a large crop but we have no markets for it. Does the Government think it a wise thing to maintain high railway rates and render it impossible for producers to get their products to market? Such a policy is undoubtedly limiting production and causing stagnation throughout the country. The facts in regard to the existing situation were fully placed before the Prime Minister when he visited the West last fall. I was asked to head a delegation of people from the districts along the Canadian Northern line who wished to complain to the right hon. gentleman of the existing congestion of grain and their inability to market their crop. The Prime Minister was apprised in advance that the deputation were about to wait on him, a wire beihg sent to him at Vancouver. When he met the delegation he was quite sympathetic, of course, but was unable to give any answer as to what he might be able to do. The recommendations made to the Prime Minister on that occasion were most comprehensive, the several Boards of Trade along the main line of the Canadian Northern, for a distance of one hundred miles, having drawn up statements explaining the actual conditions. No notice has been taken of those representations, although nearly a year has expired; apparently the Prime Minister has been unable to do anything. Under the circumstances I deem it well to place on Hansard the memorials addressed to the Prime Minister. By a perusal of them it may be possible to take measures to prevent a repetition of the events of last year. The first document I shall read is a memorial addressed to the Prime Minister, which reads as follows :
Edmonton, November 11, 1920. To the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen,
Prime Minister of Canada.
Sir:

On November 4, 1920, a convention was held at VegrevUle to discuss the matter of a car shortage. At this convention, representatives were present from the various agricultural and business organizations along the line of the Canadian National railway, including the districts served by the towns of Lamont, Chip-man, Mundare, Vegreville, T.avoy, Ranfurly, Innisfree, Minburn and Mannville. The territory served by these towns takes in an area running one hundred miles east and west; and fifteen miles south and thirty-five miles north of the Canadian National line, or five thou-

sand square miles of what is recognized as the richest farming lands in Northern Alberta.
A careful survey of the situation was made by the convention and it was estimated (conservatively) that at least 6,210 cars will be required to handle this season's crop. These cars to be distributed as follows:
I wish to call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that this was on November 11, and the threshing had started early in September, or an interval of about three months. Yet, notwithstanding that period of time this was the number of cars received at the different points, and none of these cars were spotted as empties, but were cars that brought in merchandise, so there was actually no special provision made at all for grain shipments:
Station	No. of cars received	No. of cars requiredManville	. 32	400Minburn	. 24	300Innisfree	. 29	300Rauf urly	. 12	100Lavoy	750Vegreville	. 66	1,000Raith	. 16	80Mundare	. 30	600Hilliard	80Chipman	. 45	400Lamont	600Bruderheim	. 17	600Fort Saskatchewan.	. 31	1,000In view of what	is going on	every day
now in the railway committee, before which the general manager of this railroad has claimed that all that is needed to make our Government railways successful is business, I think it will be plain to everybody that the trouble with the Canadian Northern Railway is that they already have more business than they can attend to. This letter continues:
Up to the time of the'convention only 254 cars had been supplied in all to these towns. As a contrast to that, it may be pointed out that at one point, only on the Canadian Pacific Railway immediately south of this district, over 300 cars have been shipped. At this one point, which is only typical of all those served by the Canadian Pacific, the elevators, through being able to market their grain promptly, have been paying 3 cents more per bushel for the different grades and at the same time are obliged to pay a one and one-half cent higher freight rate. It is obvious that the loss to the farmers along the Canadian National Railway is severe, more especially this season when record crops are being threshed. As one familiar with Western conditions, you will appreciate the statement that wheat is turning out from 40 to 60 bushels per acre and oats from 75 to 100 per acre. On all this out-turn, money is being lost and will continue to be lost throughout the entire shipping season, if cars are not provided. Each passing day accentuates the severity of a grain blockade throughout thi-s district, a blockade which cannot fail to be detrimental in every respect.
You will be aware that the severe winter of 1919-20 was the occasion of a feed shortage
which forced the farmers to assume heavy financial obligations. To discharge these obligations, they require all that they can realize from this season's operations, and if they cannot ship their grain, it is evident that their financial position cannot be improved. As the district is purely agricultural, it is equally plain that all other business institutions must suffer along with the farmers.
These notes have merely been placed before you as explanatory of formal resolutions duly approved by the convention. The resolutions are as follows :-	.
Whereas there is imminent danger of a Gram Blockade in the districts served by the towns along the Canadian National Railway, as noted in the explanatory items above mentioned,
And whereas at this date only 254 cars of grain have been shipped from all these points, as contrasted with 300 cars shipped from one point along the Canadian Pacific Railway immediately south of the district,
And whereas a difference of price amounting to 3 cents per bushel more is obtainable at the said C.P.R. point where a higher freight rate is in effect than at the Canadian National points above mentioned,
And whereas the elevators at the said points are already filled and no other storage facilities are available and grain held by farmers is kept in poorly constructed facilities or in some cases left lying exposed to the weather, as farmers could not secure sufficient help to construct proper storage facilities on their farms,
And whereas the feed shortage of the winter 1919-20 made it necessary for farmers to assume heavy financial obligations, which obligations are in many cases yet unfulfilled, and which cannot be fulfilled unless they can market their grain, and the result will inevitably curtail next season's farming operations,
And whereas the district being purely agricultural all other business institutions are dependent on the success of farming operations and if these are hindered or the results thereof lost, a serious stringency will affect such institutions to the possible extent of their enforced closing down.
And whereas when the usual cold winter weather sets in, it will necessitate the use of many more cars for coal transportation, thus further curtailing the number in use for grain shipments,
Therefore, be it resolved that this Convention duly petition the Dominion Government in the interest of Government ownership and operation, to spare no efforts to provide for immediate relief through a much Increased supply of cars,
Or, in the alternative, that the Dominion Government devise some method of financing this season's crop until such time as it is possible to market it.
Signed on behalf of the Convention,
W. P. Williams, Con., Lamont.
S.	C Latornell, Pres. Comunity Club
Vegreville.
George Arthur, M.D. Chairman, Board of Trade, Lavoy.
J. W. Robinson, Fres. Board of Trade, Innisfree.
D. J. Dickson, Vice-Pres. Delnorte Local U.F.A , Innisfree.
Wm. Park, U.F A. Minburn.
A. J. B. McLachlan, Pres. Manville Board of Trade.
T.	J. Duffy, Reeve of Village of Lavoy_
W. H. Morgan, Sec'y Vegreville .Agr.
Society.
C. Gordon, Mayor, Vegreville.

I know it is rather wearying to the House to listen to these matters, but as no notice was taken by the Prime Minister when this memorial was presented to him-or at least no results have followed,-I have been asked by some of these gentlemen to place it on Hansard, and at a future date perhaps the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce may have time to study it and see how serious the situation was last year. There has been no relief yet, because the prices are such that they would not pay the freight on this grain, which should have been shipped out last year at the then current prices very much to the benefit of these men.
The tariff question has been handled very well by hon. gentlemen who perhaps know a great deal more about it than I do. My knowledge of tariffs has been confined principally to paying the duties imposed by them. The people of the Western country feel that they are unjustly called upon to pay more than is just, and although not averse to paying their share of the revenue they think that what they do pay is rather a bonus to the manufacturers than a help to the treasury. And it is not only those of the Liberal party who think that. My hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Eoss) this afternoon called the attention of the House to the fact that even a prominent member of the Government had formerly each year something to say about the burdens of taxation that the farmers of the East were bearing. The Prime Minister claims that the tariff has not been in any way tampered with, that if there is anything wrong with it the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is responsible, and that the only thing the Government has done to the tariff has been to make it a little lower.
I can remember very well when the Prime Minister, like the Minister of Militia, held very different views. When the Western country was a great deal more prosperous than it is to-day, perhaps in the most prosperous time of its history, in what some people call the " golden days," which reached their summit in 1911-a year that we must refer to as the sunset of Canadian prosperity-my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was not satisfied with the then prevailing conditions and wanted a further reduction in the tariff. Now, a further reduction in the tariff at a time when the farmers were receiving in some cases three times what they are getting now would not seem to be so necessary as a reduction at the present time. In a speech [Mr. White. 1
delivered by the present Prime Minister at a time when he was in this House simply as the representative of a western constituency, he gave certain figures. He pointed out that in 1910 the average price of a mower was $44 and the average duty $7.70; that the average price of a binder was $144 and the average duty $19.60; that wagons were worth $90, and the duty on a wagon, therefore, at 25 per cent, would be $2.50. To-day a wagon of the same class is worth $200. The duty has been reduced to 20 per cent, so that with an increase in the price of the article of 100 per cent the farmer has to pay a duty of $40, or half the price of the wagon in those earlier days. As I have, indicated, if there was ever a time when the farmers were better able to carry a burden of taxation, it was in those years; yet the Prime Minister thought then that the farmers were being called upon to do something that they were hardly able to do. Speaking of the duties of that day the Prime Minister said:
What is the reason for all this? If the Government could show that these industries had degenerated from manhood to infancy, that they had got younger instead of older, that the conditions of competition were more onerous then than they are now, that the relative price of labour was higher to-day than it was then- I say the relative price-then there might be some excuse for it.
Some excuse for a duty of $7.70 on a mower and $19.60 on a binder? Well, the duties to-day are double these amounts; the conditions are much worse; yet hon. gentlemen seem to think that the farmers do not need relief. The hon. gentleman said further:
They have so added to the protection afforded to the manufacturer that it has had the effect almost of driving out importations altogether, and to-day the total revenue which this Government derive, is, as I showed, some $283,633.99, even including the importations of ploughs, and if we leave out that one article the total revenue which this tariff for revenue government has derived from the importations of agricultural implements sinks to the insignificant sum of $92,954.72.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson)-if his figures are correct, and they usually are-pointed out the other day that we were bonusing the manufacturers of this country to the extent of about $500,000,000. Well, if out of that amount all that finds its way into the treasury in this matter of agricultural implements is $92,954 it is only half the fees paid to the lawyers for dealing with one case in connection with the Winnipeg strike. Why should the people be penalized in the carrying of hundreds of mil-

lions by way of bonus to the manufacturers, when all the Government receives in respect of duties on agricultural implements is, according to the Prime Minister's figures, the small amount which I have mentioned. The Prime Minister, in the address to which I have referred, contended that as a revenue getter the tariff on agricultural implements was no good. He said:
Why, sir, we have no tariff for revenue at all; nobody can defend this as a tariff for revenue.
Other criticisms were offered by the right hon. Prime Minister at that time; they can be found in Hansard for 1910-11, page 1915 and following pag;es. As the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) pointed out, the views with regard to tariff entertained by some hon. gentlemen seems to depend upon which side of the House they sit on.
It has been suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite that there is some alliance between the Liberal party and the Progressive group. Personally I fail to see it. I may say that I was the first man in Canada to be opposed by a farmer candidate. I know that the United Farmers are placing men in the field without paying any attention whatever to the political faith of those who oppose them-it does not seem to matter whether their opponents are Liberal or Conservative; they go into the field just the same. The farmer candidate who opposed me is still there and if I am again a candidate in that constituency I know that I will be opposed by him. That does not look very much like an alliance. Of course, I am quite satisfied that it should be so. I have, as a Liberal, always believed that the majority should rule, and if it is the wish of the people of my constituency or of the people of any constituency, for that matter,-to be represented by those who support the platform of the Agrarian group, why, it is nothing more than their right.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the Prime Minister make an attack upon those who came so readily to his aid in 1917. I think that the securing of the services of the hon. gentleman who is now leader of the Progressive party had a great deal to do with the results, in the West, in the last election. But of course, he was a pretty good fellow as long as he was supporting them. I can remember some years after, when I seconded a resolution moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master), the Prime Minister and others lauded many of the same hon. gentlemen
because they remained with the Government at that time. The Government paid special attention to them, said that they were doing something that was noble and patriotic. Since then they have committed no crime that I am aware of, except that they have crossed the floor of the House and taken seats on the opposite side. By so doing, they have apparently lost all their virtues.
I may say, in conclusion, that I think the amendment is a good one; that it is in true accord with the Liberal platform. The suggestion made by the Prime Minister that the platform should have been read as an amendment is, perhaps, his opinion; but we are not bound by his opinion, nor do we look to the Prime Minister nor to any one else on that side for suggestions or proposed improvements as regards any amendments that we may move in the House.
I am glad that this amendment has been moved and that I have been given this opportunity of supporting it. The Farmers' platform would have suited me just as well and I would have supported it just as readily, but as this amendment is in accord with it, I am glad of this opportunity of stating my views along this line.


Mr. GEORGE NEWCOMBE GORDON (Peterborough West) :: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to address myself briefly to the subject under discussion this afternoon, and to make an appeal particularly to the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), Who has introduced this proposed legislation which will seriously affect all the milling interests in the industrial centres. The minister made his maiden political speech in the city of Peterborough a few months ago, and on that occasion he assured the people of that city that he had a very affectionate regard for their interests. Therefore, I feel that I have a right to appeal to him not to forget the assurances that he gave us a couple of months ago in the city of Peterborough, and that he should now seek to avoid what will cause most serious injury to our milling industries and will, I believe, cause a great deal of loss and unemployment to those at present employed in the cereal mills in that city and in Eastern Canada. To show in some small way the amount of export business going through the city of Peterborough, I have taken the figures from the American Consul's office in that city. In 1920 we exported to the United States wheat flour, rye flour and other cereal products to the extent of over $1,000,000. We manufactured and sent to the United

States milker parts, cream separator parts, of the De Laval Company, to the extent of about half a million dollars and competed successfully in the American market against American manufacturers. In addition to that, we exported to the United States, wood and wood products to the extent of $1,475,000. In the first quarter of this year we have exported to the United States from the flour mills $655,000 worth of breadstuffs, and if we can continue at that rate during the year, that will mean that we will etxport to the United States $2,620,000 worth of those products from that district. The export of wood manufactured products has increased largely, too, and if we can continue at the same rate during the present year, our export business to the United States in that line will be over $2,000,000. That indicates what some of these industries are, and it also shows that some manufacturers, in the city of Peterborough, at least, can compete successfully in the United States with American manufacturers.
In the city of Peterborough, there is a large number of mills, flour mills or cereal mills. It is said that the most modern mill in the world is located in the city of Peterborough, namely, the Quaker Oats mill. The capacity of the mills in that city is something like 10,000 barrels a day. Within the last few years nearly all of the products of these mills, breakfast and other foods, with the exception of flour, and, in some cases, I think flour also, are put up in small packages. In fact that business has developed to such an extent that I think the major part of the "Quaker Oats" business is that of putting up the goods in packages.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: How many men do they employ?


George Newcombe Gordon: They are capable of
employing and do employ, I think, all the way from 500 to 1,000 or 1,200 employees, the number depending largely upon the quantity of export business, because it is an export mill. The small package is sanitary, clean, wholesome; it suits the purse of the workingman; the goods do not deteriorate, because it is done up in waterproof paper. A trade has been established in these lines of goods; hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended in the development of this class of trade; the trade names of the package goods are registered; they are known by the various brands advertised, and a market has been developed

for them during all these years. If the legislation which the minister has introduced imposing this taxation is passed, the paper box industry and the labour connected with it will be seriously injured. The Nashua Gum Coated Paper Co., Ltd., a company that was established only three or four years ago and which is capable of employing many hundreds of men, will close its doors. Labour will be injured and seriously affected in this plant and the milling plants because in this package business, a large quantity of labour is employed for the purpose of doing up these goods in packages. The result will be that "barrel" quantities will be sold, and the grocer will attempt to sell from the barrel as he did in the old days. The situation is so serious, and it strikes the city of Peterborough to such an extent that it is feared there that there will be a great deal of unemployment for some time to come unless this proposed legislation is varied in some way. The reason why this package business has been established and such a market developed for it is that the products put up in this way are perishable and they need to be hermetically sealed. They also need to be hermetically sealed so that they cannot deteriorate or become tainted as frequently takes place .in the case of foods done up by other methods. The purchase of large quantities of these articles of food by the average family has altogether ceased, for the simple reason that it did not pay them to continue that method of purchasing. The prices were fixed and they could obtain these package goods whenever they desired them. In this way there has been developed throughout Canada, in the last six or eight years, a trade in package goods which is the surprise of every one. It is true that the small unit costs more initially; but goods done up in packages are cleaner, healthier, and freer from taint, and the possibility of adulteration is obviated. Therefore, in the long run the small unit of flour or any other cereal product is the proper and economical unit. This proposed sales tax legislation on flour, rolled oats, oat meal and corn meal, when purchased in quantities that practical experience has demonstrated to be best suited and most economical, as well as practicable for the people as a whole, is unsound and ill-advised. I submit that it has not been carefully considered, or it would not have got to the stage it has now reached. The standard of this package food is high. As the reputation of these concerns is at stake, they must necessarily keep their products up to a proper standard; there can be no adulteration, because these great

concerns stand behind the food they are selling to the people. The grocer, however has no difficulty in bagging this material and selling it as he sees fit, and there may be cases amongst the grocers where adulteration will take place.
The flour and cereal milling business in Canada, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, had an output last year of $263,000,000, on a $78,000,000 capitalization, and had a $30,000,000 greater production than any other industry in Canada; so the milling industry is the largest industry in Canada, outside of agriculture.
The difficulty in taxing the food of the people in packages or parcels under 48 pounds is that nearly all of it comes in the small package. If these products are delivered from one wholesaler to another, the tax is pyramided by li per cent each time. Now, that affects the small mill, because it cannot establish its own sales offices, but sells first of all to a large wholesaler, perhaps in Toronto or Montreal, who in turn sells to a smaller wholesaler, located at Brantford, Peterborough, or some other of the smaller cities, and that wholesaler in turn sells to the retailer. Each time the article is turned over, li per cent is added to it, which the consumer pays. The tax is fixed upon the cost plus the freight from the terminal elevator to the mill in the East, or from the country elevator in the West to the mill, and I would just like to indicate to the minister how that works out. Take ploughs, for instance 

and I think the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) will appreciate this illustration. The Cockshutt Plough Company, let me say, sells a plough f.o.b. Hamilton at $100. Now, if the company sells the plough to a jobber who has no connection with that firm, the jobber in turn must sell f.o.b. his warehouse, and pay the tax on the price to him, which is $100 plus the freight to his warehouse. The Cockshutt Plough Company could sell direct to the consumer f.o.b. Hamilton, while the jobber could not do that. Now, the large concerns have warehouses in the various centres, while the small concerns have not, and that applies also to the small mills. The small plant must sell through a jobber, because it cannot establish and finance its own sales branches in the various centres in Canada. Dealing with that matter and how it affects Ontario labour, Quebec labour, and the Ontario and Quebec mills, take the price of bran, say, at Calgary, at $16 a ton. There is a three per cent tax on that, which amounts to 48 cents. At Montreal the
price, plus the cost of transportation, would be $31. The sales tax is fixed on the price of the bran, plus the price of the transportation to Montreal. At 3 per cent that makes 93 cents, or a difference of 45 cents a ton, or a difference on a 25-ton car of $11.25 in favour and to the advantage of the Calgary mill. In other words, tlhe Montreal consumer could purchase from the Calgary miller and save $11.25 per car, as he would pay no tax on the transportation cost on bran, from Calgary to Montreal, for there would be no tax on that. That means that the western miller, finding that the prices down East would be very much higher than they are in the West, would send his product East, to the ultimate cost of the consumer in the West, who would eventually be compelled to pay a higher price for the miller's product there. A miller in the Calgary zone can buy wheat on the Calgary price, which is the Fort William price, less the freight from Calgary to Fort William; but the Ontario or Quebec miller must pay on the Fort William price, plus freight to his mill. Upon that freight and the Fort William price a tax of 3 per cent is imposed. So he has to pay a tax on transportation cost, which may mean when the product reaches Montreal, as I have said before in the case of bran, twice the price in the Calgary zone.
The difficulty, I submit, with this proposed legislation is the manner in which this tax is imposed. The tax is imposed on the shipments f.o.b. the point of shipment of the miller, so as in the case of the figures which I have given the tax is imposed not on the actual cost of the raw product to the miller, but piled on top of that is the high transportation costs, which have reached a higher point than ever before, and from which it seems to me there is little relief to be expected. I therefore think that a wrong principle has been adopted, and that the Minister of Finance should vary this tax which he seeks to impose on the fi'ee food of the people, so that it will not directly have included in it a tax on the transportation cost, which is not, as a matter of fact, or should not be, a part of the actual cost to the ultimate consumer. At present an undue preference is given to the West. It puts a premium on western business, and injures to a very serious extent Ontario and eastern mills. The western miller can sell his mill product at the cost of the grain, freight, labour, and a reasonable profit, plus the tax. There is no freight in the Calgary zone to speak of, but when the

product comes east, there is pyramided on that cost, the freight costs, which may amount to almost the same value as the goods, and this tax is imposed upon the two. This is confirmed hy the regulations that have been issued by the Minister of Finance, and which have been released, I think, within the last 48 hours. At page 7 of the regulations, under the heading "Value for Excise Taxes" it is stated:
The Sales Tax on domestic sales must tie computed upon the regular (open) market value at point of shipment, provided, however, that the excise tax must in no case be collected on less than the actual net selling price of the goods.
When goods are sold at a delivered price and estimated or actual freight charges have been added to the price f.o.'b_ point of shipment to arrive at such delivered price, the actual charges so added may be deducted from the gross invoice value to ascertain the value upon which to compute the sales tax.
These regulations, which have been issued this week, and have gone out to the trade, will 'it seems to me seriously affect the employment of men in the large cities, where we have already so much unemployment. The miller must make a considerable computation, and he will in turn charge to the consumer the cost of that extra clerical assistance in computing the tax under so complicated a system. But if there were a simple turnover tax of, say, one per cent, he would require no extra clerical work. At the end of a week or a month he would know what his turnover was, and could readily compute it, and there would be no cumbersome and difficult work in connection with it.
Corn flour is taxable in 48-pound lots or less, while cornmeal is taxable in any quantity. Now, cornmeal is the food of the workingman and is sold to a much greater extent than corn flour. It is a coarser product and does not require to be specially treated, as corn flour does. Corn flour is really used by the man of greater means who can afford to pay for it, and why it is not taxable in the same way as cornmeal, I am unable to understand. If t'qe food of the people in these industrial centres and, for that matter, in any part of the country, is to be taxed, we are failing to reduce the cost of food, and that in turn will have its effect on the cost of labour. I think that in taxing the food of the workingman we are simply keeping up the cost of living, just at a time when we should do our utmost to bring it down. The manufacturer says that he must have reduced costs, and he cannot get it if we tax the food of the men whom he employs, because they will necessarily demand wages to meet with the cost of living. Reducing

the cost of food would certainly reduce the manufacturers' cost of labour, and to do this we must avoid taxing the people on the necessaries of life. A tax such as this on cornmeal, for instance, is a discrimination against the workingman who has a large family, and if there is one class of taxation that should not be imposed, it is taxation on food. For three and a half years we have avoided the imposition of an income tax in this country, but this has not been through any fault of the present Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton); it was due to a former Minister of Finance. There are men living in western Ontario, men who we know made enormous profits during the war, and the minister in those years might well have taxed their incomes. He should have told them:	"Our boys gave their
service overseas and while they were fighting you promised that you would give your last dollar. Now we want you to carry out that promise." When the Minister goes to the city of Peterborough again, and expresses his interest in the people of that city and his affectionate regard for them, I suppose he will announce on the platform that diamonds are free. And so they are; they are free from the luxury tax and the customs' tax. Of all the useless and worthless modes of investment, when money is so badly needed, the indulgence in jewellery of this kind is the most reprehensible. In strenuous times like these, why in the world should the purchase of expensive jewellery be encouraged? Was there ever a time in the history of the country when it was more imperative that we should discourage that sort of thing, and when we should do everything possible to enable the workingmen in the industrial centres to bring up their families on a decent plane of living? I say, Mr. Speaker, that the taxing of foodstuffs in this way discriminates against the workingman, and the workingman alone. He is the man who buys these goods, who lives in the small house and cannot put in any large quantities of goods because he has not sufficient capital; and even if he could afford to buy things in large quantities he has no room. It seems to me that we are going back to the days of the Corn Laws in England, because this Budget simply proposes to tax the food of those people who are least able to bear taxation. When men are toiling and suffering from the conditions that are being created in the present readjustment; when everything is unsettled and unemployment is rife; when men in the city of Peterborough, as elsewhere, are out of

employment for months and months, the great industries are very much concerned over this proposed legislation, and they iare protesting in the most vigorous manner against it, because it will probably cut off business that would amount to millions of dollars in favour of what they call the *"barrel" business,-I do not mean since the referendum, but before that.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), has stated the situation clearly in the words of the proposed amendment:
That the aim of the fiscal policy of Canada should he the encouragement of Industries based on the natural resources of the country, the development of which may reasonably be expected to create healthy enterprises giving promise of enduring success.
Those enterprises which we hope will have enduring success, based 5 p.m. on the natural resources of this country, includes the industries which depend upon the wonderful electrical energy which we possess all through the province of Ontario. That energy gives to industrial Ontario an advantage over all American concerns, such as, for instance exist in Bridgeport, Connecticut, an industrial centre which pays something like $20 a horse-power more than we do in Peterborough. If we are given an opportunity to develop these industries to a greater degree than we have reached it will mean a great deal of wealth for the country, but we cannot hope for any success if we tax the food of the people, thus increasing the cost of manufacturing. If you increase the cost of living to the workingman by taxing his food, he must in turn remand a decent wage from his employer, and the cost of producing will accordingly be increased, so that in the end the consumer must foot the bill.
Diamonds, however, are free, and while the minister may think that this fact will help him in any way, when he goes to Peterborough, I have my doubts.
The other day, because some of us presumed to express some different opinions from the Prime Minister's, that right hon. gentleman must needs taunt those sitting on this side of the House with being tools and minions; but his taunt is just about as effective and valuable, and goes just about as far as the taunt of the school boy who sits on the fence and makes faces at the passers-by. We have a right to our opinions, and in this free Parliament we have the right to voice them; and we resent such aspersions as the Prime Minister saw fit to cast upon hon. members of the House.
And then he makes a plea for consistency. Well, those who have read the utterances of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder), will recall that he has given expression to the same great principles which we have always espoused, and I should like to quote from the Official Debates of the session of 1919. Let me read very briefly from page 70, where the Minister of Immigration expresses himself very well, as he usually does.
Just let me say (that when 1 joined this Government I joined as a Liberal, and I am a Liberal to-day.
That declaration has an honest ring to it. He goes on:
More than that no person can make me anything else. There may be those who would like to drive me out of the Liberal party, but they cannot do it.
He will not let them drive him out of the party, let alone leave it on his own accord.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It would be very hard to drive him out.


An hon. MEMBER:: "Far, far away."


Mr. GORDON (reading) :: I care not whether I am in the organization or whether I have any part in the organization- that means very little in times like these. I have had letters from my friends out West saying: For goodness sake, Calder, come over while there is time-as somebody said to-day-or it may be too late.


Mr. RINFRET:: That is a great speech.


George Gordon: The question of party is a very small thing at the present time, in my judgement. There is something bigger at stake than mere politics at the moment.	.
It would be rather interesting for us to know what the minister had in mind when he said there was something bigger at stake. I think there was more than a single meaning to that.
We have bigger, more important work to do. When the time comes later on there may be those who will desire to play politics in this country. Well and good; let that be done when the time does come. Just now we have something else to attend to.
And then he continues in some very interesting statements which I will briefly quote from Hansard of 1919, page 3340:
The time has arrived, 'I believe, when a thorough study should be made of Canada's economic situation in order that we may have a general revision of the tariff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is speaking?


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. the Minister of Immigration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Again?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, again; in 1919. He goes on to say:
The existing tariff, in my judgment, has outlived its usefulness. It was made for a period some ten or twelve years ago, and it is chock-full of all sorts of anomalies which should be straightened out. A thorough investigation and inquiry, as forecasted by the Minister of Finance,1 should be made with a view to having a general revision of the tariff.
The minister follows that up with a further statement which I will briefly quote:
When I joined the Government in 1917-
I am now quoting from page 3341:
-I did so for a very definite and specific reason. I did so because I believe the proposals that were put forward at that time set out the only policy that would enable Canada to see this war through, so far as our part in it was concerned. Now I believe it to be my duty to stay with the task I have assumed until demobilization has been completed and our soldiers are returned.
They are back to Peterborough I know.


An hon. MEMBER:: He means demobilization of the Government.


George Newcombe Gordon: That is on the road. The minister continues:
I do not purpose to allow any temporary changes in the tariff to divert me from my duty in that respect as I see it.
The Prime Minister has charged hon. gentlemen on this side of the House with inconsistency. Does it lie in his mouth to say that we on this side have not been quite as consistent as some in his own family circle? Now Mr. W. F. O'Connor opposed the present Government in the Peterborough election. Mr. O'Connor was the High Cost of Living Commissioner appointed by this Government. He was well-named as the High Cost of Living Commissioner, because while he was commissioner the cost of living went up, and when he resigned it came down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Newcombe Gordon: As I say, Mr. O'Connor opposed this Government in the Peterborough election; he was on the platform of the Labour candidate and supported him against this Government. Yet the Minister of Militia, when the Bankruptcy Bill was being considered by the House in Committee of the Whole, had Mr. W. F. O'Connor sitting in front of him in this chamber and assisting him.	So Mr. O'Connor is still in the employ of the Government and was in its employ at the

time referred to in the city of Peterborough. There is another sample of the consistency of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now this jockeying of the tariff question cannot go on very much longer. The manufacturers demand and require something to be done to change the situation, which has not been varied, I may say, to any degree, or to any material extent, since 1911. The manufacturers want it, the business men want it, and the consumer is entitled to it. This thing, as the Minister of Immigration and Colonization said, has been going on for all these years. My hon. friend complains very bitterly about that, and I agree with what he says. I hope when the vote on this amendment is taken the minister will remember the statements I have j'ust quoted to him and will not forget his duty to the people he represents.
The Minister of Finance a short time ago expressed the hope that this unrest, this disturbance, this discontent would be removed and the people would be relieved. I agree with him as to the desirability of that if such a state of affairs exist. But the returned man is at his forge, he is working at the lathe, he is employed at the bench-he has filled in his place well. There has been no disturbance on his part -he fitted in as naturally and well on his return from war as if he had returned from a visit of a lengthy period to his friends, he has found his place. It is not the returned man who is causing unrest, it is not the working man who is causing discontent-the trouble arises from such things as I wish to describe now.
In the summer of 1920 I attended before the president of the Canadian General Electric Company in the effort to settle a strike in the city of Peterborough-I was there with the mayor and the chairman of the Board of Works of the city of Peterborough. The then president of the company said that he could not pay his employees, who were asking for a new schedule and a wage increase of five cents an hour, what they demanded; he said that his great competitor, the Westinghouse Company, of the city of Hamilton, was competing with him at so close a margin that he could not afford to. It was not possible for the increase asked for to be granted and these men would have to accept the wage that he offered. I am sorry to say it but in that great plant in the city of Peterborough was an arsenal deposited by the management of this concern. They had firearms there ostensibly for the purpose of protecting the property,

but it was a dangerous thing to do when there was never a question of any violence being displayed. In addition to that, men were brought across from the United States, most of whom I examined under oath, and they were men of a low type with every mark on them of dishonesty and crime. These men were employed and kept at the best hotel in Peterborough by the management of this concern and paid far more than the men who were seeking an increase of their wages. That strike or lock-out, whatever it may be called, was crushed, and some of the employees lost their places never to regain them,-men with families. But what happened later on to this president of the Canadian General Electric Company? On March 26, 1921, the Toronto Telegram stated:
$595,350 from Canadian General Electric for Hon. Fred Nicholls?
The president of the company who could not afford to pay his men on account of the competition of the Westinghouse company.
$53,040 for Life, including shares worth $311,200, as token of regard.
What is the annuity?
Opinions vary as to whether it is $30,000 or $35,000, and President Dyment, of the Canadian General Electric, is not communicative.
That is what is causing discontent, that is what is causing unrest, that is what is causing unhappiness in this land. When men say that they cannot pay a wage that will maintain a fair and honest standard of living for the workingman in order that he may keep his family of boys and girls comfortably housed, respectably clothed, and properly educated, and when those men get together in high places and take from the coffers of a great concern over half a million dollars, we may well say that it is not the war, it is the greed of such men whetted by the excessive profits made during the war that is causing unrest in this country. And here is another instance of what breeds discontent. In this House one afternoon the postman's bonus was cut 25 per cent. Their life at that particular class of work is limited to a few years on account of the heavy mails they have to distribute in all kinds of weather over the hard pavements of our cities. Many cases occur where these men early in life are discarded, like an old horse turned out to pasture, on account of their inability to carry on their work. These poorly paid civil servants suffered a cut of 25 per cent in their bonus, and it was 225
done in a pretty short way by the right hon. gentleman who occupies the Prime Minister's seat. An hour after that the second or third reading of a Bill was moved by the Prime Minister "whereby the Chief Justice of Canada was appointed administrator at a salary of $5,000 per year on top of his $10,000 as chief Justice, and in addition to that he was given exemption from income tax on $10,000 of that $15,000 income. That also breeds discontent, unhappiness and unrest. It is not the returned men who are causing unrest, it is those who in high places are assuming to do what they have not any right to do. We need big business, it is necessary "with our developed civilization to have big business, but we want big business to be fair, and we want men in high places with great means to share honestly and fairly their profits with those who are entitled to participate in them. And no man has a right to take from those who are unable to defend themselves, as was done in the case of the minority shareholders of this company, what he has no moral right to take.
The charge is laid that we are inconsistent and unfair. I do not know what the Prime Minister's ideas of sportsmanship are. but I know that in the games we play it is not considered the best of form to attempt to steal one of the other fellow's players. Some believe in those methods, but I think that the best of Canadian manhood does not believe in them whether in political life or in sporting life. The Prime Minister knows the overtures * that have been made not only here but in West Peterborough. I think he knows the situation because when the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) and I met the Prime Minister about the power situation in the Midland part of Ontario, the lattel was good enough to say to me that he had heard of me from a certain gentleman who was supposed to head the Round Table group in Toronto-a well-known and prominent lawyer there. This same well-known and prominent lawyer was busy for a long while, and finally it developed that overtures were made to various Liberals that if they could succeed in defeating a former supporter of this Government, Mr. J. H. Burnham, the Government would not put a candidate in the field, but would assist them to that extent. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) knows that. He happened to be present one night when the executive of the Liberal association in Peterborough was meeting. The Prime Minister must have had some knowledge of



[Stage Direction]
what was going: on, because he held the writ for a sufficient length of time to let these things be developed. So I say it does not lie in the mouth of any member of the Government to charge members on this side of the House with inconsistency.
The inconsistency of taxation which has been developed by the Budget is one of the most dangerous to the consumer of milled food products that has ever been imposed in this country. It means unemployment, it means increased cost of living, it means the people will have to pay more because their food is taxed the same as the food of the people used to be taxed in England, for the benefit of those who had great wealth that they might accumulate more. As I said before, the Minister of Finance has brought us back to the days of the Corn Laws in England. If the present unemployment is aggravated by the taxation that is now sought to be imposed, which will force these great mills to absolutely discard one method of packing food, he can blame his proposed taxation. There is an easy and a fair taxation to impose, which means that the man in the Calgary zone does not get his milled product for half of what we require to pay between Peterborough and Montreal. That can be done, and the milling industry of this country will not be injured. The great mills of the Midland district of Ontario and those in Peterborough particularly, will not be affected. But if this measure goes through in its present form, and this taxation is imposed, it will simply add to the numbers of the men who walk the streets day after day looking for positions, and are turned away, like beggars on the street, because unemployment is being created by the direct act of this Government.
Mr. J. F. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: 
Mr. GUTHRIE:: My hon. friend is quite wrong in his figures.


John Frederick Johnston: When I get through
the minister will have an opportunity to refute my statement. The hon. gentleman also laboured to show a big per capita expenditure for Australia and a small one for Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not wish to interrupt my horn friend, but he is making a tremendous blunder; he has just given about half the figures. I know the mistake he has made, and I do not want-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: I would prefer that
the minister would let me know wherein I am wrong, if he wishes to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: 
John Frederick Johnston: I was figuring on the basis of $5 to the pound, as I stated at the outset. This Budget is for 1920-21; as the fiscal year for the Commonwealth of Australia does not end until June 30, how can the minister be quoting the figures for this year?


Hugh Guthrie: I am quoting them-


John Frederick Johnston: The minister will just keep his seat until I finish.


Hugh Guthrie: Turn to page 29 and quote the figures given there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: 
Hugh Guthrie: That is based on your improper figures.


John Frederick Johnston: Australia's militia
expenditure per capita is about 1.29 as against Canada's 1.45.


Mr. HALLADAY:: Read the figures and be a sport.


Hugh Guthrie: Page 29 will show you the correct figures as I have quoted them.


John Frederick Johnston: I am giving the figures as taken from the Budget speech.


Hugh Guthrie: No, he is only giving part of the figures.


Howard Hadden Halladay: Anybody could imagine figures.


John Frederick Johnston: There is no imagination at all. These figures are taken from the Australian Budget speech.


Mr. COWAN:: Give us the truth, anyway.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have given this comparative statement in connection with the figures supplied by the Minister of Militia. If the figures which I have given are wrong and the minister can prove that they are wrong, I assume that he will have some chance to do so on a future occasion.


Hugh Guthrie: Prove it yourself-simply refer to pages 29 and 30 of the report in your hand and you will be convinced.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: The minister occupied a considerable amount of the time of the House when he took part in this debate a few days ago; he presented his arguments to the best of his ability and he waved the flag very energetically. I do not propose to let him take up any of my time now.
In speaking the other day, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan), who has seen fit to interrupt my remarks at this time, said that the Opposition in this House had wings. I submit to you, Sir, that no one ever charged the hon. member for Regina with having wings. It would not be a surprising thing to many of us sitting in this quarter of the House if we saw a pair of horns sprouting on his troubled brow at any time.


Walter Davy Cowan: Good thing to have something in.


John Frederick Johnston: I find little in the proposals of the hon. Minister of Finance as contained in his Budget speech upon which I could congratulate him. Someone has termed his proposals " makeshift," and I cannot find any better term to use; in respect to the taxation proposals, it is a clear case of shifting. The business profits war tax has been abolished, and in its place we have an increase of the sales tax, thus shifting the burden from the shoulders of those who are able to pay to the shoulders of the great consuming and producing masses of the people- shifting, because the Government has got away from the direct method of imposing taxation to the indirect method. After pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government they imposed a tax upon incomes, but every proposal Of the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech with respect to taxation is of an indirect nature, showing that the policy of the Government is to impose indirect instead of direct taxation. Some weeks ago the Minister of Finance

called representatives of the manufacturing industries in this country and others into consultation with him, presumably for discussion of the best methods of levying and collecting these new taxes. No representative, however, of the greatest industry in this country was present at that consultation. Neither agriculture nor labour was represented there, although it is upon those two classes that these taxes will fall the heaviest. The policy of the Government has been and is to toady to the big interests of this country, and that is given effect to in the imposition of these new taxes. The sales (tax has been increased by 50 per cent, and that, to my mind, is a direct increase in the customs tariff. But what are we to expect? Some one has said that you cannot expect to have the perfume of roses around while there is a polecat under the table. Neither can you expect to have fair methods of taxation imposed by a government whose policy is dictated by, and wholly in the interest of, the big interests of the country.
We have heard a great deal about tariff revision. Back in 1919, when some of us withdrew our support from the Government, we were told that the Government would revise the tariff. We were also taunted and told that it would be revised in such a way that we would be sorry that we had not stuck to the ship. Now, 1920 has gone; 1921 is here, and I just wonder if the provisions of the tariff, as presented in the proposals of the Minister of Finance, meet with the approval of those members of the House from Western Canada who are still supporting the Government, and if they think that these proposals will be satisfactory to the people of their constituencies.


Walter Davy Cowan: I am quite ready to take a chance on that.


John Frederick Johnston: It is quite true that the Government appointed a tariff commission to investigate this matter, and this commission travelled throughout Canada at very great expense during the fall months of last year and the early part of the present year, and we have 1 per cent increase in the tariff as a result of these new-taxes. Our protectionist friends are endeavouring to raise the class cry in this country. They have gone so far as to say that the farmers of Canada are opposed to the growth of our towns and cities. That statement is absolutely wrong. No farmer in this country is opposed to the natural growth of our towns and cities; but when

our towns and cities are built up by the depletion of our rural sections, the farmer or any one else in Canada is justified in claiming that that is not a healthy growth. When you deplete rural sections of Canada of their producing element, you at once reduce production, and as a natural result, you increase the cost of living.
The primary duty of this Parliament and of the Government of the day is to develop the natural resources of Canada, to draft a policy that will enable both capital and labour to apply themselves to this development with some chance of success. Under existing economic conditions, this development will not be undertaken by thinking people. The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) says that his Government and party stand by the principle of protection and the old National Policy, a policy that, in my humble judgment, is the real cause of Canada having but eight or nine million people to-day when she should have at least double that number.
Agriculture is the basic industry of this country, and if we have a fiscal policy that will admit of the development of this and others of our natural resources, we would soon have villages, towns and cities, and a home market worthy of the name. Our manufacturing friends make a great deal of this plea of the home market, and well they may, for under the protective tariff, they are able to exact from the people of Canada greater prices than they can command for their products in any other country. If our manufacturing friends would have the good sense to let up on this cry for protection and give to this country an opportunity of developing itself along natural lines, by a general reduction of the tariff, especially on the implements of production, I believe that in ten years' time, through this development, through the increased population, their sales would increase to such an extent that they would be ashamed to think that they had ever demanded protection from this or any other government. The old National Policy has been on trial in this country for forty-three years, and under it we have lost many of our best citizens. From the 1920 United States' census, we learn that there are 1,117,136 native-born Canadians in the United States. If you take three to the family, that would mean that there are 3,351,408 citizens of the United States who are of Canadian birth or origin. This almost equals our total immigration to this country during the last thirty years. We have been filling our country up with

foreign-born people, while we have been losing to the United States our own Canadian-born citizens.
Further, this Government claims that its policy is clear-cut and definite. Is this the case? It is true that the Prime Minister says that they stand by the "principle of protection." In a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in the city of Regina last fall, he said that he was not a "high protectionist," while the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) told the House the other day during this debate that the Government stood four-square for "moderate protection." Before the Government can claim that its policy is clear-cut and definite, some one should explain what percentage of protection the Prime Minister stands for when he disclaims being a high protectionist. And will the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries kindly explain what he means by moderate protection? Moderate protection to a moderate man might mean a very low tariff, but is there any one who thinks that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is a moderate man? Would he be satisfied with a moderate tariff? I submit that the shipbuilding policy of the hon. gentleman must be held to banish him forever from the ranks of moderate people. The figures submitted by my hon. leader in his speech of yesterday in connection with some companies with which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is connected would go to show that there was enough water in the stock of these companies almost to "float his merchant marine.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Would the hon. gentleman allow me a question? I would like to put to him the same question that I put to his leader yesterday. There is a plank in your platform favouring 50 per cent preference for Great Britain, and absolute free trade with her in five years. I want an answer to that last particularly. Are you in favour of that?


John Frederick Johnston: The minister is adopting a tone that is altogether unbecoming. He is demanding something. I have no hesitation whatever in answering his question, but I do not care to be driven to do anything. If the minister would put his question in a gentlemanly way I would be glad to answer it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think the hon. member is justified in saying that another hon. member has not acted or spoken in a gentlemanly way.


John Frederick Johnston: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. May I use the word "moderate " instead?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: What is your answer?


Mr. LALOR:: He won't answer.


John Frederick Johnston: On that question I stand absolutely where my leader stands.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I have never heard where he stood.


Mr. HALLAD  AY@: Nobody knows where he stands.


John Frederick Johnston: It is on Hansard.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask hon. gentlemen who desire to ask a question of the hon. member who has the floor to rise in their places for the purpose of doing so, and I must remind them that they must first obtain his permission.


John Frederick Johnston: So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when the Government calls on hon. members on this side of the House to explain their policy, it might be well for the Government and its supporters to remember that the people of this country will ask them to say just what they mean by these ambiguous terms to which I have alluded.
The question may be asked, what room is there for the development of the natural resources of this country? I shall only refer to the, industry with which I am best acquainted, that of agriculture. I shall give to the House figures of the total arable acreage in the three Prairie Provinces, the acreage under cultivation, and the amount in dollars derived from the sale of the products of that acreage last year. In the province of Alberta there are 81,300,000 acres of arable land, of which 11,764,167 are cultivated; Manitoba, 25,223,348 acres of arable land, with 4,637,660 acres cultivated; Saskatchewan, 57,884,160 acres of arable land, with 22,549,669 cultivated, or a total arable acreage of 164,407,508 acres, with 38,951,496 acres cultivated, or less than 25 per cent of the arable land under cultivation. There was derived in dollars from the sale of field crops in these three provinces last year the following amounts: Alberta, $199,033,500; Manitoba, $142,000,000; Saskatchewan, $350,521,010; or a total of $691,554,510. As I have already said, there was less than 25 per cent of the arable acreage under cultivation. So if you multiply that total by four you would have a return of $2,766,218,040, and still leave a margin of the arable land

uncultivated. In these figures I have not included the returns from live stock, dairy products and sfi forth. In connection with this matter of the further development of our natural resources it can be seen that if the agricultural resources of the three Prairie Provinces wetre almost fully developed, you would have a return in one year, on the same basis as last year, more than equalling the total of our national debt.
I have on more than one occasion in this House said that the greatest need in Canada to-day was greater production, and that to get greater production we needed more people. If we had these two things, it would necessarily mean that we would need wider markets, but I submit that under prevailing conditions in Canada today, the further development of our natural resources is out of the question, and we may as well stop talking about further immigration until we get in this country a government big enough and courageous enough to give us a fiscal policy that will give some chance of success to the people who go on the land. Any great development under present conditions will not result in lasting benefit to Canada. One would think that this Government, having put some 20,000 odd returned men on the land in Canada during the last few years, would give very serious consideration to the conditions under which these men have to labour. These men, returned from the war, eager and anxious to get back into civil life, accepted the Government's offer of assistance to go on the land; and now they find themselves up against conditions, over which they have no control, which make it impossible for them to carry on. In this connection I wish to place on Hansard some figures taken from a report issued by the Soldier Settlement Board on February 1 of this year.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the House rose at 6 o'clock I had asked to put on Hansard a report issued by the Soldiers' Settlement Board, giving a summary of the operations of that Board up to January 31, of this year. That report shows:
Number of veterans applied for privileges of Act	 58,276
Number accepted as qualified to	farm.	.	42,285Number qualified, but not yet	located.	22,254
Number in training under supervision
of Board	 781
Number completed training	 1,579

The loans to these men were as follows:
Number	granted loans	 20,231
Amount of loans approved. $82,043,414 Amount of loans disbursed. 73,711,558 Initial Payments on land
purchased	 3,869,159
Number	liable for	repayments Nov 1,. 12,507Number	who made	repayments	
9,355
(or 74.8 p. c.)
Amount of money due at
Nov. 1	 2,323,582
Amount repaid	 1,634,972
(or 70.4 p. c.
Number who have repaid all loans in
full	 320
You will notice, Sir, that the number liable for repayment at November 1, was 12,507.
Adjustments
Number of failures and changes of owner
ship adjusted	179
Amount invested In these farms. $635,484 Amount realized in re-sale of
farm equipment	 637,347
The report goes on to give the area of soldiers' land, the stock, equipment, etc. I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the House for the purpose of showing just how much these soldier farmers will be called upon to pay of the new taxes imposed under this Budget. The minister expects to raise $62,000,000 by this increase in the sales taxes. This would mean about $7 per capita, putting our population at between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000. Now, we have put 20,231 returned men on the land. Multiply this by seven-the per capita tax -and you have $141,617. I think it would be fair to assume that there would be three members in each family, and that would mean a total taxation of $424,851, which the returned men whom we have put on the land would have to pay, or $21 per family. Let us follow this a little further and see what it means. We are charging these returned men 5 per cent for the money we have loaned them. It will be seen, however, that the amount taken from them by the sales tax would more than equal the interest on $8,000,000, and I submit that this extra amount could very well have been used by these men who are trying to establish themselves upon the, land. The figures I have given do not take into account the pyramiding of the taxes which is bound to take place. If this were done, the amount I have mentioned would be at least doubled, and I think that this is a concrete example of the way in which the protective tariff works. I am sure it must make the manufacturers of the country feel like real patriots to know that they have shifted the burden to the backs of the returned men. I suppose, however, when the next election comes

around we may expect to find these barons of special privilege going around waving the flag and calling every one disloyal who votes against them and their party.
I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion there is little use of looking for any great development of the natural resources of Western Canada under existing conditions, and one of the things that are hearing heavily upon the western farmer to-day is the increase in freight rates. This increase put on last fall does hear very heavily upon the people of the western provinces, because everything that they use on their farms, or dispose of from those farms, has to be hauled great distances. The Prairie Provinces, through their Provincial Governments, have made representations to the Railway Commission and to the Government regarding this matter, and have protested as vigorously as possible. I desire to read the opinions expressed by one or two influential organizations upon this matter. I have here a clipping reporting a resolution passed at the sixtenth annual convention of the Saskatchewan Rural Municipalities Organization. This resolution reads:
Resolved that this Convention desires to protest in the strongest manner against the recent large and unreasonable increase of freight and express rates. The present high rates Trill result in making successful farming on the prairies difficult, if not impossible-
The opinion I have expressed, Mr. Speaker, that no great development in Western Canada can be looked for under existing conditions is borne out by this statement.
-and will retard indefinitely the further settling up of farm lands in Western Canada; and we further protest against the want of sympathy with the public, where railway matters are concerned, manifested by the Railway Commission ; and, further, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada.
The organization that fathered this resolution is representative of every municipality in the province of Saskatchewan. I have another clipping, dated Toronto, March 13, which reads as follows:
Delegates representing all the large stockyard centres in the Dominion attended a meeting of the Canadian Livestock Exchange here Saturday night, and the prevailing opinion expressed was that the high freight rates had a tendency to keep shippers from shipping to *the greater number of markets. Vice-President O. Attwell was delegated to confer with E. St Todd, of the Eastern Canada Livestock Exchange, with reference to Itfhe question of appearing before the Dominion Railway Doard with a request for a reduction of rates governing the shipment of livestock.
This matter, in my opinion, must receive immediate attention if the producers of Western Canada are going to be able to carry on with any degree of success.
Now, Sir, I desire to touch briefly upon another matter, and I offer some apology for bringing it to the attention of the House at this time, because it has already had some discussion in Parliament. I refer to the question of returning the natural resources to the Prairie Provinces. I did not avail myself of an opportunity to speak upon this subject when it was before the House on a previous occasion, but I wish to do so now as briefly as I can. The return of these natural resources to the Western Provinces is a matter that has been before this Parliament and the country for a number of years.
I believe it is in the best interests of the whole of Canada that these resources should be returned to the provinces for the very good reason that the provinces would develop them .much faster than the Dominion is doing. Furthermore-as was pointed out when this matter was specifically before the House-the Fathers of Confederation never intended that one part of Canada should be, as was termed at the time, "Crown colonies," while the rest of the country should have full autonomy. Besides that we had the direct promise of the ex-Prime Minister, the present member for King's, N.S. (Sir Robert Borden) in 1910 that if his party were returned to power he would return these resources to the Prairie Provinces; and we have had upon many occasions, the unanimous vote of the legislatures of the different provinces interested in favour of that course.
I submit that the other provinces, as provinces, have no claim in this matter at all other than that whatever case they have should be presented to this Parliament. Every one of those provinces has its representatives in the Federal Parliament and this is where the matter should 'be decided. In this connection let me read a short quotation from a speech delivered by the Hon. Mr. Turgeon to the legislature of Saskatchewan on November 23 last. On that occasion Mr. Turgeon said:
All the provinces of Canada are represented in the Federal Parliament. Each province as a province, sends so many members there, and one of the duties of each of these members is to look after the interests of his province and more particularly is this the duty of the Senate of Canada which was created and intended to he the custodian of Provincial rights; and if you look into its composition and how its numbers are allocated that fact is very much in evidence. All the provinces are represented in the Senate

and let some Government at Ottawa have sufficient courage to formulate a policy which will run the gauntlet of the Senate and Commons: in this manner only can the question be settled.
That is what we want. We want the Government of Canada to make up its mind as to what should be done, not after consulting the other provinces and waiting until they all agree on something, but on its own responsibility to the Parliament and the people of Canada. What is fair to us is to hand back our natural resources and to.fix what allowance we should continue to receive. If at the same time any province of Canada wishes to go to the Federal Parliament and say: "you have reopened the terms of confederation because you have reopened the constitution of one province" let Parliament settle with that province in the way best suited to that province. If Nova Scotia, for instance, thinks it should have an increased subsidy let i-t go to the Government of Canada and lay its case there.
That is our attitude and I see no hope for anything being done until the Government of Canada will take our attitude as the proper one, form iits own policy, bring it down and put it through.
That statement, I think, carries with it the opinion of the vast majority of the people of the province of Saskatchewan, and I can only add that I sincerely hope that something may be done in this regard in the near future.
Another matter that has been brought before the House, and to which I wish to make reference, is the proposal to send an ambassador to Washington. I am of the opinion that Canada should have a representative at Washington. I believe it is not only necessary but essential for us to have a representative there to look after our interests. There is also the matter of Canada appointing trade agents in the United States. I understand that the United States have over fifty of these agents in Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the neighbouring republic hav'e seen fit to send some fifty trade agents into Canada to drum up business with eight or nine millions of people, it surely follows that it would be a sensible thing on the part of Canada to have at least a few trade agents in the United States where we have a chance of trading with one hundred and ten millions of people.
Returning to the question more particularly before the House, I believe that the strictest economy should be practised at the present time by this Government and by every spending body in Canada. I further believe that the Government might have effected a considerable saving in the Estimates which have been submitted to Parliament. The expenditure on the Trent and Welland canals and the dry-dock at Victoria could have been very materially reduced, to say nothing of the expenditure of over

$11,000,000 on the militia. A very considerable reduction could have been made in these votes without causing any harm to Oanada or the Canadian people. The expenditure of public money for the purpose of creating employment can be carried too far. I think we have had evidence that such a policy has been carried too far in Canada by the shipbuilding programme of the Minister of Marine. While speaking on this subject I would like to explain, in regard to some figures that I submitted to the House before six o'clock and which were questioned by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie), that the figures in question were quoted from the Budget, showing the consolidated revenue receipts and expenditure, of the Commonwealth of Australia for the year 1920-21. I wish to make that explanation to show that the figures were official.
There is another matter I wish to touch upon before closing. I hesitated to do so earlier in my remarks because the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) was absent from the chamber. He is present to-night and therefore I shall make the statement I had in contemplation. A day or two ago when the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) was speaking, he said that the Prime Minister had alluded to the followers of the Farmers' party as wreckers and Bolshevists. The right hon. gentleman then asked the hon. member to do what the members of the Farmer's party had not done, support the statement by a-quotation from his speech. I do not happen to have the particular speech in question before me but I have a quotation from another speech. The Montreal Gazette of September 2, reports the Prime Minister as having used these words at Sherbrooke:
A new party has arisen i-n Canada, best described as "The Parmer Free Trade party." It took its birth in the Western Provinces and for some twelve years or more it has been gaining strength. It has adopted the old Liberal free trade policy of 1S93. It demands to be placed in power in Canada. It has gathered under its banner and trails behind it every class of theorist and malcontent, and to-day beyond all doubt it constitutes the most numerous and strongest organization opposed to the present Government.
I think the right hon. gentleman will not dispute this report of his remarks; it is taken from a newspaper that, I believe, would be very careful not to misquote him.
But I wish to draw the attention of the House to the closing words of this quotation :
It constitutes the most numerous and strongest organization opposed to the present Government.

In the face of that, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman in his address the other day termed this party, to which I have the honour to belong, a "dilapidated annex" of some other party. Such words coming from the Prime Minister are pretty hard to take, and in view of his statement that the supporters of this party are the most numerous and strongest of any organization opposing his Government, one may well wonder why he should attempt to be so sarcastic. I may be pardoned if I reply in kind and say that, if my party looks like a "dilapidated annex" to the right hon. gentleman, after the next general election I cannot think of any better term to describe the remnant that he may or may not then be the head of than to liken it to an exploded blister, and in all probability that remnant will be very easily accommodated in the few unoccupied seats in the most southeasterly part of the chamber next to the wall.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the records of this House will show that I voted want of confidence in the Administration on the amendment to the Address at the beginning of this session, and I must confess that the Government has not improved in the meantime. Some hon. gentlemen opposite in a previous debate said that this Government-mark the expression, Sir, this Government-was elected in 1917. I said at the time that it was not elected at all but was manufactured in this city last July, and everything that has transpired since its formation confirms my view. I do not want to be unkind, but the fact of the matter is this Government wished itself on the people, and it has not the good sense to see that it is not wanted. Undoubtedly we should have had a general election long before this. For these and many other reasons, Sir, I purpose to vote for the amendment. I believe that the people want an opportunity to elect a government representing their views-a government with some sense of its responsibilities to the country, and an appreciation of the necessity of rigid economy in the expenditure of the public money at a time when the financial outlook is so serious.


Mr. J. ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into a general discussion of the Budget, or the 'relative merits or demerits of the fiscal policy of the Government. I have already given my opinion on the question in the course of other debates in this House, and it has been thoroughly discussed by many hon. members on both sides. But I shall take the opportunity of answering the statements made by some hon. members on your right, Sir, and of touching on a few points that have already been called attention to during the course of this debate.
First of all, I shall correct a wrong impression which has been conveyed through the subsidized press to the people regarding the financial operations of the fiscal year 1920-21; then I shall say something about economy,-the practice of which is totally ignored by the Government; I shall also deal with the worn out appeal that the Minister of Militia made in this House last week; then I shall answer the Prime Minister regarding the Grand Trunk speculation, and finally, I shall deal with the moral mentality of the Government, including their scandalous misuse of the Roumanian and Grecian loans in order to feed their hungry friends and keep them in line.
The subsidized press of Canada have tried to convey an impression to the people, by arithmetical and acrobatical arguments, that last year's operations closed with a surplus. In order to destroy that impression and to point out to the country the net result of those financial operations, I shall simply quote the words of the Minister of Finance himself, to be found at page 3,217 of unrevised Hansard. In Ms speech on May 9 last, he said:
The country's revenues have been well maintained. The revenue for the fiscal year when the accounts are finally closed will approximately reach $432,000,000-
This is for 1920-21. On the same page will be found this passage:
-The estimated expenditure for the year amounts to $533,368,077.-
Making it clear, Sir, that the deficit on last year's operations was $101,368,077. Furthermore, on the next page, as if to prove this fact, the Minister of Finance, speaking of the increase of the national debt, said:
As already stated, there have been no fresh borrowings. On the other hand, the debt has increased by the amount that the liquid surplus of the year before has been used, namely, $101,368,077.
These are plain figures without any frills or garniture, and when the people come to discuss the financial operations of last year they will find out that they resulted, as the minister implies, in a deficit to that extent.
Now, Sir, I purpose to devote a few minutes to the necessity for rigid economy

in our national expenditure. The estimated expenditure for this year is $591,-437,698-about $250,000,000 more than the total national debt in 1914. But the word "economy" has been deleted from the vocabulary of the Government, and the word "extravagance" with a capital "E" has taken its place.
When a firm or business concern i3 nearing the edge of the cliffs of bankruptcy, is it not common sense to say that the first thing to do is not to enhance \ prices to its customers, but to reduce the expenses of administration? That is the only hope of rescue. But what do we see here? Instead of curtailing expenditure the Government is increasing the taxes. The Government in this Budget is increasing the cost of living. It is true, Sir, that they do it in a camouflaged way; they do it by increasing the duties on goods imported from the United States through changes based upon the ratio of exchange. Every one in Canada will know when this Budget comes into force that he will have to pay more for goods coming from the United States. Instead of adopting this course the Government should have used the knife for the purpose of eradicating the gangrene of extravagant expenditure. There are many items in the Estimates that could be reduced; some of them could be altogether eliminated. I shall not go over all these items; it would take too long. But, Sir, I may mention some of the items on which expenditure could have been cut in two if not reduced by three-quarters. There is $500,000 for the Canada Temperance Act. There is $10,456,800 for the housing scheme. There is $80,000 for the Purchasing Commission, when it has been shown in this House that every department has its own purchasing agent, and that for these purchasing agents in the different departments the House is asked to vote the sum of $53,000. There is $200,000 for the Secretariat of the League of Nations. There is $5,165,000 for the Welland canal, and $854,000 for the Trent canal. There is $1,000,000 for the Toronto harbour-to make boulevards on which the millionaires of Toronto may drive. There is $1,250,000 for St. John harbour-probably to redeem an election promise. There is $2,500,000 for the naval service, *to take care of ships which, it has been stated by Lord Fisher, a great naval expert, will be obsolete in three or four years. There is an additional sum of $8.330,000 for ship building-we have already spent $70,000,000 on this item. I am sorry that the Minister of Marine (Mr. [Mr. Archambault.j
Ballantyne) is not ip his seat I hope he will be here later. We are spending $168,000,000 on the railways, $5,000,000 for a dock at Victoria, and $20,000,000 for militia, naval defence, and police.
Now, Sir, the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) during the course of his speech in this debate, made a comparison between the military and naval expenditures of Canada and those of certain other countries. The comparison which the minister makes in this regard is found at page 3383 of unrevised Hansard. He compares Canada to three classes of countries-European countries, South American countries, and British Dominions. Now, is it fair to compare the necessity for military expenditure in Canada with that of European countries which are practically still at war? Is it fair to compare the necessity for military expenditure in Canada with that of the South American republics, which are fighting together practically every day? And then, Sir, is it fair to compare the necessity for military expenditure in Canada with that of the other British Dominions? So far as Australia and New Zealand are concerned, these countries need a strong navy because they are isolated in the middle of the ocean and have to protect themselves from attacks on the part of Japan or other countries; the same need is not apparent in the case of Canada. Is it fair to compare the necessity for military expenditure in Canada with that of South Africa, where there is a large black population which is threatening that British Dominion, and ready to rise at any momoent? In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this comparison made by the minister cannot stand.
The minister resorted to the old cry which has been used for five or six years, and especially during the last two or three years; he questioned the loyalty of the Opposition and their sympathy for the cause of the returned soldiers:	In other words,
he made the inevitable answer which the Government make to any criticism that we may bring against them. Hon. gentlemen know what this insinuation is; it is an attempt to convey the idea that the Government alone have the monopoly of patriotism in this country and that the Opposition are antagonistic to the soldiers. Answering the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King); answering the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) ; answering the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who had contended that there was no necessity for training men at the present time because we had

a great number of trained men who had enlisted and who would in a case of emergency be useful for the protection of Canada, the minister, as reported at page 3386 of Hansard, made the following attack and insinuation:
What do these statements mean, Mr. Speaker? They mean simply this, that we have in Canada at this moment albout 400,000 of the most highly trained soldiers that the world has ever seen, men who have gone through the worst grilling in ibattle that the world has ever known. They have hared their breasts to the shot and shell of the enemy, they have taken their chances, they have done much to secure us who stayed at home in our lives, our homes and our liberties. And the message to those brave lads from the leader of the Opposition,' from his chief lieutenant who sits beside him, and from the hon. member for South Quebec means, if it means anything: We will be so penurious and so miserly that we will not spend any further money for military training, but if trouble come in the future we will call again on those brave souls to protect us. Surely, in the name of God, these men have earned some measure of relief, surely under high heaven one may honestly declare that these men have done their bit, their full bit, and are entitled to rest and to immunity while others are in training to take their places.
I will admit that it was a great temptation for the minister to endeavour to revive the falsehood that the Opposition has no sympathy for the returned soldier. The minister could not resist this temptation; but if the minister had given all the facts regarding this matter, his sentimental appeal would have fallen flat. If he had given to the House a very pertinent part of the evidence taken before the special committee which inquired into the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, if he had taken the opportunity of reading in this House what is said at page 456 of the report of that committee, he would have found out that, besides the brave boys who went overseas and risked their lives, besides those who were in the front trenches, besides those who went to Prance, there were 232,520 highly trained men who never saw the firing line, who never touched the soil of France or any other place where fighting was going on. This is what I read at page 456 of this report:


Georges Henri Boivin: I desire to read to the committee a letter received by the secretary at noon from Mr. Cox (reads) :
Ottawa, Canada, October 1, 1919. The Secretary,
Special Committee,
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-As instructed by the committee, I have prepared an estimate as to the amount it would cost to pay gratuity of $2,000 on account of every soldier who saw service in France, $1,500 on account of every soldier who
saw service in England, and $1,000 on account of every soldier who saw service in Canada only.
From the figures at present available, I estimate the cost of paying this gratuity would be $983,624.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) Thomas Cox, Assistant Director Pay Service .	(Demobilization).
By Hon. Mr. BC'and :
Q. What is that based on?-A. It is based on official figures.
By the Chairman:
Q. Who prepared this estimate?-A. I did, sir.
Q. Upon what basis was it prepared?-A. The total enlistments in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces were 590,572. Of those
418.052	proceeded overseas, leaving a balance of 172,520 who had service in Canada only.
Q. How many in Canada?-A. 172,520. And
418.052	proceeded overseas. Of them it is estimated that 50,000 did not get any further than England.
This makes a total of 232,520 who saw service in Canada only or who did not proceed further than England. I do not wish to cast any reflections on members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces who did not go overseas, who did not go into the trenches and who rendered valuable service in this country towards the war. But when we are discussing the military expenditures of this country, when we are trying to do our best to reduce the expenditures of this country, is it not fair to say that, when the Minister of Militia and Defence comes with his Estimates for training men for military purposes, we can answer him, that if a case of emergency were to arise, these 232,520 highly trained men, who enlisted during the war, but who did not proceed overseas, w'ould be available to help us and to protect and defend Canada in such emergency?
While talking about expenditures, I should like to direct the attention of the House to a couple of items in the Auditor General's Report. The House will understand that it would be tedious if I were to go over many items that I could criticise. I have chosen two items showing lack of economy and extravagant expenditure on the part of the Government. At page ZZ-30 of volume 4 of the Auditor General's Report of this year, there is one item showing that J. A. Huot, Ottawa, was paid, by Order in Council dated September 29, 1919, the sum of $25,000 for purchase of patent rights of an automatic rifle attachment. This was one year after the war was over, one year after the armistice was signed. I had an opportunity of seeing the cheque, and it is endorsed to a man in Montreal who made a fortune during the war and who is a very close friend of the ex-chairman of the War Purchasing Commission, Sir Hormisdas

Laporte. I have another item to show how the Government treat their friends. Every one has heard of the Winnipeg strike, and I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of that strike. I am not ready to blame the Government for having acted in the way they acted in repressing the strike, but the expenditure incurred in prosecuting men who were accused in that strike is extravagant and scandalous. At page. ZZ-13 of Volume 4 of the Auditor General's Report, I find that the expenses of prosecution alone during the Winnipeg strike cost the country the sum of $180,259.38 for two of three months of work. The sum of $140,000 was paid to lawyers; one firm alone, the firm of Andrews and Company for their three months' work was paid the sum of $56,000. But I also find something else. During the election of 1917, many good Liberals left the Liberal party quite honestly because in their conscience they felt that conscription was the only measure that would provide for the winning of the war. I have a great respect for those who did that honestly. Amongst them was a prominent lawyer of Winnipeg named Isaac Pit-blado. Although a supporter of the Union Government in 1917, Mr. Pitblado, a few months afterwards vigorously denounced the Union Government in bitter words, and everybody in this country was amazed when on October 27, last, the press of Canada - gave us the report that Mr. Pitblado, who had bitterly denounced the Union Government, had presided over the right hon. the Prime Minister's meeting in Winnipeg. The Government press made a lot of it. I do not want to connect Mr. Pitblado's action in that regard with an item that appears in the Public Accounts-I will leave hon. members and the people of this country to draw their own conclusions-but I find that Mr. Pitblado for his services as prosecutor in the Winnipeg strike received for 102 days' work the handsome sum of $26,990, making more than $225 a day.


Mr. COPP:: He could afford to act as
chairman for one evening after that.


Joseph Archambault: 

county, I suppose he was not playing the game to the detriment of politics in Canada when, in 1917, he endorsed the racial cry, which is not yet forgotten, if the hon. member for Marquette was well informed when he stated that even to-day, in the election in New Brunswick, the candidate is making an appeal on religious questions; the Prime Minister was not playing the game when, during the troublesome times in Montreal, his Government was engaging a man named Ti-noir Desjardins, who was the prime cause of the dynamiting of Lord Atholstan's house. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Lafortune), who was the prosecuting attorney in Montreal, knows these facts and knows that the Government, in order to release Ti-noir Desjardins, who had been accused with the other dynamiters, put up a check for $10,000 to bail him out. My hon. friend the Prime Minister was a member of the Government at that time, and he is responsible for their actions in this matter. Yet he dares to come to the House and accuse hon. members of playing the game. ^ He is not playing the game now, but is elevating Canadian politics, when he uses the utmost of his ability and his cunning in the effort to induce members of this side of the House to board the Government boat that is leaking and rapidly sinking. Is it conducive to a high standard of decency and a high ideal of political ethics in this country for him to endorse a candidate in Yamaska, who says of the Prime Minister-I will quote the exact words-that:
He is the most narrow-minded and the most bigoted politician who sits at Ottawa, a hangman and an autocrat.
I am very glad to see the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) in the House. He is right at the back, but I can see him well. When the hon. member for Maison-neuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) cited that letter the other day, the minister said:
" Wait until Mr. Mondou, who is the Government candidate, talks about this letter." Well, he has talked about the letter. The letter was read to Mr. Mondou at a meeting, and he said that while it might have been exaggerated in the papers, he did not withdraw anything that he had said. He said, at Liberal meetings:
They say that, if X am elected, I shall be made a minister in the Meighen Government. Do not forget the opinion I have of Mr. Meighen and which I have expressed.
Well, Sir, if you were not convinced of the high morals of the Prime Minister in [Mr. Archambault.J
politics, I could convince you by reading that right hon. gentleman's words in defence of the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wigmore), who had written to the French purchasing commission, begging for business for his own firm of Nagle and Wigmore, stating that he was Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue. The Premier's words are to be found on page 3181 of Hansard


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I am obliged to ask the hon. member to desist from reading those words. He is undoubtedly quite familiar with the unwritten law of Parliament, set forth on page 357 of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure where it is stated that a member in speaking cannot refer to anything said or done in a previous debate during the same session.


Joseph Archambault: I was under the impression that the Premier's remarks were uttered during the Budget debate.


Georges Henri Boivin: They were
made in committee upon the Estimates of the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue.


Joseph Archambault: Then it was my mistake.


Mr. BUREAU:: May I be allowed to
remark that in reading Burinot this afternoon I noticed that formerly it was the rule in the English Commons that you could not refer even to a debate of a previous session, but that the tendency of late has been towards the relaxation of the rule, and it is now permitted to do that. I think we ought to have the same liberty in this House and that we should be permitted to cite from a speech made during a previous debate. Otherwise we must give the quotation from memory which would lead perhaps to unintentional misrepresentation on the part of an hon. member whose memory was not faithful to the text. Under the circumstances I think the ruling ought to me made that as long as the member does not abuse the privilege by taking up the time of the House in quoting from speeches made during the same session he should have the liberty of referring to a previous debate. I would like to have the expression of hon. members on the subject.


Georges Henri Boivin: All I can
say, in answer to the hon. gentleman, is that the occupant of the Chair acts at all times subject to the judgment of the House, and that his ruling can be reversed by a ma-

jority of its members. I may be permitted to add that the present incumbent of the Speaker's Chair has several times in my hearing during the present Parliament given the precise ruling which I have repeated to-night, and even though I desired to do so, I would not intentionally, during his unavoidable absence, create any new precedents in the House of Commons.


Jacques Bureau: May I be allowed to say in explanation, although I have no right to speak a second time, that in speaking as I did I intended no reflection upon the Chair, but the suggestion was that you, Sir, as the present occupant of the Chair might take into consideration the tendency in the British House. For my part I think there ought to be some relaxation of the rule in question.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker,
when I referred to the opinion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) in regard to the letter written by the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue I was under the impression that that letter had been brought down during the Budget debate. However, I bow to your ruling and will not read the speech referred to. At the same time every one remembers that the Prime Minister endorsed the attitude of the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, that the right hon. gentleman stated he was not profoundly moved by the accusation against his' colleague, and that it was no penal offence for the minister in question to use his name as a member of the Government, and to write a letter upon Government paper, in order to secure business for his own firm. Sir, I am not surprised at that attitude of the Prime Minister; it is up to the standard of high morality which has characterized this Government. We certainly can call such a letter and such an endorsement "playing the game," and feel that it is doing credit to the politics of Canada!
I now come to a very interesting matter and one with which I dealt to some extent last year, I mean the credits extended by the Government to Greece and Roumania. Although I spoke upon this question last year there have been some further developments, and I believe I shall be able to convince you, Sir, that the high standard of political morality in this country has remained unimpaired according to certain mentalities that we find in this House. Sir, in our efforts to probe the morality evidenced in connection with these credits let
us examine the whole subject. It will be remembered that in the month of May, 1919, the then Minister of Finance, Sir Thomas White, asked this House to vote these credits because the population of Roumania was starving and needed food; and I can well remember the right hon. gentleman saying at that time, "Will the population of Canada remain unmoved and not help the population of Roumania which is now starving?" Well, Sir, two credits of $25,000,000 each were opened, one for Roumania and one for Greece. Of this amount, $26,989,000 has already gone and only $3,500,000 has been spent on food. The rest of the credits have served for the purpose of buying goods from the manufacturers of this country. The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Pacaud) said the other night that the Government of Canada, in answer to a merchant in Belgium who asked that food should be exported from these moneys, said that only one-fifth of the credit to Belgium could be devoted to the purchase and exportation of food. Now, Sir, a return was brought down last year to an Order of the House-I refer to "Sessional Paper No. 147." This return shows conclusively that companies controlled by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne), the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor), the hon member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Elkin) had sold goods for export which had been paid for by the Government. I was under the impression that the disclosures of last year would have had their effect and that there would not be a repetition of any such transactions; but although since April 19, the Government of Roumania has defaulted in two or three payments of interest, and probably Greece also, more of this money has been going to favourites of the Government, and a further sum of $5,342,077.32 has been advanced. On March 4 an Order of the House was passed for a return showing:
1.	The amounts loaned or the credits made by the Government of Canada since the 19th of April, 1920, (a) to Greece, (b) to Roumania.
2.	The respective dates of these loans or credits to (a) Greece, (b) Roumania.
3.	The nature of goods bought by the Government of Canada (a) for Greece, (b) for Roumania.
4.	The names of corporations, firms or persons from whom these goods have been purchased, (a) the nature of the merchandise in each case, (b) the amounts paid1 by the Government to these corporations, firms or persons in each case and also the date of said payments.


S564 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Let us examine this very interesting document. Although the Minister of Militia in duscussing the Estimates of his department the other day denied that any goods belonging to the Militia Department had been sold to Rumania or Greece, I find at page 3 of the report the following- I am giving the various sums in round figures:
Militia and Defence:
March, 1920', military equipment..	$36,000
May, 1920, military doting	325,000
April, 1920, dubbin	 3,000
Mr. COCKSHUTT:: If the hon. gentleman does not object, I should like to ask: Does he say that I was a controller of one of the companies that was paid certain sums?	*


Joseph Archambault: I said that my hon. friend was a director of one of the companies.


William Foster Cockshutt: No, you did not use the word "director"; the word "control" was used. I entirely repudiate any such control.


Joseph Archambault: It was a directing control. My hon. friend knows that every director has a certain control of the company of which he is a director; otherwise he should resign-


William Foster Cockshutt: I have no control over the company.


Joseph Archambault: -otherwise he should resign as a director of the company, or resign his seat in this House.


William Foster Cockshutt: If I could not do better than you I certainly would resign.


Joseph Archambault: That is your opinion. I find also that the Department of Militia and Defence sold to Greece the following:
May, 1920>-Brushes	 $11,728
May, 1920'-Boots	 635,000
May, 1920.-Braces	 8,320
April, 1920-Denim	 38,000
March, 1921-Sweaters	 150,000
April, 1920-Blankets	 876,00<>
I
I have grave doubts, Sir, as to the wisdom of the Department of Militia in getting rid of all this useful equipment when the people would have been very glad to buy these blankets, boots, brushes, braces, sweaters, etc., at prices cheaper than our manufacturers were selling them. In the United States the Government opened retail stores for the sale of their surplus military stores at prices lower than those asked by the manufacturers.
[Mr. Archambault.I
Now, my hon. friend from Brantford, whom I might call the "father of protection" in this country, seems to be very sensitive. Well, at page 5 of this return I see that the Brantford Roofing Company received from the Government $65,000 between September, 1919, and June, 1920, for roofing sold to Roumania. I understand that I am giving the figures for 1919 and 1920.


William Foster Cockshutt: You are not giving them right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Foster Cockshutt: I say your figures are not right.


Joseph Archambault: This return is from the Government, so the Government is not right. Well, I admit the Government is all wrong.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The figures must be
higher.


Joseph Archambault: I must draw the attention of my hon. friend to the number of the report. It is headed: "Sessional Papers No. 147." Last year the company of which he is a director-


William Foster Cockshutt: Not a controller,
though.


Joseph Archambault: -the Brantford Roofing Company, was paid $36,200. Taking the total for this year as reported at page 5, $65,000, it shows that this year my hon. friend's company got a little less, but still the handsome sum of $28,800.


William Foster Cockshutt: Your figures are not correct.


Joseph Archambault: Let us follow
up the return. Last year the Welland Vale Manufacturing Company,-of which my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) is a director-was paid by the Government the sum of $137,234.87.


Jacques Bureau: Foodstuffs?


Joseph Archambault: No, edge tools.


Jacques Bureau: They are not good for *he stomach.


Joseph Archambault: Well, the $137000 is all right for the stomach.


Jacques Bureau: But not the tools.


Joseph Archambault: This year my hon. friend for Lincoln has not made any speech on the Budget-he did not get any more orders. Next I find that the Maritime Nail Company of St. John, N.B.,- of which according to the Parliamentary

Guide the junior member for St. John (Mr. Elkin), not	the minister for New
Brunswick (Mr. Wigmore), is a director-had an order last year-I have not the figures exactly, but he got altogether an order for $77,304.95. I find on reference to the other return that this year his company got $8,136.22. Now, we were told by the Government that we had a trade representative in England who had done great things for Canadian trade, Mr. Lloyd Harris. I see by this report that Mr. Lloyd Harris has not forgotten himself: he is a director of Peck's Rolling Mills, and last year that firm got the sum of $26,624.96. Now, this report is very edifying with regard to another company which it mentions. I find that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company of Montreal was paid by the Government the sum of $66,138.48 out of the money of the Canadian people. Turning to page 248 of the Annual Financial Review, dated June, 1920, I find that the directors of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, Limited, are as follows: Hon. Charles P. Beaubien, Senator, of Montreal; Edmund Bristol, K.C., M.P.,-Toronto; Stanley Elkin, M.P., St. John, N.B.; Sir William Mackenzie, Toronto; Hector Mc-Innes, K.C., Halifax, N.S.; Lieut-Col. Hon. Frederic Nicholls, Toronto; Hon. Sir Clifford Sifton, K.C.M.G. It is clelar, Sir, that no other company dealing in iron and steel had on its board of directors so many friends of the Government, including members of Parliament and senators. The House will remember that last year I brought to its attention the fact that two companies, the Sherwin-Williams Company of Canada, Limited, and the Canada Paint Company, of which j;he Minister of Marine and Fisheries was a director, had received orders amounting to '$31,490 and $11,332 respectively; and I see that the figures are the same in this report. I am very glad I brought the matter up last year, because it seemed to have the effect of making the Minister of Marine wiser; his company did not take any orders during this year.
Now, on page 7 of this report, another company is referred to, the Monarch Knitting Company of Dunnville. This company got a " small " order amounting to $293,295.80. I find in the Annual Financial Review of June, 1920, that the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) is managing director of that company. I see that the amount paid to that company this year has been increased by $21,451.32. I notice the name of Stanfields, Limited, of Truro. I do not know whether or not they
deal in tomatoes, but there is a senator of that name who is a director of that company-and they got an order amounting to $21,780. I find in the same document that the Renfrew Woollen Mills got an order amounting to $114,041, and if I am not mistaken, Senator O'Brien is a director of that company. Well, Sir, the House of Commons Act, 1906, section 15, which I have already read to the House, provides that if any member is interested in any contract with the Government or sells goods to the Government, his seat is vacated; he is disqualified. It is true that section 19 does not disqualify a shareholder of a company, but nothing is said about a director or a manager of a company holding a great number of shares. I know what the answer of my hon. friends will be; they will say that they have not personally sold to the Government, and that the Government bought not for the Canadian people but for Roumania and Greece. Technically they are right; as a matter of law, we could not succeed if the matter came before the courts. They are within the letter of the law, but, Sir, they are not within the spirit of the law. This law was passed in order to prevent the Government from winning the influence of members or senators by buying goods from them or from companies in which they had the chief interest. What difference is there, Mr. Speaker, between a proprietor and a director owning a great number of the shares in a business? If this loophole satisfies the conscience of my hon. friends, well and good, but the fact remains that moneys have been disbursed by this Government in the purchase of goods from members of Parliament and senators or companies in which they were interested, and that this money will, in all probability, never be reimbursed by Roumania or Greece. This transaction will throw a shadow on the independence of Parliament. But, Sir, it is perfectly in line, as I have said, with the standard of morals held by this Government. The circumstance also affords me an opportunity-and this will be my last word-to throw back at the Government the words uttered in this House by the Prime Minister: "Cease to play the game; you are deceiving no one; you are doing no credit to the politics of Canada."


Mr. H. O. WRIGHT (Battleford) :: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, I will not take up very much of the time of the House. At the outset I wish to extend to the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) my


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
sympathy in so far as I realize that he has been faced with a gigantic task in the preparation of the Budget which has lately been presented to the House and, further, in the infinitely greater task with which he will be faced in the future should he retain office. While the Budget that he has presented to the House is of a character that will no doubt be looked upon with favour in some quarters, from the point of view from which I see it, it is highly unsatisfactory, and I think that will be the opinion of the majority of those who regard it from the standpoint of placing the burden where it can most easily be borne. It is a high protectionist Budget, and it contains in every particular the old system of special privilege, the system which seeks to build up an industrial structure without regard to the stability of the foundation upon which it must depend for its safety, a system which says: Let us build up our manufacturing industries; let us create large cities at whatever cost, even though our better judgment tells us that this is primarily an agricultural country, and let the farmer and the wage earner, who are the national beasts of burden under the system of special privilege, continue to bear that burden, no matter how great it may be.
The Budget removes the business profits tax. It is claimed by the minister that there is little use in continuing this tax, for the reason that profits are not being earned and very little revenue would be derived from it. If this be the case, I do not see how any person would be hurt by leaving the tax as it is. There is always a possibility that some revenue might be derived therefrom. It always commended itself to me as a tax which procured revenue from those who could best afford to pay. Under the present Budget, the load is lifted to a very great extent from the shoulders of those who are able to pay and is placed where it will be felt most by those who are living in poor circumstances with large families to support. This Budget is merely another illustration of the contention of many inside and outside of this House, that the present Government is a Government largely under the control of, or at any rate in great sympathy with, the big interests of the country. With its ultra sympathetic tendencies in that direction, it has lost sight of the needs of the common people.
Let me give you, Sir, one or two examples as proof of this contention. It 
will be remembered by all that a Board of Commerce was appointed in answer to the insistent demands of the people for the control of the prices of the necessaries of life. This board did not control. After futile attempts they resigned, giving as a reason for their resignation the fact that they could not obtain Government cooperation in making their regulations effective. Then the board was reconstituted, evidently with men who were more sympathetic to the suggestions of the Government. Almost their first move was to set the price of sugar, not in the interest of the consumer, but to protect the refineries from the result of their unwise gambling in raw material, at the same time placing an embargo on sugar coming in from the United States. While this order was disallowed by the Government, I am satisfied that it was, not made without their knowledge, and only the nationwide outcry that went up when it was made public, and the fact that the Prime Minister wished to create as favourable an impression as possible before going on his western tour, influenced the Government in setting it aside.
Then there is the increase in the freight rates, and let me not forget the fact that when the Minister of Finance was looking 'for advice as to how he should levy his new taxes, it is a notorious fact that he went to the Manufacturers' Association and kindred associations for advice, utterly ignoring the labour and farmers' organizations of this country.
In contrast with this, we have the refusal of the Government to continue the Canada Wheat Board, notwithstanding the persistent demands of the grain producers for its continuance.. In this connection, I am sure that it will be remembered that several times during this session hon. gentlemen opposite have attempted to fasten the responsibility for the discontinuance of this board upon the farmers, and particularly upon those members of the House who have the honour to be numbered with this party. While their efforts were unsuccessful, in order to illustrate my point that the present Government is largely controlled by the big interests, I deem it advisable to place upon Hansard an extract from a trade journal published in the city of Montreal. This journal is known as the Canadian Milling and Grain Journal. It is published many hundreds of miles from the great wheat fields of the West, and it was evidently the belief of the publishers that they could afford

to deal with this matter with perfect frankness, feeling assured that their words would not get back to the western grain grower. In their issue of August 1, 1920, under the caption "Exit the Wheat Board," I find the following, which is published editorially:
A triumph which is all the more notable because it was won by a minority in the face of well organized opposition, has been scored by the announcement of the Government that the 1920 crop will not be subject to control, thereby opening wide the door for a return to the normal trading conditions which have been so long and so ardently desired.
Ever since the adoption of the Government's "enabling" legislation during the final hours of the last session of Parliament, the grain growers of the country 'as well as their supporters have been harbouring the conviction that nothing could prevent the continuation of control for another year. Consequently, the official statement which was made just six weeks before the expiration of the present Wheat Board's term of office came upon the grain growers and their friends like a bolt from the bjue. In their consternation the growers are wildly threatening to pool their interests but whatever effect this may ultimately have, the fact remains that thousands of grain handlers can get back to work, make plans for the future, and endeavour to repair the ravages caused their business by control.
There is not the slightest doubt that the termination of control and the restoration of future trading in the United States had much to do with influencing the Government's decision but if reports from reliable sources are to be believed the chief reason why the authorities at Ottawa decided in the face of the strongest kind of opposition to abolish control of the 1920 crop was because such was desired by the banking interests which feared, as was the c^se in many other influential quarters, that another year of control would pave the way for the establishment of a state monopoly in the grain trade.
Then a little further on this editorial continues:
When it was learned in Regina that the Government had decided to discontinue control so far as the 192-0 wheat crop is concerned, there was a wailing and gnashing iof teeth among the members of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevator Company, the -Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association and last but not by any means -least the Regina representatives of the iNational Council of Agriculture who had regarded continued control as a fore-' gone conclusion.
Blair criticism of any project should not be ignored and the disappointment of the other fellow oan always be sympathised with, but a decidedly selfish view of the decision of the Government has been taken, according to reports, by -a high official of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association who openly deplores the fact that as a result of de-control the grain handlers will endeavour to make up the losses whioh control imposed upon them, and that furthermore the farmers will suffer the loss of the millions of dollars the grain handlers will make.
226J
There is no pretence here of congratulating the grain growers on having freed themselves from the Wheat Board. Instead, it admits that the grain growers generally wanted the Wheat Board continued, that it was to their advantage that it should be continued, that the people who did not want the Wheat Board were a minority whose interests were not those of the grain growers, and that the victory was a victory gained by the minority at the expense of the grain growers.
While the Business Profits tax has been removed and herculean efforts are being put forth to stabilize the manufacturing industries of the country, in what condition do we find the real basic industry -I refer to agriculture? I have recently returned from the West where I spent a few days superintending the planting of the crop for this year. I think I am, in common with the average Canadian, not of an unhappy disposition, and far too much inclined to live in the present, without very much thought for the future, but the condition that confronted me was such that it brought me up with a jerk, and it has given me food for serious thought.
Last year we produced a fair average crop in the portion of the country where I reside, and in this we were fortunate, for in many districts, farmers experienced their third successive failure. Little benefit has been derived from the high prices brought about by the war on account of these unsatisfactory crop years. The crop of last year was produced under very heavy expense, and when it was finally harvested we -were very soon made aware of the fact that we were selling upon a rapidly falling market. Transportation difficulties were met with which prevented the speedy shipment of the grain to market in order to take advantage of the higher prices that prevailed earlier in the season. The result is, that a great deal of last year's crop is still in the hand of the farmers, and the price now obtainable for wheat, after the freight charges are paid, Will scarcely meet the cost of production. Oats cost 14 cents a bushel to thresh, and in many cases 10 cents a bushel is the price offered, which means a straight loss of 4 cents a bushed on the cost of threshing alone, without taking into consideration the preparation of the land, seed, twine for harvesting, and the incidential expenses of labour and hauling to the market.
The cattle market is such that heavy loss is the result when a sale is made. Hides are not worth the labour of bringing them to the market alone. Wool will
[Stage Direction]
not pay the- freight to the point of sale. Horses have little or no value. The other day a buyer purchased a car of horses in my immediate vicinity at $15 per head, and shipped them to a point where he thought he could sell them; he put them up at public auction, but could not secure a single bid. In the face of these conditions the farmers are going ahead with their seeding operations, putting in every available acre as usual, and trying to make the best of a very bad situation.
If, as a result of their labours, an abundant crop is secured the prospect of finding a market for it is not very bright. Should the terms of the Young Bill be made permanent in the United States it may have the effect of excluding a great portion of our wheat from the American market. This also applies to live stock. With the British embargo on our cattle, and the lack of purchasing ability on the part of the European nations, I cannot see where the outlet is to be found for our produce. The home market, which is so much talked about by hon. gentlemen opposite, may be all right for the truck gardener, but it is of no use for the western farmer.
I am not mentioning these matters for the purpose of creating a bad impression of the future of the agricultural industry in Canada, or merely for the purpose of painting a dismal picture. My object is, if possible, to bring home to the Government the fact that our agricultural industry is facing the gravest period in its existence, and it is my belief that if the Government would take this matter seriously to heart and give it one-half the consideration that they seem to give to the condition of the manufacturing industries of the country, some way could be found to rectify this condition and stabilize an industry without which we have no hope of national prosperity.
While the price of farm produce has dropped to the extent of somewhere in the neighbourhood of two-thirds on an average, it is rather a remarkable thing to find that the price of the machinery necessary to production, in place of coming down, has actually gone up with the single exception of traction engines and threshing machines. The price of farm machinery at the present time is so high that it is absolutely stifling the trade. I know of numerous instances where farmers have gone into town and priced machines that they needed in order to speed up the work of putting in their crops, and finding the price so high that they returned to their farms and put an extra outfit of horses to work, working a [Mr. Wright.!
double shift on the machinery they already had.
I think it is a pretty well recognized principle in business to set the price of an article just about as high as the trade will stand. The present price of farm machinery is away beyond that level, and my advice to the manufacturer is, if he really wishes to stabilize his industry and get back to the condition where his factories will furnish employment, to make an immediate readjustment of his prices and cheerfully accept his loss, if loss there be, in the same way the farmer is trying to accept his. The longer this readjustment of prices is delayed, the longer will both the agricultural industry and the farm machinery industry be retarded in returning to their normal conditions.
Much is being said as to the desirability of bringing in immigrants to settle upon our unoccupied lands, more particularly adjoining the Canadian National railways. There is no doubt in my mind that, under normal conditions, this would be a very desirable thing to do, but in the present state of the agricultural industry, where the cost of the necessary equipment to start operations is so abnormally high, and the prospect of a market for farm produce so very discouraging, I am afraid that in place of these immigrants, should they come to Canada in any great numbers, being an asset to the country, they would rapidly become a charge upon the state. There can be no doubt that it will tax the resources of some of the old settlers to the utmost to retain their land holdings and continue their farming operations if conditions do not better themselves speedily. _ The right hon. the Prime Minister, who occupies in this House the position of leader of the shattered remnants of the defunct Union party, has stated, both here and in the country, that it is the aim of the Progressive party to bring about immediate free trade. From my place in what the right hon. gentleman is pleased to term the dilapidated annex of the Liberal party, I wish to make a statement as to where I stand in this matter.
The term, free trade, has no terrors for me. As a goal to be kept in view and Worked for just as speedily as conditions will permit, it is commendable. Democracy and freedom of trade go hand in hand, while the policy of high protection, which is synonymous of special privilege, is the twin brother of plutocracy. In this instance, as is his custom, the Prime Minister has apparently not taken very much

pains to see that his statements were fair to those whom he chose to criticise. If he had said that the Progressive party was absolutely opposed to the policy of high protection, to which he adheres most zealously, he would have been correct.
On September 14 the Canadian Council of Agriculture presented to the Government Tariff Board, then sitting in the city of Winnipeg, a memorandum setting forth their views on the tariff. May I be permitted, Sir, to read a short extract therefrom. Under the heading " A New National Policy", I find the following:
The Farmers' platform is indeed an attempt to define a New National Policy for Canada, and the principal thought which it seeks to leave in the mind of the Canadian people is that Canada is, and will be for years to come, a pioneers' country. It is based upon the facts that agricultural land is Canada's richest natural resource ; that the bulk of it lies in idleness ar*di waste; and that the Dominion's greatest need to-day is people living and working on the land.
Because for 40 years the development of this Dominion has been subject to the influence of a so-called National Policy -which has failed to make the most of the true natural source of the country's wealth, the suggestions contained in the Farmers' platform have to do mainly with question of fiscal reform. The bed-rock upon which the Farmers' platform would lay a new national policy for Canada is upon a low customs tariff and upon direct methods of taxation. It does not ask for drastic legislation which would tend to unsettle and injure Canadian industry, but it does take the position that a national policy based upon the principle of protection is wrong. It suggests that the fiscal policy of Canada's future governments should aim at reducing the customs tariff to a strictly revenue basis. Production and trade in Canada have been forced into narrow, unnatural and uneconomic channels through the application of protective duties, and thereby development of vast supplies of natural wealth has been retard**! and the Dominion prevented from proceeding favourably towards a realization of the fruitful destiny which nature has intended for her.
In view of what I believe to be a fact, that the Government of this country has always been in the hands of a few who have exploited its resources for their own personal advantage regardless of which party held office, it is borne home to me that there is urgent need of a new and a peoples' party in Federal politics.
I turn to the New National Policy as that which will produce just such a party, and I commend it to your careful and unbiased consideration, as a policy which starts at the real foundation of production and builds its structure upwards, unlike the practitioners of other policies, who attempt to suspend their structure from the clouds.
I support the New National Policy because it is a policy that has sprung spontaneously from the hearts of the people and is not the product of any party machine; because it is framed in honesty and sincerity of purpose and gives equal rights and privileges to all; because dt is the policy of those who have learned their lesson in the school of adversity and hard knocks, where human sympathy is most pronounced; because it is the policy of the sane and sensible citizen who believes in supporting properly constituted law and authority.	*
I Support the New National Policy because its supporters are not trammelled with the fetters of party campaign funds, whose donors exact special privileges for the giving; because it is not tainted with sectionalism, and does not harbour any radical or religious animosities; because it is a policy that will go far to build up a great and united Canadian nation, embracing all creeds and nationalities and welding them into a common Canadian citizenship, thus strengthening the great Empire of which we are a part.
While we live in a wonderful country, and enjoy many privileges that we are truly thankful for, the very abundant richness of our heritage, a gift of heaven itself, unsurpassed by that of any people on the globe, gives us reason to be watchful, for these riches of natural resource are not inexhaustable, and we should see to it that they are not exploited for the benefit of the few, but that they should yield their munificence to every citizen of this great Canada of ours.
I will take great pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding).
William Daum Euler: Although the Budget affords an opportunity for the discussion of public affairs in general, it is my intention to restrict my remarks to but a few phases, to make some observations with regard to the railway situation, and to discuss briefly the. amendment which has been introduced by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding).
The Budget which has been presented by the Minister of Finance is not one that has any very outstanding features. One might have thought, after the delay experienced by this House and the people of this country', that something much more profound would have been submitted; but, as a matter of fact, there are only two outstanding features in the Budget that has been

I am surprised that the Minister of Finance has had so little to say about our national railway enterprise, which is making such great demands upon his revenue. Despite the heavy loss of the past year, which we all regret, and despite the propaganda that has been-[DOT] deliberately' by some and innocently by others-spread throughout the country against public ownership of railways, I may say that I still have some faith in the ultimate success of our public ownership experiment. It is only now that the country is obtaining control of the Grand Trunk Railway system, and for that reason it is only now that we will be able to co-ordinate that system with the national system, both being necessary for the welding together and the formation of a system which will he complete in itself and will offer some possibility of economic operation. But it will take some time to accomplish it. It cannot be done in a year or in two years. In this House the Canadian Pacific railway is repeatedly pointed to as being all that is efficient in the wav of railway operation, and I quite agree with that view; but we should not forget that that railway, too, had its difficulties in its early years. Indeed, it has its difficulties to-day. During the past year even the Canadian Pacific railway would not have been able to pay its dividends from its railway operations alone; it was able to do so because of the inclusion of its earnings from hotels, land sales and shipping.
I am going to refer again to what I have said in previous sessions with regard to the management of our national railways. I held in 1919 that the cause of public ownership would receive a black eye if the management of the national system was not placed in other hands. I do not desire to reflect upon gentlemen who probably are doing the very best they can, but it does seem to me that with so much at stake it was the duty of the Government to place in charge of that system men who had made a success of the railway business, not men who had failed on a smaller scale and expect them to manage successfully a much greater enterprise. It was also necessary in my opinion when we entered upon this great public ownership project, to place in charge men who had not behind them a record of constant and consistent opposition to the principle of public ownership. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I think the Government has not done its duty, and I trust when the Grand Trunk system is united with the national system that
TMr. Euler.]
a board will be placed in control of the reorganized system that will be the best that it is possible to obtain, no matter what the cost.
With regard to the proposal made by Lord Shaughnessy to the Prime Minister, it seemed to me that it was merely the culmination of one stage of the propaganda which had for its ultimate purpose the sole control of Canadian railways by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The proposal of Lord Shaughnessy suggested that the national railways be combined with the Canadian Pacific railway; that the Grand Trunk railway be cut adrift to work out its own salvation, if it could; that the control of the national railways be taken away entirely from Parliament and become to all intents and purposes the enterprise of the Canadian Pacific; and that the Canadian Pacific stockholders and security holders should be guaranteed for all time to come, by the Canadian Government, a fixed dividend upon their holdings. That looks to me, Mr. Speaker, like a very good proposition for the Canadian Pacific Railway shareholders, but I do not see where the Dominion of Canada can possibly be the gainer. One would have thought that when Lord Shaughnessy made that proposal he would have tried to make it somewhat attractive to the people and the Parliament of Canada; but when we examine it, we find that in the sequel, all he can figure out as a result of the combination of the two systems and their operation by the Canadian Pacific Railway management is a deficit of $80,000,000, as compared with our own little $70,000,000 that we have now. In my opinion, a few years of that sort of thing would so disgust the people with the whole proposition that they would be very glad to hand over the national railways to the Canadian Pacific company and wash their hands of the railway business, and public ownership would be dead for many years to come, probably for all time. In the interim no doubt the Grand Trunk Railway would find itself in the difficulties that it encountered before the Government came to its relief, and the natural result would be that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would ultimately come into possession of the Grand Trunk system, and we would then have a railway monopoly such as exists in no other part of the world. That may be a far-fetched conclusion, but it seems to me that the probabilities would be entirely in that direction. I have no hesitation in express-

rng the opinion that the people will not for one moment stand for that sort of thing. I am sure they would say: Sooner than have such a railway monopoly we will take our annual losses for a time and try to work out bur own railway salvation. It should be remembered, moreover, that the object of public ownership is not the making of profits but the rendering of efficient service to the public.
In concluding my remarks, I want to deal very briefly with the amendment that has been offered by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I do not propose to debate any fine economic theories; in fact, I am not concerned whether the tariff is called a tariff for revenue or a tariff for protection; but I am interested in the results obtained, no matter under what name. There are few men, in Eastern Canada at least, who do not admit that for a great many years to come this country must have a tariff of some kind. The obligations of the war leave us no option in the matter, for we are under the necessity of raising half a billion dollars or more each year. Even with the heavy taxes that we have now we find ourselves quite unable to reduce our enormous capital indebtedness. As the Minister of Finance told us in his statement, during the past year, in spite of the large revenues received, the national debt was increased by a round $100,000,000. So, as a matter of fact, a tariff we must have. If you have a tariff for revenue-and this is the point I desire to make-you have also in practice, a tariff which protects.
I do not think there is any escape from that. The amendment says the tariff is a tax. Well, to the extent to which you tax imports just to that extent do you place a handicap upon the foreign manufacturer. If your tariff tax handicaps the manufacturer of a foreign country, it must follow necessarily, that it benefits the Canadian manufacturer. If the tariff is extremely low, it may not, as my hon. friends opposite might say, protect adequately. If it is extremely high, it gives a degree of protection that becomes monopolistic and unduly burdensome to the consumer, and I am not in favour of that kind of tariff. But most reasonable men in Eastern Canada-and I hope some in Western Canada-believe that there is a wise middle course; that Canada should have a moderate tariff which will maintain such industries as we have; that will still leave the field open to competition and provide revenue by means of a customs tax
upon imports. So that I am quite content, Mr. Speaker, to have hon. gentlemen on the other side argue with hon. members on this side as to what they are going to call the tariff so long as the desired results are obtained. Morever, I will say quite frankly, that one of those desirable results, in my opinion, is the preservation of Canadian industry and the conservation of the interests of the Canadian workingmen. In the city from which I come, -the city of Kitchener, and in the * town of Waterloo, there are upwards of 150 manufacturing industries; in the whole of the riding there are probably 175 manufacturing establishments giving employment to many thousands of workingmen.
I am not going to say what a tariff should be; I am not in a position to say that. But I do say that I have no intention whatever at any time of supporting any sort of legislation which would imperil the interests of the workingmen of the constituency which, I represent.
I believe, further, Sir, that Canada had a most admirable tariff during the fifteen years of the Laurier Administration and when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was Minister of Finance. Designate that tariff as you like-I am not taking any issue on that point with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's -it is a fact that during that period Canadian industry flourished as it never did before. And we have the significant fact -at least it is claimed to be a fact by the Prime Minister-that the Borden Administration or the present Government have not revised upward the tariff of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, and that it is the same tariff. Indeed, I was rather surprised to hear the Prime Minister make the remarkable claim the other day that his Government, or the Government which preceded his-I do not know just exactly where one government ends and the other begins-he had reduced to 21 per cent the average tariff rate under the Laurier Government, which had been 26 per cent. So I repeat that I am not very much concerned with names and theories. If a liberal Government were in power I would have no fear that it would injure Canadian industry at this time any more than it did in the years between 1896 and 1911, and I do not believe hon. gentlemen opposite believe that such an Administration would injure Canadian industry. I will say further that if I did not feel secure on that point; if I had any doubt that the general tenor of the amendment submitted was in accord with the position

I have taken, I would have no hesitation whatever in voting against it. I want to assure hon. gentlemen right now that I have no such fear.
After all, Mr. Speaker, the interests of all the people of Canada should be regarded as one. No sectional advantage should be sought. In a far-flung country such as ours, with its diversified interests, there must be some compromise. The western farmer in many cases desires free trade or a very low tariff; the eastern manufacturer, perhaps in too many instances, though not in all, would like a prohibitive tariff. Let each yield what he can for the general good. In Ontario at least-I think in all parts of this country-the prosperity of the city means prosperity for the farmer, who recognizes that the city man is his best customer.
The present Government, Mr. Speaker, hopes to be returned upon an issue which, I contend, important as it is, is not the paramount issue in this country-the matter of the tariff. The Government would distract the minds of the people from its misdeeds, its many errors of omission and commission, its autocracy, its extravagance, and its continued usurpation of power. But the Canadian people will not be misled by any tariff herring that the Government is drawing across the trail. They are waiting as patiently as they can; they know their minds with regard to this Government, and they await but the opportunity to remove it. Whatever party or group attains to power, the industries of Canada will be just as secure as they were after 1896.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the speech of the Prime Minister last Friday. He did me the honour of addressing some of his remarks to me, as also did some of the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate. The Prime Minister, after describing this amendment as being in effect a protectionist amendment-I do not think I do him any wrong when I interpret his remarks in that way-further described me as a protectionist. If he was quite sincere in what he said-and I do not doubt that he was- I cannot quite understand how he should have any doubt as to how I should vote. If the amendment is a protectionist amendment and I am a protectionist, naturally I would support the amendment. While his whole speech was an effort to prove that the record of the Liberal party in office was protectionist and while he expressed his conviction that it still is so and that

the amendment, in part at least, bears out that contention, he intimates that in some respects there is inconsistency in the motion before us, and he is curious to know which part of it I am going to support. Well, even if what he says with regard to inconsistency were true, a decision under all the circumstances should not be very difficult. The Prime Minister, of course, knows just as well as any one, and better than most persons, that he and I must vote for the amendment as it stands, in whole and not in part. He said on Friday that he was quite in accord with a good many portions of the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. That being the case, I assume that he would like to vote for those portions. He asked me which part I intended to vote for; I might very well ask him the same question. The amendment calls for the encouragement of industry based upon the natural resources of this country. It asks that readjustment of tariff should have in mind existing conditions of trade; that any changes should cause the least possible disturbance of business, and, further, that such changes should reduce the cost of living. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) is in accord with these principles; but will he for that reason vote for the amendment? Of course, there is only one reply. While he has laboured to show J;hat both Liberal practice and the present amendment are in accord with his tariff policy, he will regard the vote on the amendment as a vote of want of confidence. I have no particular fault to find with that. Like himself, I believe in the principles which I have just enunciated, but I differ from the Prime Minister on one very vital point. I have no confidence whatever in this Government. It obtained office by unfair means; it obtained office by a Franchise Act which did not give to the people of Canada an opportunity for a complete, unprejudiced and unbiassed expression of opinion. It continues to hold office to-day in defiance of the will of the Canadian people. That is true. If any proof were needed, one need only to look to the left and see the wholesale defections that have been made from the party across the way. If any further proof were needed, one need but observe the results of the byelections since this Government or the government of the former Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) came into power. I believe I am correct in saying that the government since 1917 has not won a single by-election from its opponents, whoever

they may have been, but it has lost many seats held by its supporters. It has lost Glengarry and North Ontario.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: How many seats have the
party which my hon. friend supports in this House won in the by-election?


William Daum Euler: We have won some. I
will name some in a moment. The Government has lost Glengarry, North Ontario, Temiskaming, Carleton, Assiniboia, East Elgin and West Peterborough. It is a most unprecedented condition of affairs that a Government in power, from the day that it took office, has not been able to win a single by-election from its opponents, and has lost the number which I have enumerated. What is the result of that? As a result, it is an undoubted fact that the Government is weak and reactionary. It has not to-day the courage even to maintain the occasional good legislation that it has enacted. Today, at the command of its patronagehunting followers, it is prepared to sacrifice its Civil Service Act just as that law was beginning to be shaken down into good working order. I give the Prime Minister all credit for courage and ability, but he cannot carry the burden alone; he needs assistance, and yet he dare not complete his Cabinet because of the necessary by-elections. His position is too weak to-day to enable him to rid himself of a minister who uses his public position to advance the interests of the firm of which he was a member. I would put the challenge to the members of the Government who are now in their seats, to say whether they approve the action of the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wigmore) in writing that letter. I believe that there is not in the House to-night a minister who does not in his heart, and probably in some other places, condemn to the utmost the action of his colleague in this matter. Further, the Prime Minister is put to the necessity of enacting an election law disfranchising 100,000 British subjects who might vote against him, and even then he dares not put his fate to the touch in a general election. I have no confidence in such a Government, and the people of Canada have no confidence in it. There is nothing that the people desire more than an opportunity to remove this Government from office. For that reason as for other reasons which I have already given, and because I know that my constituents would resent anything that might be construed as an expression of confidence in this Government, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the amendment.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, on the morrow of the evening on which the Budget was delivered, one could read on the front page of the outstanding newspaper. the Montreal Gazette, the following headline:
Budget meets approval and disapproval. Government members and industrial interests satisfied.
Those words in the Gazette were true, in fact, much more so than many of us could readily realize. The Budget has satisfied two groups of the community if it has satisfied no others-Government members and industrial interests. As regards the first group, namely, the Government members, my esteemed colleagues in this House for whom I have the greatest personal regard, I have but little comment to make. Every one of us in this House has to bear the responsibility for his actions, and he must answer to his electors for his conduct in Parliament. My hon. friends opposite will be called upon in due course to render to the electors an account of their actions and of the vote which they will give on this Budget. Happy will they be, however, if in order to justify their vote, they can put forward some better reasons than the sole desire to give support to the present Administration. So much for the alleged support of Government members.
But what concerns me more in this matter and what concerns the people of this country is the approval of the Budget by the industrial interests. May I say that the industrial interests are not the only ones who are satisfied with this Budget? The whole group, generally comprised under the term of "interests," is satisfied with it. To use an expression very common on the other side of the border line, the "interests" are satisfied, and for any one who knows what the "interests" are, no further explanation should be necessary. For the average person who does not know of the "interests," it is well to mention that the "interests," generally speaking, and in the broad sense of the word, include capitalists, manufacturers, speculators, and also profiteers. That is the particular class commonly called the "interests" as opposed to the ordinary common people, the poor people and the well-to-do people. Any one who has perused the Budget should not be surprised to hear that the "interests" are satisfied, because this is a Budget framed with the obvious intention of satisfying the "interests." But what about the common people, the poor people who represent 90 per


cent, or perhaps, more of the population? Are those people satisfied with the Budget? I say that they are not. They cannot be satisfied, because this Budget adds enormously to the taxes which already bear heavily upon them. To my mind, Sir, the Budget can be properly described in a four-word sentence, as "the poor man's burden." It is the poor man's burden in that it imposes upon the common people, the poor people, and the middle classes the taxes that should be paid by the rich-by the interests which I have just described. It is the poor man's burden because it imposes upon the poorer classes heavy additional burdens, when that class is already taxed to the breaking point.
One of the taxes that must bear heavily on the poorer classes and the working classes generally is the sales tax in its new form. This tax was already heavy, but this Budget makes it much worse. A sales tax of 3 and 4 per cent is a tremendous tax upon the poor people, while it is hardly a tax at all on the rich. This new sales tax will be added directly to the price of commodities, and as the larger part of the consumption of the nation is represented by the family budgets of the poorer classes and the lower middle classes, almost the totality of the tax will rest upon the masses of the people. As the poor spend the largest portion of their income on commodities, the sales tax will bear most heavily upon them. It will increase the cost of living at a time when the Government has been so strongly urged to reduce the cost of living, and when so many assurances have been given by the Administration that efforts were being made in that direction. The sales tax rests essentially upon a false and unjust principle, the basic iniquity of it being that it ignores the ability to pay, as well as the difference in circumstances. No wonder the interests are in favour of the sales tax, because they know that this tax in a large measure will shift the burden of supporting the expenditure of the country from their shoulders to the shoulders of the poor and the moderately well-to-do. It is hardly more commendable than a head tax would be. A head tax would indiscriminately place upon the head of the poor the same tax as upon the head of the rich. This sales tax works in the same way to a large extent. This tax is not a wonderful discovery at that. In the United States Senator Smoot has introduced into Congress a Bill providing for a sales tax of 1 per cent that is being very strongly criticised in many quarters. Now if a sales tax of 1 per cent is depre-IMr. Denis]
cated in the United States, there are good reasons for contending that a sales tax of 3 and 4 per cent in this country makes the taxation the poor man's burden.
The next increase in taxes which we find in the Budget is an increase in the taxes on spirits. Last year, and the year before, heavy taxes were imposed on wines and spirits. The taxes on wines are maintained this year, and the taxes on spirits doubled. I say again, this new tax on spirits and the maintenance of the heavy taxes on wine will bear heavily on the poor man. If the consumption of wines and spirits is to be allowed in this country, why should those using those commodities, if commodities they are, be called upon to pay such an enormous tax as the Budget imposes? Again, why should a particular class of the community, the class that is using these beverages, be penalized, for the new taxes have been raised to such a point that they have become equivalent to a penalty? According to the principles of sound economics the burden of taxation should be imposed as much as possible on the community generally, according to the ability of each class or each individual to pay, and not upon one particular class or group in the community. The new taxes are in direct contravention of these principles, and again, the reasons which I alleged a few moments ago with regard to the sales tax apply equally to these new taxes on wines and spirits. It is little or no burden for the rich to pay these taxes, but it is a very heavy burden for the poor to pay, and these beverages will in the future be available only for the rich. If the poor man wants to make use of them, he will have to neglect his duty of looking after his family, or give up the use of some other commodities. In stating this, I do not intend by any means to be understood as making a plea in favour of wines and spirits; far from it, but I say that we must be logical. If these beverages are to be allowed in this country, let them be allowed for everybody; if they are not to be allowed for everybody, let them be denied to the rich as well as to the poor. Under the new system of taxation they are allowed to the rich and denied to the poor. If the poor man wants these beverages he will have to pay an enormous price, and of necessity deprive himself and his family of other needs. For these reasons, I say that the maintenance of the taxes on wines, which were already very high, and the doubling of the taxes on spirits, make the taxation the poor man's burden.

I now wish to pass to a question which has been very thoroughly discussed before in this House session after session, but which seems yet far distant from solution;
I refer to the railway problem which confronts Parliament at the present time. It is a stupendous problem. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) in making his annual statement on March 17 last said:
What is the best way to improve the situation? I am ready to take, in fact I seek, advice from any or every member of this House, or whoever may be able to make any suggestion of value.
What a pity, Sir, that the hon. gentleman did not before this year appeal to the House for advice and suggestion, because in past years, before it was too late, he could have received very good advice from this House. But he has not shown any real inclination to accept any advice. The Government have made a terrible mess of their railway policy, and now they have reached the point where they do not know what next to do. They are in a state of despair. The minister admits the failure of his administration; he throws up the sponge and, with hands uplifted to high Heaven, he cries for help. Sir, I do not believe that any suggestion which hon. members of this House might offer *the minister with regard to the railway situation would be of any avail, because we know from past experience that the Government does not really want advice; and even to-day their request for suggestions is only pretended. They want it to appear to the country that no advice is offered on this side of the House, and their object is to try to make every party share the responsibility, which belongs to them alone, for the present calamitous state of affairs in connection with the railways.
The position of the Minister of Railways might best be illustrated by the following illustration: Let us suppose a rich man to be the owner of a magnificent boat. He hires a captain to take.charge of that boat and safely pilot her. The pilot, against the orders of the owner, steers the boat into dangerous currents and finally lands her on the reefs, partially destroying the boat. Having done that, he comes to the owner and asks for advice. What would the answer of the owner be? What would any practical man do in a case like that? I cannot conceive of anything else than this answer, on the part of the owner: "You have carried this boat into dangerous waters against my orders; you have disobeyed me; you have stranded
the boat on reefs, and have destroyed it, partially, if not completely. The first thing for you to do is to leave the helm as quickly as you can, for I am going to place some one else in charge." Now, in* the case in which we are interested, the owners of the ship-the ship of state- are the people. They have charged the Government, which is the pilot, with the responsibility for the safe conduct of this ship, but the Government has directed the boat on to the rocks. Time and again they were warned against sailing the boat in dangerous waters, but they disregarded every signal of danger, and now that the boat is wrecked, they come asking for advice. Well, there is only one answer which the people of the country can give them, and it is this: Leave the helm; we have no confidence in you, you are not worthy of the trust we placed in you, because you deliberately disobeyed our instructions, and now that you have stranded the ship, we will put some one else, who is capable, at the helm. The point at which the comparison ceases is this: in the first case, the owner would have no difficulty in immediately replacing the pilot; but in the present instance, the people, who are anxious and only too ready to displace the pilot, are just waiting for the opportunity to put another and more competent one, in his place. A better pilot and crew are available, but for the time being the people are helpless. However, the time will soon come when they will be able to dismiss the captain and crew at present in charge of the ship of state and put in their stead others who will be able to steer clear of the banks and shoals after the ship has been repaired.
In his speech on the railway situation, the Minister of Railways submitted a financial statement. Last year he admitted a deficit of $48,000,000, in round figures, in the administration of the railways, and this year he admits a deficit of $70,000,000. To say the least, the increase calls for comment, and it would be staggering even were the figures of the minister correct. But his figures are far from being accurate and complete. The minister's accounts give only half the truth. I will not say that he is trying to deceive the people, but I do say that his method of book-keeping is unsatisfactory, because it does not reveal the true financial situation of our railways and the full extent of the disastrous result of the Government's railway policy. On

March 19, 1921, two days after the Minister of Railways had delivered his railway Budget, Mr. John Lambert Payne, former Chief Railway Statistician for the Cana' dian Government, published in the Montreal Daily Star a startling article giving a summary of our railway situation. According to the statement made by Mr. Payne, whose authority on railway matters is not, and cannot properly be, disputed, the book-keeping of the Railway Department is wrong and does not disclose the true capital accounts. According to the statement by Mr. Payne, the total deficit on the railways for the year 1920 is $128,829,330 instead of $70,000,000, as admitted by the Minister of Railways. Any one who peruses the statement of the Minister of Railways, compares Mr. Payne's statement with it, puts the two together, and tests them, will inevitably come to the conclusion that the statement of Mr. Payne is accurate and must be taken as representing the facts with respect to our railway situation in so far, at least, as the deficits are concerned.
Under the circumstances is it not apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, that our railway situation calls for immediate action? Any one who would deny this would be ignorant of the terrible situation in which this country is at present placed as regards our national railways. That immediate action should be taken is the least one should ask for. Yet what are the Government doing? They are not doing anything. They are simply carrying on aimlessly and hopelessly; they stand pat on the railway situation. While that situation alone would be sufficient to drive the country into a bottomless pit of deficits the Government stand pat. Sir, this is not the time for the Government to act as stand-patters. This is the time for action and for immediate action, and it would be nothing short of criminal on the part of the Government if immediate action with respect to the railway situation was not taken-in fact, the Government should have taken such action long ago. In the beginning they should never have acquired the systems of railway which they now have, but having acquired them they should immediately have set themselves to the task of placing the operation of those railways on a sound basis. The Minister of Railways calls for advice, but what did he or the Government do at the time of the acquisition of the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk railways? Certainly the minister will not complain 
that advice was not given him at that time. Day after day, week after week, the Opposition fought in this House in order to prevent the perpetration of that nefarious transaction, but the Government had made up their minds, that they were going to acquire these railways and they did acquire them. They did so by using all the means at their disposal, including the application of the closure. They used every method in their power to perpetrate a transaction which for all time will remain as one of the most lamentable transactions of which any government was ever guilty. Now that they have done this they ask for advice, but the advice given to them will not be heeded. They ask for advice before the public, but in Parliament they will take no advice. The Government have not the courage to cope with the present railway situation. They do not dare to attempt to initiate any new railway policy; they merely ask for advice in order to try and show that they are acting in good faith. But it is useless to give them advice; they are stand-patters while this railway tragedy is developing, and the people of the country are being bled to provide the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to meet the deficits indicated in the railway budget of the Minister of Railways.
If any advice should be given certainly one can say with reason that no panacea exists for the railway situation. The remedy which should be applied is not one which can cure in a very short time, even if it could ever cure at all. The proper thing to do is to adopt different remedies, different means, which, working together and tending in the same direction, will help to extricate our railways from the situation in which they now are. If the matter were in my hands I would, in the first place, ask that a board of responsible people be placed in charge of those railways. I would in the second instance ask for the application of the strictest economy. I would also demand the kind of immigration which we need in this country in order to develop it and provide a revenue for our railways. I would also consider, if not adopt, the scheme of Lord Shaughnessy which was placed before this House a short time ago. What we need first, Sir, is a responsible board to govern our railways. The present board are not responsible in the real sense of the term. True they are responsible to the Government, and the Government are responsible to Parliament and the country, but there

is no liaison, there is no tie between the Government and that Board of Management such as would make the latter a responsible body. The present Board of Management have no interest whatever in the operation of our railways. They can spend money on these railways like drunken sailors if they want to, and they are not any the poorer or the richer at the end of the year whether they do or do not spend money lavishly, whether they give or do not give a good administration. How can you expect under such circumstances that a board of management, honest though they may be, could ever operate any concern or any company with success? I say it is absolutely impossible because the very basic principle, the very foundation, upon which that hoard are managing our railways is wrong. In order to have a good management we must have a responsible board. We must have a board responsible to somebody, a board whose actions can be checked and controlled by somebody-a board that can be censured when they make mistakes, a board like that of the Canadian Pacific railway as much as anything of the kind can be created in connection with the management of our railways.
To give you an example of how absolutely helpless the people of Canada are with regard to relieving this railway situation-except paying the deficits each year which is the part, and the only part, they are playing in the game-I will give you an example of what happened not very long ago in Joliette, the town from which I come and which I have the honour to represent in this House. The Canadian National Railways have a line from Montreal to Quebec which passes through the city of Joliette. Last year improvements or repairs, I do not know exactly which, were made to some of the bridges at and near Joliette. As a matter of fact on the bridge spanning the 'L'Assomption river, in the city, work has been in progress for about one year. It appears that the work has been so badly managed that about a month ago the bridge by some accident was partially destroyed, and as a consequence all the Transcontinental trains for several days had to be diverted and run over other lines. Can you imagine, Sir, the enormous loss to the Canadian National Railway system as a result? Being aware of these facts I asked the Minister of Railways recently, when the Estimates of his department were before the committee, if he knew of any contractors by the name of Fletcher and Company who were working on that bridge, and if he had any knowledge of their work. The minister and his deputy examined the books of the department, but could not find a single entry in relation to the building of this bridge, and therefore the minister said:	" Seeing that this matter is
not in the hands of the department of Railways and Canals, it must be in the hands of the board of management, and consequently I must take it for granted that this bridge is being built or repaired by the board." That is the end of it; after the minister has said that, no one can go any further, because the board of management is an irresponsible body. If the Government were responsible we could find out who was paying for the damage, and so on, but in this case we are helpless. All the people have to do when they are told that the board of management is responsible for any error or misstatement is-to pay the bill.
Having asked for a responsible management, I would also ask for efficient operation of these lines. Of my personal knowledge I know that an enormous number of claims are being made against the Canadian National Railways for losses of freight and express in the province of Quebec. It appears to me that there must be something wrong with the management when so many losses are happening. I was called upon by a client, not very long ago, to make a claim for seven pieces of baggage which had been lost. What about it, Sir? The claim is made against the company, and the company answer that they will give the matter their attention. Generally that is the last we hear of it, After that action has to be instituted in the courts, the company come along in due time and either settle the claim or defend the action, and in the latter case it has to pay both the claim and the costs. It would be extremely interesting, Sir, to know the number of claims that the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National Railways Express are paying each year. I believe it would be found that by comparison they are losing more baggage, freight and express than any other railway in the country. This again I attribute to bad management. But the management not being responsible, what are the people to do? All they can do is to make claims for their losses and enforce payment, which in the long run the people at large must pay.	*
Now, Sir, a remedy which in my estimation would certainly ibe of some value would be a proper immigration policy.

Speaking on this question on March 21 last, Mr. E. W. Beatty, President of the Canadian Pacific Railway, gave the following interview to the Canadian press, which I find reported in the newspapers of the same date. It reads as follows:
E. W. Beatty, K.C., president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, interviewed by the Canadian Press on the subject of the deficit of $69,593,441 on the last year's running of the Canadian government-owned railroad systems, said that without immigration the prospects of the Canadian National lines were, iin his opinion, hopeless and any legislation which would stem the tide of desirable immigration must inevitably pile up further deficits. It was, he said, an aggressive immigration propaganda that built the Canadian Pacific Railroad and he claimed that Hon. T. A. Crerar, leader of the National Progressive party, struck the right note when he declared before the Canadian Club in Montreal recently, that a wise and vigorous policy of immigration would help solve the problem.
Mr. Beatty added: "I quite agree wiith those who object to immigration of city-bred continentals of poor physique and doubtful health, who would at once drift into slums, or of large communities of foreign-born who frankly declare that they do not intend to assimilate wfith English-speaking conditions. But the gates of Canada should be opened once more not only to the British, French and American immigrant, but also to the Scandinavian and the more desirable type of continental." He pleaded also the cause of the skilled mechanic in addition to that of farm hands and domestics, on the ground that Canadian industry would be handicapped in its progress without them.
He concluded: ''Policies which are perfectly appropriate in the case of the United States would not necessarily be applicable to this country. By all means let us exclude the undesirable immigrant, but admit those who in time will contribute to this country's commercial prosperity and economic strength."
I must say, Sir, that in a very large measure I concur in the views which -were here expressed by the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. What we need in order to effect a solution of our railway problem and to bring about a development of the country generally is to get immigrants of the right kind, who will stay on the land rather than crowd into the cities. We want as immigrants not those who will increase the city population, but those who, coming from the land, will stay upon the land.
My hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) who spoke immediately preceding me, said that he would not have a tariff which would prejudice the workingmen of his community. I am of his opinion, Sir; I would not have any tariff that would prejudice the workingmen of our population. But I believe that the tariff policy which the Liberal party have propounded in this House is sufficiently wide to afford to the workingmen of this country all the pro-
[Mr. Denis, j
tection that they need. And as to the matter of immigration, I repeat that the crowding of our cities by immigrants would have the effect of taking away from our own workingmen employment of which they are so badly in need, and which at the present time is very scarce. It would help nobody; it would not enrich the country but rather impoverish it. I stand for the protection of the workingman against any such immigration. The only kind of immigration we want at this time, the only kind that will be a source of revenue and of wealth to the country, is that which involves settlement upon the land. The hon. member for North Waterloo made reference to Lord Shaughnessy's plan for dealing with our railway situation. In my opinion, this plan is worthy of consideration. Many people who are authorities on railway matters, great economists and men of sound judgment, are of the opinion that the adoption of the plan suggested by Lord Shaughnessy would be the best for our railways. I do not say that I am in favour of that plan or that I am against it, but I do say that before the House prorogues and members go home for about eight months, in the meantime letting the railways look after themselves and letting the millions of deficits pile up, it is the duty of the Government to adopt some policy that will relieve the taxpayers of Canada of the enormous burden which is bearing upon them through the increasing deficits in connection with the operation of our railways.
There are before the House Estimates which have been passed and there are others which are still awaiting consideration with regard to the militia and the navy. As to the proposed militia expenditures I do not know that I could do any better than emphasize what was said the other day by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), that there are actually in this country about 400,000 ex-soldiers who could at a moment's notice be called to the dolours if necessary. [DOT] That being the case there is ho present necessity for large military expenditures. As to the navy, Sir, I am afraid that the gift of a few ships from Great Britain, made, no doubt, with the best intention, was one which we should have refused. It is my view that in the future we should curtail as much as possible our expenditures with regard to the navy, because I am convinced that a navy for Canada is at the present time and will for many years to come be quite unnecessary, to say nothing of its

being a heavy burden. The present tonnage of the three largest navies of the world is as follows: Great Britain, 808,200 tons; United States, 467,250; Japan, 319,140. If, therefore, the amount of tonnage represents the strength of a navy, Great Britain's navy is by far the strongest at the present time. Indeed, the navies of Japan and the United States combined have a tonnage a little less than that of the navy of Great Britain. But if the present programmes of these countries are carried out, in 1924 the United States will have a tonnage of 1,117,850, Great Britain 808,200, and Japan, 543,140. Under the circumstances, Sir, having regard to the immense size of these three navies, I cannot help wondering of what use a Canadian navy can be, or of what use the little navy is that we now have, if we have any at all. We cannot suppose for a moment that Canada will ever be at war with England, and, consequently, our navy would be absolutely useless as regards the Mother Country. Is our navy necessary to defend ourselves against Japan? It is not, for at least two reasons. First, the United States, with their navy twice as strong as that of Japan, would never allow the Japanese to land in this country, and second, we have, to protect our shores, the British navy which would never allow the Japanese to attack Canada. Would our navy be of any use against the navy of the United States? This eventuality again has to be set aside because, in the first instance, no one would think for a moment that war would ever be possible between Canada and the United States, and if, through unfortunate circumstances which we cannot foresee, such a war should ever take place, our navy would be so small and powerless as opposed to the American navy that it would be much better for us to have no navy at all than to have the kind of navy which we could not probably have even if we should decide to go to the expenditure of large amounts of money on a Canadian navy. We have had an example of this in the past. Let us recall for a moment the war between the United States and Spain. The Spaniards had a navy at that time; but it was an obsolete one; it was a navy which could not cope, by any means, with that of the United States. As soon as war was declared, the United States sent their navy to battle with the Spanish navy, with the result that the poor Spaniards who were on those obsolete ships, nearly all lost their lives, without being able to do the least damage to the United States navy.
I am very sorry that I have taken up so much of the time of the House, and I wish to be pardoned for so doing; but this is an exceptional occurrence, and I thought I would avail myself of the privilege of making my views known, obviously not on all questions, but on a few of the most important ones that are now before the House.
Parliament, we are told, will soon prorogue. Before it prorogues, if I had any advice to give to the Government, I would ask them to set their house in order, to look more to the business of this country than to any Imperial conference which is to be held in England. According to reports which have been published in the newspapers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) is scheduled to leave for England on June
7.	It is all very well for the Prime Minister of Canada to attend the Imperial Conference, but it is much better for the Canadian Government to look after the business of the Canadian people. At the present time our country is in financial straits. We hear the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) telling us that he has a deficit this year of over $100,000,000, when other countries of the world, France, England, the United States, have surpluses. The United States are paying their national debt; England is paying her national debt. I do not know to what extent France is paying her national debt, but I know that she is paying it. France, destroyed as she has been during the war, tried as she has been, at the present time, has come to a point where her exports exceed her imports by hundreds of millions of francs. Canada is in a different position; Canada has still an adverse balance of trade against her; Canada is not going in the right direction; we are becoming each day more rapidly and surely an economic dependency of the United States. Before the Canadian Government think of going into European politics, before the Prime Minister embarks for Europe, if I had a friendly piece of advice to give him, I would tell him first to set in order the business of this country. In order to do so, he should take into account the fact that we cannot continue as we are going on now, piling up deficit upon deficit each year; we cannot let the railway situation look after itself; we cannot be indifferent to a right immigration policy upon which I am founding strong hopes; we cannot be indifferent to all the other problems which confront this country, and before going to England to look after the affairs of the Empire upon the pretence that



[Stage Direction]
Canada is now a nation and that she is admitted into the councils of the Empire, it would be right and proper for the Prime Minister to look after the business of our country. Therefore, I trust the Prime Minister will not look to the necessity of soon proroguing the House in order to allow him to go to England, but that prorogation will not come until the more important business of the country has been looked after, so that the Prime Minister can go, leaving no stone unturned behind him which can accrue to the welfare of Canada.
On motion of Mr. Sutherland the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Calder ,the House adjourned at 11.56 p.m.	.
Thursday, May 19, 1921.