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

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on May 2, and again yesterday, the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Deohene) asked that certain forms to be used by Boards of Trade in making returns should be printed in French for those who so desired them. I promised that I would make a statement on the matter to-day. I find that immediately after he brought the matter to the attention of the Government on May 2, orders were given for the printing in French of those forms. On inquiry today from the Under-Secretary of State, I find that he has been pressing for the completion of the orders for the finishing of the printing, but they were not [DOT]ready, at least yesterday; he could not get an answer to his telephone message to-day, but these forms are expected at any time.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 13, the debate on the motion of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), that
214J
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. W. D. COWAN (Regina) :: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I was exceedingly surprised and very much pleased. I was surprised because when I left Ottawa a year ago, I was in grave doubt whether or not it would be possible for the Dominion of Canada to provide the money necessary to meet the expenditures that we had provided for in the Estimates. On Monday,^ therefore, when the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) made his statement showing that we had a very substantial surplus over ordinary expenditure, that came to me as a very pleasing surprise. Next to that, what pleased me most as regards his statement and the subsequent statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), was the definiteness with which they laid their policy before the people of Canada. I am always pleased with public men who are clear-cut and definite. That is one reason why I have always admired the manner in which the Prime Minister has submitted his case to the Canadian people. I also notice that those of the official Opposition who have so far spoken in this debate, were definite in that they definitely showed that they had deliberately decided upon continuing their policy of indefiniteness. The manner in which they threw their two wings into the debate proves to me conclusively that they have entered upon this policy which has been all along a policy of duplicity and deception, for the purpose of continuing it as part of the game. First, they threw the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) , leader of the protectionist wing, into the debate, and he led it exceedingly well. Immediately following him, they threw in the hon member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) leader of the free trade platoon. The part, however, about the leader of the protectionist wing that caught my eye the quickest, that appealed to me the most, was the manner in which he began to flirt with the Agrarian party. It was quite evident to me and, I think, to the whole House, that he was laying his plans to form a union as between the Agrarian party and his own, and in doing so he was simply following up the line of policy laid down by the leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) especially on his trip into Western Canada, where, day after day and week after week, he laboured to try to lead the

people to believe that the two parties should be united. . I came to the conclusion, I think very properly, that the leader of the Opposition had commissioned the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's to proceed immediately to Marquette and there negotiate another reciprocity pact. The hon. gentleman is well qualified to fill that role. He, as we all knew, in 1911 was commissioned by the party to which he belongs to proceed to Washington and there to negotiate such a pact, and to conclude the treaty which would make Canada an adjunct of the United States. I fancy that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, when hp reaches Marquette, will try also to complete a treaty which will make the Agrarian party an adjunct of the present Liberal Opposition. The question is whether he will succeed or not. I know of no man better qualified to do that work than he. I will say, without any hesitancy, that no man in the Liberal party stands higher in the .estimation of the Western Canadian people than does the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. He is held in the highest respect, notwithstanding on some things many of them differ from him. A year or so ago, when the Liberal convention was held and it was found that he had not been chosen as leader of the party, I will say that about ninety per cent or more of the Liberals in Western Canada were disappointed, because they believed that he would be a very proper person to undertake such a task.
What are the chances of such a treaty being consummated? We know that our friends of the Agrarian party have always been free traders, and those who to-day are trying to make out that free trade is not a policy of any party in Canada, really do not know what the West thinks. I have lived amongst the grain growers out in the West long before such a thing as the Grain Growers' organization was started, and I know whereof I speak when I say that, after all those years amongst them, I know that they talk free trade, morning, noon and night. It is the only thing they talk about; it is the centre of their whole political platform. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) said, the other night, quite distinctly that while they might for a short time graciously permit protection to continue, yet free trade was their goal and at that goal they were aiming. In 1911, this same party existed and at that time their policy was to permit truck and trade with anybody, free from all hindrances whatsoever. I fancy my hon.
(Mr. Cowan.]
friend would not have any trouble in forming such an alliance with them on that basis at the present time. He must remember that he can not wrap up his negotiations in any way with the Union Jack. He must not permit sentiment in any shape or form to enter into them. He must not permit good Canadianism to be of any consideration at all. It is simply a question with them of truck and trade, with profit as the only principle upon which the arrangement can be consummated. Has he any other ground for thinking that such an arrangement could be made, that such an alliance could be formed? Let us look at what has happened in the last three weeks. My hon. friend who preceded me in this debate last night, the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), has for many, many years been the president of the grain growers' organization of our province, and during the whole of that time he has talked of independence, and of nothing but independence. That was the only thing he believed in. Everywhere he went, and everywhere that the members of the party he belongs to went, they insisted that both political parties have been a failure. Independence was what he always advocated. He has consistently and persistently denounced everybody who in any way favoured party government. Party government, in his view, was a thing that must be abolished, but strange to say, some two or three weeks ago a peculiar thing happened. As I sat here one day and looked up into the gallery, I saw a very familiar face, that of a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect and admiration, the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan. I chatted with him up there for a while, and was very pleased to have the opportunity of doing so. A few days afterwards the hon. member for Maple Creek took the train for Regina, and strange to say a conversion must have taken place on that train, because when he landed there he evidently had forgotten that all along he had been denouncing party government, for he there and then immediately agreed to become a member of a party government -of the Liberal government of the province of Saskatchewan. These several conversions are indeed strange. The Prime Minister yesterday made reference to a gentleman named Lambert, who had written some very strong articles denunciatory of the policy of the present Agrarian party. He too was converted on call. As soon as another salary was obtainable in a different

sphere, he immediately became converted. My hon. friend from Maple Creek also was evidently converted on the train that took him to Regina. Shortly afterwards, he boarded the train back to Ottawa, and on that train he evidently got converted back to his old condition, for he now appears in this House in the role of a first-class Independent. Last night he got quite indignant over the fact that somebody, to use his own word, had talked about an amalgamation between the Liberal party and the Agrarian party. As I watched him, however, I observed that his words were not half so bitter as the expression on his face; you had to see him to realize how bitter ihe felt over that suggested amalgamation between the Liberal and Agrarian parties. It seemed very strange to me how this gentleman could at one and the same time become a member of a Liberal government in one part of Canada, and then here in this House wax indignant at the very suggestion that he and his party should become allied with the Liberal party in this House of Commons. I fully expect that as soon as this House prorogues and we go back home, the hon. gentleman will - again board the train for Regina, and if he travels on that same car he will get converted again; when he gets to Regina he will be as thorough-paced a Liberal as one could possibly be, he will assist a party government in carrying on the affairs of the province; there is no doubt at all that that is what will happen.
What does all this mean? It means that a basis is there laid for the work which evidently has been assigned to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's will certainly now be able to say: Here is one member of this Agrarian party, a very prominent member of it-and certainly of all its members he has been the most aggressive in the province of Saskatchewan-who is susceptible to those influences which led him into the Liberal fold and into a party government, so why not all the rest of them? That is what I say,-why not all the rest of them. If the hon. member for Maple Creek will go, they will all go; there is no question about that. They will follow him, because since he came back I have not seen any sign of his colleagues in the Agrarian party ignoring him, or slighting or snubbing him, or in any way indicating that they resent the course which he has pursued. Therefore, I think it would be just as well for my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's to continue his
adjunctivism-to call it so-and'probably in time he will succeed in forming the alliance he desires.
Yesterday I was rather surprised, in fact, shocked, at statements made in the House by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Pacaud). I had never heard him speak in the House before, and I was rather pleased with the style of his address, but a letter which he read to the House came as, a very distinct surprise to me. It was a letter signed by Mr. Poot-mans, who lives in the city of Regina, where I live, and whom I have always regarded and who has always been known there as the Vice-Consul for Belgium. The statements which the hon. member made in that connection last night were quite contrary to the facts, and did not convey to the House a true impression of the actual conditions. Before I read what he said, let me say that I thoroughly approve of that $25,000,000 loan to Belgium. We had been associated with Belgium in the war; we knew what the courage of the Belgian people was; we saw them stand four-square against the German hordes at a time when their stand meant everything to the British Empire and the Canadian people. We saw that, and if for no other reason than that the loan would be of assistance to Belgium in rehabilitating that country to something like the state it was in formerly, I would have been exceedingly pleased to have had that loan made; hut apart from that, of course, there was the consideration of the trade which might come to the Dominion of Canada as a result of the loan. Well, the loan was made, and the hon. member for Megantic, speaking of it last night, used this extraordinary language:
They made an agreement dated March 21, 1919, hy which only one-fourth of this loan to Belgium could be available for the purchase of food stuffs, thus forcing the Belgian Government against their will to purchase manufactured goods and raw materials of manufacture to the extent of four-fifths of the entire loan. What was the result? Just what was to be expected.
Force the Belgian Government against their will to purchase manufactured goods? I would like to know if there is any power in Canada that could force Belgium to enter into an arrangement that it did not want to enter into-Belgium, which opposed her little army against sixty or seventy million men, the finest trained military force in the world. Would Belgium yield to a demand at the hands of the Canadian people? Could Belgium be forced to do something against her will by the Canadian Government? There is absolutely

no truth in the suggestion,-you could not force Belgium; I 'have never yet seen the power in this would that could force Belgium to do anything she did not want to do. She preferred annihiliation to being forced to do something against her Will. ' The Canadian Government had no such intention as forcing the Belgian Government. The Belgian Government is quite capable of taking care of itself. The agreement was, made between the Prime Minister of Belgium, representing that country, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce of Canada (Sir George Foster), on behalf of this country. At that time Belgium was in such a position that she was in dire need of a great many things, one of her greatest needs being foodstuffs. We all know that while the war was on and for a short time afterwards, the people of Canada were constantly told that the people of Belgium had no shoes to wear, that they were going about barefooted, that they lacked proper clothing, and so forth; and I can quite understand that the Belgian representatives, in the face of these conditions, would be anxious to buy food, clothing and other necessaries as rapidly as they could be procured. Consequently they entered into this agreement of their own free will. Let me read further from the hon. member's speech:
What was the result? Just what was to be expected. With the exception of $1,500,000- $277,000 in foodstuffs, $185,000 of which was for bacon, an article of food which made a name for itself during the war, and the balance for manufactured goods and raw materials-the credit was cancelled and the Belgian Government had to go to American bankers to secure our Canadian wheat.
This statement is wrong; it is untrue. The facts are that the Belgian Government entered into the agreement with the . full understanding that it was good for a certain period, and a date was fixed in the agreement by which it. was automatically cancelled. The Dominion Government did not have to cancel the agreement at all. The Government of Canada, had the Belgian Government so requested, could have renewed the agreement and extended it for a further period, but the undoubted fact is that the agreement automatically cancelled itself; and if during the whole time that it was in force the Belgian Government did not see fit to use the credit that was given them, then it was their own affair. As a matter of fact, they did use a certain portion of it, as follows:

Foodstuffs	$ 277,744 47
Steel r^ils	 561,601 99
General manufactures:
Boots	$385,466	50Underwear	
184,096	00Sweaters	112,716	00Socks	213,851	50
896,130 00
Total	$1,735,476 46
There is not a single article in that list of which the Belgian people were not in absolute need at the close of the war and for a considerable time afterward; but that left a substantial balance to the credit of that country. For foodstuffs there was used only $277,000 odd, and Belgium required for all her purposes, out of this credit of $25,000,000, only $1,735,476. So that the actual facts are a startling contrast to the statements submitted to the House. The fact is that the balance lay unused. It could have been used by the Government of Belgium had they seen fit so to do; but they did not, because- as I am pleased to state, and I know the House is equally pleased to know the fact -that country picked herself up with remarkable rapidity. The conditions that obtained at the close of the war were quickly overcome, and it is pleasing to reflect that the Belgian people and their Government were so active and energetic that they could soon recover from the effects of the war. Of course, we should have been pleased to supply them with goods, extending the credit, but the fact is that they did not need those supplies, and there is no reason whatever why anyone should denounce this Government because the Belgian authorities did not see fit to make use of the credit Canada gave them. The letter to which I have referred is one which, I must confess, I do not like. The concluding paragraph is rather significant, coming as it does from the Belgian Vice-Consul. That gentleman states:
I hold this information from high authorities in Belgium, and would appreciate it if you kept me posted by wire upon any development In this line, to enable me to inform my friends in Belgium.
Now, there may not be any collusion to which my hon. friend from Megantic (Mr. Pacaud), is a party, but there is certainly a suggestion of collusion on the part of men in high authority, and it does not look well for a member of the Canadian Parliament to be asked to keep this gentleman posted by wire-
-upon any development in this line, to enable me to inform my friends in Belgium.

What does it mean? I think the hon. member for Megantic should demand an explanation from the writer in order that he may be freed from the suspicion which the letter naturally casts upon him.


Mr. BELAND:: Is Mr. G. Pootmans the Vice-Consul of Belgium at Regina? I understood he was not.


Walter Davy Cowan: I know that Mr. Pootmans has been Vice-Consul as long as I can remember him being in Regina. During the war he acted as Vice-Consul of Belgium, collecting money for the Belgian people from the citizens of Regina, who subscribed generously through him to the assistance of that country. He is known to the people of Regina as the Vice-Consul for Belgium, and unless he has resigned within the last few days, or has been dismissed, I am inclined to think that he still holds the office.


Henri Sévérin Béland: A Mr. Pootmans is ViceConsul of Belgium in Regina, but there is another gentleman by the name of Pootmans, and I understood that it was he who wrote the letter.


Walter Davy Cowan: I do not know of two men named Pootmans in Regina; this gentleman is the only man of that name of whom I know. Of course, I do not definitely state that it may not he a relative of his who has written this letter.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is my information.


Walter Davy Cowan: I know of only one Pootmans who holds the position of ViceConsul in Regina. In any event, this concluding paragraph strikes me as one that ought not to be allowed to pass unchallenged. However, I leave that point.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Can my hon. friend state whether the Belgian Government did not make an effort to get the Canadian Government to extend the period of credit?


Walter Davy Cowan: and that great increase. Will my hon. friend from Maple Creek now come forward and tell us that as there has been such a great increase in the price of this particular implement in the Commonwealth of Australia-the one he himself selected and as to which the increase has been more than doubled as compared with Canada-that because free trade prevails in that country therefore free trade is responsible for the increase and ought to be wiped out? It is the logical conclusion to come to, it is the only thing to do, if the tariff is responsible for that result. But let hon. gentlemen mark this:	The
increase is due to other causes than the tariff; the increases in prices in Canada 'have been just as great on goods imported into this country free of duty as on goods upon which a duty was collected. Let us, therefore, not concentrate our attention upon something that Will not be of any avail. Let us rather direct our efforts to lines along which we can move definitely, and in a way which will toe of some advantage to the people of this country.
The free trade wing of the official Opposition, and all the Agrarians, invariably insist that the duty increases the price of commodities. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) said the other night "We cannot raise duty without raising the price to the consumer". The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) was even more definite. He took up the assertion which has been made, and is being repeated on practically every platform in Western Canada, that for every dollar that is paid into the treasury of Canada by way of customs, $3 goes into the pocket of the manufacturer. My hon. friends make no attempt to prove that statement and it is absolutely untrue. They simply make the bold assertion and let it go at that, and they have repeated it so often that they have actually come to believe it themselves. That is the position in which they are at the present time. As a matter of fact many instances can toe cited to prove conclusively that the duty has lowered the prices in Canada to the Canadian consumer-there is no question about it at all. Why, my hon. friend from Brome declared the other night that in the United States they only paid three hundred odd millions in duties-a great big nation of 110 millions of people-whereas Canada, with a population of only 9,000,000 of people pays 165 milions. Therefore the conclusion is, according to his reasoning, that the tariff is much higher in Canada than in the United States. That again is 
incorrect. It is quite true that is the amounts the Americans paid, but why? Simply and solely because the tariff in the United States was so high that it compelled the establishment of manufactures in that country until to-day it is the greatest industrial nation in the world. They can, and do, produce everything they consume, the result being that the internal competition has so reduced prices that the consumers there have no reason to purchase from foreign countries. That is the exact position in the United States. Their tariff is higher than ours, a good deal higher, but there is the result; and the tariff of Canada, if continued and scientifically arranged, will probably have exactly the same effect in this country.
Now, I wish to give my hon. friends an illustration-I have already given two or three-just to prove what I say. I am glad to see my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle in the chamber and I would like him to take notice of the illustration I am about to give, in view of his statement that for every dollar paid in customs duty, $3 went into the pants pocket of the manufacturer.
I am going now to cite some evidence that was submitted from my own constituency to the Tariff Commission when they went through the West last summer. In the city of Regina we have several manufacturing establishments,-and here, let me say incidentally, that while a lot of you hon. gentlemen believe that we have probably nothing but free traders in Western Canada, there are a great many people out there who entertain a different belief. In the city of Regina fully one-third of the people there are dependent for their living upon industrial establishments which could not exist if it were not for the protective tariff, so that we have a direct personal interest in this matter. I am going to speak now of an establishment Which manufactures doors, sashes, etc., and employs 80 or 100 men-quite a large establishment for a western city. I was there when the managers of this industry submitted their statement to the Tariff Commission. What they did was this,-and they proved their case absolutely and conclusively-they submitted to the commission a printed price list and many of those present were customers of theirs who had purchased goods from them, and the firm knew that these customers would check them up if their price list was not correct. Well, their printed price list was submitted. Their nearest competitors in the United States are in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and they also presented

the printed price of those competitors giving the figures respecting sashes, doors, etc., of the same size and quality that they themselves turned out, the comparison showing that the goods manufactured by the Canadian firm were sold in the city of Regina at a lower price than similar goods in the city of Minneapolis notwithstanding the 25 per cent duty, or protection as it is called. What does it mean? It means that the firm in question, by reason of the protection accorded, were able to build up an industry in the city of Regina which reduced the prices of these goods to the consumer, not only in the city of Regina but in such distant points as Winnipeg, and Lethbridge, right dowji to the international boundary. I know the argument will be advanced: Well, if they can manufacture these goods at a lower price than American firms what need is there for any duty? That is the stock argument of my hon. friends opposite. As to that I will read a few quotations from the evidence because it puts the facts in a clearer and more concise manner than I could do. I will therefore quote from the evidence and let it go on Hansard:
We manufacture doors etc., Generally speaking- our protection is about 25 per cent, nevertheless our prices are usually on a par, and sometimes less than the prices of our United Stated competitors.
Minneapolis may be looked upon as our main point of competition. With the object of giving concrete comparisons between our prices and those of our American competitors 1 may say that a 24 X 24 window, two lights, which is an article on which, a proper comparison can be made, was selling by our American competitors on March 1, 1920, f.o.b. Minneapolis at $5.35 subject to a trade discount of 35 per cent; on the same date we were selling a similar window for $5.15-
Note the figures, $5.35 and $5.15.
-subject to a 35 per cent trade discount -with freight allowed to Swift Current, Saskatoon or Winnipeg, or where shipments were beyond those points with freight allowed to the places mentioned. On the same date the quotation of the same competitors for moulding was 50 per cent higher than ours and on April 9, 1920, mouldings which were sold Iby our American competitors at Sil.50 sold by us at Regina at $1.20. A stock cross panel, or four panel door 2' 8"' x 6' 8" x 13" sold on March 1st by our competitors at $7.85, subject to a 20 per cent trade discount, was sold by us at $7.00 subject to a 25 per cent discount.
You will notice there a very substantial difference in favour of the Canadian manufacturer.
We desire to assure the Commission most sincerely that in fixing our prices we pay no attention whatever to the tariff or to the prices of our competitors, but do so on the basis of cost plus what we consider a fair profit.
And yet it as the regular assertion of hon. gentlemen opposite, reiterated day after day, that the Canadian manufacturers fix their prices by adding thereto the tariff. Here is a concrete case to the contrary, and I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to disprove it. The proof was submitted to the Tariff Commission, and I know it is absolutely correct.
Under the tariff as it at present stands only a very small quantity of American goods enter into competition 'with my output, &nd nevertheless as shown, the Canadian consumer is in no way penalized by the protection which I enjoy^
He is speaking as manager of the company.
Our prices are kept at their present low level-
Mark this, for it is the crux of the whole thing.
-owing to the large proportion of the market which we enjoy in the district served toy us. Were the tariff to be removed Minneapolis firms would enter into competition with us, especially in Southern Saskatchewan and Southern Alberta where their rail haul would be about as short and their freight rates about as low as those with which we have to contend. Owing to the size of our competitors, their large output, and their large home-market, they would at once enter into competition with us at least in the district where the rail haul was favourable to them. If they succeeded, as they almost certainly would, in taking away some of our customers, our output would be Correspondingly lessened and opr overhead expenditure correspondingly increased, which would necessitate an increase in the price of our goods, which increase would make it all the easier for our competitors to cut farther into our field.
Under free trade we feel that we would have great difficulty in surviving. Under the competition which now exists among a large number of Canadian firms making goods of the same class as manufactured by my firm the consumer is amply guarded against unduly high prices, and we feel that to change the fiscal system of the country, thereby endangering the capital invested in businesses such as ours, and likewise endangering the employment of those who work for us, would be a mistake.
Now, I want to say to hon. gentlemen of the Agrarian party that the hundred men employed in the factory with their families are not only a benefit to the other residents of the city but to the farmers of the surrounding country. Many of those farmers to-day are making anywhere from $50 to $150 a month supplying milk and cream to these people who are earning their living manufacturing these goods which are protected, and which certainly would not be manufactured to the same extent if protection was removed.
Upon what grounds do my hon. friends of the Agrarian party insist that this tariff should be removed? They say most un-

hesitatingly that under protection there is no competition, that by removing protection you get competition and in that way you lower prices, that being the reason why they advocate the removal of the tariff. Well, let us take binder twine. I must ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) to forgive me for referring to it again after he so completely dealt with it yesterday, but I would like to submit a little statement to supplement what he said, and which I think is rather conclusive proof of what the actual1 condition is. It is also proof that removing the tariff does not lower prices, does not promote competition, does not smash combines or rings, and1 does not prevent gentlemen's agreements. And I am going to take one of their own party to confirm what I say. Most hon. members know the gentleman as well as I do-his name is J. B. Musselman, and his home at present is in Regina. To those who do not know the gentleman, I may say that he is the brains of the Agrarian party in Saskatchewan. On the streets of the cities and towns in that province the general assertion is "that the rest of them talk and he does the thinking," and that is about the truth. The whole organization in the province of Saskatchewan, revolves around J. B. Musselman. His particular duty for some time back has been to handle the binder twine end of their business. I will not say that he has made a financial success of it, I am pretty credibly informed that last year's operations showed a loss of $60,000, and the year before a loss of nearly $50,000, and I think those figures are pretty near the mark. Anyhow, he appeared before the Tariff Commission and this is the press report of what he said. The question was asked him by the chairman:
But why is it, with no tariff on hinder twine, it is more expensive by twenty-five per cent, in Canada than the States He couldn't say, but Musselman supplied the 'information and in an interesting sidelight he said the International Harvester Co., of Chicago, the largest manufacturers of twine in the world, set the price. Twine for this section comes from Brantford, but it was explained that they follow the price set by Chicago and in this case the difference is about the difference in exchange. Drayton wanted to know if the Brantford Twine Co. was a flourishing company, and Musselman said it was. "Well," said the chairman, "they said they couldn't pay the one-cent sales tax on the materials entering into their product so close was their margin of profit."
Now, mark what follows:
Musselman said they paid handsome dividends, anyway.

He must have been mighty close to the inside to find that out. He said:
I speak from personal knowledge.
Yes, he speaks from personal knowledge. And he was the gentleman who after the Hon. George Longley and others appeared before the Tariff Commission cautioned them against making such extravagant statements and advised them to keep to the truth. As he gave them that excellent advice, I fancy he is keeping to the truth himself.
"I speak from personal knowledge when I say that the Brantford company held this year that the price of binder twine was too high." "Then why didn't they reduce it?" queried Sir Henry.
Then I commend the following to those who say that free trade smashes combines and prevents gentlemen's agreements.
Musselman ventured the suggestion that the Ontario company did not want to offend the big International.
What does that mean? It means one of two things: Either there was a "gentleman's agreement" between this Brantford concern and the International Harvester Company, or the Brantford company was subject to intimidation at the hands of its big competitor. You have got to make your choice. Personally, I would rather submit myself to a gentleman's agreement, for in that way you would be robbed with a velvet-gloved hand, but in the other way you wouldl !be robbed with a bludgeon,- although either way they get your money just the same. That is why they have a higher price for binder twine under free trade than they ever had under protection. What does this mean? It means on the evidence of their own party that combines have not been smashed. The only difference is that now the combine is located in the United States. Well, while I do not like combines, no matter where they are located, I would rather see one in Canada where it would be subject to some Canadian control, than one in the United States or in any other foreign country which we cannot reach at all. But the fact is that the combine does exist. The fact is, that there has been no competition in prices and that this industry has been practically ruined. What good has free trade done? What benefit has come to us from it? I cannot see that we have benefited by it; on the other hand we have lost thousands of men who could have been engaged in the manufacturing of binder twiine in Canada for the benefit of the Canadian people,-and certainly the Cana-

dian consumers would have been no worse off than they are at present. So much for the grounds upon which the Agrarian party contend that the removal of the tariff would result in benefit to the Canadian people.
I could cite many similar instances but I have not time.
However, I am going to devote a few moments to the free trade platoon of the official Opposition and see if they can give us any evidence as to the benefit of free trade in the way of smashing combines and so on. I am going to ask this platoon to take a trip across to England for a little while. I fancy that my hon. friend from Red Deer would be quite willing to go along with them, especially when he realizes the company in which he would go -because I am going to take this little platoon for the time being out of the control of the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and put it under the command of a man known all over Canada for his extreme Liberalism-his	splendid Liberalism, I
should say, his real, pure, genuine, -honest, righteous Liberalism-a gentleman by the name of W. T. R. Preston. I do not know whether hon. gentlemen have ever heard of him before; anyway no one, I am sure, will deny his Liberalism. I am not very well acquainted with the gentleman's history, but as I understand it he was sent over to England in some official capacity, he came back to Canada, and, according to a press report-I am taking this from a farmer's paper under date of March 9, last-at the last session of the legislature of Ontario he appeared before the Farmer Government of that province in connection wtith some inquiry that was being held, and gave evidence. Before I read the evidence which he gave on that occasion I should like to remind the House that the hon. member for Red Deer has day in and day out for years back been insisting that free trade was established in Great Britain to get cheap food for the British people- so that goods could be cheaply manufactured by cheaply paid workmen living on cheap food, and sent out into the markets of the world to compete with the products of other nations. That is his line of reasoning; that is the argument he has been propounding all along. Remembering that, let us see what Mr. W. T. R. Preston has to say in the evidence to which I have referred :
Mr: W. T. R. Preston appeared before a Special Committee of the Ontario House and advocated the establishment of apple warehouses in England for Ontario apples. He said:
"Losses of millions of dollars are sustained annually by Ontario because of the operations of a price-fixing ring in Britain." Mr. Preston charged that British consumers paid $25,000,000 annually for Canadian apples, the cost of which f.o.b. Liverpool was not more than $6,000,000_
"Free trade and no combines!" "Free trade and no rings!" "Free trade and cheap goods!" Yet this free-trade Liberal, a Liberal of the same school as my hon. friend from Red Deer, says that the operations of these people in England have resulted in their obtaining a profit of $19,000,000 out of every $25,000,000 worth of Canadian apples supplied to the British people.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Will my hon. friend oblige me with the date of that report?


Walter Davy Cowan: Yes, March 9 last.


Michael Clark: That is, since the war.


Walter Davy Cowan: March 9 last, yes. At least, I think the war was over before that; I would not be sure-


Michael Clark: But it is still affecting prices.


Walter Davy Cowan: There is no doubt of that. But while it may be affecting prices it certainly is not affecting that ring over in Great Britain; they are still carrying on their operations in Great Britain and free trade exists in fact just as it did before the war. So that my hon. friend's argument in that regard does not amount to any more than his arguments usually do.


Michael Clark: The hon.
gentleman will have to ask the Prime Minister about that; he says the opposite.


Walter Davy Cowan: The Prime Minister is
always able to take care of himself; I wish the hon. member for Red Deer could do the same for himself. What always amuses me is the strange inconsistency of these gentlemen opposite, who are always wanting free trade to help themselves and always wanting protection to help themselves. Just in parenthesis, I should like to remind my hon. friends of the Agrarian party who come from Saskatchewan of a little incident which occurred about three years ago when fifteen of us met in the city of" Regina. All the members from Saskatchewan were there, the only one absent being the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder). At that meeting a certain request was made by the manager of the Saskatchewan Creameries, an institution subsidized to the extent of over fifty or

sixty per cent of its capitalization by having that amount guaranteed by the Provincial Government. The Provincial Legislature of Saskatchewan has year after year passed resolutions demanding a reduction in the tariff. I do not blame them for that at all, although I think they do go beyond their province. But at that meeting the manager of the Saskatchewan Creameries came to us and stated that he wanted us to place an absolute embargo upon the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. We asked him why; was oleomargarine unhealthful? No, he said, that was not the reason at all; if the embargo was put on, he pointed out, it would give him protection and would enable him to pay a higher price to the farmers for the cream that he was buying from them. So here we have the extraordinary spectacle of the manager of a creamery company subsidized by the Provincial Government, in a province which year after year passes resolutions in favour of a reduction of the tariff, asking us to assist him in the placing of an embargo, an absolutely prohibitive embargo, upon this article of manufacture.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: Would the hon. member give me that gentleman's name?


Walter Davy Cowan: The manager of the
Saskatchewan Creameries. The hon. gentleman was there; he knows him as well as I do.


John Flaws Reid: I deny that; I was not there.


Walter Davy Cowan: There was not a man
from Saskatchewan absent except the one I have mentioned. They were all there, the whole fifteen of us, and the hon. gentleman was there with the rest. '


John Flaws Reid: Does the hon. member not know the name of the gentle- 1 man he speaks of as manager of this creamery company?


Walter Davy Cowan: I just forget the name,
but it was the manager of the co-operative creamery in Saskatchewan. There is only one manager, so there could be no mistaking him. We were all there, the whole bunch of us, so that there are plenty of witnesses.


Mr. LONG:: May I ask whether the principle embodied in that request was endorsed at the meeting?


Walter Davy Cowan: No, certainly not. I
simply wanted to bring out the point of 
the request that this manager was making; we did not endorse it.
Now, I am afraid I have far more material here than I can possibly deal with. I take this position, clearly, definitely and distinctly:	that Western Canada has
reached the point in its development where a protective tariff can be of benefit to it. I am prepared to admit that some time ago we paid the penalty for the benefit derived from the tariff by the rest of Canada. We have now reached the point where a very substantial indus-
4 p.m. trial development is due in Western Canada, and I am not going to turn round and throw down the tariff just at the time when we need it most. There are many lines of industry which can be established in Western Canada, lots of them. Last night the member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) told us about the scores of people who were leaving southwestern Saskatchewan, his own district. That is probably true. But ever since I came into this House I have been drawing attention to what can be done in that district in the way of establishing a great industry. Has the member for Maple Creek ever given the slightest assistance to any movement which would result in populating that district with industrial people? Not a bit of it. I have never heard him offer a resolution on the subject. He can talk about wheat and I have no objection to his talking about that as much as he likes, because wheat is a very good thing to raise and I hope we shall do everything we can to assist the wheat growers 

but there are other things which require attention, which can be developed, and I want to see those things looked after. I wish to place this article on Hansard, because I believe in posting the people of this country just as much as I can. This article relates to the constituency from which the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) comes more than any other, although it has reference also to two other constituencies. It is from the Regina Leader of April 30:
When one considers that in Saskatchewan alone brick and tile (buildings to the value of $8,375,744 were erected during 1920 and that only about $300,000 worth of brick and tile was manufactured locally, despite the fact that we have such large and valuable deposits of clays must convince anyone that this particular resource is in need of study and development.
It is not generally known that such articles as jam pots, milk jugs, bean jars, mixing bowls, and other lines of crockery are now being made of Saskatchewan clays and are finding a ready market in Eastern Canada.

I want those raw clays, not only mined in Saskatchewan, but manufactured in that province, and I want such duties imposed as will assist in having those raw clays manufactured there. The hon. member for Maple Creek, however, has never, so far as I can remember, raised a finger in support of any suggestion:
The raw clay is mined in this province and shipped out for manufacture If such products can be marketed successfully as far East as Montreal, then it is reasonable to expect that a local concern properly organized and with adequate capital might in a few years secure a fair proportion of at least the western market. This particular market alone is well worth capturing. In 1920 Western Canada used well over $28,000,000 worth of clay .products in addition to its share of $41,000,000 worth of crockery imported from the United States.
"With facts such as these" said Mr. Dunning, "we feel the department would fail in its duty were we not to devote some special effort towards the assistance of those clay plants already i-n existence as well as the development on a broader scale of such a valuable resource. Why should we be importing building materials at great expense when the very best of such materials are undeveloped at our very doors.
Those clays are all located in southern Saskatchewan, the very district that, the hon. gentleman deplored, the people are leaving. Why not give every assistance that we can to build up this industry in that district and thus keep those people there, instead of taking a course which is driving them out of our country? It may he interesting to my hon. friend to know that this was an interview given to the press by a gentleman who is his colleague now in the Saskatchewan Government, Hon. Charles Dunning, and I rather commend him for the last lines of it:
Why should we be importing building materials at great expense when the very best of such materials are undeveloped at our very doors ?
That is an excellent sentiment, and I am glad to see that the Liberal Government of Saskatchewan is getting that view. It will he of great benefit to Western Canada if the grain growers' organizations will get the same view, and I am glad to say that some of them are coming to that view. Just a short time ago, the farmers of Alberta met, and they passed this resolution instructing their executive to make inquiries :
The convention asked the association executive to investigate possibilities of manufacturing leather and cotton products in the province and so avoid the long railway pull east and west
In my candid opinion, in the two lines of that resolution, there is more development, more enterprise, more Canadianism
and more good business than is contained in all the speeches delivered by members of the Agrarian party since I came into the House. That is real business; that is doing something in our country. Why should we not do it? As regards those clay products, my suggestion to the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), before be brought down his Budget, was a very definite one, and I do not care who knows it. I am sorry that he did not act upon it. I asked him so to arrange his tariff that we might have a larger capital invested in those industries in Western Canada, especially when we consider that, _ m Saskatchewan alone, brick and tile buildings to the value of over $8,000,000 were erected in 1920, and that only about $300,000 worth of brick and tile was manufactured locally, and that in 1920 Western Canada used well over $28,000,000 worth of clay products, with only a comparatively small quantity manufactured in Saskatchewan. We must get away from the idea that the only thing we can do in Western Canada is to raise wheat. I am glad to say that we can raise wheat: raising wheat is a splendid thing to do, and wheat growers should be given every possible encouragement. But at the same time we want established in Canada every industry that can be established and I am going to bend all my efforts in that direction.
In a recent debate the hon. member for Maple Creek read a few lines from a pamphlet which I had issued once upon a time with a very lurid heading, and as I had no right to reply, I should like to state my views now. I will not refer to that debate, because I might be out of order, so hon. members must not consider that I am quoting from that debate at all. The hon. member quoted something that apparently showed that I had some objection to manufacturers. Thie difference between my hon. friend and myself is this, that I see a difference in the manner in which various Canadian manufacturers are dealing with the western markets. There is a big difference in the views with which they look upon the policy of protection. The policy of protection, as I understand it, as enunciated by Sir John A. Macdonald, has for its principle the establishment of industry in Canada so that our people will be able to develop their natural resources and thereby give work to thousands of men. The idea of protection is that Canadian manufacturers will manufacture so as to supply the Canadian market. The idea is not that a manufacturer

of our governments in both the Federal and Provincial spheres has 'been deplorably low and their efficiency and foresight have often left much to be desired.
I want to say to my hon. friend, as I have said many times at many different gatherings-and I have addressed many young men's and young women's clubs-in politics, as in business, never to try to succeed by tramping on the neck of your enemy. Try to succeed by your merits, and by your own merits alone. I pass that suggestion on to my hon. friend. When he tries to succeed by denouncing and condemning everybody else in Canada, I do not think he is doing himself any credit at all. What is the position? What is a "failure?" How do we judge it? i would say, by the results. What have been the results of the two-party system in the Dominion of Canada. As long as I can remember, long before Confederation, we have had two parties in this country; we have never had anything else except party government in Canada-either a party government, or a union of the two. In provincial and federal politics that has been the rule. We can-therefore say that Canada as it is to-day ds a result of the efforts of these two parties. Our educational system in the various provinces of Canada to-day, whatever it may be, is due to the efforts of these two parties; our judicial system, our whole Canadian citizenship as it stands to-day,. is the result of the efforts of these two parties. And I challenge any of my hon. friends in the Agrarian party to rise in his place in this House or anywhere else and say that he would exchange his Canadian citizenship for citizenship in any other country in the world. They dare not do it. I challenge them to do it. To-day Canadian citizenship stands high simply because we have had the dual party system in this country, the system that has produced such men as Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Washington, and Abraham Lincoln. I say, Sir, that we have a splendid Canadian citizenship because we have had two parties, and it ill becomes the hon. gentleman to say that both parties have been a failure. The condition of Canada to-day speaks for itself, and is ample evidence of the beneficent effects of the two-party system. Now, Sir, I am sorry to have delayed the House so long. Much of what I had intended to say I have omitted owing to pressure of time, but I thank hon. members for bearing with me in the remarks I have made.


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member who represents the constituency of Regina (Mr. Cowan), has made some very bold statements, but I must remind him of the fact that a mere assertion does not prove his case. I am not aware that the hon. gentleman has ever used any binding cord; I do not think so.


Walter Davy Cowan: Of course. I was born and brought up on a farm.


John Flaws Reid: I will take the hon. gentleman's word for that, but quite evidently he knew enough to get away from the farm where the drudgery was to be found. He made a statement in regard to the tariff which I will deal with later; I will not refer to it just now. He gave to Mr. Musselman, the secretary of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, a very high recommendation; in fact, he said that that gentleman was the brains of that organization.


Walter Davy Cowan: Hear, hear.


John Flaws Reid: I am glad to know that there is one man in the city of Regina whom the hon. gentleman is prepared to put nearly on a parity with himself. In speaking about binding cord, the hon. member tried to prove that this article was dearer under free trade conditions than under protection. I know a little about the price of binding cord, having bought it for many years, both under protection and under free trade. During the war-I am speaking from memory, but I am pretty sure that I am nearly within the mark-the highest price paid, at the peak of conditions in war times, was 25 cents per pound, and the highest price in normal times-under protection-was 22 cents per pound. Now, let us take a low figure in normal times under free trade conditions. Has my hon. friend any idea what the price of binding cord was in normal times, before the war, under free trade conditions?


Walter Davy Cowan: Will the hon. member please repeat the question, I was not listening.


John Flaws Reid: I know my hon. friend cannot answer the question, anyway. He also made the statement that at a certain meeting in Regina the manager of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Creameries was present and asked us to back up protective measures so as to help out the creameries in Saskatchewan. My hon. friend could not give the name of that gentleman, but I should like very much to get it.

The hon. member, since he came to Ottawa, I observe has undergone a change of heart in regard to the Canadian manufacturers. I know very well, and I am sure he will not deny this, that before coming to Ottawa and falling under the subtle influence of the party to which he belongs, what he had to say was very different from his opinions now. I shall read from a pamphlet issued by my hon. friend, a copy of which he was kind enough to send me. I will not record on Hansard the title of the pamphlet; I will respect my hon. friend to that extent. He said:
Go over to the North side of Regina and In half an hour you will see what a wrong conception the Canadian manufacturer has of the Canadian tariff. Acre after acre with foreign made goods; here and there a Canadian made machine-that exception amply testifying to the small soul and narrow vision of the manufacturer who made it.
Can we give employment to our returned men when that condition prevails? Can we be considered industrially alive when that is the established order? We Canadians have time after time declared our faith in a protective tariff, and I am a protectionist yet, but I would ibe darned well ashamed of myself were I a manufacturer enjoying 35 per cent tariff and still see foreigners running off with most of my preserve. There is something wrong with the Canadian manufacturer ; he wants a jolt; a head-on collision, as a matter of fact something that will *knock him clean out of his state room into the day coach where he can get some idea of what surrounds him. Grit or Tory or Unionist has no objection to being decent to him as long as he [DOT] is alive; but we are tired carrying a corpse. These dead men who imagine they are going to feed returned men on tariff are a menace to our country to-day.
If they will but shut up and get busy and make goods-


Walter Davy Cowan: Hear, hear.


John Flaws Reid: I am reading the hon. member^ words.


Walter Davy Cowan: That is just what I said. -selling them at a reasonable profit, so that they will sell them, and thereby make more goods, thus employing returned and other men, we could forgive them. Rut if they start any more of this doling out tariff from their measly little shops where tariff and profit are the chief things they manufacture (except nerve), then they had better quit, for our country is in no mood to tolerate their unprogressiveness and lack of enterprise. Western Canada at least will tolerate a tariff more willingly than they will manufacturing sloth. If the tariff is designed to increase manufacture, and thus give employment, then it must do what it is designed to do, or cease to exist. A market big enough to keep every returned soldier employed exists and it is not proposed that the tariff beneficiaries shall by means of that interpretation of the tariff which yields big profits on a small output rather than small profits on a big output, prevent our returned men from engaging in the supply of that market. The contracted conception of his duty as a manufacturer enjoying exceptional privileges,-


John Flaws Reid: I want the hon. member for Regina to hear this:
-which our manufacturers have, is the biggest stumbling block to-day in the way of getting employment for our returned men. If our manufacturers are to get the profits of a protective tariff then -they must at least make an attempt to supply the goods that the tariff protects. Otherwise the tariff has no virtue. Who in Canada will say that our manufacturers have been equal to our Canadian .market? Go into our stores and buy Canadian goods if you can, and there get your answer. Our warehouses the same. Wake up manufacturers, and make your factories Canadian size. If you don't the Government will be justified in wiping out every vestige of protection you have."
This is the reason why I say that the hon. member for Regina has evidently experienced a change of heart, no doubt due to some influence that has been brought to bear upon him of which I am not aware.
I listened yesterday, Mr. Speaker, with considerable concern, to the tirade of abuse which the Prime Minister directed against this little group of Progressives. He tried to make out that we were allied with the Liberal party, or that the Liberal party was cooing and wooing us and that we were flirting with them. I believe the Prime Minister, in a moment of weakness, forgot himself when he indulged in statements of that kind. I was not aware of the existence of any such cooing and wooing; but when the right hon. gentleman ventured the assertion I exercised my mind in order to see if I had ever felt that thrill,-that thrill almost unexplainable,- which you experience when you are 'being courted. After indulging in that mental exercise for a considerable time I recalled the fact that I had been wooed a little, and cooed at a little, and flirted with a little, but it was when I occupied a seat on the Government side. Now the Prime Minister in his imagination professes to think we are married to the Liberal party. His peroration, however, reminded me of a story which I read long years ago in my school books. It was of a certain fox who was very fond of grapes and had got into a vineyard. He saw a most beautiful bunch of grapes hanging up and he said "I must have those grapes." He endeavoured, time after time, to seize those grapes but they were beyond his reach and finally coming to the conclusion that they were unattainable he declared "I do not want those grapes, they are sour anyway." So the Prime Minister in a moment of weakness, said "I will fling the Progressives into the ranks of the Liberals and let them stay there." But, Mr. Speaker, the Progressives



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
are still on the cross-benches; we are still there unhampered 'by any party ties other than our own. We have been wooed by my good friends opposite, who are the supporters of high protection and special privilege, but we stand to-day in the middle of the road.
The hon. and gallant member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) in his very excellent and illuminating speech made one outstanding statement that I cannot agree with, and I am sure that it must have been based upon an error in calculation. My good friend from Regina (Mr. Cowan) also said that the United States tariff is much higher than ours. I have his actual words here; he said: "A good deal higher than the Canadian tariff." Let me make this reply to both hon. gentlemen :	I find that our customs tariff
taxation per capita last year was $22.55, whereas the United States tariff taxation per capita was $3.15. If my good friend from Regina was a labouring man and had to support a family of five children on wages that amounted to only $500 or $600 yearly what would this mean? That in Canada the average family of five would have to pay a tax, from which they could not possibly escape, of $112.75, whereas the same-sized family in the United States would only have to pay $15.75. It should also be remembered that to that taxation we are adding a sales tax which will represent a total payment in the case of the average Canadian family of $147.75. I would like my hon. friends opposite to try and put themselves in the position of the average labouring man, of the navvy if you like,-the cheapest class of labour. These men generally have the largest families to raise; they have Israel's blessing.
Mr. LALOR:: On what does my hon.
friend base his statement that there is a per capita payment of $147?	.


John Flaws Reid: I say that our customs tariff taxation per family of five is $112.75, taking our population at nine millions; and if you add the sales tax to that you will get $147.75. My hon. friends opposite can work it out at their leisure; if they make the amount less it will be all the better for the people of Canada.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: That must be per family, it cannot relate to the individual? fiMr. REID (Mackenzie): For the purposes of my calculation I took a family of five; my hon. friend could not have been listening to my remarks.


William Foster Cockshutt: I was, and I took the statement down.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Then your pencil is crooked.


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member for North Oxfoijd (Mr. Nesbitt) for whom I have a high regard because he is a pretty level-headed man, gave utterance to one statement that I agree with entirely. He said that a great deal of the Estimates voted could be saved especially in regard to the Trent Valley canal. I am not going to dwell on the subject of the Trent Valley canal, we have had enough of that; but I agree with the member for North Oxford, that this Government is spending money at the present time that could well be saved. The works upon which this money is being expended might well stand until our financial position is better. With all due respect to the Government it has got into the habit of spending millions during war time, it has become extravagant; and I am sorry to say that although we on this side of the House held the Administration up for two nights trying to persuade it to curtail the expenditure we did not succeed. What happened? By resorting to the closure, and by the aid of a majority vote, the large appropriations in question were put through. The works on the Welland canal could also wait until our financial position has improved. By exercising economy we could save millions of dollars, and thereby reduce the taxation which is bearing so heavily on our people to-day. With another statement that my good friend from North Oxford made I cannot agree; I do not think he had seriously considered what it meant. It was that we should not buy goods in the United States until they accept our dollar at par. That sounds very well, but there is a "but." Supposing Great Britain were to say to us, "We will not buy your products until you take our pound sterling at par," where would we be? I think my hon. friend will be rather sorry that he made such a statement.
Now, in regard to the tariff, my hon. friend from North Oxford says that he has figured out very carefully just what the tariff on agricultural implements means to a farmer producing grain. I do not know whether his figures apply to an Ontario fariher or to a Western Canada farmer. But he says that the tariff on agricultural implements means a toll of one cent on every bushel of grain which the farmer raises. To save time, I am not going to
i
MAY 14, 19iil
contest his figures, although my own opinion is that the toll amounts to very much more than a cent a bushel; for the sake of argument we will assume that he is right. Taking his own figure it would give the manufacturer $8,653,600. Of that total Western Canada would pay $6,967,546. Now, Sir, I should like my hon. friend from North Oxford or any other hon. gentleman to show me how the manufacturer justifies himself in taking this toll out of my grain. He does not ask me whether I am willing or not, but he takes that toll. What do I get in return? The days of toll gates are long gone by, and yet our manufacturers persistently take this toll from my grain and from every other farmer's grain, according to the hon. member for North Oxford.
But, Mr. Speaker, the tariff on agricultural implements is only one of the items which we say are unjust. Why should the necessary articles of food and clothing be taxed? Do we never think of the poorer labouring class, the navvy for instance, perhaps the lowest paid of any class of labour? Do we never think of their children going about poorly clad and shivering for the want of warm woollen clothing to protect them against our cold winters? While our manufacturers of textiles are enjoying a tariff of 35 per cent, I am told on very good authority that their capital stock is very heavily watered, and that they are making huge dividends even on that watered stock. It is unthinkable, Sir, that any government should protect such an industry and penalize the great masses of the people, who, unlike the wealthy, cannot take a jaunt to a foreign country to buy expensive goods and smuggle them into Canada.
My hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Cassel-man) in his speech, bewailed the fact that the farmers' organizations, as he called us, were making such rapid strides, but he admitted that we were entitled to representation in Parliament, although he thinks we have no right to try to get control of the government. Well, it naturally works out that those who are entitled to representation have, of course, a chance of getting control of the government. Then he made reference to the Government of the province of Ontario. It seems to me that the people of that province are quite satisfied with the government which they have to-day. But while my hon. friend was decrying that government I wondered:	Are there any
other timber limits left in his province for the Farmers' Government to graft? It
seems to me that nearly all the timber limits have already been given away.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Does my
hon. friend know how many square miles of timber limits the present Government of Ontario have given away, and how those grants compare with grants made by former governments of the province?


John Flaws Reid: Is my hon.
friend able to tell me how much grafting was indulged in by the late Conservative Government in that province, of which he is a consistent follower?


Peter McGibbon: There was not any.


John Flaws Reid: Is not my hon. friend aware that the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Ontario at the present time has a reputation which the less said about the better? In fact, it was so besmirched that his party had to dip him into a barrel of whitewash. Then what did they do? They made him their leader and patted him on the back, saying, "Well done, old fellow; go and get some more graft."


Peter McGibbon: Will the hon. member answer my question?


John Flaws Reid: You will have your chance later on.


Michael Clark: What have we to do with that government anyway? You should be in the local house.


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) the other evening made a vicious attack-and it is quite common at the present time in this House-on the Progressive party. He was especially severe on our leader, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and it seemed to me that he was happiest when he was slinging the greatest possible amount of mud. He reminded me of a story which I have heard told of the late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. During a political campaign he was walking past an orchard with one of his colleagues, who drew his attention to two magnificent apple trees quite close to the fence underneath one of which were a large number of stones, brickbats and sticks, and he asked Sir John: "What accounts for all those things under that tree?" "Oh," said Sir John, "that is easily explained. The boys know the tree with the good apples on it." And my hon. friend from Frontenac knows that the hon. member for Marquette is our leader, and

that is why he hurls all his thunder at him.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I purpose to examine into the workings of this Government. I have read in the good old Book, "By their works ye shall know them"-my friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) will correct me if my quotation is not right.


Michael Clark: "By their
fruits ye shall know them."


John Flaws Reid: ford was either $7 or $9 higher than the cost of producing the same binder in Chicago. In reply to this, we wish to quote Hon. Arthur Meighen, a colleague of Mr. White's in the Cabinet.
'Mir. Meighen, when he was in the Opposition, was very strongly in favour of lower tariff on 'agricultural implements. In fact, on January 18, 1911, he delivered the ablest speech in favour of lower tariff on agricultural implements that has ever been delivered in the House of Commons. The following is an extract from his speech:
"Let me give you a few figures to show that the conditions of manufacture at the present time do not warrant a very material duty of any kind, particularly as respects the articles manufactured by the International Harvester Company, binders, mowers and reapers. I wish I could extend it more, but my proof extends to that, and I gathered my proof from what may be called the very camp of the enemy himself; I go to ithe officers of the International Harvester Company, and I take the very evidence of an official, Mr. Metcalfe, before the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives last year, and I think I will convince the House that there is very little, if any, difference in the cost of production of these machines on this side of the border and in the United States. At pages 7323-4 of the Tariff Hearings of the United States I read the following. Mr. Metcalfe was the representative there for (the purpose of giving evidence on behalf of the International Harvester Company :
" 'Mr. Cumpacker: Do you manufacture any cheaper in Canada than in the United States?
" 'Mr. Metcalfe : They do not.
"'Mr. Cumpacker: As cheaply?
" 'Mr. Metcalfe : Comparatively.
" IMr. Cumpacker:	Can you manufacture
cheaper than the English manufacturer or the German manufacturer?
" 'Mr. Metcalfe: I think they can, otherwise they could not compete with them in Germany and England.'
"So that Mr. Metcalfe is on record in admitting that there is comparatively no difference in the cost of manufacturing on the other side of the line and on this. He further admitted that the relative cost of manufacturing on this side of the line and in England and France is in favour of Canada, so that from that point of view there is Little to be said in favour of an increase at all events in the duty on these agricultural implements. Mr. Metcalfe is further on record as stating, in the plainest language, that they produce in this country for export abroad, and it is only reasonable to argue that it is just as cheap to produce those articles on this side as on the other, as otherwise they would manufacture for foreign export on the other side and not on this, since they have factories on both."
I repeat that:
Mr. Metcalfe is further on record as stating, in the plainest language, that they produce in this country for export abroad, and it is only reasonable to argue that it is just as cheap to produce those articles on this side as on the other, as otherwise they would manufacture for foreign export on the other side and not on this, since they have factories on both. On page 738 of those tariff hearings, Mr. Metcalfe answered the chairman as follows:

"The Chairman: The International Harvester Company has a plant at Hamilton, Ontario?
"Mr. Metcalfe: They have one there.
"The Chairman: Are you exporting from Canada?
"Mr. Metcalfe :	They are.
"The Chairman: To what countries?
"Mr. Metcalfe: All the foreign countries and particularly to France. We are very much interested at the present time in the treaty between Canada and France.
"So that the proof is absolute that if there be any difference in the conditions of manufacturing between this side of the line and the other in relation to these articles, that difference is almost inappreciable."
It will be seen that Mr. Meighen gives the sworn evidence of one of the officials of the International Harvester Company to the effect that the cost of manufacture in Brantford is as low as it is in Chicago. This is better evidence than Mr. White produced in the House of Commons, and may be taken, as Mr. Meighen says, as absolute proof that there is no difference in the cost of manufacture of agricultural implements in Canada and the United States. It is equally safe to assume that the Massey-Harris Company can manufacture as cheaply in Toronto as the International Harvester in Hamilton, so that, from the standpoint of cost, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any tariff protection for agricultural implements in Canada.
It is quite evident that the thought in the mind of the right hon. the Prime Minister at that time was that there should be a downward revision of the tariff in agricultural implements. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, when he was first elected for Portage la Prairie it was with the avowed intention that he would do all in his power to have agricultural implements placed on the free list. But the Prime Minister in office takes a different attitude. He is quoted as making the statement-and again I am speaking from memory-"The tariff never was oppressive on the agriculturist."


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Have not the duties on
agricultural implements been reduced by the Prime Minister since that speech was made?


John Flaws Reid: Very slightly,
but they are not on the free list yet.


Mr. WHITE:: Is it not a fact that the
price of binders and mowers and every other agricultural implement has been nearly doubled, so that even with the reduction in duty we are now paying double the duty that we paid then?


John Flaws Reid: 
Mr. BRISTOL:: It was $1.84 yesterday.


John Flaws Reid: Thanks for the correction.


Richard Smeaton White: It is $1.38 at Calgary now.


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member who represents Victoria in the province of Alberta, will perhaps tell the House that he tried to sell oats by the carload, and with what result. I know that last year's crop of oats in northern Alberta was a first-class product; but what is it worth today to my hon. friend who represents Victoria? He inquired of a friend of his who runs a big pulp concern in northern Ontario to whom he thought he would ship some oats, as to what the freight rate would be, and my hon. friend was told that before he could sell his oats, shipping them to this point in northern Ontario, he would have to pay the freight part of the way and his friend would take the oats.


An hon. MEMBER:: For nothing.


John Flaws Reid: For nothing. I made the statement that oats could not be produced to-day for 26 i cents. I do not think they

can be produced for 35 cents, and they are worth at the point of shipment from 10 to 15 cents, Fort William basis. Still, the manufacturers say that they buy their raw material at high prices and that therefore the producers must pay them the prices they demand. The manufacturer is in the happy position of being able to pass on his price, whatever he may charge, to the consumer; but the unfortunate and unhappy producer is between the upper and the nether millstones. He cannot pass on his costs, and he must take what is offered him for what he has to sell and pay the price demanded of him for what he wants to buy. It must appeal to hon. gentlemen, I think, that there is something wrong, and I repeat again that if present conditions are continued it will mean bankruptcy to Western Canada.
Now, let us look at the Budget for a moment. This Budget, Sir, I claim, has all the ear marks of the protectionist artificer.
I have read that protection is a good thing, that it taxes the poor, who do not realize what it means and hence make no fuss. Now, I saw a little extract the other day in regard to protection, and I think it might be well to place on Hansard the gist of that statement. It was to the effect that protection always has to borrow some rags of respectability to cover its nakedness. I want my hon. friends to note that; it is a good thing to remember.
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the sales tax as imposed in this Budget, is high protection in disguise. What will it cost the consumer? Will it be 4 per cent that the consumer will have to pay? I am told by business men who know what they are talking about that this sales tax of 4 per cent will be pyramided at least 2i times before the consumer finally pays it. I have not figured this out, but I have no doubt that some hon.. member on this side of the House will place the exact facts on Hansard as to just what this 4 per cent sales tax will amount to when it is paid by the consumer.
As I said before, the sales tax and the customs tax fall on the labouring classes and on those people in Canada who can least afford to bear them. Canada wants immigrants, and the people in Western Canada, who raise the largest families, the people who come from Europe, in a very short time adapt themselves to the country, and their children, born in Canada, after a while become just as good Canadians as any we have in this country. I therefore say that it is a cruel burden to heap upon . these poor people this sales tax which is

an additional tariff tax. The average family to-day, if we calculate on the basis of this 4 per cent customs tax, will pay around $147.75 under this tax; they cannot avoid it. This tax wall simply mean a restriction of consumption. The people will not be able to, buy as much goods as they have been buying, because, when you take $147 from the labouring man's earnings, you do not leave him very much for his family, and the consequence will be that you will stunt and particularly starve the children of the poor. They will suffer cold and hunger to some extent, whole our good friends the textile manufacturers will reap a handsome profit by the 37i per cent protection.
I understand that our Canadian manufacturers deny that they are benefited, financially by a protective tariff. We, on the other hand, claim that while the Government receives $1 from (the customs revenue tax, our good friends, the manufacturers, receive $3. If this is not correct, I am sure my good friends sitting opposite will show me that it is not so. If this protective tariff were necessary, if our manufacturers really required that tariff,
I would be the last man in the Dominion to do anything to harm the manufacturers; but I am of the opinion, after what I have read, and the statements and arguments that have been made by one of the ablest debaters in the Dominion of Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), that our manufacturers could do with considerably less in the way of protection. If they do require a protective tariff I would suggest that we put on a countervailing excise tax. If there is a protective tariff of, say, 15 per cent, I would say, the Government must have two-thirds of this 15 per cent; and still the manufacturers would have protection. I think that is a fair proposition.
Now, I shall bring my remarks to a close/ but I want to make one reference more to the tariff. In the Budget I notice the following, as will be seen at page 3228 of Hansard:
materials for use only in the construction, equipment and repair of ships; ships licensed to engage in the Canadian coasting trade
These materials are exempt from the 4 per cent sales tax. Now, I wonder why the Minister of Finance exempted materials for use in the construction, equipment and repair of ships licensed to engage in the coasting trade.
I am of the opinion that the operation of Canadian ships has yielded substantial re-

turns. Take, for instance, the Canada Steamship Lines; they made very handsome profits and paid very handsome dividends last year. I have here a newspaper clipping in which the President, Mr. Norcross, is reported as having made the statement that in the freight carrying trade on the inland waters, and more particularly in the carriage of grain, these ships have made a handsome profit, more than sufficient, in fact, to make up for some of the losses sustained on ocean freights on the Atlantic. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that this is another evidence that the present Government is a friend of the big interests, and that it is forgetting the needs of the great mass of the common people. .


Mr. JAMES McISAAC (Kings, P.E.I.) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words on the Budget. Few Budgets in this Parliament since Confederation have been anticipated with greater anxiety, inasmuch as we are passing through a transition period, a period of instability in commerce, of extravagance in buying, and of deflation. These, and a hundred and one other circumstances, have rendered the financial outlook and the trade conditions of our country very uncertain and such as to be regarded with some degree of uneasiness. Under the circumstances it is a source of extreme satisfaction that the Minister of Finance was able to give us such a favourable exposition of the trade conditions and financial position of Canada. I think, Sir, that the Finance Minister, as well as the country, deserves to be congratulated upon the excellent presentation that has been made. Our trade has been well sustained, and the expenditure and revenue have been brought together to an extent that is wonderful considering all the circumstances.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
* After Hecess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


James McIsaac: Just before recess I was referring to the Budget that had been presented to this House and country by the Minister of Finance, and I took occasion to observe that in my humble judgment it was an admirable presentation of our financial position. It was a businesslike Budget-I should say, a model Budget, and so far as I have been able to observe, it has met with almost universal favour. Any comments concerning it in the public press have been for the most part favourable to it; very little adverse criticism has been offered. This is a matter of congratulation to the minister, to the Govern ment, and to Canada as well, having regard to present conditions. All countries have been passing through a period of transition, a time of upheaval in commerce and dislocation of trade, a time of deflation and extravagance, a time of unfavourable financial, commercial and economic outlook. It is evident from the admirable statement rendered by the Finance Minister that Canada's position is an enviable one among the nations of the world; she stands second to no other country in the matter of her economic operations for the year that has passed. This is indeed a great tribute to Canada. Nations, like individuals, benefit by their youth. The blood of national youth courses through the arteries of our country. Canada has all the energy, all the ambition of youth, and we have firm ground for our faith in her great future.
According to the figures presented by the Finance Minister, Canada's trade for the past fiscal year exceeded that of the previous fiscal year by $125,000,000, in round figures, indicating a remarkable advance in trade in the face of unfavourable conditions. Our greatest trade is, of course, with the United States and Great Britain. The balance of trade as between Canada and the United States is against us; that is to say, we purchase more from the United States than we sell to them. That is an unfortunate condition of things, and one which it is difficult to overcome, though it is hoped that before very long it will be considerably improved. It would seem, however, that the legislation recently brought into effect in the United States is not favourable to that end. The Young Bill which has been passed by both Houses of Congress puts up against Canada as well as against other countries very strong barriers in the way of trade. It is to be presumed that this matter will be dealt with later by our Government and such action taken as is deemed expedient. Of course, that is a matter for the future. The balance of trade as against Canada for the last year and in favour of the United States amounted to $296,000,000. On the other hand, our trade with the Mother Country has been more favourable. The balance of trade in our favour in respect of our trade with Great Britain in the fiscal year 1919-20 amounted to $369,000,000, in round figures. The balance has since shown a tendency to swing against us, but that con-

dition may adjust itself. The trade balance in our favour in respect of trade with the Mother Country for the last year was reduced to $100,295,402, according to the figures of the Minister of Finance. Our total foreign trade per capita during the calendar year 1920 was $293.30 as against a per capita trade on the part of the United States of $127.78. In connection with our trade relations with the Mother Country, it is worth while noting that according to press despatches the Government of Great Britain are taking steps which indicate a wide departure from the policy of free trade. A Bill has been introduced in the British House of Commons-it may be passed by this time-placing a high preferential tariff on the key industries of the country. If that Bill becomes law, certainly a great step will have been taken by Great Britain in the direction of a protective tariff.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a word or two with reference to the financial position of our country. The figures disclosed in the financial statement of the minister show that the revenue for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1921, amounted to $432,000,000 as against $349,746,334 for the year 1920. The estimated expenditure for 1920-21 amounts to $533,368,077. Let me say a word regarding how the money raised was spent and the condition of the balance sheet when the revenues and expenditures had been compared and the bills for the year had been paid. I.et us see what a favourable showing was presented to the House in the annual statement of the Minister of Finance. As I have just said, it is shown in the financial statement that the revenues amounted to approximately $432,000,000. Expenditures on consolidated fund, that is to say, current expenditures, strictly speaking, for the operations of the fiscal year, amounted to $362,600,000; but in addition to this amount, there was a capital expenditure of $36,-
972,000	and an expenditure on demobiliza-tiop of $20,130,000, making a total pay-1 ment under the head of expenditure chargeable to consolidated fund of $419,702,000. This presents to us a satisfactory condition of the revenue as compared with the expenditure, showing that after payments made strictly speaking on consolidated fund or ordinary expenditures were met, there was left a balance of $69,400,000. Moreover, after those two items, that is the capital expenditure of $36,972,000 and the demobilization expenditure of $20,130,000, to which I have referred, were paid, there 
was left, over and above all these payments, a balance of $12,298,000.
In the ordinary language, the authorized language that has been invariably used in connection with our financial operations in Canada since Confederation, this amount of $12,298,000 is a surplus. That is how all these balances have been denominated or described by every Government that has existed in Canada since Confederation. It may be said that there were capital expenditures that would very much exceed that balance. Such has nearly always been the case. There are not many years; indeed, there are very few, when mere has been an actual surplus; but in the language of finance used in this conection all down through Canadian history, this amount may be and is properly called a surplus. Therefore, there is no reason this year why we should depart from the usual language and call this amount by any other name.
Another exceedingly gratifying feature in connection with our finances for the year that has passed has been presented to us by the Minister of Finance, and that is that out of available cash at their disposal, the Government have acquired tax exempt bonds aggregating $89,288,3)0. These are bonds which were issued by the Government to the people and on which money was secured to carry on the war and other necessary expenditures. Bonds to that amount have been taken off the market; they have been bought in by the Government with the cash at their disposal, and they will be cancelled. Thus, there will be that amount removed from the debt of Canada. That is a very fine condition of affairs, and it is highly to the credit of the Government, that, at this stage, so early in the life-time of these bonds, the Government have been able to take off the market and cancel' so many of these promises to pay that, in the ordinary course, would stand against the Government until the term of the bonds expired. No doubt from year to year, as the Government will find that they have cash at their disposal, they will continue this method of reducing the financial obligations of Canada by acquiring a number of these bonds, removing them from the market and cancelling them, so that they will no longer form part of the debt of this country.
Another feature that has been presented in the fiscal statement of the Minister of Finance, is, I think, worthy of consideration, inasmuch as it shows what part of the debt created by the war, which, of

course, was a debt that was unavoidable and to which no estimated bounds could be placed, has been taken care of out of the current revenues of the country from 1914 up to the present time. This statement is to be found in the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance-and it is important to note it-that notwithstanding the largely increased cost of government, apart altogether from the war-and the expenses of the Government were much increased during these years-the country's war activities have been financed to a certain extent out of current revenue. The net result of financial operations in this country from 1914-15 up to and including 1920-21, a period of six years, shows that war obligations, current and capital, have been met and paid to the extent of $698,809, 700. That, I think, is a most gratifying feature of our present financial operations. It is one that, perhaps, we would not be disposed to take very much note of; but it is one deserving of the greatest possible consideration; it is one that shows how carefully our finances have been guarded; how carefully every phase of our public business and fiscal operations have been taken care of by the Government and the Minister of Finance.
With regard to the financial operations of last year, no new loans have been issued, and I think that is a matter for congratulation. I think it is also a matter for congratulation that in view of the world-wide trade conditions Canada has come through this trying period with a better showing than most other countries. Our position in comparison with other countries of the world is really an enviable one.
Turning to the current year upon which we have just entered, the uncertainty is no doubt greater even than last year, especially as to the revenues of the country. There are many reasons for this. In the first place, the Finance Minister finds it very difficult accurately to forecast what the probable revenues may be. This uncertainty is due to several causes. He feels satisfied, however, that the revenue from customs taxation will be somewhat diminished. Again, we have to take into account the tariff legislation which has just been passed by the United States. It is difficult to see just what the future holds in store in that direction; there may be some further legislation in this Parliament which may ameliorate present conditions, but so far as we can size up the present situation a diminished customs revenue is expected, and we have the
Young Tariff Bill imposed against us as well as other countries by the United States; so the situation this year presents considerable difficulty for the Finance Minister.
From ordinary sources the Finance Minister expects to raise, unless all signs fail, a minimum of $373,600,000. The Main Estimates for the year have already been tabled; there may be, however, some Supplementary Estimates brought down. Altogether, the Finance Minister calculates that a total revenue should be raised this year of at least $435,360,971. The outlook, it must, be confessed, is not the most encouraging, but I am satisfied th*'t from the taxes which the Finance Min ister is imposing, together with the revenue we expect to derive from one or two other sources, we shall raise sufficient to enable us to make up the difference between our expenditure and our ordinary revenue.
There is, for instance, the new sales tax. There is no doubt at all that the revenue from that will be very much increased this year over last. Then there is the increase in the liquor duties, from $5 to $10 per gallon. Probably we shall not have any liquor in Canada at all now, because there is prohibition in nearly all of the provinces. However, if any liquor is obtainable, those who drink will have to pay the price, and I suppose that is only right. Most people will agree that liquor is a luxury, and the man who wishes to indulge in that luxury must be prepared to pay the tax. I imagine only the wealthy will be able to indulge in this luxury in view of this new taxation. I think from these two sources alone the Finance Minister will be able to derive quite a large amount of money.
I do not wish to say very much about the income tax, as that has already been referred to by a great many other speakers in this debate. It is noticeable, however, that the revenue derived from income taxation last year was very much in excess of the amount received in previous years, and I have no doubt that there will be a still further increase this year. Some criticism has been offered as to the form in which the returns have to be made out. It is said that it is a little difficult for the ordinary man to make out an income tax return. That may be so. The Minister of Finance will no doubt be able to remedy that, and I understand that he intends to do so. So far as I am concerned, I have always been able to make out my return for the little amount I have to pay to the

treasury, and I think most ordinary mortals with a little assistance are able to make out a return in a manner that will be understood by the officials of the department.
There is another source of revenue. We have a credit with Great Britain of $150,000,000. That is the amount they owe us, and it is possible that within the coming year some portion .pf that may find its way into the Dominion treasury. I think from these three sources alone we shall derive a sufficient amount to enable the Finance Minister to meet the expenditures of the country, and perhaps leave a surplus over at the end of the present fiscal year. I appreciate the fact that mere figures are not very interesting, but in a Budget debate one can hardly avoid dealing with figures to some extent.
However, I shall now take up another phase of the Budget which I shall endeavour, if possible, to render somewhat more interesting. The tariff is a subject thau is very much discussed at the present time, and a good deal of fault has been tound_ with the Government by our friends opposite because no general revision of the tariff is contemplated immediately. There are many reasons why a tariff revision at this juncture would be inopportune I have already referred to the adverse legis-ation which is about to become operative in the United States and which may necessitate very radical and far-reaching c anges in our present fiscal arrangement m order that we may properly protect Canada s interests from the injurious forces of the Act which is going through Congress at Washington. Under the eir-cumstances, every one who gives any thought to the subject must concede that it is only the part of wisdom that the Canadian Government should be circumspect at the present time and make no great changes in our tariff until we know how the adverse legislation of the United States will affect us in every respect. I do not intend to say very much more on that Question, but I think that the tariff which we shall have in this country, after the United States tariff becomes operative, should be framed in such a way as to protect Canadian interests as far as possible. Of our total imports last year, amounting to a sum very considerably over $1,000,000,000, there came from the United State's goods valued at $856,000,000 odd, or 69 per cent of our whole import trade. That fact in itself constitutes a sufficient reason why we should be very deliberate and care-

ful in any changes we make to our tariff; we must of necessity, in our own interests, wait until we see how the adverse legislation at Washington is going to affect us. Although no extensive revision of the tariff is being made, however, there are some changes, due to one cause or another, particularly in respect of the trade agree- ment with the West Indies which was recently ratified by both Houses.
In reference to the subject of taxation, the principal changes are the abolition of the business profits war tax, the removal of the so-called luxury tax, and the increase in the rate of the sales tax, matters which will come up for consideration when the House is in Committee of Ways and Means. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is all I shall say on the subject of expenditure and taxation.
I might properly refer, before going further, to some of the statements that have been made, and the attitude that has been assumed in this debate, by our friends on the Opposition side. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), a former Minister of Finance, has voiced some rather strong free trade sentiments. Now, as everyone is perfectly aware, our Opposition friends have not been very consistent on the important question of the tariff. From time to time, while in Opposition, they have strongly advocated free trade, but while in office they were unquestionably protectionist. Throughout the fifteen years the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was Minister of Finance he was a consistent protectionist ji he presented to the House every year a protectionist budget. He made no essential change in the tariff which the National party had had in force up to the time his Government took office. While hon, gentlemen opposite were in office they had a protective tariff amounting to an average of nearly 27 per cent; at the present time, this Government, whom they are pleased to describe as high protectionists, are carrying on the public affairs under a tariff which is about 5 per cent less than that,-a trifle over 22 per cent. In the face of that, how can hon. gentlemen opposite talk free trade? A year ago, when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was discussing the budget, he was inclined to the view that free trade was not practicable; that there was no such thing as free trade. I shall quote his words in a moment or two, and endeavour to show the contrast between his opinions then and those which he expresses now. Last year he did not seem anxious to fraternize with

his friends to the left of him, the Agrarians; he rather gave them the cold shoulder. This year, however, it would appear, he is disposed to get closer to them, or have them draw closer to him. He evidently wants the two sides to coalesce and work together. Well, as a matter of fact, that is just what they are doing, conceal it as they may, endeavour to hide it as they will. Their object is to impede the Government, no matter what their assumed attitude may seem to be. One member on the other side gets up and utters some protective views, and another talks free trade. It is a drama; they are all actors, and each member of the dramatis personae has his own little part to perform. But the tout ensemble is a campaign against the Government. What is the drama they are acting? A tangled web of political deception. Their object is to deceive the people with the ultimate end in view of getting into power. They want to throw dust in the eyes of the people; they are trying to pull the wool over their eyes. While they are ostensibly preaching free trade for the benefit of the public, they go round secretly and whisper confidentially into the ears of their friends, the manufacturers, that everything, from their viewpoint, is safe and sound. They tell these people: "Don't be afraid of us. You know we did nothing to you before. Don't mind our talking this way about free trade; you know it means nothing. Let us say this and that about free trade for the sake of effect; you know what we will do when we get in." That is the way they have been acting, Mr. Speaker, and in order that I may be able to convict them I shall quote from Hansard. I desire to read from the statements of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, quoting Hansard.
I will now read from Hansard of 1920 to show what the hon. gentleman's views were last year and I will then contrast these views with what the hon. gentleman has stated during the present debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


James McIsaac: Let my hon. friends
opposite prick up their ears. If they want me to read loud I will read it so sonorously that it will be heard from one end of this country to the other. My hon. friends [DOT] need not be alarmed, I will read it loud enough for them. At page 2503 of the Hansard of May 18, 1920, the hon. gentle- [DOT] man is reported as follows:
While it is true that at all times for many years all our tariff discussions have been more or less tinged with the question of free trade, there has of late been a revival of what I may
call the free trade movement, and the free trade question is now thrust to the front of our tariff discussions in a larger way than it has been in recent years. That, I take it for granted, is because our farmer friends-
Now listen to this:
Our farmer friends attach so much importance to the matter and have pushed it into their platform.
This is how he treated them last year:
With all due respect to them, I take the view that free trade is not a practical question in our tariff discussions of to-day.
He went on to say:
There are some things that we would do well to remember. In the first place, it may be well simply to remember that there never has been in the Dominion of Canada such a thing as free trade_ There is not anything of the kind now, and with all due respect to those who may be described as extreme free traders, I think it is no wild guess to assert that there will be no absolute free trade in Canada within the life time of any man who sits in this House to-day. It is not practicable-
I would like to know what it is that induced the hon. member to change his views since last year. In order to show the nature of that change I will read a quotation from the hon. member's speech on May 10, inst. I do so in order that hon. gentlemen may see for themselves that it is quite a change-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James McIsaac: I am glad my hon.
friends opposite like it so well. It is a matter of deception, it is only a little change in the way of putting the question before the people. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's said on May 10, inst:
If there are any people in Canada who are contemplating the establishment of new lines of business in which they feel that tariff protection is necessary, I do them a friendly service when I say: "Don't do it"-
He is dead against any protection this year, but he was rather inclined towards it a year ago.
-because anybody who counts upon the continuance of a protective policy is bound to find that he is pursuing a delusion. If any outside capitalist purposes coming to Canada to start some industry which he believes can only be kept alive by protection, again, I advise him not to come.
What does this mean? If we take this statement at its face value the ex-Minister of Finance of Canada gives his country a black eye because he says: If there is anybody coming here with the hope that he may have a chance of advancing, progressing and building up a business under the present tariff, let him stay away;
\

we do not want anybody to come. In effect he declares:	The country should be
ostracized so that nobody will come here. Such is the patriotic sentiment expressed by this hon. gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It is the members of the Farmers' party that are applauding.


James McIsaac: If that is so I am glad to know where they stand. Now let me read what was said by another hon. gentleman in the ranks of the official Opposition. I wish to do so in order to corroborate the statement I made a moment ago that it does not matter just what they say here in Parliament; they understand one another; they are acting a part; they are all actors in this little agreement to deceive the people, and practise political deception in order that they may possibly gain some political advantage therefrom.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James McIsaac: I am pleased to know
that this exposure is so pleasing to my hon. friends opposite. It may not be so amusing when they come to the realization of what this deception means. The hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) also spoke upon the tariff question. He is one of the front benchers on the Opposition side.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is the ex-leader.


James McIsaac: Yes, he is an ex-leader. He was a temporary leader but he is now ex-temporary leader. He was what they call a locum tenens. That is, he was holding the place of a leader; he is now an ex-locum tenens of a leader. When it comes to the matter of coal and steel, products peculiar to his own province, my hon. friend is a protectionist; he does not deny it, and he says:
I say-
Speaking of coal.
-give a little higher price; let the officers and the experts of the Government in connection with coal fix what that price should be within fair limits, and let the preference be given to Canadian coal as against the coal and steel of foreigners who have a bigger market, bigger capital and bigger production than we have.
He goes on to say:
I take that position and I think it can be very well maintained. Although our coal may be a few cents higher in price, when you consider that our railroads will be carrying our own goods, and that directly and indirectly it is to the advantage of our own people that the Gov-

ernment and the Government railways should use our own coal, it will pay the Government to give the preference to the product of their own country.
.A little further on he says:
But if they buy coal from a Canadian, he gets the money and it goes from one hand to another, building up the trade and industry of the country and supporting the families of the Canadian people.
That is good protectionist doctrine. I do not know just exactly how he is going to vote on the amendment.
There is another protectionist in the group whom I should like to quote, the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) -Maisonneuve and Gaspe I think is the proper title. In the course of his speech denouncing the Government he made this remark:
Standing as I do for a moderate measure of protection, mind you, for a reasonable measure of protection, nevertheless I cannot help saying that I regret that free trade is not the trade policy of the civilized world.
There may be others as well as he who entertain similar regrets. But he says that he is a moderate protectionist. So then we have straight protectionists, moderate protectionists, free traders, and all the rest of them in this drama.
There is another protectionist on the other side whom I wish to quote briefly-the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson). He is the last man in the world one would expect to be a protectionist. Indeed I do not believe he is a protectionist, but in the course of his speech on Thursday he said something about protectionists. He said something that reflects upon every hon. gentleman of the official Opposition who was either a supporter or a member of the Liberal Government during the fifteen years they were in power, The hon. member from Qu'Appelle coolly gets up in this House and berates and condemns the system which that Government carried on during what they are pleased to call the "Golden Age." Of course, there can be no doubt that the hon. member supported that system, but what does he say? At page 3418 of Hansard of May 12 the following passage will be found:
The protective policy begets fear, cowardice and selfishness. The fear that they cannot compete with others is one of the most degrading things to which any people can be exposed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James McIsaac: 
An hon. MEMBER:: The stone age.


James McIsaac: It simply goes to prove that protection' is the only tariff system under which Canada can live and thrive. Every hon. member on the other side of the House knows that and practises it when his party is in power, but in opposition it is convenient for hon. gentlemen opposite to shout free trade.
Before I deal with the amendment I wish to refer to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and1 I am sorry he is not in his seat. Last year there seemed to be some antagonism between him and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. As we all know, the hon. member for Brome proclaimed himself to be a simon-pure, unadulterated and anti-purgatorial free trader. So I suppose when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was drafting his amendment he thought it advisable to effect a reconciliation between the political Pilate and the political Herod. But the contribution of the hon. member for Brome to the discussion did not add dignity to the debating style of this House. His contribution was not so much to determine whether this country should hdfce free trade or protection, but took the form of producing and reading imaginary letters - that were intended to have some ulterior political effect at a later day. I should like to know by what process of reasoning the hon. member lays the flattering unction to his soul that he has the right to constitute himself the censor of political morals or the arbiter of the conduct of ministers of the Crown. What legislation has he placed on the statute books to entitle him to assume such an outstanding and altogether unusual position among hon. members? What services did he offer to his country when she was struggling in the great war that would entitle him to arrogate to himself such precedence? I wish the hon. member was in his seat that I might say a great deal more to him. In my view his conduct was beneath contempt, and I take this occasion to condemn it in the strongest words of which I am capable.
. Now I come to the amendment, which is in this form:
That all the words after the word "that, to the end of the question, he omitted, and the following Inserted instead thereof:


An hon. MEMBER:: Dispense.


James McIsaac: I know why the hon. gentlemen exclaims "dispense":	he is
ashamed of this amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James McIsaac: Yes, ashamed of it. But to proceed with the amendment:
The House regrets that, after repeated assurances by the Government of an intention to have a revision of the Customs tariff, and after a protracted inquiry extending from ocean to ocean by a committee of cabinet ministers, the Government have made no proposals for any reduction of the tariff;
That, while recognizing that existing financial requirements of the Dominion demand the maintenance of a Customs tariff, the House is unable to concur in the declarations by the Government that the tariff should be based on the principle of protection; the tariff is a tax, and the him of legislation should be to make taxation as light as circumstances will permit;
That the aim ofi the fiscal policy of Canada should be 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;
That such changes should be made in the Customs duties as may be expected to reduce the cost of living, and to reduce also the cost of implements of production required for the efficient development of the natural resources of the Dominion;
That, while keeping this aim clearly in mind, the House recognizes that in any readjustment of the tariff that may take place, regard must toe had to existing conditions of trade, and changes made in such a manner as will cause the least possible disturbance of business.
That the House, while recognizing that the obligations arising from the war must be met, and declaring its readiness to make all necessary provision for that purpose, regrets that the financial proposals of the Government are not made with due regard to the economy that is so urgently needed, and expresses the opinion that, before resorting to new taxation, the Government should make a substantial reduction in the proposed expenditure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult for anyone to extract any meaning out of that amendment. It does not embody the platform of the Liberal party as adopted by them in 1919. It does not embody the platform of their friends the Agrarians, whom they are so anxious to get into the same boat with themselves. It does not ' embody the platform of any party, any person, or anything under the sun. It is the most marvellous hodge-podge that anyone could conceive; it means nothing and is intended to mean nothing. But any member of either of these parties who votes for this amendment will be able to carry it in his pocket and go about the country

saying:	I am in favour of this clause, or
I am in favour of that clause, and so on- a matter of deceiving the people through and through. But that does not surprise us, because it is part of the tactics of the Opposition.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to detain the House much longer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James McIsaac: Our friends opposite
are very hilarious. I am of the opinion, however that the hilarity is merely on the surface and that they are not enjoying themselves quite as much as they pretend. Perhaps they realize that the truth is coming home to them in a very homely but very pointed way, and I am sure they would gladly be relieved of the tension. I shall not, therefore, keep hon. gentlemen any longer in suspense; I know they are anxious to get relief, so I shall be generous to them in that respect. I thank you, Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the House for the attention which has been given to my remarks.


Mr. W. C. KENNEDY (North Essex) :: Mr. Speaker, congratulations have been extended to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) by the gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate. Some hon. gentlemen have congratulated him upon the very able manner in which he has administered the affairs of his department, others upon the very clear and lucid financial statement which he has presented. But I desire to congratulate the hon. gentleman upon his courage, because I believe it takes real courage for a minister to stand up and read to the House and to the country a statement showing that the result of the year's financial, operations is a deficit of $101,000,000 and that to-day the annual net debt of the country is $2,350,000,000. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the only remedy my hon. friend has to propose for the difficulty involved in the ever-increasing load of interest on indebtedness is taxation and more taxation. The statement was no very great surprise to me, Sir. It was a statement not only in respect of the year immediately closed, but also of the years immediately preceding it, a statement which disclosed what we knew to be the case: that in years immediately gone by there had been recklessness and indiscriminate borrowings and expenditure 
that was gross and extravagant to a degree.
I believe that the duties of a Minister of Finance are threefold: to think out means of raising revenue, to exact taxation, and to see that his confreres exercise care in the expenditure of public money. I can say without fear of contradiction that no man could sit and listen to the Estimates that have gone through this House without being struck by the fact that millions of dollars were being voted for expenditures which, in view of the financial condition of the country, could very well have been dispensed with. I am glad to see the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) in his place tonight. I had the pleasure of listening the other afternoon to his explanation of the votes that had been passed on account of his department, and it struck me that his explanation was very far afield. Surely, Sir, in view of the fact that we are just emerging from a world war, with all the expenses incidental thereto-pensions, allowances, soldier's settlement, and so on-we could have cut down our military expenditures this year. I have the greatest admiration for the militia of this country. I know what our militiamen have done and how valuable they are to us; I know that there are men in the militia who have given their time and their energy to making the militia what it has been and what it is. But notwithstanding that, Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that we could very well have dispensed this year with the annual drill, involving an expenditure of $1,500,000. There was no suggestion that if we did not send the militia out for their annual drill we would have to send the returned men. There was no occasion for the heroics indulged in by the Minister of Militia with regard to the deeds of our men across the sea; we realize and appreciate that as much as he does. Nor was there any occasion for flag-waving in that connection. And just here I want to say this to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia: personally I have the greatest regard andrespect for a good old-line Tory:- there is one thing about him; you always know where to find him. But I am ashamed of the Tories in this House-ashamed of them that they should sit still and allow so recent a recruit as the Minister of Militia to give such an exhibition of flag-waving and to leave them so far behind in that respect.
Mr. I.ALOR: We are proud of him orer here.


Mr. KENNEDY (Essex):: Well, the
minister has nothing on my hon. friend, because he is at it all the time. Now, if the question of this annual drill were left to the men composing the militia; if it had been pointed out' to them that the expenditure involved, $1,500,000, was to come by way of taxation out of the pockets of the people of this country and that the returned men would have to pay their share of it in the shoes and clothing they wore and in the food they ate, then, Sir, I believe that the militiamen themselves would be the first to say: We will dispense with the annual drill; we do not want to add further burdens to those already borne by the returned men. If my hon. friend had been so solicitous about the returned men-and I do not gainsay that he is sincere in his statement-it would have been more to the point had be dispensed with this proposed expenditure of $1,500,000, and handed the money over to the returned men who are to-day out of employment and whose families are in need of help.	.
Further, I believe that there might well have been some reduction in the appropriation of $6,250,000 in connection with the Permanent Force. It is true that we have a Permanent Force of 3,800 men, but it seems to me that the expenditure in connection with that force is out of all proportion to the number of men. I appreciate the fact that there is a headquarters staff to be kept up and that that is, perhaps, expensive; but at a time like this, we might readily have dispensed with some of the headquarters staff. It came out during the discussion of the Estimates that we have in this country at the present time 19 generals and, I think, 42 colonels and lieutenant-colonels on the pay-roll. I realize that these men are engagd in connection with, not only the Permanent Force, but the militia, but we could do without so many generals in Canada. There must be ten or twelve generals on the headquarters staff at Ottawa and, perhaps, one-half of them could be dispensed with, without any real loss to the militia, to the Permanent Force or to the people of Canada. Such action may be hard on the Minister of Militia, who seems to have an eye for generals; but the country could stand the reduction, and it would be a move in the right direction.
There is another matter about which I want to say just a word or two. The subject has been thoroughly discussed, perhaps over-discussed in some respects in this House, but nevertheless I feel that I should
say a word with reference to it. I refer to the mercantile marine. I regret exceedingly that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) is not in the chamber, because I should like to have had an opportunity of saying to him personally what I propose to say. The hon. gentleman has stated iri this House on more than one occasion during this session that the vote was practically unanimous in favour of the appropriation of $20,000,000 last year; that there was very little opposition to it in the House. When that vote was before the House last year, I did not hesitate to rise in my place and oppose it. I opposed it because I did not believe that it was good business; that it was in the interest of the country, or that we were justified in expending any more money for ships during 1920. Notwithstanding the advice given by men in this House who are in the shipping business, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries went ahead and laid the keels for new boats, and in addition to that he incurred further expenditure. On March 23, 1920, when this proposed appropriation of $20,000,000 was under discussion in the House, I made these observations. The minister had presented his statement, and in discussing that statement, I said:
I believe the statement by the hon. gentleman showed that we were making money out of the steamship business but I think he will agree with me that conditions are abnormal. He cannot expect that freights will continue where they are to-day. He knows, and nobody knows better than he, that it is only a matter of a short time until freights will decrease in volume; there will not be so many cargoes to carry, some of the ships will probably have difficulty In securing business, and we will consequently operate at a loss.
Further along, I said to the minister:
The hon. the Minister of Marine would not put his own money into a prospect if he thought that it would be unsuccessful with a possible loss within a few years; and if that is the case why should he put the money of the people into this enterprise now?	[DOT]
I opposed the appropriation then; I said that it was a poor business investment for the people of this country, and I say so to-day. I regret exceedingly that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries brought into the House the statement he did. That statement rather surprised me. The minister stated that our profits in connection with the mercantile marine during the year were $770,000 odd; but when you analyze that statement, you find he allowed only 2 per cent for depreciation on the ships. Any man in the shipping business, I do not care who he is or on what side of the House he may be, will tell



[Stage Direction]
you that in any well-regulated, well-managed shipping concern, an allowance of 5 per cent per annum is made for depreciation. In addition to that, not a five cent piece was allowed for interest on the $50,000,000 borrowed to be put into the enterprise, and further, no depreciation was allowed for the liquid assets. I do not believe this was a fair statement to present, nor that the minister should have presented such a statement to the House, because, as a matter of fact, it was a reflection upon the intelligence of hon. members and, indeed, upon the intelligence of the people of Canada.- If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will give us a fair and clear financial statement of the operation of his vessels for the incoming year, he will find that, allowing 5 per cent for depreciation on the boats, allowing interest on borrowed capital, allowing for depreciation of the liquid assets, we will not operate the mercantile marine for this year without a loss of $6,000,000. I have no hesitation in going on record on that to-night. A sum of $6,000,000 may not mean much to hon. gentlemen opposite who have got into the habit of speaking of hundreds of milions; but it represents 6 per cent on $100,000,000, which might . easily be taken as being added to our national debt. Moreover, the Government cannot escape responsibility in connection with the action of the Department of Marine and Fisheries; they are equally responsible with the minister; they cannot permit a minister, no matter what department he presides over, to engage in a hazardous enterprise without assuming the responsibility. For months and months, and indeed for years to come, the people of this country will be paying interest for the folly of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
In the course of the session which is now drawing to a close, we have had many interesting discussions in this House; but there was, perhaps, none that attracted more attention throughout the country and that was of more interest to the people of Canada than the discussion with reference to the railways. I should like to say just a word or two in connection with the railway situation. Much has been said with reference to the failure of public ownership. We know that the Canadian Pacific, assuming, perhaps naturally, that the people are dissatisfied with the conditions that obtain to-day,, made an offer. We know further that to-day there is a committee of this House dealing with the railway problem. My hope is that they
tair. Kennedy.]
will find some way out of our difficulties; but in the meantime, I personally do not see how this affects the question of public ownership one way or the other. I do not propose to-night to discuss the merits of public versus private ownership, but if public ownership is ever to be a success, it must have back of it the confidence of the people of the country.
I say that so far as the men at the head of the government railways are concerned, and so far as the question of political interference by this Government with the directorate is concerned, these men have not the confidence of the people. I say this advisedly, because I believe that when the Government took over the Canadian Northern, and amalgamated the different systems, they made a grievous mistake, so far as obtaining the confidence of the public is concerned, when they appointed Mr. D. B. Hanna president of the National railways. It is true that the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) has said that Mr. Hanna is a first-class railway operator and a first-class railway man in every respect. That may be so; I hope it is; but for one who is an expert operator, for one who knows his business thoroughly, Mr. Hanna has been singularly unfortunate in the roads he has been connected with. As a matter of fact, those who gave the matter any thought at all said, when Mr. D. B. Hanna came in as president and general manager of the National Railway system; it is the old Canadian Northern crowd again, and the only difference is that they will be dictating the policy, and the Government will be paying the bills. That was the thought of the public. It was impossible to disassociate in the public mind Mr. Hanna from the Canadian Northern, and he must of necessity accept the responsibility for his twenty years association with that road.
Anybody who knows the history of the Canadian Northern knows that the men who were the alleged owners of the road never attempted or even thought of making money out of the operation of the road. That was too slow a method. Their money was to be made out of the building of the road. They were railroad builders, not railroad operators. From one end of the country to the other where the Canadian Northern was built and operated, there were subsidiary companies, and these subsidiary companies did not leave much of the parent company when it was turned over to the Government. As I said before, if the Government want to make

a success of the National railways, the very first thing they must do, in my opinion, is to place a man in charge who will have the confidence of the public, and I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Hanna, irrespective of whatever ability he may possess, does not and will not have the confidence of the public on account of his past associations.
The Minister of Railways has asked for suggestions from the House. I give him mine for what they are worth. I have no doubt at all that he will not accept them, but that does not matter. Early this session I asked a question of the Government with reference to the directors of the Canadian Government railways. I took the position that the responsibility of appointing the directors was the Government's. Here were men to whom we were turning over every year approximately $200,000,000 of the people's money to expend. The very first thing the Government should have seen to was that the men who occupied these responsible positions, if they were real directors, not dummy directors, were competent responsible men who were not tied up to or allied with any other interest that might conflict with that of the railway. Having that in mind, I asked the following questions of the Government, which will be found in Hansard of March 21, 1921:
1.	What are the names of the gentlemen who . compose the Board of Management of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What is the salary of each, and what amount did each receive as expenses during the past year?
3.	Are any of these gentlemen also directors of joint stock companies doing business in Canada?
4.	If so, of what company or companies are they respectively directors?
Hon. Mr Reid, (Grenville) :
1.	D. B. "Hanna, A. J. Mitchell, R. T. Riley, R. Hobson, Major G. A. Bell, Sir Hormisdas Baporte, Col. Thomas Cantley, A. P. Barnhill, E. R. Wood.
2.	Director's fees, $2,000 each, and travelling expenses to and from their homes.
3.	The Government has no information.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
So here we have the Government stating in the House that they have handed over the railways of this country to certain gentlemen to direct for the people and have authorized them to spend every year approximately $200,000,000 of the people's money although the Government have no knowledge of their previous associations or affiliations. Surely, that is not good business. Surely that is
216i
not exercising the ordinary business caution of men who are trustees, as the Government are trustees for the people, in a matter so important as this. If the Government does not know what the interests and affiliations of these gentlemen are there are books published that will tell them. If they will look in the Directory of Directors they will find that these gentlemen have belonged to a great many companies. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) on one occasion in the House this session read out a list of the companies they were associated with, and one could not help being struck by the fact that these gentlemen are directors in many companies which are doing millions of dollars worth of business each year with the national railways. I do hope, that in making purchases for the Canadian National Railways these gentlemen get the lowest possible price, I have no doubt they do but that is not the question. I say it is highly improper for men who are directors and presidents of companies which are doing millions of dollars worth of business with the national railways to be also acting as directors of the railways. Let me explain what I mean. We have in the list of directors the name of Mr. Robert Hobson. Mr. Hobson is president of the Canada Steel Company. Now the Canada Steel Company does quite a business with the Canadian National Railways. As I said before, if Mr. Hobson is a real director, with all the responsibilities of a director, when the purchasing agent comes in with his requisition for the directors to pass upon, what does Mr. Hobson do when the tenders are opened from the Canada Steel Company? Does he say: The prices are too high. He is the president of that company, remember. Or does he-he probably does-refuse to sit on the board while the matter is being discussed? Let me give another example. This same gentleman is a director of the Canadian Locomotive Works. What does he do when the tenders from that firm for locomotives are being considered? Does he say that the prices quoted by that firm are too high, and that the national railways should not deal with that firm for locomotives, or does he refuse to sit on the board and look out of the window while the matter is being discussed? I might also take the case of Colonel Cantley, who is a director of the Eastern Car Company, and of the Nova Scotia Steel Company. What does he do when tenders from these companies are being opened by the Board of Directors? I might go on down the list. The point I
[Stage Direction]
make is that these gentlemen are occupying an anomalous position. They have no right to be buyers and sellers at the same time, and if their own sense of propriety does not dictate that to them the Government should step in and see that the men who are in charge of the National Railway System as directors should not be associated with companies which are doing millions of dollars worth of business with the National Railway System annually. Let me tell you that the people of this country who know anything about the railway situation appreciate that point. You will hear it everywhere. How does the Government expect to make public ownership a success under these conditions?
They must first have the confidence of the public, and they will never get it unless they do what should be done. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid), is looking for suggestions. Let me give him two: First, ask for the resignation of the president; second, ask for the resignation from the directorate of men who are associated or affiliated with other companies doing business with the railways. If he does this he will go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the enterprise, and in that way he would help largely to wipe out the annually increasing deficit.
My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, has been delivering a good many addresses outside of this House, and once or twice in the House, with reference to the adverse balance of trade. I should like to say a word or two bearing upon that important subject. I do not care what views any hon. gentleman in this House may hold with reference to the tariff. I do not think that anyone will gainsay the fact that our manufacturing industries in Canada have done much to develop the country. I have no hesitation in saying that; nor have I any desire to minimize the effect of what they have done. In my opinion, however, the manufacturers of the country to-day are nbt fully alive to their responsibilities. I believe they have been paying too much attention to the home market of 9,000,000 people, and not giving enough attention to the markets of our sister Dominions comprising in all over 400,000,000. There are two alternatives when a business man or a manufacturing concern is threatened with competition. In the first place, if it is a question of price, the business man sits down, looks the situation over carefully, and realizes that one way of improving matters is to increase the volume of business, decrease his overhead, and thus re-

duce the price of his finished product so that he may meet competition. There is another way, and it is one which I think has been more in vogue during the past few years than is really good for the country, and that is, for the manufacturer to come to Ottawa, and ask for more protection so as absolutely to shut out competition. When that is done, so far as he is concerned, he is through; and many of the manufacturers, I am afraid, have pursued this line of least resistance. I know that the Minister of Finance is always frank; but, if he were perfectly willing, I have no doubt he could tell us to-night that during the past few weeks there have been many hundreds of manufacturers from various parts of the Dominion calling ai his office and asking for protection, and more protection. So far as this Budget itself is concerned, there are no tariff increases; but I am not so sure that in connection with the legislation enacted by my hon. friend, extending the anti-dumping clause, there is not room for some of our manufacturing friends to be well taken care of. As a matter of fact, this new law will give the Minister of Customs almost arbitrary authority in regard to fixing the price at which goods may be entered, although of course, I do not say that will be done: Within a year we shall learn whe-' ther it is or not; but there is ample room there for a good deal of protection, probably more than 5 or 10 per cent of a direct rise in the schedule would be.
As I have remarked, I think the manufacturers of this country have been paying too much attention to the home market to the neglect of foreign markets. Recently a campaign has been put on to buy goods made in Canada, and in connection with that compaign, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association made a tour of the principal cities in Ontario. This gentleman not only addressed encouraging remarks to the business men to buy goods made in Canada, but he also delivered addresses on pretty nearly every question under the sun. In one place,
I notice, he warned them against the evils of an early election. He said: "If you have an election now it will interfere with business and unsettle the minds of the people of the country." An election interfere with business to-day, when one-half of the factories are shut down and the other half running on half-time! An election unsettle the minds of the people, when the great majority of the Canadian people are only waiting for an opportunity to get their

minds settled by turning out this Government! Why, sir, the unsettling factor in the country to-day is, that the people are not given the opportunity to state their minds; and if my hon. friends opposite have any doubt about that, let them put it to the test, and they will soon find out.
Now, my hon. friend, the president of the Manufacturers' Association, was kind to my Agrarian friends. I do not know whether it was at Peterborough or at some other place he suggested that it might be advisable to allow a rebate of income tax so far as the farmers were concerned. Well, that would make for a very friendly feeling, as he said, between the farmers and the manufacturers; but I do not know why he simply limited his proposal to the farmers. Why did he not suggest taking the income tax off everybody and thus have everybody cheering for the Manufacturers' Association? It would have appealed to a good many of us, I know.
These gentlemen are not paying sufficient attention to foreign trade. Recently I had the opportunity of listening to an address delivered by Mr. A. N. Lawrence, the general sales manager of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, who had just returned from abroad after having travelled for over sixteen months throughout the sister Dominions, and having covered 64,000 miles. What does he say with reference to the enterprise and initiative of our Canadian manufacturers? This is what he says:
During my entire sixteen months abroad, I never met a single representative of any Canadian enterprise. On the' other hand, the activity of American representatives in these same countries is so decidedly marked that one could safely say that to-day American industries are invading the whole of the British overseas possessions.
That is the statement of the sales agent of a Canadian concern. He spent sixteen months in the British Dominions, including India, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and the Straits Settlement, representing a total population of some 400,000,000: in some of these Dominions we have a preferential tariff; nevertheless, these places are all over-run by Americans, while there are no representatives of Canadian firms in any one of these countries. What does this gentleman say? In every city he visited the Americans were selling their goods and buying raw materials, and those same raw materials they subsequently sold in New York to Canadian manufacturers. Is there any wonder there is a balance of trade against us? It is not the fault of the consumers whom my hon.
friend has been lecturing; it is largely the fault of those who supply the consumer.
Sir, I have some figures here in regard to last year's trade imports; they are taken from the statistics supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and cover the imports for the fiscal years ending March 31, last. They disclose that furs and skins to the value of $10,878,924 were imported from the United States. Why send our raw furs to the United States and bring back the finished product? Of leather and manufactures of leather we imported $15,742,091. Surely such an extensive importation as that constitutes an indictment against those who are in the leather and shoe business in this country. Then of copper and its products we imported $8,477,403 worth. Now, there is no country in the world in which there is more copper available than Canada. Why then should we import over $8,000,000 worth of copper and its products from the United States? Then of electric and gas apparatus we imported $10,780,775. We have concerns in Canada who are manufacturing these very articles under protection. In that case why should our people have to go to the United States and buy $10,000,000 worth? There is something radically wrong when such importations are made, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance should lecture the Canadian manufacturers in that connection. He should tell them to make what the people of this country want and there will be no difficulty at all in getting the Canadian consumers to buy Canadian products.
Apropos of the addresses that have been delivered by my hon. friend, I notice that he has been lecturing the ladies on the wearing apparel which they obtain in the United States and elsewhere. I have not sufficient knowledge to determine where that wearing apparel comes from, but I assume that my hon. friend knows what he is talking about. Speaking more particularly of the women of my home city- Windsor-they do not go across the Detroit river and pay ferry fare, car fare, and the exchange on Canadian money, and then duties on the goods they bring back, just for the privilege of purchasing clothing in the United States; they go there simply because they cannot obtain what they need from our local stores. That is not the fault of the local merchants, it is because the manufacturers in Canada are not giving them the desired style and quality. Just as soon as they provide these requisites there will be no need to lecture the con-
[Stage Direction]
sumers on the necessity of buying home products. Nobody wants to buy any goods made outside of Canada; everybody that I know of wishes to help Canadian trade by buying Canadian goods. All want to do their part in that regard, but let the Canadian manufacturers give them value for their money. I agree that the slogan "Buy goods made in Canada" is a good one, and I heartily approve of it, but I would add these words to that slogan "Just as long as you get equal value for your money." I do not believe it is right to penalize the consumers in this country in order to keep Canadian manufacturers in business who are not able to meet proper competition.
I have nothing more to say except a word or two in reference to the amendment. I need hardly say, Sir, that I propose to vote for the amendment. I shall Jo so for several reasons: In the first place, it emanates from the Liberal party, and the Liberal party and its policy have always appealed to me. The Liberal party was the party that made this country prosperous, and I am perfectly satisfied that if it is again returned to power, prosperity will once more return to this country. That is one reason why I am going to vote for the amendment. Another reason is this: I believe that my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is absolutely proceeding along the right line when he says the kind of manufactures that should be encouraged in Canada are those that will avail themselves of our raw materials. I have no hesitation in supporting that. I likewise believe in the statement contained in the
10 p.m. amendment that any change in the tariff should be one that will lower the burden which the consumers of this country are carrying today.
Mr. SAMUEL CHARTERS (Peel):: I
was very much surprised at the tone of the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kennedy, Essex) who has just taken his seat. Most young men now-a-days are cheerful in their utterances, but the hon. member was very doleful-he sees nothing around him that is good. He complains of what he calls "the flag waving" of the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie). My hon. friend will not he accused of anything of that kind. Let me say that the Minister of Militia, though he may be sneered at by hon. gentlemen opposite who are not in sympathy with him, stands high in the affections of the people of this country because of the position he took

three or four years ago when it meant a very great deal for him to take the stand he did.
The complaint is also made that we have too many generals. Surely my hon. friend knows that the generals were not the product of any action on the part of the Government; they were the product of the war. These officers won their generalships by sacrifices and by services to their country, and had other gentlemen acted similarly they might have also been promoted.
My hon. friend' from Essex has complained in regard to everything. Judging by his speech, if he had his way the militia would not be needed, the naval service would be discontinued, and the railway situation might be regarded as settled. Many years ago we were accustomed to what were called "blue ruin" speeches, but not much has been heard of them of late. Now we have had a resurrection of those sentiments by my hon. friend from Essex. However, such views are not very generally entertained by members on either side of the House. I do not think my hon. friend will strengthen himself in the town of Windsor by the position which he takes in relation to the manufacturers of the country. He tells us that a number of manufacturers visited the Minister of Finance before the Budget was brought down
that they came to Ottawa, looking for more protection. Surely my hon. friend did, not expect the Minister of Finance to intimate to them that they must not come. My hon. friend adds, however, with respect to the interview "They did not get it." If that is the position surely there can be no complaint on that score.
Then my hon. friend said , that half the factories in the country are closed and the other half are not operating on full time. All they want, he says, is an election in order to have a chance to turn the Government out. Then, I suppose, they will go full steam ahead.
My hon. friend tells us we should buy goods from the United States if the value of the goods is just a little bit better than the value we can obtain at home. I do not think that is a good policy myself, and I am satisfied that the people of this country, to a very large degree, do not believe so either although I think we have a right to give them every advantage so far as we can do so.
I do not know that I would be wise in attempting to follow any further the statements that have been made by the hon. gentleman. They will be read throughout

the country with very great surprise by those who had expected from the young, cheerful, coming and expectant Finance Minister something more encouraging and li apeful.
In this, as in every other Budget debate, it is contended that the policy of protection works injury to those engaged in agriculture. Protection, we are told, has made for the abandonment of farming, for rural depopulation, for decreased production, and for unequal and burdensome taxation. If that charge could be proven I do not think the farmers of Canada would have supported the policy for so many years. They would have abolished it. But the conditions that obtain in the province of Ontario-that is where any rural depopulation or shifting of population is most pronounced-are practically the same as they are elsewhere.
For instance, in Michigan it was officially reported that there were no fewer than 18,132 farms abandoned in last year, that
1.700.000	acres were undeveloped, that
30.000	farm houses were vacant, and that
46.000	persons left farms in three years and 10,000 in one year. The same conditions prevail in the state of Indiana. According to a statement made in April last by the Wall street journal, 255,000 farmers- left the land in one year in that state, 24,000 vacant farm houses were reported in New York State, and only
300.000	farmers remained on the land in that state. So if there has been some shifting of population in this province, the same condition exists in the states across the line. The protective tariff, which is higher there, has not kept the people on the land; nor has the free trade, or near free trade policy had that effect in England, because the same condition exists there.
What are conditions in the province of Ontario? We have been told over and over again during the past forty years that 3,500 people had left the farms every year and had gone to the cities and towns or elsewhere, and it has been contended that the Government, or the National Policy, is responsible for this so-called rural depopulation. If the policy of the government is to blame, then one side is just as responsible as the other, because for fifteen years the Liberals were in power in the Dominion and for twenty-five years in the province, and if it was possible to remedy that condition of affairs by legislation they would have done so. But the statements are not -quite borne out by the facts. For instance,
those who left the rural parts of the province were not by any means all farmers. In almost every part of old Ontario there are many unincorporated villages, the inhabitants of which are classed as rural residents. Because of the changed conditions these villages have been practically wiped out in some places and the people have gone elsewhere. But they were not all farmers; there were the corner tavern keeper, the grocer, blacksmith, the wagon maker, and the others employed in different lines of trade; they have gone, and in that way there has been a reduction in population. But in addition to that we have other causes that I need not refer to here, one of them being the exceedingly low birthrate in certain rural parts of the province.
But if those people have left the province in any considerable numbers-and undoubtedly they have-they have not been lost to Canada, because they have gone to one or other of the western provinces and are now assisting in developing the country in the various capacities in which they are engaged. That is borne out by the fact that in this House 33 members representing western constituencies were born in the province of Ontario, and I think that should be regarded as a recommendation in favour of those members.
But whatever may have been the conditions in the past, the changing of population has ceased. There is no' longer a decrease in the rural population of the province of Ontario. The population of 1919 is greater than that of 1918 and the population of 1920 is greater than that of 1919. The figures are:
1918		 996,228
1919		 998,597
1920		 999,910
The increase is not very large, it is true, but there is an increase, and it is about equal to half of the decrease in the years referred to. Then, on the other side, instead of a further increase in the population of the towns and villages there has been a decrease. The decrease last year compared with 1919 was 8,255, or two and a half times as great as the decrease in the rural population in the years, immediately preceding. This, I think, furnishes very good evidence that the so-called exodus from the land, in so far at least as the province of Ontario is concerned, has practically ceased; and i* evidence also that the people in the-towns and villages are seeking employment in the country, a condition of affairs which will be generally agreeable to all those who are interested in the progress of the country.

But while there has been that decrease in population in those years, production has not decreased. Improved machinery, improved methods, improved conditions have made possible increased production with the decreased labour. Many millions of dollars, as everybody knows, have been expended in the construction of good roads, and this has made possible the easier marketing of farm products. To-day a man can drive a distance of fifteen, twenty or twenty-five miles with half the time, labour and expense that were occasioned in days gone by. Millions of dollars have also been expended in establishing the rural mail service, which has been another convenience to the people in every part of the Dominion, perhaps more especially so to those in the older portions of Ontario. Then, too there has been invested in telephones in the province of Ontario no less a sum than $50,000,000, with 360,000 telephones in use, or one for every seven persons. I mention these things for the purpose of indicating the changes that have taken place and also the improvements that were possible because of those changes.
Let me give an illustration furnished by the Department of Agriculture a short time ago. In 1850 it took one man 39 hours to produce an acre of corn; to-day it requires only 18 hours. In 1850 it took a man 61 hours to produce an acre of wheat; now it takes only ten hours. In 1850 it took a man 21 hours to harvest an acre of hay; to-day it takes only 8 hours. In Belgium one man works five acres of land; in England, 10 acres; in Ontario, 40 acres. That is, Ontario's production per man is very much higher than in those two countries, although their yield per acre is very much greater than ours.
As to our field crops and other farm produce during the years that have been complained about, taking the years prior to the war, the following statement will be interesting as applying to Ontario:
1883	1913
Field crops	$114,000,000	$160,000,000Farm buildings	..	163,000,000	345,000,000Live stock	
99,000,000	237,000,000
This is not an indication that agriculture was going back in that province. The same applies to the Dominion. The total farm products of Canada in 1900 amounted to $364,000,000; in 1910, $663,000,000; in 1919, $1,197,000,000.
If there have been abandoned farms, as is contended-and there were some, but they are very few in so far as that pprt 
of the country is concerned-there were also abandoned factories. It is sometimes contended that every farmer is a man who is suffering, and that every manufacturer is a man who is prospering; but in the ten years 4,500 failures of manufacturing concerns have taken place in Canada. And, let me say that rural depopulation has ceased to exist in Ontario, if it ever did exist. Abandoned farms are few where the land is good and reasonably certain for cultivation.
It cannot be denied, however, that there is still a shortage of farm labour, and nobody has been able to suggest a remedy that can be adopted to provide against that shortage. Everybody knows that there is very considerable unemployment in the cities, while the farmers require hired men. The reason that those idle men in the cities are not employed in the country is because the farmers are unable to pay the wages demanded, and those who are out of employment refuse to accept the wages the farmer is able to pay. If any one can devise means by which the two can be brought together, he will be doing a good service to his country, but so far nobody has proposed legislation or any other remedy that will accomplish that end.
While everybody is anxious to see as many people as possible working on the land, it would not be well for everybody, or even nearly everybody, to be a farmer. It is a fact that those countries in which farming is the chief occupation of the people are not countries which we look upon as examples, so to speak. In Mexico nearly all the people are on the land. In Russia 85. per cent of the people are still engaged in farming, and in India the proportion is equally large. An hon. gentleman referred the other day to a native of China, a grandson of Confucius, as giving valuable instruction to the people of this and other countries. In China the people are largely on the land, and Canadians, supposed to be downtrodden and taxed to death, are subscribing money to keep the Chinese people from starving in the famine districts. I mention these things because in recent years it has been a common practice on many platforms to assert that the farmers all over Canada, particularly those in Ontario, are suffering because of the policy of protection. It is a fact, however, that under the policy of protection the farmers of Canada have prospered as they never prospered before, and they are prospering to-day much more than they would have done had the policy

of free trade which is advocated in some quarters been adopted.
Another complaint we frequently hear is that the farmers are subjected to unfair taxation. There is no doubt that the farmers are able and willing to hear their fair share of the burden of taxation, and the complaint that they are unduly taxed is not justified by the facts. One complaint that is heard very frequently is that the duty on farm implements is a heavy burden upon those engaged in agriculture. But those who have made a careful study of the situation say otherwise. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), himself a farmer, is an example. He showed the other night that $28 per annum was the amount paid in customs taxes by the farmer on the ordinary 100 acres of land. If that is true-and I have no doubt that it is-surely there is not much ground for complaint on that score.
Then there is the other argument that the tariff increases the price of farm implements, and that if the duty were removed, if we had free trade, prices would come down. But the experiences of the past have not shown that to be the case either. The question of binder twine has been before the country for many years. There is no tax on binder twine, and if the arguments of free traders hold good that article should be just as cheap in Canada as it is in the United States. But the facts are that this year in Ontario-* and I have no doubt in the western provinces as well-the price of binder twine was from 20 to 211 cents per pound, while in the United States-Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois-the price was 161 cents. This is an instance of what we might expect if the duty on other articles was removed.
Then, there is the other article about; which so much has been said, the cream separator. Mr. Findley gave a very exhaustive statement on this subject last fall. He pointed out that a cream separator sells for $105, no duty being imposed, but that a mower, in which there is very much more material and the construction of which involves more labour, sells for $97 although it is subject to a duty of 121 per cent. These are sample cases; I am sure that instances of this kind could be multiplied indefinitely.
The question has been raised whether the burden is too heavy in other directions. Does the income tax bear too heavily upon the farmers of Canada? Everybody knows that it does not. Answering a question in the House of Commons a few weeks ago the Finance Minister said that the
amount collected in income tax up to February 28, 1921 was $62,687,258 and that of this amount the farmers had paid in 1917 and 1918-the returns for 1919 being not then complete-$957,980. This shows that the income tax is being carried by those who are best able to pay and is evidence of the wisdom of the Finance Minister in imposing it as he has done.
We hear a good deal this afternoon about the sales tax. I said at the beginning of my remarks that the member for Essex was in a doleful mood; I do not think he was any more doleful, however, than our usually cheerful friend the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) :	The sales tax,
according to him, was everything that was bad. The hon. member estimated that the sales tax would amount to $147.50 per family.


John Flaws Reid: I wish to correct my hon. friend; I did not make any such statement. What I did say was that the customs tax plus the sales tax would amount to $147.50.


Samuel Charters: posed on goods imported into the United Kingdom. In other words, the average amount paid by the residents of the United Kingdom, represented as a free trade country, by way of customs tariff tax last year was $16, only $3.50 per head less than that collected in Canada, which is supposed to be a high tariff country. The amount paid in England per family, therefore, would be about $80 per family.
The hon. gentleman, who complains about the sales tax, the customs tax and almost every other tax, subscribes to the doctrine that there should be freedom from taxation and free trade everywhere. That view, of course, he has the right to hold and to advance as far as he is able. But surely he must forget that we require $450,000,000 of revenue during the next year. Where are we going to get it? If he wipes out $100,000,000 or thereabouts in customs duties, the portion of the sales tax with which he is dissatisfied, and other items dealt with in the platform which he supports, we shall have very great difficulty in securing the money or in providing other means of taxation. As to a land tax, I venture to say that it would not be very acceptable to the farmers of this country.
Let us keep in mind that there must be industrial centres and the question is whether they will be in Canada or in a foreign country. Every shoe factory that is now in operation, every woollen industry, every foundry, every factory of any kind, gives considerable employment, increases the purchasing power of the community, and adds to the prosperity of the people. Seven hundred thousand men are now engaged in the factories of the country and are supporting no less than 2,000,000 of the people in this Dominion. In that number 75,000 are engaged in branch factories of American concerns that have been established in this country because of the tariff, and that are established only because the tariff has been imposed. These people are receiving from those factories no less a sum than $80,000,000 in wages annually. Surely, we are not anxious that that should be reduced in any way, and I am quite satisfied that if the policy advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite is put into effect, there will be very few, if any, of those factories remaining in Canada five years hence.
We are anxious also to interest outside capital. We cannot interest outside capital by the method adopted by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) who speaks for the

Opposition as a financial critic. That hon. gentleman the other day gave this warning:
If there are any people in Canada who are contemplating the establishment of new lines of business in which they feel that tariff protection is necessary, I do them a friendly service when I say: "Don't do it," because anybody who counts upon the continuance of a protective policy is bound to find that he is pursuing a delusion. If any outside capitalist purposes coming to Canada to start some industry which he believes can only be kept alive by protection, again, I advise him not to come.
That is not good advice to those who are contemplating coming to Canada. It is not good advice to those who are here; but as the hon. gentleman and his friends will not have an opportunity for many years to come of putting their views into practice, I do not know that we need pay much attention to it. The National Policy has met with the approval of the people; the policy that has made Canada great during forty years will continue to make Canada greater and greater in the years that are immediately before us.


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, while I have been listening to the different contributions to this debate during the last few days, there have presented themselves to my mind several thoughts which I venture to place before the House. In the first place, the one outstanding feature of the Budget, as I see it, is that while an effort is made by my genial friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) to raise the necessary funds to meet what are, in some cases, unnecessary expenditures, a very different policy is followed this year from what was repeatedly announced last year as being the policy of the Government, that is that while last year the policy of direct taxation was placarded all over the luxury taxes of unhappy memory, this year the Government has changed its mind and adopted its old policy of indirect taxation and, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has pointed out, these taxes actualy place a heavier burden upon the workingman than upon the millionaire. In this regard, I would point out that in the United States while they are repealing the excess profits tax, they at the same time propose to replace it by a tax upon corporate profits, so that this tax may be adjusted according to ability to pay. But under our Budget scheme, the business profits tax is repealed, and the burden is shifted on to the shoulders of the consuming public in the shape of a 50 per cent increase in the sales tax.

A good deal has been said about expenditure in other countries in comparison with Canada, and a few days ago the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) gave us bushels of figures along this line, but then he did not give the whole story. I find that the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States announced, in his estimate of expenditure for this year, a reduction of $1,000,000,000 from that of last year, or in other words, a reduction in round numbers from $5,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000. This expenditure of $4,000,000,000 which is proposed for this year works out at $37 per capita, while ours in Canada of $591,000,000 on an estimate of our population of 8,500,000, is just aropnd $70 for each man, woman and child in the Dominion. That is to say, $37 per capita in the United States and $70 per capita in Canada, or almost double that in the United States. The Minister of Militia and Defence, however, showed us that the militia and defence expenditure in Canada is only $1.69 per capita, while in the United States he showed it to be $13.13 per capita. This would leave an expenditure for everything outside of defence of $23.87 per capita in the United States as against $68.31 per capita in Canada, or. practically three times as much.
I am reminded of another famous speech by the Minister of Militia and Defence in which he criticises the farmers of the Dominion for purchasing machinery made in the United States. I would draw his attention to a statement of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), that last year Canada imported 2,000,000 pounds of strawberries and 4,000,000 pounds of out of season tomatoes from the United States, and I would ask him: Does he think these were purchased by the farmers?
While the expenditure of the United States is being cut down by $1,000,000,000 and is only $37 per capita as against our $70, the Secretary of the Treasury is evidently convinced that it is still too high, and in his message to the Committee on Ways and Means he has this to say about it, which might well be considered here:
The nation cannot continue to spend at this shocking rate. As the President said in his message, the burden is unbearable and there are two avenues of relief. "One is rigid resistance in appropriation and the other is utmost economy in administration." This is no time for extravagance or for entering upon new fields of expenditure. The nation's finances are sound and its credit is the best in the world, but it cannot afford reckless or wasteful expenditure. New or large expenditures cannot be financed without increased taxes or new loans. Expenditures
should not even be permitted to continue at the present rate.


Mr. GLASS:: Could my hon. friend tell the House what are the per capita imports of the United States and the per capita imports of Canada? They would have a material bearing on this question.


Andrew Knox: I am speaking about the per capita expenditures, and I think the quotations given should be quite satisfactory to prove my argument.
In regard to our estimates of expenditure for this year, I would point out that there are .many items, some very large items, which might well be eliminated in view of the strenuous times through which we are passing, and in view of the fact that to meet these expenditures it is necessary to resort to further taxation of the great masses of the common people who are already indirectly taxed to the limit on almost everything they purchase, outside of some foodstuffs. Why should the workingman of the city of Prince Albert, or the homesteader or farmer of northern Saskatchewan have to pay an increased tax for the purpose of spending millions of dollars on the Welland and Trent Valley canals, which can give no immediate returns, while they are denied the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, knowing as they do that the difference between the transportation charges by the present route and the Hudson bay route would mean the difference between success and failure for them?
Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. member for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt) as a supporter of the Government, criticise in no milk and water fashion . the wanton expenditures that are taking place, particularly that connected with the Trent Valley canal. I am sure that many hon. members supporting the Government, if they really spoke out their minds, would speak in the same way. The argument has been made that these expenditures are merely for the purpose of giving employment. If that is the case, I can easily mention a number of ways in which employment can be given with much more beneficial effect than by this expenditure on canals and dry docks. One way in particular that commends itself to me, and that would certainly have the advantage of benefiting a class of men well deserving of it, would be a loan to the returned man, so that he might build a house for himself and thus help to re-establish himself in the country. If the same amount

were expended in this way it would give a great deal more employment than if expended on canals and dry docks; secondly, it would be spread over the whole Dominion more equally; thirdly, the money would eventually find its way back to the treasury; and fourthly, and most important of all, you would have the satisfaction of knowing that you were doing something for the man who really deserved it. Many of these men have come back with the full intention of marrying and settling down, but in view of the present housing situation, this is impossible. In many of the towns and cities rents are practically beyond reach, and very few returned men are in a position to build without assistance. I ask the Government seriously to consider this proposal.
Speaking of northern Saskatchewan, I would point out that the people there are naturally optimistic if they are only given a chance. They feel that they have an unequalled heritage both in soil and climatic conditions. It is now more than fifty years since the first settlement was made in the Prince Albert constituency, and during that time we have never had a crop failure. We have untold undeveloped natural resources in the northern part of the constituency, but vast areas are handicapped for want of transportation facilities. Speaking of transportation facilities, I was gratified to hear the Minister of Railways announce a few days ago, when giving the programme of branch lines on which steel would be laid this year, that steel would be laid on the Paddockwood line north of Prince Albert, and on the line running north-east from Melford. I have here a copy of the Prince Albert Daily Herald, published since then, making reference to this construction, and I wish to quote a short extract to show that the people there are mindful of the situation, and appreciate what it is proposed to do:
Much gratification is naturally felt in the city and district over the announcement from Ottawa that the Paddockwood railway line is on the program for rails this year, which means that trains may he running north from this city before the snow flies again. Operation of this branch will at the outset open up a rich territory but the importance of the new line lies not so much in the first twenty miles as in later extensions which will put a vast area possessing wonderful natural resources into touch with Prince Albert.
Laying of steel on the north line will be most gladly welcomed by the prosperous soldier settlement which has gone in around Paddockwood. It is possibly largely on account of promises made to this settlement that the Government has decided to proceed with this line in a year

when only a small mileage of steel laying will be attempted.
In view of the plan of the Government it will be necessary that the grading work on this line be rushed to completion so that there will be no reason to be advanced on that score why the steel cannot be laid in late summer and fall.
The contract was let and the grading partly completed last year. The balance is being rushed now, so as to be ready for the steel.
I must admit that I can see a slight ray of light, possibly a slight indication of penitence, in the fact that the Minister of Finance has exempted from the sales tax foodstuffs in their natural state, as well as the first product of the fisheries, mines and forests. If the Government would only extend this exemption to apply to customs tariffs on the implements of production used in these same lines, I would be forced to the conclusion that they had at last repented, though it might be only death-bed repentance. I am sorry, however, that there are no indications of any such thing.
As the platform of the Progressive party calls for the free admission of the implements of production and the amendment now before the House also calls for that, I shall certainly vote for the amendment.
The present Government has announced its policy as a policy of protection. We know where they stand in that regard. We also know where the Manufacturers' Association stands with regard to the Government. But what is this protection going to do for the farmer of this country? It is going to increase the price of everything he has to buy without any corresponding increase for what he has to sell, and it is going to increase the cost of living for the public generally. Here is what the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour once said about protection, speaking in Edinburgh:
A protective policy ie a policy which aims at supporting or creating home industries by raising home prices. The raising of prices is a necessary step towards the encouragement of an industry under a protective system. The object of protection i-s to encourage home industries. The means whereby it attains that object is by the manipulation of a fiscal system to raise home prices. If the home prices are not raised, the industry is not encouraged. If the industry is encouraged, it is by the raising of prices.
I think that that coming from a man like Mr. Balfour, shows that it is a recognized thing that protection does increase prices. A few days ago I had a letter from a western farmer who gives a good deal of thought and study to economic and public questions, and one paragraph coincided so

closely with my own views on the subject that I venture to quote it here.
To make our railroads profitable we must have production along their lines; to have production we must have people; to have people producing we must create such economic conditions surrounding production that they can reasonably hope to make that production profitable.
I would ask, in all fairness, if there is any indication on the part of the present Government, or one jot or tittle of evidence in their policy, to show that they are making the least attempt to create such economic conditions surrounding production of the natural products that those engaged therein may reasonably expect to make that production profitable. If there is, I have been unable to find it.
A great deal has been said about a Board of Inquiry to inquire into the grain trade. If anything can be done to improve condi-ditions in that trade, it will certainly be appreciated by the people of the West, but permit me, Sir, to inform this House that there is a strong feeling throughout tire West at present that this board has been appointed for a very different purpose than to improve conditions in the grain trade. This feeling is gaining ground, not only among the opponents of the Government, but also among those who are, or possibly I would be more correct in saying, who were, supporters of the Government. I have before me a copy of an article written by a gentleman of the latter class, and published recently in western papers over his own signature. He is Mr. E. N. Hopkins, a prominent citizen of the city of Moosejaw, a most highly respected man, who for some years held the high and honourable position of President of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, and who still is honorary president of that association. He was always known as a staunch and loyal supporter of the Conservative party, and as proof of that I would point out that he was appointed by that party some six or eight years ago as a member of the Economic Development Commission, so there need be no mistake as to this gentleman's political standing. I shall not read the whole article. After dealing with certain matters connected with the grain trade and the Board of Grain Commissioners, Mr. Hopkins has this to say:
If I were to give the Government a little friendly advice-unsolicited-I would say that the farmers have been wondering for some time if a farmers' government would not foe a distinct improvement, and they are now beginning
to feel confident that it could not be worse than the present regime. The first thought is dangerous, but the second will be fatal to the Government once the farmer realizes the absolute justness of the case and the utter weakness and unfairness of the shallow arguments advanced by the Grain Commission. The present Government would be well advised to take time by the forelock and make as many as possible of the "faithful" safe and comfortable by placing them in that political graveyard known as the Canadian Senate, for, unless they mend their ways, their days are numbered, and we would have them know that the mal-admin-istration of the Grain Act has played no small part in their downfall. The farmers of the West have very little use for governments that "break faith" and for commissions that prove false to the trust reposed in them.
Appeasing Farmers' Wrath Since writing the foregoing word has come to hand that the Government has appointed a commission to investigate the whole grain trade. By this means It is hoped to appease the wrath of the farmers and give the Government time to go over the same ground, bring down more legislation, and entrust the administration of same to three or four more of their incompetent but very faithful henchmen. But this will only bring us back to where we started. There is no need for any investigation into the grain trade, no need for any further legislation, but there is very real need of the present Board of Grain Commissioners being fired and replaced by men who are not only thoroughly conversant with the grain trade, but are also known to be sympathetic in their attitude towards the act which they are required to administer. The whole difficulty is that we have a Grain Commission which is not in sympathy with the Grain Act, and which, therefore, makes no effort to administer the Act in the spirit in which it was conceived. To. suggest an enquiry into the grain trade and to take One of the grain commissioners , and place him on the board of enquiry is a most extraordinary procedure-especially when it is borne in mind that the activities of the Grain Commissioners will come in for close examination during the investigation. With a grain commissioner on the board of enquiry it is safe to assume that anything reflecting on the Grain Commissioners will be ruled outside the terms of reference, and the unfortunate farmer will once again find himself the goat in another piece of political strategy.
What may we expect from a commissioner who has been unable to interpret the spirit or intent of an Act he has administered for years?
I might add Mr. Speaker, that the people of the West are anxious, if any investigation is to take place, that it be carried out in such a way that the members of the Board of Grain Commissioners be called upon to appear as witnesses and not as judges. I commend this thought to the Government.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, several sittings of this House have been taken up by the debate on the Budget. Such as it is, this speech is open to a good deal of criticism,

as well as the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. To my mind some statements have been made which should not go unchallenged. Although the discussion concerning the financial and economic aspect of the question has been dragging on for quite a while, I feel it my duty to submit a few remarks to your indulgent attention. The most to be deplored in the present Budget is to my mind the regrettable state of our finances. Indeed any one who has followed so far this debate, is forced to recognize that the burden of our taxes is ever increasing; that the extent of our liabilities is now boundless. Following on this dismal picture, it is painful to note the deplorable lack of a progressive tariff policy which might relieve the general uneasiness in the country by bringing on a revival in production and trade which might take us back to the much regretted happiness and prosperity of former years.
Our finances, as every one admits, are in a deplorable condition, and yet. the Government does nothing to remedy it. I understood that after the great war, we should have had a painful burden of debt to bear. Had it been only that, we could by necessary sacrifices effectually meet our liabilitites, however heavy. No, I do not refer here to the encumbrances, the necessary consequence of our participation in the war. These we regard as a debt of honour; let us put aside the consideration of the causes which brought them on; besides the people understand that the sacrifices represented by taxes to be paid in money, can never equal our greater and nobler sacrifices in blood. No, I shall not speak here of the burdens created by the war; but I wonder, in connection with these heavy sacrifices, which some were ready to offer to "the last dollar and the last man," how the Government can be exonerated for the unwarranted expenditure of these last years. Can the Government ever be forgiven for the millions of dollars sunk in the acquisition of bankrupt railways, in the creation of a merchant marine, in the maintenance of public services, such as those of health and road building, which undoubtedly belong to the Provincial Governments, a policy which involves a constant menace of an unconstitutional encroachment upon the autonomy of the provinces?
Are the Government justifiable in spending millions annually for the creation of a permanent army after the enormous cost of our participation in the war? This is to my mind the grossest inconsistency
IMr. Fortier.]
on the part of our ministers; this is something which clearly demonstrates the incapacity and lack of foresight of the Government; this is, in a word, a most manifest example of the antinational and unpatriotic policy of our rulers.
The hon. Minister of Militia, in the wake of the right hon. Minister of Commerce, has thought proper to take a hand in this debate in defence of the expenditure of his department. He stated that his military expenditure was low in view of the present revenue of the country, and that they did not amount to the contributions made for that object by countries comparable to ours in population and resources. I may answer that it must not be forgotten that our revenue cannot serve as a point of comparison in connection with military expenditures, past, present or future, for this revenue has been artificially swollen with all kinds of possible provisional taxes with a view to meet liabilities incurred in the war. As tp other countries, it is immaterial to us whether they engage in militarism and misconceive the needs of the day. They are, however, not to be justified for ignoring the pacific spirit which should prevail in the League of Nations. As we cannot boast of an independence which might in another country justify the maintenance of an army, we are not called upon to follow their example and we should not forget that after all we are but a colony. I shall now proceed to communicate to this House an important statement which the predecessor of the present Prime Minister made to the press indicating a stand which his successor was wrong in not adopting. This statement was made in January, 1921, in reply to a request from an American newspaper leading a crusade in favour of general disarmament.
Sir Robert's view on disarmament In reply to a request from the New York World, which is conducting a crusade for a general disarmament by Great Britain, 'United States and Japan, Sir Robert Borden has sent the following statement to the World. "I sympathise most deeply and earnestly with every reasonable proposal for the reduction of armaments." Untold sacrifices endured in the Great War will have been wholly in vain if the nations are still to compete in a mad struggle for supremacy in the power of destruction. The economic folly of such a policy is to,, manifest to be gainsaid. Is there not a sorrowful and bitter protest from millions on the verge of starvation in Europe and Asia which must ring in the ears of every thoughtful man? Continued competition in armaments assuredly brings the nations to the path that leads to the ultimate disintegration of existing civilization the foundations of which have already been rudely shaken. How can it

be otherwise:	To those who ask for bread
civilization gives armaments. In the boundary between Canada and the United States, unfortified for more than a century save by the common trust which has never been violated and in the intimate friendship which that just confidence has maintained and strengthened, we have given to humanity a lesson which ought never to be forgotten in the determination of this supreme question.
R. L. Borden.
By one of their authorized spokesmen (the right hon. Minister of Commerce) the Government has defended the large appropriations of the Budget for the creation and maintenance of an army. Our military organization is to be retained; our military spirit is to be preserved. It is alleged on the Government side that peace is not permanently established in the world, and that as long as the Central Powers have not abided by their obligations under the treaties, we must, as the other allies, have an army on land and sea, which must cost enormously.
These are but pretenses suggested 'by the Government as a justification for most absurd expenditures which are condemned by the people. Let us examine the situation, and let us try to find out whether there is any real need for such military expenditure in order to insure the carrying out of the Peace Treaty or the defence of our country against all possible aggression.
To begin -with, we have won the war, and our enemies, vanquished and crushed, have on their knees begged for peace from the Allies. In order that this peace be genuine, arms were surrendered and the Imperial armies disbanded. I do not know that any of the allied countries has found it necessary to organize its army and to increase its war budget, with the sole object of forestalling a sudden attack from the disarmed common enemy, nor that it ever was, since the armistice, the desire of the Supreme Council of the League of Nations to henceforth cover Europe with permanent military camps. Was it not the object of the war to crush the monster of militarism? Hear the memorable words of a thinker: "This war is going to kill war."
, Have we already forgotten how England rose in its might, in 1914, to protect Belgium's neutrality which .Germany despised and would have cast to the winds as she would a scrap of paper; to disarm the Germans and protect the smaller Christian nations against the brutal axiom: "Might is right."
When victory came, the allied nations wished by a memorial, to commemorate in a permanent way the re-establishment of a long-lived peace, and with this end in view the League of Nations was formed. Our young country has the honour of sending representatives to the conference of this League of Nations; Canada will be represented as a nation alongside of our Mother Country, her voice is heard; she is listened to with respect. Does she not speak in favour of a reduction of armaments. It is iihportant that the military policy of the Government should permit them to say that the Dominion of Canada is in favour of disarmament. Do not the great sacrifices, both in men and in money, which Canada has made for the war, call imperiously on her administrators to secure peace throughout the world by means of disarmament and by the compulsory arbitration of all disputes which may arise between nations?
It is Canada's duty to reduce as much as possible her expenditure for armies, both on land and sea. It is equally Canada's duty, as the oldest and most powerful British colony, she who is recognized as a nation, to declare herself by word and deed in favour of disarmament, the abolishment of the military system, the respect due to small nations, to minorities and proclaim the triumph of civilization and right. After all, why should we have an army? Were we an independent nation, had we any aspirations towards playing a part in the world, I understand that our national dignity would require that we make the necessary sacrifices for the maintenance of an army. But, we are only a British colony, and though we enjoy, it is true, a [DOT] beneficent autonomy, we are nevertheless gloriously held by the colonial bond.
An independent nation may have to maintain an army for three reasons: First, to protect her independence; secondly, to assure her national development; thirdly, for the maintenance of order and peace.
During this debate some one suggested that an army would be needed to defend our territory. It is assuredly not when we are celebrating the centenary of our friendly relations with our good neighbours of the American Republic, that we will think of erecting forts near the 45th parallel. Moreover, these militia expenditures which are totally unwarrantable for the very reasons which I have just mentioned, could not be undertaken on account of our linancial situation.

The Minister of Finance has admitted that the national debt now amounted to $2,350,236,700. Last year, when he presented his financial Budget, he assured the House and the country that not only would the debt not be increased but that it would be reduced. Yet, the present year has seen an increase of $101,368,077 in our national debt. If we consider the reasons for this increase in our national indebtedness we come to the conclusion that it is due to the administration of a Government which, under several names, have been in power since 1911, and more particularly to their policy of participation in the European war and their railway policy. Let us subtract from the expenditure for the last fiscal year $212,000,000, which represent our war outlay and $13,000,000, representing our railway expenses, and we shall have a surplus.
What will be our financial position next year? It is easy to foresee, as does the Minister of Finance, that we shall still have a larger deficit. There are no new taxes to fill in the ever increasing gap in our Budget. Last year, we had to pay $140,000,000 interest on a revenue of $432,000,000. This year, we shall have to pay the same interest on a revenue which has been reduced to $372,000,000. The expenditure shall be $600,000,000 approximately. How can we meet such a deficit?
I would like to conclude these remarks which have been suggested to me by the sad position in which we are placed financially, by quoting a writer of the present time:
The speech delivered by the Minister of Finance is anything but encouraging. We should not be astonished. Are we not governed at present by Mr. Meighen, he who was ready during the war to lead the country into bankruptcy? It was also our Prime Minister, and one must not forget it, who, by a stroke of the hand, purchased the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk. It is then but fair that Mr. Meighen be in charge of public affairs at the present moment so that he may witness the effects of his policy. In' 1914, our debt amounted to $335,996,850; to-day after these seven years of a Borden-Meighen administration, the debt has increased to $2,350,236,700.
Mr. Meighen's desire has been nearly realized, our finances are in a pitiful state and were it not for the inexhaustible resources of our young country, Canada would be on the verge of bankruptcy. Ever since 1914, we have run from one deficit to another:	when shall we see the end?
The economists are right when they say that the most powerful weapon given to statesman to repel the disastrous and repeated raids on the public treasury and 
prevent the disorganization of a country's finances, is the tariff. It is with a view to bringing back confidence among a large section of partisans of the Government and among the people who have at heart the country's interest, that the Government kept on promising for the last few years a general revision of the tariff, so much so, that as soon as the war was over, western members supporting the Government thought it was time to talk about the tariff so as to bring reduction on duties tending more or less to free trade. What was the Government's answer? That they would not revise the tariff? No, but they stated that a general revision would take place as soon as a full enquiry was made throughout the country so as to discover what new needs have arisen from the war. The enquiry took place; the opening of the session was even postponed in order to allow the Minister of Finance to hold meetings in all cities. Now that the Government have all this information, when it is obvious that the majority of the people are in favour of lowering the tariff in the sense recommended by the Liberal party, the Government imbued, as they have always been, with the Conservative and Tory spirit, refuse to grant this popular demand and to revise our fiscal policy. The Government have no right to delay unfairly a revision which they admitted themselves to be necessary. What the people want now is a downward revision of the tariff as recommended by the continuous and traditional policy of the Liberal party. The Government know it too well and this explains why, in this House as well as in their party organs they refuse to discuss this question on its merits. They delight in falsely representing to the country at large that the Liberal party are in favour of free trade, thus seeking to make the electors believe that the discussion is based on free trade versus protection. As regards this last complaint against the Government my conclusion is this:	After the
solemn promise given the farmers last year; after the commissioners' report to the Minister of Finance on the opinion of the people touching the tariff, notwithstanding the clever but less substantial spech of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) I am bound to conclude that the Government is bringing dishonour upon themselves by refusing to revise the tariff in the course of the present session; the dishonour lies in the fact that the Government refuse to keep their word. I join with the farmers in so stigmatizing them.

I am most happy to give my sincere \ support to the amendment presented by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). It represents faithfully the views of Liberal members of this House, it would receive the whole-hearted support of the majority of the electors, should an election take place, and it is in accord with the best traditions of the Liberal party. Since the large convention of 1893 which took place but a few years before the Liberals came into power, up to the conference of 1919, which will be followed by a similar victory at the next general election, the Liberal policy as regards the tariff has always been the same, unceasingly this policy has been directed towards a downward revision of the tariff so as to help the consumers while it amply provided for revenue. During a period of fifteen years the Liberals have made their country happy and prosperous. To-day I am glad to once more endorse this policy recommended by my party and I shall do so by voting for the amendment.
On motion of Mr. Armstrong (Lambton) the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Steele for the third reading of Bill No. 38 to incorporate La Compagnie de Telephone Quebec Union Electrique (The Quebec Union Electric Telephone Company)-Mr. Power.
Mr. ROBB:: The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) told me this afternoon that he desired to move a very slight amendment to one of the clauses of this Bill. He is not yet in his seat, and under the circumstances I would ask that the Bill stand.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: i Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member for Beauce given notice of the amendment? If not, the Bill should not be allowed to stand.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The notice
required by Rule 112 has not been given. The motion for third reading has been made in the regular way. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Carried on division.



FROM THE SENATE-SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 147, for the relief of John Wilson.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Albert Harding.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Thomas Furneaux.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Matthew John Scott.-Mr. Best.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Dora Lucy Bell.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Henry Kropp.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Arthur Daughton.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Annie Maude Bell.

Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Thomas Henry Foster.-Mr. Rowell.
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House adjourned at 11.13 p.m.
Monday, May 16, 1921.