THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I beg to lay on the Table a document entitled:
Protocols embodying proposed amendments to Articles 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 26 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as adopted by the Second Assembly of the League at Geneva on the 3rd, 4th and 5th October, 1921; together with letter, dated the 24th November, 1921, from the Secretary General of the League to the Prime Minister of Canada, transmitting certified copies of the Protocols.
I move that the said document be printed as a sessional paper and that 1,000 copies in the combined French and English texts be printed forthwith, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Murphy:
That 500 copies in English and 500 copies in French of the correspondence between the Government of Canada and the United States government concerning the St. Lawrence River Improvement Scheme, laid on the Table of this House on May 30, 1922, be printed forthwith, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: 1.	Is the total amount of expenditure in connection with the House of Commons as shown on page sixteen of the main estimates, without taking into account any amounts that may be supplementary estimates, $1,703,390, and the expenditure for the Senate as shown on the same page the sum of $561,205?
2.	Why is the chief accountant of the Senate, as shown on page seventeen of the main estimates, paid $4,020 and the Chief Accountant of the House of Commons paid only $3,450 as shown on page nineteen of the estimates?
3.	How are these officers classified to make this difference in salary?
4.	Does the Chief Accountant of the Senate have to furnish bonds in connection with his office?
5.	Does the Chief Accountant of the House of Commons have to furnish bonds in connection with his office?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With reference to this question, I understand that the Senate takes exception to this House inquiring into matters affecting its accounts and declines to give the answer to that part of the question. As respects the rest of the question the answer will be laid on the Table to-morrow.


BOARD OF COMMERCE
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the cost of the Board of Commerce instituted in the year 1919?
2.	Did the Board make a report to the Government?
3.	If so, has this report been pubished? If not, why?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to have this report published?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	$146,345.53.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes. A first annual report covering the period from July, 1919, to March 31, 1920, has been published.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


LEVIS LIGHTKEEPERS
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	What are the names of the lightkeetpers of the County of Levis, Quebec, who were dismissed since September 21st, 1911, to date?
2.	Who recommended the said dismissals?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who replaced the above mentioned lightkeepers?
4.	Who recommended their appointment?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	There were no dismissals of lightkeepers in the County of Levis, since the date mentioned.
2.	3. and 4. Answered by No. 1.
Questions


SUPERINTENDENT OF LIGHTHOUSES
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who is the Superintendent of Lighthouses at Quebec?
2.	How long has he been in the present position?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What was the amount of his salary on appointment ?
5.	Was his salary increased? If so, why?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Bernard Joshua Kaine.
2.	Since 26th June, 1909.
3.	$2,760 per annum.
4.	$1,500 per annum.
5.	Yes. As a result of general reclassification of salaries of Superintendents of Lights in 1911 and 1919.


MILITARY CAMPS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Having reference to the recent reductions, made in Committee of the Whole, of the estim-rnate for military camps during this Session, in what manner will the remaining portion of the estimate be distributed?
2.	How much will be allocated to' each military district?
3.	What is the present actual number enrolled in the Militia in each Military District?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	From 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the establishment of each Military District will receive a limited training either in camp, or at local headquarters.
For the cavalry and infantry the period of training will be 9 days. For the artillery 6 days at local headquarters and for gun detachments only 6 additional days in camp.
For departmental units little beyond the minimum requirements of the small camps authorized can be undertaken this year.
Units of the permanent force will have about 1 month's camp training.
2.	Approximately as follows:
Military	District	No.	1. . . .	.. ..$ 89,000Military	Distrcit	No.	2. . . .	. . . . 190,000Military	District	No.	3. . . .	. . . . 100,000Military	District	No.	4. . . .	.. .. 112.000Military	District	No.	5. . . .	. . . . 48,000Military	District	No.	6. . . .	. . . . 74,000Military	District	No.	Military	District	No.	10. . . .	. . . . 75,000Military	District	No.	11.. . .	. . . . 66,000Military	District	No.	12.. ..	. . . . 69,000Military	District	No.	13.. ..	.. .. 58,000Permanent Force	. . . . 60,000Miscellaneous. . .	.. .. 25,000Total	$1,000,000
3.
Military	Numbers enrolled (all ranks) Non-Permanent Militia, as 31st
District No.	March, 1922
1	4,479
2	10,243
3	7,378
4	4,905
5	2,910
6	4,730
7	2,937
10	3,684
11	2,857
12	3,236
13	4,217
Total	 51,576	.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND TORONTO MEETING
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Were the Canadian National Railways represented by an official, Mr. Wood, at a meeting held in Toronto, on or about Thursday, May 4th, at which E. Matthews, of the Matthews Steamship Company, of Toronto, representatives of the Tomlinson Company, Winnipeg, the Canada Steamship Company, Montreal, and Mr. Todd, of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, were present?
2.	If so, for what purpose was the meeting convened, what matters were discussed and what conclusions were arrived at?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Neither D. O. Wood, General Foreign Freight Agent of the Grand Trunk-Cana-dian National lines, nor F. G. Wood, General Agent, Canadian Government Merchant Marine, attended any such meeting.
2.	Answered by No. 1.	,


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, correspondence and other documents embodying the representations made to the Minister of Public Works with reference to the dismissal of Charles Dauphinee as janitor of public building at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, and which representations were referred to the Honourable Minister as considered by him as being satisfactory to warrant the dismissal of Dauphinee without investigation.


MOUNTED POLICE AT MACLEOD
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) :: A report is current that the Government contemplate removing the detachment of mounted police that is at present stationed at Macleod, and I have been asked by the citizens of that town to point out to the Government that at Macleod is located the oldest established mounted police station in Alberta. The town of Macleod and the mounted police are so closely associated that the citi-
[Mr. Lapointe.|

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
zens feel that if a detachment of the Royal Mounted Police is to be maintained anywhere in southern Alberta it should be at Macleod. I would ask permission to read one or two sentences from a letter I have received upon the subject:
If the police are to be maintained anywhere in the south then Macleod should have first claim as tihe town owes the fact of Its existence to the police post here and nowhere I believe outside of Regina have they a more complete equipment in the way of buildings, grounds, horse pasture, etc. The history of Macleod and the police is so interwoven that it is hard to disassociate one from the other, and it would be with keen regret the citizens would see this association broken.
I do not wish to make the question lengthy, but I would ask the Government to consider carefully before removing the detachment from Macleod, and if possible to give some assurance to the citizens of that town that the matter will receive every consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be pleased to call the attention of tne Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) to the representations of my hon. friend. But the Government would like to be clear on this point: Do I understand that the hon. member, on behalf of the citizens of -Macleod, asks that the mounted police be retained in Macleod irrespective of whether or not they are to be retained in other parts of the province of Alberta?


George Gibson Coote: The citizens of Macleod, in telegrams they have sent to me, ask that the detachment be retained. I have also a letter pointing out that if a detachment of the mounted police is to be removed from any part of the province, Macleod is the last station that should be abandoned, because it is the oldest established mounted police station in southern Alberta and the one best situated from a strategic point of view. I should be glad if the Government would state as early as possible whether it is intended to remove the detachment from Macleod.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- AMALGAMATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Government what is the cause of the delay in the amalgamation of the nationalrailway system; and if the Government is aware of the immense loss to the country day by day through the delay?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon.
friend appreciates that while Parliament has been in session the Government has been very busily engaged. Great care should be given to the carrying out of this amalgamation, and such delay as has taken place will, I think, in the long run prove to the advantage of the country.


Arthur Meighen: Then perhaps the
greater the delay the greater the advantage?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly, yes.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 6, the debate on the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: Mr. Speaker, in view of some statements which have been made during the course of this debate. I feel it incumbent upon me to revise my decision not to speak, and to make plain my position to the House and to the country. The House will- understand me when I say that I prefer to express my own opinion rather than to have it interpreted by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen).
I am glad that it affords me also the opportunity of offering to my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) my sincere congratulations and of expressing my admiration for his unequalled record. My hon. friend, at an advanced age, is giving his services to the country at a time when those services are most needed, when strong and trustworthy men are required, and no man possesses in a higher degree the confidence of his fellow-citizens than does my hon. friend. He is a living example of the truth of the saying: "Honesty is the best policy." I am sure that the people will trust him more than the disappointing and disappointed criticism of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen).
It was said of the great warriors of olden times that some of them shone more brilliantly in defeat than in victory. Whatever compliments may be offered my right

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
hon. friend-and he deserves many-it cannot be said of him that he is a very good general of a beaten army. His effort yesterday, if he will pardon me for saying so, was a new exhibition of political rancour. At a time when the complexity of problems, both domestic and international, is growing hourly, at a time when all the energies of the nation should be grouped and directed towards a common goal, he, the leader of a once great party, is (offering Parliament and the country an empty amendment. When co-operation and constructive help is required, he is camouflaging the issue by the immoderate use of epithets and insinuations. At a time when 'new and vigourous statesmanship is needed, he is serving us a feast of cold roast partisan nonsense.
What is the purport of the amendment which is supported by my right hon friend, and which bears all the earmarks of his authorship? It proposes to reject the budget, not because of any inherent inefficiency or ineffectiveness or viciousness of policy, not because it contains something which my right hon. friend does not like, but because there is not in it something which he does not like. Of all the absurd proposals which during a parliamentary career of eighteen years I have heard made in this House-and heaven knows I have heard many-this one easily earns the palm. It is overwhelmingly entitled to the blue ribbon of that inglorious race.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, since the opening of this debate have painted in dark colours indeed the ruin and desolation which would follow throughout the country a larger reduction in the tariff. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) said a few days ago that such reduction would put everyone out of business and be the ruin of our industries and the bankruptcy of Canada. Yet this same gentleman and his colleagues propose to censure us because we have not brought about that ruin and that bankruptcy. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) may contend that this is not the meaning of his amendment. Well, he may convince himself by his own sophistry; he will convince no one else. The main question before the House is whether the budget shall be accepted or shall be rejected. The amendment proposes to reject the budget because the Libera! policy in its entirety is not incorporated therein. And yet my hon. friends opposite are opposed to that policy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not admit that any pledges have been violated by those who are responsible for the framing of this budget. On the contrary, I claim that this is a Liberal budget, inclined towards the right direction, and framed to meet the world conditions which we are facing to-day. But before arguing that point, Sir, may I refer to the apparent and amusing unconsciousness of my right hon. friend of his entire disqualification to discuss violated pledges and political honour? My hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Hoey) in the course of this debate, and my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Raymond) in the debate on the address, quoted instances of the respect for pledges shown by my hon. friends opposite. I shall not repeat those instances. But what do you think, Mr. Speaker, of the respect for pledges and political honour of gentlemen who, after having obtained a prolongation of Parliament and of their term of office under the explicit condition that no controversial matters would be brought forward during that extended period, used the occasion to tamper with and manipulate the electoral law of the country and to enact under closure a measure for the purpose of disfranchising British citizens and selecting their own electors for th.e ensuing election? What do you think-


Arthur Meighen: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds further, will he please read that explicit condition and state where and when it was given?


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend knows that I have not here the explicit promise, but he knew that it was made at that time, and that the prolongation of Parliament would not have been granted but for it.


Arthur Meighen: It was never made, and the hon. gentleman knows it was never made, and cannot produce it.


Ernest Lapointe: The right hon. gentleman knows it was made.


An hon. MEMBER:: Produce it.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend has the habit of making assertions very often instead of arguments. This is an assertion, and I can contradict with my own assertion. I know such a promise was explicitly made at the time. What do you think, Mr. Speaker, of the political honour- perhaps my right hon. friend will deny this too-of gentlemen who, having obtained a mandate on the pledge made on

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
all platforms of the country that that mandate should be for a special purpose and would expire when the purpose was achieved, clung to power for three years after that special purpose had been achieved? What do you think of the political honour of gentlemen, who for the purpose of deceiving the people changed their name-or, if you like, the name of their party-as often as Henry VIII changed his wife and even borrowed or appropriated the name of their opponents and that without applying to the newly-manufactured article the dispositions of their own Marking Act? Sir, I do not like the tu quoque argument; it is always weak and sometimes despicable.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend says "hear, hear"; perhaps one of the reasons why I do not like it is because it was overused by my right hon. friend during his term of office. Two wrongs do not make a right But I simply desire to express the opinion that my hon. friends should use some discretion when it comes to discussing pledges and political honour, and that on such a topic my right hon. friend is not entitled to the floor.
I submit, Mr Speaker, anybody to the contrary notwithstanding, that this budget is a Liberal budget. It is 'based on the traditional policy of the party as it is, not as it has been represented to be, or misrepresented, by many gentlemen in the past. Nobody in this country-no party, rather-is in favour of absolute free trade. The right hon. leader of the Opposition, who seems to have lived for the last two years in a world of bogeys and nightmares, erected a bogeyman during the recent campaign whom he called free trade; this unwelcome figure he paraded throughout the land, but nobody took him seriously. In my opinion, the question of adopting absolute free trade in Canada is rather an academic one; it is a condition which cannot be realized during our lifetime-at least as long as the country will need import duties for revenue. Those duties, if raised in an intelligent and businesslike way, will properly safeguard our industrial activities. On the other hand, to proclaim protection as a basis of economic policy is a mistake, an economic heresy; because protection, if it means anything, means prohibition of imports, and you cannot get revenue without imports. In either case the strict application of the system would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It
would be impossible to frame a tariff which would please everybody; nobody knows that better than the Minister of Finance. The interests of society organized as a state frequently clash with the interests of the individual. Economic questions have to be judged by different standards accordingly as you view them from the point of view of the interests of the individual citizen or from the point of view of the social interest of the community. But the private interest is almost universally subordinate to the general interest, and in the end it is the general interest which must be taken into consideration. The task of finding out what that general interest is is an arduous pne-more arduous than that of the individual in ascertaining what is his own personal interest. The duty of public men is to abstain strictly from centering their vision on local or personal interests, and to keep always before their eyes the national interest of the society; it is for them to endeavour always to solve vital and fundamental questions with the view of building the nation as a whole. I do not believe that any fiscal system is the absolutely correct one, the one that will always succeed if applied in its entirety, at all times and in all countries. I do not believe that any fiscal system is as good or as bad as its friends or its enemies represent it to be. Political and fiscal questions are not governed by inflexible and rigid rules, as are the principles of geology, for instance, and of astronomy. Geography, and the needs of a certain section ot a certain territory, must also be considered. General Hancock forty years ago was ridiculed for stating during the presidential elections in the United States that the tariff was a local question. One hon. member of this House-I think it was the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)- said something to the same effect the other day. Yet there seems to be some truth in that statement, if we may judge from the various speeches that we hear in this House and elsewhere. Indeed, geography and the particular interests of certain territories seem to have a great influence on the principles of individuals. It seems to me impossible that all the men living in one section of the country or belonging to one class of the community should be of the same opinion and that all the men living in another section of the country or belonging to another class of the community should be of another opinion, if genuine, strict principles only were applied.


Mr. CRERAR:: Hear, hear.

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend from
Marquette says, "hear, hear." The other day he told the House that the West would never be protectionist. Why did he speak only of the West? Why did he not mention the East as well? My hon. friend said, in emphasizing his argument, that the most hide-bound Tories, even those coming from Ontario, abandoned their protectionist prin-' ciples when they settled in the West and became, or at least, their children were, far from being Tories. I am glad of that, but surely it is not due to climatic conditions.


Mr. McMASTER:: They see clearer out
there.


Ernest Lapointe: At the National Agricultural Conference held at Washington or. January 27th last, the representatives of the United States farmers adopted a resolution approving the principle of protection and declaring in favour of a tariff adjustment board, and for the enforcement of an elastic tariff against foreign countries. At that same conference a resolution was adopted opposing all fixation of prices. Yet in our own country the farmers, especially in western Canada, are unalterably opposed to protection, yet seem to believe, to a degree, at least, in the fixation of the price of wheat through a wheat board.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sure that my hon.
friend does not in any way wish to misrepresent the western farmer in that respect. The proposal in respect to the Wheat Board does not mean the fixation of prices in any sense or degree whatever. The farmers are not asking for that, and have at no time asked for it.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad I am mistaken in my impression, but my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) who is generally right on these matters, seemed to indicate, so far as I could gather from the newspapers, that such was the case.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The old Wheat
Board proposed to fix the price of flour. That was one of the objections.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not mentioning that by way of criticism, but simply for the purpose of showing that circumstances and conditions, geographical and otherwise, have a large influence on the fiscal views of peoples and of individuals. If that is so, is it not the duty of public men to try to find out the causes of these divergent interests, either as between countries or as between sections or classes or

occupations within a country? Is it not our duty to try to establish the causes of these divergencies, to scrutinize and weigh them, and to subordinate the merely accessory to those things that are absolutely essential? Is it not our duty to try to discover the concessions which it is possible for either side to make, or which it is desirable to obtain? I think that is the question which must be solved.
When citizens are animated by a sincere desire to serve the general interests above their own, or, at least, equally with their own, there is a minimum of progress that can be made. That is a step forward towards the goal of success, and should be accepted by all. What I have just indicated is true at all times, but especially is it true under the present conditions when it would be altogether unwise to try to apply old fiscal theories 10 a world which is wholly new. The war is over, but the war debt still rages, and the necessity of opening all sources of revenue is greater than ever. Furthermore, the consequences of the war, included among which is the demoralization of the gold basis as a medium of exchange, have turned upside down pretty nearly every economic theory upon which tariffs were formerly framed. Since the war sixteen countries have increased import tariffs for the purpose of revenue. Even export taxes have been imposed. Sixty-four per cent of the taxes in Mexico to-day are export taxes on oil. Roumania has put an embargo on the exporting of wheat until her food conditions become normal. England to-day is collecting over $700,000,000 from import duties.
My hon. friend from Brome the other day in the course of an eloquent speech, with most of the points of which I am in hearty agreement, pointed to the little countries of Switzerland, Belgium and Holland as having grown, and developed prosperous industries, under what is practically a free trade system. To that I readily assent.. But these countries at the present time, however devoted they may be to the principle of free trade, find it necessary to adopt measures quite at variance with their normal and traditional policies, in order to meet the abnormal conditions prevailing in Europe at the present time. I have here the Journal des Eeonomistes, of November, 1921, and I find that on September 30, 1921, the Federal Council of Switzerland prohibited entirely the importation of 167 articles, and partially the importation of 23 others.

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
Mr. McMASTER- They would not raise much revenue on those they kept out.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will allow me to proceed,-they have imposed duties on many articles, especially on farm products. Here is what the president of the Confederation of Switzerland, Mr. Schulthess, said to justify those duties-I translate from the French:
. All the other States increased their rates of customs duties, and therefore Switzerland has had to follow suit. Why? By not imitating them she would decrease, with regard to them all, her costs 'of production, including those of food, and therefore she would open her gates.
In the same issue-


Mr. STEVENS:: Does not that constitute protection for Switzerland's industries?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not say it does not. It is a temporary condition though, as I shall try to show to my hon. friend. In the same issue I read an excerpt from a speech by a prominent Belgian statesman. At a banquet of the French Chamber of Commerce in Brussels Monsieur Janson spoke as follows:
We fear to see the era when France still more wrongly inspired, accentuating her policy of protectionism, shall condemn us truly, because, in my opinion, it would be a condemnation, to resort, three years after peace, to a policy of retaliation. If we mean to maintain and increase the sympathy which we have for France, if we mean to keep as much as circumstances permit this military accord created between us, we must develop this sympathy, this agreement, in realizing between us this economic "entente" to which Mr. Houtard alluded. We must say to the Frenchman, because it is the undeniable that every time that between you and us the barrier of protective duties will be raised the necessary wall of defence which we have built on the eastern frontier shall be torn down. On the political ground, as well as the economic ground, it is necessary tlhat France and Belgium should go together.
I have also the issue of May 12, 1922, of The Economic Review, in which it is stated that Holland, Belgium and Sweden were awaiting the results of the Genoa Conference before deciding to protect themselves more substantially against the goods of the other country. Here is what I read there:
The decision of the Government to postpone until after the Genoa Conference consideration of the policy to be pursued in the face of the unfair competition to which the country is exposed as a result of the fall of various exchanges is fully justified, in the opinion of the Rotterdammer, by the attitude adopted by other neutral countries, and it quotes with approval the complaint made by M. Branting that the governments of these countries, notwithstanding a close community of interests, have no concerted policy with regard to the stabilisation of the rates of exchange and the abolition of Customs barriers. In the event of the Genoa Conference proving abortive, Sweden and Belgium, according to the Socialist statesman, will be driven to building up Customs tariffs for their protection against the competition of countries with a depreciated currency, and tihe Rotterdammer fails to see how Holland Will be able to abstain from measures to regulate imports.
Spain has created four different tariffs. Two are applied to the various countries and two other tariffs, with CO per cent more, are applied to the countries which have depreciated currency. Of course, this will not be permanent; I hope it will not be, for I agree with my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) that economic and tariff wars always lead to real wars. But, Sir, every fair-minded Canadian will admit that under such circumstances, where free trade countries have to modify their tariff policy, it was our duty to act cautiously and not to enter too deeply on the path which other countries feel compelled to recede from temporarily.
I resent, therefore, the taunt that we have been untrue to the principles of the Liberal party. All the changes that have been made are in a downward direction, while other countries are moving the other way. Any more radical changes at this time would have been unwise, and perhaps dangerous; and we would have been unworthy of the trust conferred upon us had we taken our decision on preconceived notions and ignored the evidence and the facts existing at the time of making the decision. Is that a deviation from the principles enunciated in our programme? I submit that it is not. The various resolutions which have been read during this debate are declaratory of a principle, and by that principle I am willing to stand. The measure of the reform to be accomplished, the extent to which it is possible to accomplish it to-day, the time when it can be accomplished-all these depend on the exigencies of the hour, and no fair-minded man can seriously blame us for taking this view and acting in the way we did. Liberalism means evolution along reasonable and progressive lines. It holds the middle course between changes that would endanger our institutions and obstinate resistance to the spirit of the times. Sir, even the Manitoba Free Press, which is most friendly to my hon. friends of the Progressive party, said in an editorial, I think the day following the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, that nobody

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
expected that the Government would make so many changes at this session. I believe that this will be the general opinion of the country, and that the budget will be universally accepted as the best that could be devised under the circumstances. As far as I am concerned I have no doubt that the country would vote for the adoption of the budget if it were submitted to it to-day.
The other day the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) referred to the supposed failure of the Liberal party to enforce the platform of 1893, and said that it had been called " the great apostasy." Well, my hon. friend was hardly fair. I believe that if there has been a breach of faith it has not been on the side of the Liberal party. The duties were reduced at various times; and when in 1911 the Minister of Finance brought forth his great measure of reform to establish reciprocity of trade in natural products between this country and the United States, who broke faith? My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) went down to defeat with his party at that time as did also that great veteran of Brant county, the late Hon. William Paterson. I was glad to hear my hon. friend say that he voted for Mr. Paterson on that occasion, but, surely, all those who elected him to this House failed to vote for Mr. Paterson.


Mr. GOOD:: Did the Liberal government, between 1896 and 1908, materially move in the direction of free (trade?


Ernest Lapointe: Well, perhaps, if it
had done it in 1908 many of the friends of my hon. friend would have defeated the party instead of defeating it in 1911. i My hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Wbods), who spoke in this debate, knows that almost all the farmers of his country voted against reciprocity in 1911. The same thing happened in most of the rural constituencies of Ontario and in many of the western constituencies. I heard my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) make an open confession that he voted against reciprocity. Well, he will be forgiven much for having so confessed. On the other hand, he is taking away some of the merit which he would have by saying immediately afterwards that the Liberals had been unfaithful to their pledges. Who was unfaithful on that occasion? Do we deserve to be told that we have not kept our pledges? When we tried to enforce them, we were defeated through not receiving the support of many of the hon. members who are now criticizing 
us for not having done so. The policy of the Liberal party is not one of free trade, but of freer trade by way of a revenue tariff. That was the policy of the great leader under whom I am proud of having received my political education. By that policy I have always stood and by that policy I stand to-day. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has stated in some of his speeches that there are only two systems, protection and free trade, and that a tariff revenue meant protection.


Arthur Meighen: I said two principles.


Ernest Lapointe: Two principles. Well I join issue with him in that statement. The very nature and essence of the protective duty is that it must prevent the exchange as between the foreign product and the domestic product. The very nature and essence of a revenue duty is that it exists only when an exchange takes place. The less the foreign product enters the country, the more the protective duty achieves its end; the more the foreign product enters a country the more the revenue duty achieves its end. When a duty has for its purpose the blocking of the entrance of other countries' goods at the expense of the national revenue, so that only the national goods can be bought and their price artificially made higher, it becomes a purely protective duty. There is the difference between the two programmes, and my hon. friend is mistaken when he says there is no difference between him and ourselves. In the language of a great French orator-
Nous ne mfritons pas eet exees d'honneur ni cette indignite.
We do not deserve this excess of honour nor this indignity. I do not wish to speak at any greater length, except, perhaps, to express my regret that certain exaggerated statements have been made during the course of debate. Conditions are, indeed, serious in Canada, as they are in every other part of the world, although they are better here, perhaps, than in any other country. Our agriculture in common with all other industries, has felt the effect of this world-wide crisis, but I do not think it makes for public good or for the improvement of conditions to say that agriculture is dying in Canada. I cannot let such a statement go unchallenged. In the part of the country with which I am best acquainted agriculture is not dying. The farmers have had better days at times in the past, they may have better days in

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
the future; but at no time has their courage, their energy, and their spirit of hope been higher. Nor is it an evidence of the soundness of rhat argument to say that there is scarcity of pupils in certain schools. Mr. Speaker, when there are few children in the homes there cannot be many in the schools, and whatever may be said against protection this objectional fiscal system is not responsible fcr that condition of things. There was another statement which was made with which I am not in sympathy. I will not name the hen. member who made the statement, because she is the one in the House with whom I would least like to quarrel. She said, speaking of the condition in the country:
Everyone has tried to acquire capital by doing his fellowman, and if he could not do him well enough without legislation, he cleverly sought legislation to help him do the other fellow more successfully.
Well, this is an unfortunate statement. A great Canada cannot be built nationally or economically by the sowing of germs of suspicion, hatred, discord, and class war. It can only be done by the union and cooperation of all citizens and classes, and by the creation of a spirit of solidarity. I sincerely believe that such notes of despondency and discouragement must be avoided, if we wish our country to pass through the crisis which prevails at the present time. For Canadian manhood, and for Canadian womanhood, as well as for Christianity, hope is a cardinal principle. Canada must smile once more. If there is one thing I would, with their permission, urge upon my hon. friends in this House, it is, "keep smiling." I will be more emphatic, and I will ask my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition to start smiling. The electoral battle has been waged. The political atmosphere has been purified. Should we not ail co-operate for the progress and prosperity of Canada? Let my right hon. friend forget his disappointment. Let him forget that his fellow citizens, the electors of Canada, have shown what he seems to consider a lack of appreciation about himself. After all the country is still alive. Moses passes, Aaron passes, but the Ark remains. My right hon. friend is no longer Prime Minister of Canada, but the country still exists, and it needs co-operation. The country requires of the right hon. gentleman that he do nothing which (might hamper the efforts of those whose duty it is to lead her towards progress. I believe the Government has done a day's work. Of course,
it is not exempt from human weaknesses; it is not blessed with all of the human virtues.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance says "hear, hear." Let me tell him, however, that the present administration shines in comparison with other governments in that respect. He will admit with me, I think, that the Government is entitled to fair play on the part of all, and especially on the part of those whose mistakes it is its unfortunate duty to repair. These are my last words, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City) :: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe) who has just taken his seat. I have heard all of the criticisms which he has directed towards the right hon. member who leads the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), but I do not purpose replying to those criticisms because I believe, and I think the House will agree with me, that the leader of the official Opposition is quite capable of taking care of himself. I was rather surprised to hear the statement that the election of 1917 was simply to return a Parliament for the duration of the war. I do not know what had occurred previous to that time, because that was my first election experience. I do not know, however, that so far as my constituency was concerned-and I think I am safe in speaking for the whole of British Columbia-we did not believe that the Parliament that was being elected at that time was to function only during the war. We understood that it. would run the usual course, and I think that was the general understanding throughout the whole country.
Before taking up a few matters in relation to the budget I desire to join with other hon. members who have preceded me in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on his achievement and on the years of excellent service which he has rendered this country. He has served in both provincial and federal governments and has a long record that is absolutely free from any besmirchment of any kind. At this late day it must therefore be a matter of deep gratification to him to feel that no one can point an accusing finger at him for anything that has not been proper during the whole of his public career. After all, that is the greatest possible reward a man could hope for after as many years
rhe Budget-Mr. Tolmie

in the public service as my hon. friend has put in. I wish to extend to him my best wishes for many years of good health and of usefulness in the future. I quite realize the difficulties with which he is faced in the present situation. His position is similar to that which has been experienced by ministers of finance from the commencement of the war up to the present time, a position fraught with difficulties that were never contemplated in the past history of Canada and that require the greatest degree of ability and intelligence if they are to be solved.
Now, among the items dealt with in the budget I notice my old friend the tariff on agricultural implements appearing again. The farmers have had conceded to them on this occasion a reduction of 2J per cent in that tariff, aggregating, I understand, something less than $250,000 a year; while, on the other hand, the sales tax represents a total increase of some $30,000,000. I have been looking with some interest to the farmers in some sections of the country where they had been demanding the entire removal of the tariff on agricultural implements, and I have been wondering how they will receive this concession of 2i per cent. It must, I am sure, be a great disappointment to those people who expected,when the results of the election were made known on December 6th last, that the present Government would usher in the new era. Some of these enthusiasts, no doubt, anticipated a wonderful change throughout the country; they believed that the tariff would be absolutely wiped out and that with the exit of that much abused government that had carried on the affairs of the country during the war and for the period immediately ensuing, all the ills of the country would be cured-they would have no more tariffs to bother with; would not be troubled with rust or hail; and that even the grasshopper in the western plains would lose his hop. Expecting all these things, they must have experienced a considerable jar when they were given this reduction of 2i per cent in the tariff. I wonder whether, after a careful survey of the situation, they will decide to laugh or to get angry. In my opinion the benefit of the tariff on agricultural implements, as it has been discussed in relation to the success of farming in this country, has been exaggerated to a very great extent. It has been used by politicians and stressed by them until it has almost developed into a humbug. There are many other matters of greater importance relating to agriculture that would

have brought much better results, such as better cultivation, the improvement of our live stock, the improvement of crops by the use of good seed, and so forth. The actual experiments on the government farms have shown an increase of from ten to 100 per cent in production by the use of first class seed, and I am sure that if half the energy and time that have been devoted to a fruitless discussion of the tariff on implements had been directed towards the improvement of farming in Canada, we should have had results amounting to millions as compared with a few hundred thousand dollars which the farmers will gain by the tariff concessions. However, we must not be too hard on this tariff on agricultural implements, because, in addition to having been an excellent instrument in the hands of opponents of the late government, it has no doubt helped to while away many a dreary winter's evening in the country districts.
With regard to the various budget proposals, I find that it is suggested that we shall have better trade relations with Australia. I would call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that when this question is being discussed there are some items that should not be lost sight of. Among hese I might mention beef, mutton and lamb, which can be produced in Australia and New Zealand, by reason of the peculiar climatic conditions and the cheapness of land there, at a lower cost than in Canada. Besides that, there is a most excellent refrigerator service from those countries to Pacific coast points, so that their products can be landed in this country at a very low cost. And especially in the years when those countries are affected by drought, their animals are sold for almost a song, and they can be dumped into Canada on an enormous scale, thus seriously interfering with and handicapping the development of our live stock industry. When I spoke on the address I referred to the importance of mixed farming as being the only system that would insure the success of Canadian agriculture I was laughed at by some of my Progressive friends. Therefore it is very pleasing to me to note that at a representative meeting held in Saskatoon the other day, attended by delegates from all the provinces west of the Great Lakes, a resolution was passed to the effect that only mixed farming would give lasting success to agriculture in the western country. When I referred to the importance of developing our sheep industry, some of my friends, speaking on this subject later, said that

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
there was no money in sheep, and that they had had a great deal of difficulty not only in selling the stock but also in getting rid of their wool, and some very clever speeches were made along these lines. I am delighted to be able to tell them that already at this early period the situation is improving very rapidly throughout the world. We find that the wool market is picking up and that large quantities of surplus wool held by the British government are being disposed of without difficulty; that wool is getting scarce in South America; that Bradford, England, the great wool centre of Europe, is buying again very freely; that wool is moving very actively in the United States, and that only the other day as high as 40 cents a pound was paid in Utah for wool in the grease. The business of sheep raising is very promising for the future, and for the benefit of those of my friends who may be interested in the business I am going to quote them a few figures. It has been demonstrated that a flock of fifty sheep, costing not more than $500, will, under ordinary farm conditions, yield a return of not less than 15 per cent net, and in addition to that the wool is usually figured as a net gain. Besides their ordinary value for commercial purposes, sheep have a great value in the destruction of weeds and the cleaning up of rubbish on the farm, and they afford a convenient supply of fresh meat to the farmer in the busy seasons of the year when there is not always time to go to town for supplies. Under these conditions I would draw the attention of the Government to the necessity of guarding carefully against the entry of cheap mutton and lamb from those countries the competition of which would be unfair to Canadian farmers. And in that regard I am sure the hon. Minister of Fin-, ance when concluding arrangements with Australia will give particular attention to these few points which I have brought to his notice.
I am very much concerned in the proposed removal from the Customs Act of what is known as the anti-dumping clause. I have watched with a great deal of in terest the development of the fruit industry in British Columbia. We have there a large area known as the Okanagan valley, which only a few years ago was devoted to cattle raising, but in the meantime it has been irrigated and now supports a large number of people who have something like $40,000,000 invested in the fruit-growing industry, and their product
last year sold for $8,000,000. On several occasions previous to June 4, 1921, our American friends were able to come into the Canadian market with large quantities of their No. 3 apples and sell them at such ruinous prices as made it impossible for the Canadian producer to compete with them. This was repeated from time to time until, on June 4, 1921, what is known as the anti-dumping clause was introduced into the Customs Act. This clause made it necessary for the shipper to take into consideration the cost of production with a fair profit added in arriving at the amount on which the duty was based. This clause has rendered a very valuable service to the fruit growers of British Columbia. It may be asked, why are the Americans able to compete with our fruit producers in that way? In the first place, during a boom in Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Montana, very large areas were planted in fruit; in fact they planted more land to fruit than they had market for the product, with the result that they were able, in those years when there was a large crop, to put a certain amount of their product on the Canadian side at a very low price. In addition to that they were able to dispose of their No. 1 fruit in their large cities at fancy prices, and consequently they were glad to sell their culls, or No. 3 apples, at a sacrifice. These apples have been placed on the Canadian market as low as 30 cents and 40 cents a box. It is estimated that a box of apples costs $1.35 to produce in Washington today. In quoting those apples to our Canadian buyers the Americans have even gone so far as to intimate that no reasonable offer would be refused, indicating that they were simply dumping their surplus on our side. They were, however, careful not to dump their apples on the American side of the line, simply because they did not wish to injure their own market. In the production of small fruits and vegetables we find that growers in the United States have a distinct advantage owing to their geographical position. In the southern States their early produce comes on the market in February and March and soon finds its way on to the Canadian market. Then, as the season works northward, we continue to receive their fruit and vegetables until such time as our own products are ready but by that time the sharp desire of the consumer for fresh fruit has been satisfied by the early American fruit, and the result is that the Canadian producer does not obtain the
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

fancy prices which have been paid to his American competitors. This year we expect a very large fruit crop, particularly in the eastern section of the continent, and it is to ibe hoped that this anti-dumping clause will be retained for the purpose of giving the protection which I have referred to. These are matters of actual experience, not guess work. Our fruit men have sent delegations to Ottawa on many occasions to place these matters clearly before the government, and they have stated that this anti-dumping clause has proved to be an effective instrument in keeping out this unfair competition. The Minister of Finance in the course of his budget speech pointed out that there would be considerable difficulty in finding out the actual cost of production. I think no such difficulty need be feared, for the simple reason that if we send an expert down to the few fruit points from which we expect this competition he can look into the whole situation carefully, and will have no difficulty in arriving at the cost of production to such an extent as will enable the clause to be put into operation.
It is also proposed to place a tax of ten cents a gallon on temperance beverages. This tax is very strongly opposed by the manufacturers, who claim that it will so upset their present selling prices as to make it impossible to place their goods on the market at a popular figure. However, circular letters have been sent to all the members, and no doubt to the Minister of Finance, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House any further in this connection, save to ask the Minister of Finance to give the matter his very careful attention and endeavour to make an adjustment which will be satisfactory to all concerned. But there is another phase of this question of considerable importance-that is the application of the tax to beverages made from fruit juices on the same basis as those that do not contain any fruit juices. It may not be generally known that some of these beverages which are on the market and are described by large, bright labels as being made from fruit juice, contain only chemical flavours. Therefore I think if the Minister of Finance finds it impossible to remove this tax, he should at least give preference to the genuine article made from fruit juices, and refrain from taxing them. This fruit juice business is a very important one to the fruit growers of this country, because it makes a market for the smaller portions of the crop which can-TMr. Tolmie.]
not be disposed of to advantage in packages-the smaller apples and pears, for instance. It also enables us to dispose of many of the smaller fruits, such as loganberries, which are grown extensively on the Pacific coast-to the extent of thousands of acres in Washington and Oregon and hundreds of acres in British Columbia. This berry produces a juice which is used in the manufacture of summer drinks; it is of a very high colour; the beverage produced is a very wholesome one; and with the industry growing as it is, it should not be seriously interfered with.
With regard to the hog situation and the British market, I pointed out when speaking a few weeks ago in this House that as far as I could judge from what I saw on the other side, if we are to meet the needs of the British market we must supply the Britisher with an even grade of product; it must be uniform and of high quality, and furnished in sufficient quantities to attract the attention of the buyers over there. While the late government was still in office a plan for the grading of hogs was inaugurated. I do not know what progress has been made in the matter, but I urge upon the Government the necessity of pushing it as rapidly as possible so as to ensure the placing on the British market of an even grade of product. We must do this if we are to retain that market in competition with such countries as Denmark and Holland, where careful grading is carried out.
I wish to direct the attention of the Government also to the opportunity that is offered at the present time to rid Canada entirely of what is known as hog cholera. This disease has caused severe losses in this country, as well as in Great Britain and the United States. In 1912 we had about 4,249 hogs slaughtered on account of hog cholera, in respect of which compensation was paid to the extent of $23,446.51. I have the figures here for ten years, but I will not quote them all. In 1915 the disease had increased to such an extent that it was necessary to slaughter 34,779 animals, and to pay in compensation $196,981.28. In that year we introduced what is known as the garbage feeding regulation, with the result that in 1916 only 5,700 hogs were slaughtered on which compensation to the extent of $33,699.95 was paid. What made the difference? Under the garbage feeding regulations it is necessary for all feeders of swine to cook thoroughly all garbage obtained from hotels or board-

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
ing houses-that is, waste material, bacon rinds, ham bones, etc., which are fed to hogs and which may give them hog cholera if fed in a raw state. The boiling, however, sterilizes them and makes them a safe article of food. A great deal of bacon is imported from the United States, where hog cholera is so prevalent that it is found necessary to vaccinate the hogs-to inject a serum and virus into them to prevent them from dying of the disease. While many of their hogs are immunized to a certain extent as a result of this operation and do not develop the disease, in many cases they are carriers of the disease, and when the meat is fed to hogs in a raw state, the disease is communicated. In the year ending 1921-22, the regulations having been applied very carefully from year to year, the figures indicate that the mortality from this disease had been reduced to such an extent that only 429 hogs were slaughtered in Canada, compared with 34,779 in 1915. I suggest to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that here is an opportunity, by thorough organization, to wipe out the disease altogether. It will require a little money, but money will be saved in the long run. I speak from experience in this matter. When I entered politics in 1917 I resigned the position of Chief Inspector of the Health of Animals Branch for British Columbia. Hog cholera was very prevalent in that country; in many cases the animals were owned by foreigners who did not understand the English language and could not read our regulations. But even at that we were successful in cleaning out the disease, and for nearly two years previous to the time I resigned, British Columbia was entirely free from hog cholera. This shows what can be done by proper organization in the way of eliminating this disease.
What would be the advantages of bringing about this result? We would save a great deal of money through having no compensation claims to pay; we would save the present heavy cost of enforcing the act; we would save tremendous losses in swine; we would greatly encourage the development of the swine business by the extra confidence which would be given to the raisers of those animals; and in addition to that we would add substantially to the agricultural wealth of this country. And, referring again to the British market, if we could point to our goods as coming from herds entirely free from contagious
disease, you can readily understand what a tremendous advantage our product would have over the vaccinated pork coming from the United States.
I have been rather alarmed to hear suggestions in this House that we should introduce the United States system of dealing with this disease. In this country we have adopted what is known as the eradication system. In any case where hog cholera is found to exist the animal is destroyed, the carcas burned and the whole premises disinfected. We use serums only in cases where the remainder of the herd is not infected at the time of the inspection; serum is injected and the animals thus immunized until such time as they can be slaughtered. It would be a great mistake -and I say this after many years of experience in this work-to adopt such measures as are adopted in the United States. The United States have adopted their present system simply because they cannot do otherwise, the disease having become so widespread in that country. This disease can be entirely wiped out in Canada, I am quite sure, by close inspection of our herds, by a campaign of education among the hog growers, and by an even closer application of our garbage feeding regulations. If this is done I am sure the results will be excellent indeed.
Another point that was brought up last evening by the hon. Minister of Agriculture was his proposal to extend his work in connection with the eradication of tuberculosis in this country. This is a very important work. Its extent is very great; millions of dollars will be required to carry it on, and it must be approached with the greatest possible care. I was also much interested in his suggestion that isolated areas like Vancouver Island and Prince Edward Island might first be cleaned up. If it is the intention to do that, I suggest that he include with Vancouver Island the islands of the Gulf of Georgia, which are isolated in the same way; he can clean that whole section up at one time. That can be done by simply applying the quarantine regulations of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; the areas can be quarantined and it can be made illegal to take cattle on or off these islands without a certificate of a health of animals inspector. I advise the minister, however, to proceed very cautiously in this connection.
As an indication of how serious are the ravages of bovine tuberculosis in the human race, I will just quote a few figures.



The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
According to tables which I have here, 75 per cent of gland cases in children are of bovine origin; 66 per cent of generalized tuberculosis in children is of bovine origin; 18 to 26 per cent of deaths from tuberculosis in children are caused by the bovine bacillus. About 10 per cent of all tuberculosis in children from five to sixteen years is bovine. The British Royal Commission figures are much higher, namely, 37.5 per cent under five years of age; 29.5 per cent from five to ten years of age; 14.6 per cent from ten to sixteen years. This indicates that there is a great danger from these sources of the infection of the human being from the consumption of bovine products affected by tuberculosis.
Glancing at the livestock situation, of the
cattle inspected in our abattoirs in 1910- and these abattoirs I may say are very carefully inspected by highly qualified men ___2.70 per cent were affected by tuberculosis. In the same year the number of hogs showed an infection of 9 per cent. In 1921, of the 737,195 head of cattle slaughtered under inspection, the percentage affected amounted to 5.26 per cent, and of the 1,727,296 head of hogs slaughtered in the year ending 31st March, 1922, the percentage had increased to no less than 22 per cent, indicating the rate at which tuberculosis is increasing in this country.
We have also found, in hogs, and this is a very interesting point,that in dairy districts where the by-products, such as skimmed milk and other by-products are fed unsterilized the percentage of infection among animals coming to the abattoirs is not less than 10 per cent greater than from those districts where no dairy products are fed. In those districts the percentage of affected cattle is no greater, indicating that the sources of infection in the swine is from the by-products of the cow. This will indicate the need for prompt, persistent, and careful action for eradication of this disease. But I am quite sure that the moment the Minister of Agriculture applies to the Minister of Finance for funds in this connection, he will be met by a statement regarding the heavy expenditures that are necessary under prevailing conditions, and I know that the Minister of Finance will be quite justified because under present conditions every dollar has to be carefully considered before it is allocated for expenditure. I am going to make a suggestion that should meet with the approval, I think, of the Government and of all the members because I think there never was a time in the history of this country when it is so [Mr. Tolmie. 1
necessary for us to secure money in every legitimate way for the purpose of furthering such work as I have pointed out m connection with tuberculosis. I am going to suggest that we follow the system adopted in France. In France, horse racing is placed under federal control. The government of France secures a small percentage from all the moneys that pass through the books in connection with these horse races which are carefully supervised by government representatives. This percentage is aplied to helping out of poor people and orphan asylums, and also to improving the quality of the livestock.Splendid results have been obtained in that way. If the horse racing in this country could be placed entirely under federal control, we should be able to obtain from that source very substantial sums, and I would suggest that half of the proceeds be given to the Dominion Anti-Tuberculosis Society, and the balance be used for the eradication of tuberculosis among animals. This should not 'be done, under the Criminal Code. A s pecial act should be passed for this particular purpose. In this connection, I think, it is rather a slur on many respectable men who are interested in horse racing in- this country to have racing dealt with under the Criminal Code.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Does my hon. friend think that any regulation is required in connection with horse racing that could not be furnished by provincial enactment?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: My idea of putting racing under federal control would be to have the law uniform all over Canada. In my opinion, that is the only satisfactory way of controlling and stabilizing horse racing. The sport is a very popular one. It is patronized by thousands of people wherever races are held, but there is a great deal of room for improvement in conducting the races. I was never so much impressed in my life as I was by a visit to Ascot in England, when I saw the race for the Ascot gold cup. Everybody from the costermonger to the King of England was there -ambassadors from all the different countries represented in London, the very best people in the land, tens of thousands of them, and they all seemed to be happy and enjoying themselves. If we can run our race tracks in this country under proper regulations, and I am quite sure we can, the great majority of the responsible men connected with this sport would very heartily fall in line with any such regulation. In addition to that it would provide

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
us with a very useful source of revenue which could be devoted to the eradication of tuberculosis in this country.
With regard to the export trade of cattle, which has been developing to a certain extent since the war and since ship space was available, we have had at first loud clamouring for more ships, but, as a matter of fact, our Canadian feeders have not kept up with the ship space offered, and it has been necessary during the last few months to secure cattle from the United States to fill the ships. In the fall, of course, we shall be able to fill up the space on the ships very much better than we are doing at the present time.
It is gratifying to note the great interest that is now being shown in Great Britain in regard to the embargo on Canadian cattle. Many men are interested in this question now who did not show any interest some time ago. My attention has been drawn to a statement in a newspaper from the Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain, Sir Arthur Boscawen, who says, speaking of the cattle embargo:
As a matter of fact, I inherited this question, and it has not been a pleasant heritage. I can never get away from Canadian cattle, and I only hope that when I go to another world there will be no Canadian cattle there.
I surely thought the right hon. gentleman would be satisfied with maintaining an embargo on Canadian cattle in this world, without suggesting that there shall be an embargo on them in the next. I can assure him that if he will only do what he can to help remove the present embargo, Canadian cattlemen will Ibe willing to take a chance on there being a cattle embargo in the next world.
My attention has been called by a number of telegrams to the taxes imposed on cigarettes, autos, and the stamp tax on cheques. These matters have all been brought very fully to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and I do not propose to take up time in discussing them further, except to read a telegram I have received from the Victoria Chamber of Commerce:
Victoria Chamber of Commerce most strongly opposed to proposal to amend regulation covering stamps on cheques and drafts which would result in penalizing those with large aggregate at present carrying heaviest burden and tend to retard normal flow of business. Convinced that auto tax would vitally affect employment situation curtail sales and defeat end desired. J. H. Beatty President Victoria Chamber of Commerce.
There has been a good deal of complaint over the selection of these particular lines for special taxation.
With regard to the amendment which has been proposed, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) implied that we were clamouring for a lower tariff. I do not think that is the intention of the amendment at all. I look upon it simply as a strong protest against the idea that it is permissible for a party or a candidate to gain victory at the polls by promises which he or they never intend to carry out.
If it is necessary for a man in business undertakings to keep his word; I feel that the responsibility of any candidate or any government to carry out a pledge that has been given is just as great as it is in the case of a private individual. And when the violation of a pledge is brought to the attention of the Government, to hear the reply, in effect, "Don't worry about that, it was only an election pledge," is certainly surprising.
I am quite sure, therefore, that many members of the House will agree with me when I say that such a course certainly is not conducive to that high standard which the government of Canada should aim to attain.


Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humboldt) :: Mr. Speaker, on rising to continue this debate I cannot refrain from expressing regret that the proposed amendment offered by the leader of this Progressive group is not before the House at this time. Not, Sir, that I would cast the least aspersion on the ruling handed down to us by the Chair or suggest in the, least any doubt as to its fairness or wisdom. In fact, if I have followed the reasoning aright upon which that ruling was founded, I think that no criticism can be made with respect to it; but that rather we are suffering here as the result of the ' sins of our forefathers descending upon the third and fourth generation. However,
I say that I regret that that amendment is not properly before the House, for this reason. That amendment states concisely, and emphasizes, the point of criticism of the budget that I would wish to make. And I think this other reason too might appeal to hon. members generally, and not alone to this group in which I sit-that if that amendment were properly before the House perhaps I would not feel it incumbent upon me to take up time in presenting arguments to the end so well expressed in the amendment, but that I might have been satisfied to have supported the amendment with my vote and thought I had done my duty But I do
2598	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart
feel, Sir, that we in this group represent a distinct school of thought, that we are urging a policy that is not stated either in the remarks of the Finance Minister or in the amendment to his motion. I feel too that at this time, in view of the serious conditions that confront us in this country, all the suggestions for improvement that can be made should be taken into consideration. Therefore I make so bold as to occupy some of the time of the House in offering some further criticisms and suggestions.
First of all, I want to state, and if possible to make clear, why I am not satisfied with the amendment to the motion. I thought, Sir, when the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) first started to propose the amendment that it was going to be one that would appeal to me; I thought that he was making statements which sounded worth while-I refer to that part of the amendment which, perhaps, to a greater or lesser degree camouflages the real point, where he recited those pledges as expressed in the Liberal platform which, he declares, have not been carried into effect. I say, Sir, that I thought perhaps I was going to be able to agree with him because that point did appear to me to be worth while. But later, as my hon. friend concluded his amendment, I realized that he did not express my views as I would wish to express them; and if I had any doubts-for I must admit, Sir, I did not hear very clearly back here where I am seated and was not very sure just what the actual nature of the amendment was -if I had any doubts the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) cleared up those doubts when he made it plain in the concluding remarks of his speech in this debate as to just what the intent of the amendment was. My hon. friend said, " It is not an amendment requiring hon. gentlemen opposite to carry out their pledges, but an amendment condemning the practice of making promises it was not intended to fulfil ", and so on. Now, in so far as it goes, that statement appeals to me. If pledges have been made and not beeh fulfilled, then I would like to join in condemning the practice. But that is not the point in respect to the budget proposals before us that I want to emphasize; and, as the amendment does not go further than I have stated, it does not completely,-does not by any means completely-express the criticism that I would like to make of the bud-

get. I want to state, Sir, that I was not sent here as a guardian or keeper of the Liberal party though it happened to be in power; at least my conception of the reasons for sending me do not include that responsibility. I was sent here, I think, to state as clearly as possible, and to keep before this House, certain definite principles and certain proposals, and I shall endeavour to do so. I do not think that criticizing the party that is in power carries out, under any circumstances, the obligations which were placed upon me. I have also noted that members of the group sitting immediately to my right have not only pointed out that the amendment is capable of expressing their opinion and their criticism, but that some of them have gone to considerable trouble to point out that the amendment is also capable of expressing the criticism and viewpoint of the Progressives. I take exception to that ambiguous feature of the amendment, and I wish to say that when this group has the privilege and the opportunity of expressing its views it will attempt to do so without ambiguity. Personally I do not feel that I can join in an expression that is capable of two interpretations. I do not think that it was a fair criticism to level at us in this corner of the House to say that when the resolution which did express our sentiments was offered it was offered as a means of safety to the government. I would point out, Sir, that the result of the two amendments would be practically the same. That is, both constitute a censure of the government; and I cannot see that in taking the stand that I do

although I cannot admit that the amendment now before us satisfies me-I am in any way coming to the relief of the Government.
Now, I want to make a few comments on the budget proposals. In the first place I would like to join in the congratulations that have been offered to the Minister of Finance on the service that he has given for so long, and is still giving, to the country. I would like, in particular to congratulate him on a point that I think has not been stressed, and which I believe is important. That is, that the phraseology in which he has clothed his proposals is so clear and intelligible that it was not difficult for any hon. member to grasp the points which the minister wished to place before us. That is commendable but that is not the whole point that I have in mind. It is the fact that my hon. friend's phrase-

The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart
ology is so understandable that the average citizen throughout Canada can realize the present situation fairly accurately, and that, I think, is something desirable. It should be possible for the people of the country to understand the condition of the Dominion at the present time. I believe that the average citizen is now getting a better grasp of the conditions than he had, perhaps, at any time in the past, and that he is realizing that we have a very heavy burden of debt to sustain. It is not possible, perhaps, for the average citizen to think in the terms of billions or millions of dollars; but the people as a whole are now realizing that a very heavy debt is placed upon us. They realize that the interest charges on that debt, and the other fixed charges, together with the legitimate charges of carrying on the administration, amount to a very large sum. They realize this requires a heavy taxation, and if I might diverge again, I would congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on having presented tax proposals which are intended to bring in a large revenue. I believe that we all realize, both in this House and throughout the whole country, that a large revenue is necessary to carry on the government at this time. I do not wish to be misunderstood in that respect. I do not mean to say that, because a large revenue is necessary, we should encourage the Government in making the expenditures and charges over which they have direct control greater than are absolutely necessary at this time. I am wholly in sympathy with the statements regarding the necessity for economy, which have been made by my hon. colleagues in this coi'ner of the House. I believe it is possible that reductions can be made in the expenses of the various departments of this government. As a new member of the House, I would not try for one moment to place my finger on the weak spots. I would not attempt to criticize; in fact I think most of us who have been in our seats during the passing of the various estimates have felt that it would be almost futile to touch those estimates with the knowledge we have of them. It is the business of the Government and of the heads of the departments to find out where there are encroachments on the revenue which can be stopped, and where items can be cut oif, without seriously injuring the ability of the Government to carry on. My whole idea in commending the Minister of Finance for having introduced proposals that would
bring in a large revenue is that a large portion of that revenue might be diverted from the ordinary expenses of government to reduce our national debt.
There are other features of the budget I would like to comment upon. The first is one which has been touched upon many times here, and that is the statement of the Finance Minister as to his attitude-and I presume the attitude of the Government for whom he speaks-with regard to reciprocity with United States. I commend that attitude, and personally I am prepared to stand behind him wholly and unreservedly in that matter. I also commend certain features of the budget where the minister makes proposals for more direct taxation. I believe, Sir, that the people of this country, if they are not now wholly in a position to accept direct taxation, are making long strides towards that position. They are demanding that the taxes shall be placed upon them directly, so that they can trace them to their source, and know exactly how much they are paying, and through what channel it is reaching the treasury of the Government. I refer to the taxes on bank notes circulation, cheques,, money orders and the like. Those taxes are commendable in another sense, in that they do not bear unjustly upon the man of small means and with very little income. Those are proposals which meet with favour. I might also mention taxes which are included there, which might be termed luxury taxes, such as the taxes
5 p.m. on automobiles, tobacco, confectionery, and taxes of that nature. If I have a criticism to offer on those taxes, it is that there should be greater attention given to the graduation of the taxes. The greater the value of the article, the more right it is to term it a luxury, and in my estimation the greater the tax it should bear.
I commend all measures in the budget tending towards freer trade. In this, my first attempt to address the House, I will not state that I am a free trader, either in theory or every day practice at this time, but I believe in much freer trade than we have at the present time. I am commending these measures because they point towards freer trade. I will mention some of them. We have the alteration in the Marking and Valuations Act, the change in the regulations regarding the arbitary value of foreign money, and the direct reduction of tariff where those occur in the proposals before us. These are all tendencies toward freer trade, and I commend
2600	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart
them in that respect. Although supporting the thought expressed in the resolution to amend the amendment, as submitted by the hon. leader of this group, (Mr. Crerar) I do not in any sense wish it to be understood that I am advocating radical changes in the fiscal policy over night. I do not think that any person in this House wishes to do that, and if there were such, I would, least of all, wish to be connected with them. In my most optimistic moods I never supposed the Government which in power would do anything radical in that respect, and in my more pessimistic moods, viewing it in the light of history of the past, I did not expect anything more radical than we have at the present time-and I submit we have no radical changes at the present time. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) last evening, I believe, characterized it as a step. I think he was going beyond bounds when he characterized this as a step, either in the right or the wrong direction. I believe the hon. member from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) also said it was a step forward and a step backward. I submit this is not a step. I think the hon. member from Brome (Mr. McMaster) characterized it properly. I admire very much all his logical reasoning and argument, and was particularly delighted to find that he was logical with regard to statements he had made as much as two years ago. I think I remember reading about two years ago a criticism he had made of the budget proposals of that time. At that time there were proposed reductions of from 5 to 7i per cent, and, in criticizing them, from his standpoint, he stated that it might be termed a step in the right direction, but certainly not a stride. The other day, in following to a logical conclusion, he stated that the change at the present time was probably a shuffle. I think that is a truthful statement of the situation, and meets wholly with my approval. However, I want to be absolutely fair, and to give full credit to the Minister ' of Finance for the results which may follow the slight changes made, particularly with regard to agricultural implements, where he has altered some of the customs taxes by 2i per cent. My chief objection to the customs tariff, as a means of raising revenue, is that it takes so much out of the pockets of the consumer to place $1 in the treasury. I have heard it stated -and I have not heard it successfully refuted-that for every dollar which, through that means, finds its way to the treasury, $8 is taken from the consumers' pockets.

If that is a fact, let us consider fairly what even 2| per cent might mean to the consumer of this country. I am not sure, Sir, that this 2J per cent reduction is worthy of the commendation I am giving it, or that it would work out in practice as it does in theory, because it is such a slight reduction that, possibly, advantages will be taken of the situation which will not permit it to work out as it should. Theoretically, the 2h per cent reduction will mean a saving in taxation to the agriculturists of this country of as much as $250,000, which is not a very enormous sum. But if $250,000 is deducted from the treasury, then it means not $250,000 saved to the agriculturists but at least a million dollars, taking into consideration the indirect taxation placed on them. It was suggested by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that this reduction might mean a loss to his treasury of possibly $500,000. That is so much taxation taken off the people of the country. If therefore my theory is correct there is saved to the people not $500,000 but $2,000,000. And while these are compartively low figures as compared with the whole budget, yet I am willing to give the minister the full credit that is due him in that respect.
Next I want to say a word or two with regard to the sales tax. To me it is one degree less objectionable than the customs tariff as a means of raising revenue, but only one degree less objectionable, in that it is perhaps a more direct method of taxation than the customs tariff. But when I find that there is a difference in the sales tax as between home manufactured goods and imported goods, in favour of the home product the effect, it seems to me, is practically the same, and in reality there is little difference between the two forms of taxation. My objection to this taxis that it is an undue burden on those people who have small incomes. It is not equitably distributed. It is a tax on the necessities of life, a tax on a man's consuming power and not on his ability to pay taxes. It is a drain upon the real source of our wealth, and the Government would have been well advised to have taken that fact into account before increasing this tax by 50 per cent. I know that certain claims have been put forward to justify the present proposals of the budget, among others the contention that the exigencies of the present critical situation demand the increase. I am willing to admit all these things; and I should be most patient, Mr. Speaker, with the pres-

The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart
ent administration if I could see any sign that they were heading in the right direction. But, as I view the matter, I take the position stated in the second amendment, which was refused consideration, that the whole budget is based upon protectionist principles. I therefore cannot give it my endorsation.
The speech of the Minister of Finance does not suggest, either directly by its context, or by inference, that the Government intend to implement their promises towards freer trade either immediately or in the distant future. And I was very much interested last night when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) refrained from committing himself on that point although he committed himself on almost every other point that suggested itself to him. If I thought that a readjustment were contemplated and we were given a serious undertaking towards that end by the Government, matters would be different. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, may I say at this juncture that I am becoming very dubious indeed of all pledges, when we find that what we supposed to have been the pledges of members of the Government were only pledges made by their supporters, not, apparently, with their authority and approval. I say I am becoming quite dubious of pledges of any sort. If, however, we had a solemn pledge on the part of the Government at this time that they intended to implement in full their pre-election promises and to put them into legislation, I should be more patient than I am at this time.
Now, I wish to offer a few constructive criticisms, because I am in sympathy only with criticisms of that character. We in this corner have been criticised for not placing on record more constructive material in our criticisms of the budget. In our platform we have some very definite proposals, and I will recommend some of them to the serious consideration of the Government. I believe that the most equitable tax we have ever had in Canada is the income tax. It is my opinion, further, that this tax should be readjusted. There should be a gradation in the scale, following the British system, not only increasing it very much as it ascends, but also recognizing a difference between earned and unearned income. In the same category with that I place the business profits tax which has been discarded by the Government. I would also recommend the inheritance tax which has been suggested already. Another
tax which I favour very much, and which I believe should receive the earnest consideration of the Government, is what is known as the tax on unimproved land values. I was much pleased to hear the hon. member for Gloucester, (Mr. Turgeon), the first member on the Government side to do so, suggest that this tax should be considered. Up to the time he made the suggestion it had not been mentioned, and the hon. member expressed his disappointment that some member of the Progressive group had not advocated the tax. Since then several hon. members have advocated the tax on unimproved land values, and I believe that the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) outlined it at considerable length. I have criticised the sales tax severely, and now as a practical suggestion I would urge the Minister of Finance to consider the matter of taxing these unimproved land values. I would suggest that there should be placed on all lands throughout the country, both urban and rural, a tax of 2i mills on the dollar with assesment based on unimproved values. If the Minister of Finance did this he would secure at least as much as he will get through the 50 per cent increase in the sales tax, and it would be a more equitable distribution of taxation throughout the country. This tax, I can assure him, would not bear very heavily on those who would pay, and it should be given a fair trial. In many instances people are afraid of the proposal, because they do not know how the tax would operate; and if the experiment were tried it would satisfy these people. Certainly it would be meeting the demand which is being made for a movement towards more direct taxation. Of all the taxes that can be levied, perhaps the income tax and the tax on land values are the most direct methods that could be adopted. I have done some figuring on this question. The figures I have been able to obtain are from the Chief Statistician and they show that the assessable (values of unimproved lands and property throughout the Dominion would probably amount to $16,000,000,000. That is why I suggest 2i mills on the dollar; it would produce the revenue which the Minister of Finance finds it necessary to secure by means of the increase in the sales tax.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How much would
that tax secure to the treasury? Have you worked that out?


Charles Wallace Stewart: A tax of 2i mills on $16,000,000,000 would be about
2602	COMMONS
The Budget

Mr. C. W. Stewart
$40,000,000. On the average farm in western Canada, with the values of which I am well acquainted, that would mean a tax of about $7.50. As I make it, on an average the sales tax will mean a tax of about $20 to each farmer in the West. It makes then to the farmer the difference between $7.50 and $20. Now, it cannot be claimed that that difference would have been thrown upon the working man, because, as a rule, he is not a holder of land at all, and therefore would not have had any land tax to pay. It would have thrown that difference on to certain companies, perhaps speculators, who are holding valuable lands, some in rural districts, and large areas in the cities.
Now, Sir, in conclusion, what I have said with regard to taxes, the revision of the customs tariff, the lessening of the sales tax, and the adoption of direct methods of taxation is not offered by me as a panacea to cure all the ills that afflict this country at the present time. I come from western Canada where the agriculturists are labouring under very serious handicaps, and they are not simply clamouring that conditions shall be changed in order that they may try something new, hoping that that will be better than the old, but they have given mature thought to the disadvantages under which they labour, and I am sent here, together with a number of my colleagues, as the expression of that mature thought. They have sent us here to place certain definite proposals before this House. They think that wider markets would improve their condition. I may say that for the last twenty years I have been watching the efforts of the agriculturists in western Canada, and although I have not during the whole of that period been directly interested in agriculture, because I am going back to my school days, yet during the years that I have been directly interested I have noticed that the western farmers have overcome the very serious handicaps they laboured under by attacking small points and gaining one at a time. They believe if they could obtain wider markets it would materially help them. In fact, I think the proposals they suggest could be put under three heads of relief.
First, they believe there should be increased returns for the products of the farm. Wider markets would help to bring that about. I have already commended the Minister of Finance for his efforts to that end both in regard to the past and the very near future, for undoubtedly he has made real efforts to obtain reciprocity.

We from the West have asked for better marketing conditions as we believe they could be obtained under a wheat board. I am not going to pursue that further for the moment because I believe very shortly we shall have an opportunity to debate the advisability of some such scheme of control for marketing our crop. We will also perhaps have the opportunity to debate the manner of lessening the cost of transportation not only of grain but also of commodities that enter into the necessities of agriculturists.
Speaking of transportation brings to my mind the completion of the Hudson Bay railroad, which a very large number of agriculturists in the prairie provinces are convinced would materially lessen their costs of transportation. They believe, Sir, that ten or twelve years ago they made out a case before this House. They had the definite promise of the Prime Minister at that time, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that that road would be built. They saw its construction undertaken and carried on to a very large extent by the last government, and they lived in hopes that the road would be completed. Now, I come to this House pledged to my constituents to work for that completion. I find numbers of hon. members, perhaps new to this House, are dubious of the wisdom of continuing this work. The people whom I represent feel that the case is made out, and that if the completion of the road is considered a dubious undertaking, it is the duty of those in doubt and opposed to the work to make out their case in opposition. I place that before you, Sir, as a means, not of greatly increasing the returns of agriculturists, but as a means to some extent of increasing the returns that would be received for agricultural products, particularly grain.
Then, too, I must mention the necessity for the construction of certain branch lines of railway. The cost of production to the farmer is materially enhanced when he is a great distance away from a railroad. For fifteen years I hauled my grain thirty miles to a railway, and so I think I speak with authority in that regard. I paid as high as 25 cents a bushel for a number of years to get my wheat to the railroad car, and I know if that expense could be saved sometimes a considerable loss could be turned into a considerable gain.
These matters, then, this Parliament has more or less direct control over and could attend to if it thought fit, and if carried out they would all help to increase the returns on the farmers' products. But the

The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart
people of the West have taken the stand that if the returns for their products cannot be greatly increased, at least we should increase the purchasing power of the dollars that they do receive. I want to make that point perfectly clear to the House. Not so very long ago, in fact in my time as a farmer-and I have been farming only about sixteen or seventeen years- I sold my grain at no greater price than is being obtained at the present time, and yet in those days I considered myself fairly prosperous. But for the past two or three years I know 1 have been farming at a loss. The difference is simply this, that in the years gone by my dollar purchased something, whereas at the present time a dollar by itself is not worth very much. I think it would be only repetition of my argument if I were to go back and state that that is one reason why I claim the customs tariff on agricultural implements and on clothing and the other necessaries of life should be reduced to the minimum, so that the man engaged in developing not only our farms but all our natural resources should be enabled to obtain the maximum return for his expenditure.
I said there were three methods that the people I represent believe would lighten their burdens. The third is, by readjusting taxation. I am not asking for any special concession for the people of the West. They are perfectly willing to pay taxes according to their incomes, but they do ask that they should be taxed according to their incomes. If this Parliament has it in its power, and should see fit, to readjust these matters I have brought to their attention to such an extent that the farmer -and when I use- the term farmer for the people in the West, in my constituency at least, I do not think I exempt any person, because all there are either directly engaged in tilling the soil or are very directly dependent upon the farmer for their living -if it can be so worked out that they will be prosperous, that their incomes will be augmented, that the value of their land holdings will he increased, then they are willing to pay in due proportion of their increased incomes and the added value of their property.
I would like to have mentioned the effect this would have had upon our immigration policy. I am firmly convinced, Sir, that the salvation of this country lies in increasing our population; that we need an immigration policy. But I have in mind an ideal immigration policy, that is, to make all the deserving people of this country so
prosperous that they will be anxious to have their friends come to them and settle beside them. When that day comes then we shall have indeed a real immigration.
During the campaign last fall when I had the privilege of speaking to a very large number of my constituents, I made it a point at every meeting that I addressed, about sixty in all, to ask the people there if they would feel justified under present circumstances in inviting their friends to come to this country and become citizens alongside of them, and in all those occasions I did not find one man who felt he would be justified in inviting his friends to come and share with him his prosperity or lack of prosperity. But if these people were prosperous they would be glad to have their friends come here. They are not selfish; they do not wish to enjoy prosperity alone. Nor are they crowded in that country. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as I travelled through my constituency last fall I was struck as I never had been before with the room there was for more people. I do not know whether my constituency differs in that respect from that of any other hon. member from the West, but I found that section after section of good arable land was vacant, right in some of our best settlements and very close to railroads. I had heard it stated a number of times that we had in this country thirty million acres within fifteen miles of railroads, but I never realized the proof of it until I saw with my own eyes, when [DOT]travelling through my constituency in a car, these areas of the very best land lying idle.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Charles Wallace Stewart: Certainly.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Who, as a general rule, would own these unoccupied farm lands?


Charles Wallace Stewart: They are almost entirely held by non-residents, usually companies; they are what we in the West call company lands.
I was stating, Sir, that if the system which I have called the ideal system could be worked out we would not need very many immigration regulations or restrictions. If the conditions were such that the people were inviting others to come into the country I would be in favour of allowing all whom we could assimilate to come into Canada. That term "assimilate" has been used very often and very glibly dur-
The Budget-Mr. McKenzie

ing the present session. I wonder just what interpretation has been given to it. When I use it I have reference to all the people that we can make citizens of this country. We need citizens-I have stated that fact; and when I use the term "citizens" I am not thinking of those who become citizens simply because they are domiciled in a particular country; I refer to those who are willing to share not only the advantages of citizenship but also, if the occasion requires, the responsibilities of citizenship as well. I state, Sir, that if this country can attain a sufficient degree of prosperity to cause people to wish to come here, and to stay here when they do come, then we can indeed welcome practically all races, all those who will assume the responsibilities of good citizenship in this country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I must indeed congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Stewart) upon his very excellent exposition of public questions as he sees them. This is the fifth Canadian Parliament of which I have had the honour of being a member; including the provincial parliaments, I have been in seven different parliaments. The present Parliament is of particular interest, because it is composed of three strong groups. We had in one or two previous parliaments three groups, but the third group was largely, as has been the case in the British House of Commons, composed of middle-bench men who were exercising the right to their own individual and independent ideas but were not calling themselves collectively a party. In this House now we have three distinct parties, of which the Progressive party contains the largest number of new members. While I am not disposed to be fulsome in praise of them, I must do the new group the justice of saying that of the many Parliaments which I have seen on the Hill I do not know of any large group of new members who have brought to Parliament such a good equipment of parliamentarians as they have. Of course, their ideas of parliamentary life and parliamentary usefulness, their ideas concerning the way in which they should carry out their duties in this House, will undergo some changes when they have been here quite a number of years and have become acclimatized to the conditions in the House. I am not saying that from any critical point of view, but as one who has travelled that road I think it is only fair that I should 
tell my hon. friends that if twenty years hence they are still sitting in Parliament they will be surprised at the striking change which their views have undergone concerning how things can be done and the way they should go about doing them. But it would have been a great mistake for my hon. friends not to express their views upon public questions as they have been expressing them and as they will, no doubt, express them during the remainder of this session.
My hon. friend who has just taken his seat has made reference to the duties of citizenship. He points out that the word is used freely, and he says he is not so clear that its meaning is fully understood. Few things in the world are so important as citizenship. The great Scottish poet, Robert Burns, said: "An honest man's the noblest work of God." There is no doubt that is true, and the attributes which Robert Burns had in mind when he penned these words must of necessity be part of the equipment of every true citizen. It is impossible for a man to be a good citizen in the proper sense of the term without possessing those noble qualities to which the immortal Burns has made reference. I am glad that my hon. friend has referred to citizenship. I am sure we are all proud of being Canadian citizens, and prouder, if possible, to be British citizens enjoying all the privileges that the British flag and the British Crown bring to us. We have one king and one crown, one flag and one country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When we talk of groups and divisions, and of one party attempting to build up one section of the country regardless of the necessities of other sections, let us understand at once that such a thing is an impossibility. It is impossible to build up a country by building up one section at the expense of another, with no uniformity of development, just as it is impossible to build any other structure on the same principle. For these reasons I say at once to my friends of the Progressive party, who are here practically as new men-I need not say it to the old hard-shells of the Tory party, many of whom have been here for a long time, and who make it their boast that they are true and loyal, good Imperialists- that we must have regard to the necessities of the country as a whole, and try to find a policy that will enable us to govern and carry forward this whole country from coast to coast, a policy that will be in

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
conformity, so far as possible, with the best interests of every citizen in this great country of ours.
Men and women come to this country, they accept our laws and our privileges, they accept the splendid welcome we give them, and in return we expect nothing from them except that they shall perform their duties as Christian citizens of this country, and in that way become worthy of the heritage which has been handed to us by our forefathers, all of which we are willing to hand down to those who come to this country and make their homes amongst us, exacting only from them that they shall be good citizens. Much depends in that-regard upon our own conduct. It is just the same as the example the head of the family sets to his children. As a rule, you will never see well-behaved children in a household where the father has no respect for the amenities which should govern his conduct as the head of the house. On the other hand, if he shows himself well-behaved, a moral, devout Christian man in all the duties devolving upon him, the children are glad to follow in his footsteps. It is the same with citizenship. If we who were born here, or have been here many years, live up to the ideals of British citizenship and of the British flag, if we stand fast by them in honesty of purpose, industry, and everything else that makes for good citizenship, those who come to this country will try to live up to our standards; but if we depart from them, let us beware that we are not dragged down to the standards which the stranger to this country would set up if he found a lack of principles in us who ought to know better.
I have made these observations, Mr. Speaker, I think justifiably, because we have a great many new members, excellent men who are here for the first time. They have heard a great deal about politicians and public men and have perhaps heard that they are men not over-1 burdened with morals, and without any proper conception of what is real manhood, and of what are the duties devolving upon public men in this country. I do not hold myself up to be anything but perhaps a poor example of the good men of this country, but I have been in touch with public men in Canada for the past thirty or thirty-five years or more, and I must bear this testimony, that taking our public men as a class, they are as fond of principle, of honour, of right and square dealing as
any other class of men that I ever came across in this country. I want to convey to my good friends who may have brought here with them from the far West or from the Old Country, or wherever they come from, the idea that public men in Canada are such that they must be on their guard against them, and that they have no proper conception of honour in dealing with their fellow citizens, that such is not the case, and if my good friends will do their part, if they will uphold those high standards of citizenship that the old Nova Scotian, the old British Columbian, or the men of any other province of Canada hold as their ideals, we shall be happy together, and no one will have any reason to find fault with our citizenship.
I do not think that I shall follow the speech of my hon. friend very much further. I agree largely with what he says, and I am pleased to find that he has such a clear conception of his duty and of what should be done in connection with the affairs of this country.
A good many words of praise and congratulation have been tendered to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). These praises have come from all parts and all forners of this great country, and when other hon. members from far-away provinces have tendered their congratulations, and quite properly, to the minister, it is not only incumbent upon me, coming from the same province, a colleague of the minister for many years, and his follower as a humble member of the Liberal party for nearly forty years, but a very great pleasure to tender to him my warmest congratulations upon this the delivery, and the delivery in good style and splendid form, of his sixteenth budget. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that few men if any-possibly there may have been a few, but I could not myself in any leading countries of the world discover any such person-have had a history like the present Finance Minister. I do not know whether the famous Iron Chancellor-who for many years, although not the real ruler of Germany, was the financial centre and strength of that Empire and was in office at the time of the Franeo-Prussian war of 1870-had the great distinction of introducing into his Parliament as many budgets as our present Finance Minister, but if it was not his good fortune to have done so, I do not know of any one else.
May I be permitted to boast somewhat of our Liberalism in the province of Nova Scotia and to hold out to our friends who

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
are not very fond, I believe, of the old party, some of the beauties, the traditions, and the achievements of that party in the good old province down by the sea-a province where law is respected, where citizenship is respected, where property rights are respected, and where religious beliefs-and everything that goes into the making of life what it ought to be and making life happy and contented

are respected. There is no province in the Dominion of Canada, no Spot in the world-and that is said without any disparity to any other place-* where those essentials of life are better preserved and more respected than in the little province of Nova Scotia. Let me say that while we have had splendid men in the province of Nova Scotia and have given splendid men to the world-we have had such men as Joseph Howe; Mr. Johnson who was the contemporary and also the premier of Nova Scotia "as well as Howe

the Tuppers, the Bordens, Fielding, Murray, and many others who stand high in the ranks of the public men of Canada-[DOT] among them all there was none who contributed more to the stabilising and the elevating of the public life of Canada than the hon. gentleman who is now the Minister of Finance of the Dominion, and who has had the honour of introducing the budget we are now disci'ssing.
I am sure it would be surprising for some people to know that ever since Confederation we have had only one change of government in the province of Nova Scotia. I need not tell hon. gentlemen how long ago that is. During that fifty-four years <ve had just one change of government. That was in 1878 when the Conservative administration took the reins of office; but in 1882 they went out of power and ever since that time the people of Nova Scotia -who are bright, intelligent and alert people-have consistently followed in the one track, and have consistently recognized the one policy, the one love, and the one system of government. The present premier, who to-day occupies the place of honour and power in the province of Nova Scotia will, some day next month, have been sitting there for twenty-six years, he will have been continuously in office for twenty-six years. I refer to the Hon. George Murray, a gentleman who is well known from coast to coast, a gentleman who, after twenty-six years of office, exhibits the purity and the bright hope of a consistent and progressive life as a politician and a Liberal of the Liberals. If in this great province of ours we can produce from the
[Mr. McKenzie. I '
Liberal party a man like that, who has given us a spiendid government and a splendid record of progress, am I not justified in presenting, not only to this House but to the world, the good old Liberal party and saying that within its ranks, and exhibiting its doctrines and its principles, are to be found men and measures worthy of this great country, and that these measures deserve to be developed, perpetuated and continued? Let me add that for fourteen years before the Hon. Mr. Murray took charge of the affairs of the province of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, who is now the Finance Minister here, was the premier of that province. That also involved being the finance minister for the province as well, for he was also the provincial treasurer and provincial secretary, the duties of which, in our province, correspond to those of the federal Minister of Finance. So that the fact deserves to be noted that Hon. Mr. Fielding is not only presenting his sixteenth budget in the Dominion Parliament, but he had previously presented fourteen budgets in the Nova Scotia legislature, making a record more unique and more striking than that of any other man, I believe, who ever occupied high office under the British flag.
Now, I may be criticised perhaps, for talking about these things, but I think it is only right and proper that there should be a due presentation of them to this House and to the world. Public men do not always, perhaps, get the praise and the credit that is due to them, and when there are clear and striking evidences of this kind due recognition should be forthcoming. For the province of Nova Scotia is just as exacting-perhaps more so-of a high line of conduct from its public men as any other part of Canada. So happily have the expectations of the province in this regard been fulfilled that for twenty-six years we have had one premier (Hon. Mr. Murray), and for fifty-four years we have had the one government or the one party in power excepting, as I have said, for a brief spell of four years. This shows there is virtue, stability, a high conception of honour, and efficient administration to be found in the party which is so appreciated by the little province down by the sea. I am producing these goods largely for the benefit of my hon. friends of the Progressive party. I would ask them to examine them and, if they are of a proper type and fitness, let them wear them.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the House took
recess, I was referring- to the achievements of the great Liberal party of which I have the honour now to be a member, and I was saying that both parties, Liberal and Conservative, from the province of Nova Scotia, have contributed many excellent men to the service of the irrespective parties and the country at large. I felt at the time that I was forgetting one of the distinguished Nova Scotians to whom I should have made reference, and, during the recess, I thought I recalled that I had made no reference to a gentleman who was for some years Prime Minister of this Dominion, the Right Hon. Sir John S. D. Thompson. He was a Nova Scotian of whom we all have reason to be proud, and his name should be mentioned when enumerating distinguished Nova Scotians. I desire to include the name of that illustrious gentleman with those of the other prominent Nova Scotians whom I have already mentioned. The budget is always interesting to the Canadian people. It is the accounting for the year, or possibly for a number of years, which the government submits to the people, on which they are to pass judgment in regard to the financial operations of those who are charged with the business of the country. The present Administration has been but a very few months in office. Hon. members who are familiar with the operation of government and the responsibility of parties will well understand that it takes considerable time to get a proper hold and understanding of various matters to be attended to in the administration of this or any other country. It must not be expected, in reason and fairness, that, in the few months that this Administration had been in power, before the Hon. Minister of Finance (.Mr. Fielding) was called upon to prepare and present his budget, we could have the full and various details that would (be necessary in order to give as thorough an account of the affairs of this country as might possibly be expected had the present Government been longer handling the affairs of the country.
I propose paying some slight attention to the manner of criticisms which have been made by the official Opposition, and, particularly by the night hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and those who were in his administeration. They
*criticized us as if we had been for years in charge of the affairs of this country and were responsible for the public debt, the way in which that debt was incurred, the way in which the various resources for borrowing money in this country were exploited, the way in which the credit of the country, in so far as borrowing money was concerned, was exercised and used and everything of that kind, when, as a matter of fact, the late government was responsible for all these things, and borrowed money wherever it could be borrowed. Now, we are criticized as if that were all our business, and not theirs, and as if they had no responsibility at all. What would you think, Sir, of a landlord who while living, say, for ten years -in a house, had allowed the shingles to 'blow, off the roof, the chimney to break down and become smoky, the floor to be broken, the windows to be smashed, and, in short, had permitted the house to get -into a dilapidated condition; who had then managed to rent the house to another man, and who, the day after the tenant had taken charge, came in, and turning savagely on the poor tenant, said. " How is it the house is smoky? What is the matter with the broken floor? How is it the roof is leaky and the windows smashed? How is it this house is in the absolutely uninhabitable, deplorable condition in which I find it?" You would say he was a very daring or insane sort of man. The answer would be 'This is your house; you lived in it for ten years; if the windows are broken, you broke them; if the roof is leaking, it is because of your neglect; if the chimney is smoky, you allowed it to break down and get into a smoky condition; this is your house, under your administration, and you are responsible". But the landlord tries to shake off all responsibility and place it on the tenant. You would say such a person was without any conception of a proper reasoning power as to his own responsibility. That, Sir, is the position in which the former members of the government are placed. They stand up with considerable nerve and criticize as boldly and as strongly as if they had nothing whatever to do with the conditions in which we find the country to-day, and the position in which the minister who has charge of the finances of the country must of necessity be.
The question of raising money is not so hard in one way, because there is only one source from which we can get it. It must

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
come from the people directly or indirectly, and whatever may be the means adopted of collecting it, in the last analysis it must come from the pockets of the individual citizen. Now, everybody knows that we have an enormous debt. We have tremendous obligations that must be met; and every Canadian who is proud of his country acknowledges that those obligations we are in duty bound to pay in due course. The only question therefore is as regards the method of collecting the money, and the application of the revenue so secured towards the discharge of those obligations. Not only does the right hon. leader of the Opposition acknowledge that fact, but the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar), a day or two before the budget was introduced, predicted that, unless he was much mistaken, the Minister of Finance would be obliged not only to continue the exactions that were already being made upon the people, but to propose new taxes in order to meet the obligations that faced him. Well, that prediction has only been fulfilled; and the leader of the Progressive party and his associates, in view of that judgment pronounced by him, must do us the justice of not criticising us too harshly if we find it necessary to do just what that hon. gentleman thought we should have to do, under the circumstances that exist to-day and in view of the heritage that has been bequeathed us by our predecessors. When the opinion is expressed by the member for Marquette that the Government will have to impose new taxes, it is illogical to tell us now that we should make reductions in the present taxes that are levied.
Some people criticise the war debt with some timidity. I think that I am among those in this country who can talk about the war debt and everything else that relates to the war and our relations to the Sovereign, without fear of adverse comment. I say that without any intention of boasting in any way. But the war is made an excuse for all kinds of extravagance. Now, it was quite proper that we should have done all that we did do in the war, spending the last dollar and sending the last man to the front, to discharge our full duty in the cause.	But there is
such a thing as doing one's duty properly; and a nation can play its part in a war without any reckless extravagance, spending $50 where $1 could accomplish the same thing. Criticism can properly be offered in that respect, and the 
outgoing government and the government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden cannot escape criticism at the hands of the people by simply blaming the war for everything, because our debt is out of all proportion and is absolutely beyond the possibility of adequate explanation. For instance, many Conservatives who supported the last government know that hundreds of thousands of men were gathered up in Canada at the expense of the treasury and sent to England although it was fully known that they were absolutely unfit for service and could not pass the test that would be made overseas. Medical men among the Conservatives told us in this House that in the discharge of their duties they were called upon to pass all these men. These statements can be found in Hansard. A man would come to headquarters and say he wanted to be a colonel and he would be told to go and get a regiment. If he could raise the men he was given the commission, so he went into the highways and byways and gathered up a crowd, got his commission and went overseas with the men. These men sometimes were kept for as long as six months in different towns in Canada. Regiments were sent to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and other places. One regiment was stationed at Amherst in my own province and another in a little town near Louisburg in my county; and this was done simply as a matter of patronage to supporters of the government, in order that the supplies of food and other necessaries required in the camps might be procured from Tory merchants. When these men who were so hastily got together were taken overseas it was found in England in many cases that not one out of fifty was fit to go to the front; and as the authorities were too busy with legitimate business these men could not be transported back to this country. The result was that for years, as military men in my hearing know, hundreds and thousands of men were kept over there doing nothing at all except eating their heads off at the expense of the country. They were sent there simply for the purpose of affording some man an opportunity of getting a commission as colonel, and for the other purpose of supplying patronage to supporters of the party. I see a military gentleman opposite laughing, but I defy him to deny these things. What I say is absolutely true, and the records bear me out. Now, these* are some of the ways in which money was squandered improvidently, without the slightest benefit to the country, by the Conservative party when in office.

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
What happened in connection with the Ross rifle? I suppose millions of dollars have been expended in the manufacture of the Ross rifle for the purpose of murdering our soldiers. When last session the matter was brought up on the estimates, a gentleman now in the other chamber, a much-honoured senator and military man-a general in fact-who was at that time a supporter in this House of the right hon. gentleman's government

of course, I mean the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition-made a speech in which he condemned in the most unequivocal terms the continued manufacture of this rifle and its murderous effect on our boys who had to use it at the front. But it was a case of patronage.


Mr. CLARK:: Is the hon. gentleman referring to the Ross rifle?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, I am referring to the Ross rifle.


John Arthur Clark: Was it not the Liberal party that adopted the Ross rifle?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is that an answer from my mild-mannered friend?


John Arthur Clark: I am merely asking the question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There was no war at the time of the adoption of the Ross rifle. General Hughes, a gentleman who was high in the counsels of the Tory party, and supposed to be our greatest authority on military matters, approved of the adoption of the Ro3S rifle, and said that it should be manufactured.


John Arthur Clark: Were you in the House at the time?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No; consequently I am not responsible. I am not putting myself forward as an authority on military matters, I am giving the facts of the case, and I am not afraid of contradiction, for I am telling the truth. The excuse which my hon. friend has given is that the Ross rifle was good enough for use on parade and during sham manoeuvres, but-


John Arthur Clark: May I ask-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Excuse me-but when it came to war and thousands of our soldiers were being hurled into eternity every hour of the day by putting this dangerous explosive weapon in their hands, is it an excuse to say, as suggested by my hon. friend, who is a true disciple of the Tory party; "Oh, we are not to blame; the
Liberals were in power when the Ross rifle was adopted. Now, however, that we are in the midst of war our boys should not be handicapped in any way whatever, the very best weapon is none too good for them. But if we stop equipping them with the Ross rifle there will be nothing doing at the Quebec arsenal, there will be no profitable contracts for the supply of raw materials, and we cannot keep as many men engaged." Consequently, notwithstanding report after report by the highest military authorities in England condemning the Ross rifle, as my hon. friend knows, his leaders said: "We will continue the manufacture of the Ross rifle although it means throwing millions of dollars of the money of the people into the St Lawrence." That is the charge which I make against the outgoing government, that they are responsible for money ill spent without any satisfactory returns to the treasury. If my hon. friend wants to ask me any question now I am ready to answer him.


John Arthur Clark: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Very good. I suppose his question has vanished like the Ross rifle.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is also an undoubted fact that millions of dollars' worth of war waggons and other military equipment was bought in this country at the highest prices and sent over to England, although those responsible for its purchase knew that it was' absolutely unfit for use in the field and was being condemned by the Imperial authorities. These are some of the reasons why our war casualities were so heavy. But, we are told, we are not to open our mouths about it because it was all connected with the war. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am as loyal to our war engagements as any man can be, and undoubtedly we must pay our debts; but hon. gentlemen who were in control at that time must not think that they are going to escape the responsibility of just and honest criticism simply because they cry, " The war ".
Our hon. friends opposite do not seem to realize the responsibility of their days of power. Quite shrewdly they want to evade it, and, as they very well know, the sooner they can get the people to forget their connection with scandals I have mentioned the sooner they will be able to switch the odium off to other shoulders. But I think this is the time to remind the public

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
who really are responsible for the conditions which the late government handed over to us. The few matters I have mentioned are sufficient to indicate what I mean when I say that moneys were spent in such a way as to give neither the best results during the war nor honest value to the people of Canada.
I listened, as I always do, with much interest to the argument of the right hon. leader of the Opposition when he spoke yesterday. He told us that he was absolutely dissatisfied with the budget and that there was nothing that he could do except criticize it. Well, that is not all that the Canadian people expect of the leader of a great party. They expect when national questions are to be dealt with that all parties, and particularly their leaders, shall not only criticize but bring to bear their best judgment and advice towards the solution of those questions. At a critical stage when every nerve and muscle and thought must be strained to arrive at the best policy to be pursued in order to successfully carry on the affairs of the country, would you not expect the right hon. gentleman to make some suggestion as to the readjustment of the tariff and the improvement of the budget if either were unsatisfactory to him? The right hon. gentleman is in duty hound to give the country the benefit of his best judgment and experience. His party has responsibilities to the people that sent them here, and because they happen to be in opposition they are not free from obligation, for they are " His Majesty's Loyal Opposition," and as such are bound to give the country the benefit of any constructive statesmanship which they possess.
Now, what was the constructive statesmanship presented to us yesterday, when the right hon. gentleman pointed out very eloquently and very learnedly that the country was in a bad way and that money was very much needed to carry us along? The only thing that we got from the right hon. gentleman was the amendment offered by the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). I shall not take up the time of the House in reading it all, but this is the substance of it:
That the Liberal party having been returned to power the budget proposals of the Finance Minister now brought down, constitute, on the part of the Government, an utter failure to implement such pledges by legislation.
That the making of such solemn pledges, the utilization of them to secure support, and their flagrant violation after the attainment of office

reveal a disregard of political honour and tend to lower the standard of public life.
Now, men are out of employment; industrial and financial conditions require adjustment and improvement; yet the leader of a great party, recently Prime Minister of this country, stands up in the House of Commons, the great forum of the Canadian people, and says: "I have nothing to offer; I have no suggestion to make, .nor has my party any. But one thing I know, and one thing only, and to it I will pledge my word and the strength of my party-that the Grits did not do all that they might have done; the Grits did not follow out, word for word, the pledges of their platform in 1919." That is not what the Canadian people are looking for. Anybody could have done that; it is not necessary to keep a party together with a leader at its head in order that we maj have some little milk and water of that kind. The people are not so particular about the caviling of leaders of parties, about how words and phrases may be placed in resolutions and otherwise; they are concerned with the difficulties with which we are confronted. The man who is unemployed; the man who is trying to support his family on the pittance that he receives as a remuneration for what little work he can get, will not take off his hat to the leader of the Opposition, nor will he cheer for him, because he moved that little resolution. It does not in the slightest way relieve the situation in this country, nor does it bring any credit to the party whose leader is responsible for it. I submit that something more tangible, something more statesmanlike, something more in the interests of the people was to be expected from the leader of the Opposition.
My right hon. friend made reference yesterday to trade with foreign countries, particularly with the United States. He would not encourage reciprocity; he did not think it would be a safe thing for the maintenance of British institutions. Now, my right hon. friend is entitled to his opinion, and I do not criticise him for holding it. I can only say that it is sane, business reasoning on the pari, of the Canadian people to be anxious to trade with 110,000,000 or 120,000,000 of the best purchasers in the world. I should imagine that the farmers of the West, the farmers of the East -in fact, all who have anything to sell, would be glad to take advantage of the nearest market in which they can get a fair price for their products. I do not wish to

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
throw cold water on the desirability of our trading with the British market and other markets across the Atlantic. We should thank the Lord for those markets and be glad for any developments that may occur in that direction. But surely it cannot reasonably be argued that we should disregard a market which is practically within a stone's throw of our own homes, a market which is right across the line, available to us under all circumstances, and avail ourselves entirely of the only other avenues of trade that are left open to us. I submit that while we should not neglect the one, we surely as sane business men should take advantage of the other.
But let us examine for a moment how the attitude of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition in respect to reciprocity squares with his dealings with the United States in other respects. All governments in this country have spent millions in the opening up of transport routes in order that proper transportation facilities might be afforded from coast to coast. As to the trend of traffic from the great West to the Pacific, we have done our best to provide facilities there; as to the trend of traffic from the West toward the Atlantic, we have done all we could to develop canals, river navigation, railways, everything that goes to make our transportation facilities better; everything that enables us to transport our products within our own borders and upon our own lines, independent of assistance from any other country. That we have done, and we have brought our transportation system into a fair state of development.
You would expect, Sir, that the former Prime Minister would not do anything to interfere with a system of that kind, built up at such enormous expense. But what did he do? In the face of the conditions to which I have referred, my right hon. friend went over to the United States and bought 2,000 miles of railway in that country-under a foreign flag, in a foreign country; bound this country to maintain those 2,000 miles of road to suck the lifeblood out of the system which we had created within our own borders. He ignores the system of ocean ports which we have established at Vancouver, Victoria and other places on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts; he creates a connection with a foreign country across the line and opens a seaport at New London and at Portland, Maine. The result is that the goods which would otherwise be handled by our Canadian railways are switched out of this
country into a foreign land, and encouragement is given to the importing into Canada through a foreign country-not through our own ports-of goods coming from across the seas. How does that square with the story my right hon. friend told that he would have nothing to do with the Americans which would have the effect of interfering with our traffic?
Nevertheless, the facts are as I have stated them, and this millstone has been placed around our necks for all time. We have this 2,000 miles of railway in the United States under American jurisdiction, subject to American laws, and so far as our legislation is concerned, we cannot say how one spike shall be driven on that mileage, and the hon. member who is so extremely loyal that he would not admit it was a fine day for the Yankees, for fear it might break up our loyalty, is the author of this thing.
But is that all? No, Sir, not at all. The province from which I come, British Columbia, the 'western provinces, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, are all very much interested in the coal trade. It may be necessary to sell the coal produced in Nova Scotia a little dearer in the central parts of Canada than it could be purchased across the line, but this is one nation, one land, and one people, and it is necessary for security and for contentment in this country that we should know that at all times and under all conditions we have fuel within our borders that will enable us to get along in winter and in summer independently of any foreign country. For that reason, to bring about those conditions within our own borders, it is necessary sometimes to expend money and to do things which might perhaps be avoided if we had no regard at all for the national interests. What do we find? We find that the purchasing of this 2,000 miles of railway was not all. The right hon. gentleman also bought 32,000- acres of coal lands. Where is his market? Not in the United States. The market for that coal is Ontario and other parts of Canada wherever coal is wanted. What are the facts? Every ton of that coal that is brought across the line comes across free of duty. We have heard a tremendous outcry from hon. gentlemen opposite because there was some evidence of slight discrepancies in duties and some slight favours shown to people who were not entitled to them, but here we have the people all over Canada who buy this coal from the Government getting it free of duty. The Govern-



The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
ment may go through the farce of putting on a duty of 53 cents per ton, but it is simply taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other, because the duty is paid to the customs officer and comes back to the Government. It simply means that this coal is coming in here in competition with the coal produced in this country, and there is no protection for British Columbia, no protection for the Maritime provinces, not a particle of protection against the coal produced on these mines across the line which the former government was so lacking in judgment and so ill-advised as to buy. It comes into competition with legitimate industry in this country, to their disadvantage. The industries of this1 country are brought into competition with this Government, whose coal does not pay any duty. It is simply fighting the people with their own money, and driving hundreds and perhaps thousands of our Canadians out of work, to walk the streets. The coal that we are burning in our locomotives and everywhere on our railways is coal mined, produced, and brought to the railways by Americans, who owe no allegiance or anything else to us, and who care not what becomes of our country. That is the charge which I bring home to the door of hon. gentlemen who but yesterday went out of office, and who have offered no explanation for taking over these railways or for buying these coal mines.
Evidence as to the ownership and operation and capacity of these mines was given before the Fuel Committee of this House a year or so ago. The committee was warned by an hon. gentleman who had something to do with these mines that they were capable of developing to the extent of an output of at least 2,000,000 tons a year. If we are going to bring into this country 2,000,000 tons of coal a year, you will see the enormous quantity of our own product that will be displaced, and the effect it will have upon our own industry and upon our own men. There is nothing at present that I can see that we can do. This is the heritage that has been handed to us by hon. gentlemen opposite. There may be some way of getting clear of this situation, and so far as I am concerned, if there is anything I can do, or if any suggestion is made that would better the condition of our own miners and avoid illegitimate competition of that kind, I shall be only too pleased to carry it out. So far as coal and the railways, and the situation at Portland

are concerned, these things are the result of the lack of business judgment on the part of the outgoing administration. They have been handed over to us, and we have to deal with them. It is only fair to the workingmen of this country, to the coal miners from coast to coast, that they should know the position in which they were placed by the old government, and by those who supported that government when this transaction was put through.
The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) stood up in this House a few days ago and told us that we were being scandalized in Great Britain because of our action in connection with the purchase of this very railway of which I have spoken, and that it was said we were robbing English investors, and grabbing at this wonderful prize, the Grand Trunk. If that is the reputation we have to-day in England because of this transaction, what answer have we got? Was there any answer made by the hon. member except to read articles appearing in newspapers in the Old Land about this transaction? If there was anything wrong about the taking over of that road-and I am not saying that there was, though I think it was the most miserable transaction which any Canadian government ever made-if we are being branded as robbers because we took over the property; if any such blame can legitimately be placed, let it go where it belongs. It certainly does not belong to the Liberal party; it does not belong to the Progressive party; it belongs to the Conservative party; and, Sir, at the risk of taking a little of the '*.ime of the House, I must place this matter right. It is not a light matter for the Canadian government and the Canadian people to be accused of robbery, to be represented, practically, as highwaymen in taking millions of money out of the pockets of rich and poor on the other side of the Atlantic. That is not a very savoury reputation to be applied to us at this time of our lives; and if such a charge is to be brought and believed the responsibility should be placed where it belongs. The Liberal party has no business to share in any such reputation, if such reputation is to exist, because when this transaction was being put through Parliament the Liberal party fought it at every turn of the road. On October 21, 1919, when this bill was up for its second reading, I moved this resolution:
That the bill be not read a second time but that the House do come to the following resolution :

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
That the bill proposes an uncertain but very-large addition to the debt of the Dominion at a time when existing obligations, arising out of the war and from other causes, are so vastly in excess of all previous obligations as to give much cause for anxiety on the part of all who are concerned in the financial position of Canada and the maintenance of the public credit.
That a measure of such wide-reaching character and large importance requires a study by the House and the people that cannot possibly be given in the closing days of the session.
That the present session of Parliament was caMed for a special purpose which has already been accomplished.
That on Wednesday October 8th the Honourable the Minister of Trade and Commerce, acting as leader of the House in the absence of the Prime Minister, stated that the Government's expectation was that the session would close within the then current week.
That under such circumstances the introduction by the Government of a measure of such great importance as the acquisition of the railway and property of the Grand Trunk Company of Canada is improvident and inexpedient.
That for these reasons the further consideration of the bill be deferred until a future session of this Parliament.
That, I think, Sir, is a reasonable proposition. That is the position that was taken by the Liberal party at that time. We did not want this road; we did not think the Canadian people wanted it; we did not think that the necessary consideration was given to the question of its acquirement. A vote was taken, There were only sixty-one of us in the House at that time -and we all voted against it. There were ninety-one Conservatives in the House, and the whole ninety-one, without a break, voted for the taking over of this great railway. The vote was taken on October 23, 1919, and the division is to be found in Hansard, Vol. 2, page 1330. Now, if on a Sunday at home, or at any other time, my hon. friends opposite feel particularly pious, and wish to look back on some of the wonderful things they have done for their God and country, they might turn up Hansard at the page indicated and they will see that this railway was bought as a result of that vote, and we have it on our hands now. I venture to say, however, there is not a Conservative in the House who will go to his constituents and say what a splendid thing they have done for the Canadian people.
On October 31, of the same year, a motion was moved by Hon. Mr. Fielding to the effect that the bill should not then be read, but that a commission should be appointed and a proper investigation made as to the condition of the road and the advisability of taking it over. But that resolution was voted down exactly in the same way as the other; there were sixty-one votes recorded for the motion and
ninety-one against it. Accordingly the late government declared that they wanted this great bonanza for the Canadian people. If there was any robbery of the English people who owned this road, or anything done against them-I am not saying there was-and there are any indictments against hon. gentlemen opposite in that respect, they must plead to the indictment- " not guilty ", I suppose-and nimbly step into the criminal box. The Liberal party should not take the responsibility, it must be placed where it belongs; and when those distinguished parliamentarians that I see opposite me go to attend the next conference in London, and are there wined and dined, they can point to this record and say "We are some of the men who have robbed you and taken this wonderful Grand Trunk Railway from you." That is one of the records which my hon. friends opposite can present to their distinguished compatriots and colleagues across the water. I deemed it only fair, as it will perhaps be a matter of ancient history next year to say something about this matter. I think it is only fair to point out that if there was anything wrong about the transaction the great Liberal party of Canada has no responsibility in the matter as it had no part or lot in it at all, and did everything that could be legitimately done to prevent the acquisition of this road by the Canadian people.
There are two things I want to point out. First, we had no business to have this road either on our own account or on account of the commerce of the country. It was contended that we already had too many railways, that we already had too great a mileage, before we assumed the responsibility of taking over the Grand Trunk. If that was true, why was the road taken over? I am not a railway man, and do not care to advance my own views in opposition to those of others as far as the operation of railways is concerned; but I never could understand why, in view of the existing mileage, and with a population of only eight or nine millions, we should acquire four thousand more miles of railway, one-half of such mileage being in a foreign country and designed to switch trade and traffic from Canada when we had spent hundreds of millions of money to keep that trade and traffic within our own borders. I would like someone with keener light on these things than I have, either in this House or out of it, to give a satisfactory business explana-

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
tion of why these things were done. I charge these follies against the outgoing government and the Tory party. For some sinister motive, which nobody seems to have understood, they lost their heads and their judgment and plunged the country into a condition financially and industrially, which no man within the walls of this House to-day will live long enough to see rectified. These reckless expenditures and extravagances I lay at the door of hon. members who were responsible at the time they happened, and who could have prevented them. But, for some reason or other these things have been done. The Canadian people are the heirs. They have the legacy and must do the best they can to administer the estate.
We were told several times that it would have been ruinous to put the Canadian Northern into liquidation. I am told there is hardly a large railway system in United [DOT]States which has not, at some time or another, gone through the hands of a receiver. They had to be clipped down. Some baggage had to be thrown overboard, the load had to be lightened and the railways had to be adjusted to the traffic of the country. That has been done several times, and is being done to-day. Wb were told the credit of the country would be ruined if the road went into liquidation. But were they consistent later on, when they found it would be advantageous to put the Grand Trunk Pacific into liquidation? Did they think it would be dangerous to put the Grand Trunk Pacific into liquidation overnight, without consulting Parliament or anyone except the minister ? The minister was made the receiver under the War Measures' Act, which gave power to the government to do almost anything. Surely, it was never the intention of the government, when they passed the War Measures' Act, that it should be used as an instrument by which the Minister of Railways would become the receiver of wrecks or defunct railways, but that was done. The members who were supporting the government jumped to their feet and confirmed the act of the government putting that road into liquidation, instead of dealing with it along the same lines as they dealt with the Mackenzie and Mann road. There is not a particle of difference between the one and the other. Was it not just as damaging to the Canadian people and the government to have the Grand Trunk Pacific put into liquidation as to put into liquidation any part of the LMr. McKenzie.]
Mackenzie and Mann road? But it suited them in one case and not in the other. They had friends in the one and did not care very much for the people who were interested in the other. The argument used was that to put the road into liquidation would spoil the good name of the country. That certainly is not the reason, and it is not an answer to the question why Mackenzie and Mann were not forced into liquidation when it was found they could not run their own business, and did not have money enough to carry on the vast undertaking on their hands. That is no reason why the good people of the country should be compelled, by act of Parliament, to take this burden on their shoulders and hand it down to their children's children, to the third and fourth generation, and perhaps longer.
I bring these things home to the doors of hon. members opposite, and ask them to prayerfully and carefully think about them, and see what justification they have for their great boast of what their government did and would have done. I am not a man to boast or crow over a fallen foe. It is not characteristic of the Scotchman to crow Over a fallen foe, particularly if the foe is a worthy one, but I do not know whether that quality is present in this case or not. The Canadian people have discussed these things and weighed them. Hon. members have said that we are not much of a party, but the more they abuse us, and the less standing they think we have, the greater will be their fall. If they were defeated by what might be regarded as an excellent foe, a splendidly equipped army that came against them, there would be some credit and honour in the victory. They have said all those things about us, yet, nevertheless, with all our sins and shortcomings, the Canadian people say:	"Whatever the
Grits are, whatever their shortcomings, for Heaven's sake, anything at all rather than this outfit at present in office". And how did they vote? If I had any advice to give to the splendid body of intelligence I see opposite me, I would say, "Don't be running down the Grits, the party the Canadian people put into power over your heads, because the more you do of that the more disaster you bring to yourselves. The Canadian jury heard the evidence against you and dealt with you honestly and squarely, according to the evidence". I think hon. members should accept the verdict humbly and penitently, and try

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie
to go back to the former days of the Tory party. They had their day, they had their men and they had their leaders. They have done some thing in this country. They were a party worth reckoning with at one time, but I heard a good Tory saying yesterday in his speech that all these magnificent things of the past, can be wiped off the calendar, as he described it, and that the word, Ichabod can be written above the door-their glory has departed. It seems to me the hon. member who made that speech last night, when he was applying that tradition to us on this side, had some inward thoughts, and, perhaps, made up his mind he would risk the statement, thinking nobody on this side of the House would take notice of it.
I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite, speaking for myself-and I know the same thing applies to the whole Liberal party- that I never heard during the campaign any promises which this Government has failed to make good. Now, there was a long resolution passed by the Liberal party in 1919; and last year when the budget was before Parliament we presented a shorter resolution comprising a concise and comprehensive digest of the 1919 platform. That shorter resolution has been drawn upon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in the preparation of the budget, and in its terseness it might be compared to the stereotyped prayer of the coloured gentleman who, being a late sleeper and finding it rather difficult to say his morning prayers-for he was devotional-printed a certain formulary, nailed it at the head of his bed, and of a morning before getting into his working clothes, said: "Lord, them's my sentiments". That form of prayer had one advantage at least: it saved a great deal of time. The only difference between our 1919 resolution and the shorter one is that the latter is more concise; and we say to the Tory party, to the Lord, and to everyone else that those are our sentiments. That shorter resolution is a snug synopsis of the longer one, but it is quite comprehensive.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) last night in a splendid speech reviewed the record of the Liberal party under the leadership of that grand and distinguished statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, under whom we learnt the ethics of politics; and I do not think that a party that has studied the business of government at the feet of that great Gamaliel, could deserve the condemnation which hon. gentlemen opposite are seeking to pass
upon us. We undertook in 1896 to do what was best in the interests of this Dominion, and we shall carry out now the Laurier-Fielding policy under the leadership of the admirable gentleman who now heads the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King). Let hon. gentlemen opposite reflect seriously before making any charges as to responsibility for the burden which now rests upon this country. We are willing to take our fair share of that burden, but we will not be taxed by hon. gentlemen opposite with responsibilities which are not ours. We are now trying to houseclean, to reconstruct things, and to pull the government of the country out of the Slough of Despond in which the immediately preceding administrations left it; and given an opportunity we shall be able to restore things to the condition in which we left them in 1911.
In 1896, the affairs of the country were in a deplorable state. We found deficit upon deficit, the credit of the country was bad, and financial conditions generally were frightful. We shouldered that responsibility and in fifteen years we had entirely changed this condition. The Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden said at the time that it was best to leave well enough alone, that things were all right, that we were making splendid progress, and that there was no need to touch the structure because it was magnificent and could not be better. Indeed, the present Minister of Finance was able to hand over to Sir Thomas White, when the books were all squared, $14,000,000 in cold cash. How does that condition compare with the legacy which hon. gentlemen opposite handed over to us recently? The two positions are in no way comparable, for whereas we left the finances of the country in a healthy condition, to-day they are in a deplorable state. Of course, I want to be fair to hon. gentlemen, and I must say therefore that this is partly due to the war. But the present condition is not entirely to be attributed to the war. Hon. gentlemen, if they care to do so, can get hold of the famous speech, delivered on April 28, 1915, or thereabouts, by the late lamented Sir Sam Hughes at his home town in Ontario in which he said that it was the war that had saved the Tory party. He said that when the war broke out in 1914 every available asset of the country, every cent they had, had been spent, and their credit was practically exhausted. And that was the condition in which they left the affairs of the country.

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
Now, if we are given the time and the opportunity we shall be able, as we did when the Liberal party was in power before, to restore the condition of happiness, contentment and prosperity that existed then amongst the farmers and the labourers. We are making a fresh start, Mr. Speaker, under severe difficulties and handicaps such as no government ever faced before, and it can hardly be expected that within a very few months after the assumption of office we can bring about the improvements that we shall introduce in time. It will take us time to pull the country out of the difficult position in which we have found it, but we shall emerge with flying colours; and a country that is now 'blighted with blossom into full fruition under the care of the present administration. Under the leadership of the present distinguished Prime Minister, Canada will once more enjoy the prosperity which obtained of yore.


Mr. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln) :: In view of the oppressive atmosphere, Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. members will not expect me to follow too closely the speech made by the Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie). He has entertained the House with a very interesting address, directed principally to hon. gentlemen from the West, on the subject of citizenship. Then he became reminiscent, took us down to the old province of Nova Scotia and told us about the great Liberal party in the old home province. He extolled, particularly for the benefit of my hon. friends on the left, the virtues of this great Liberal party, "all wool and a yard wide", and he offered them the wares which he said he had for sale. Strange to say I did not notice any eager response to buy. I might tell new members from the West that it is not the first time the hon. gentleman has put the lamp in the window-


An hon. MEMBER:: And the latchstring on the door.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes. While he was
trimming the lamp a voice came to me in an undertone, and I will tell you what it said.
While the lamp holds out to burn,
The vilest sinner may return.


Mr. GOULD:: That was intended for us.


James Dew Chaplin: He put me in mind
of the story of Little Red Riding Hood that we used to he told when hoys at school. He lit the lamp, put the latchstring outside the door, and then-"The voice from the

inside said: ' Pull the string and the latch will come up.' " But there was no response. I wonder whether hon. gentlemen recognized the voice.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up the time of the House discussing the question of the Ross rifle. It has already been before this House, and if there is any graft involved I can hand it back to the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie), because it was during the incumbency of the Liberal government that the contract was made. He also spoke about the war wagons. Well, no better wagons were ever sent to the front than those made in Canada. Our men had to have wagons as part of their equipment, and the government would have been delinquent in its duty if it had not provided the equipment, and my hon. friend would have been the first to condemn that delinquency. He also spoke about the coal used on the Grand Trunk. But really I must ask hon. members to allow me to proceed with some of my own remarks, because, to me at least, they are more interesting than re-hashing matters that have been before this House so often and so long.
My hon. friend did pass a compliment to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in which I am very pleased indeed to join. I wish to offer also a word of congratulation to him on the fact that during many years of service to his country he has survived all political strife and worry and has come through the strain with health unimpaired. I sincerely hope that he may be spared for many years to come to perform the work he is now doing. I regret, however, that I cannot unqualifiedly congratulate him on his budget proposals; but on the whole, speaking for myself, as far as I can judge they are not entirely unsatisfactory. That is as far as I can go. The measure of my satisfaction or dissatisfaction will very likely be in inverse ratio to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of my hon. friends on the left.
I noticed in the speech of the Minister of Finance a very strong note of regret because the people did not accept his reciprocity treaty in 1911. The same complaint has come from others, notably from the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). These gentlemen have told us since we came to this new Parliament that we should accept defeat uncomplainingly-that we should be good sports and not complain. I should like to ask them: Why do they not take their own medicine? Why do they

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
always complain about the action of the people in rejecting their 1911 treaty? The Minister of the Interior the other day told us: "Oh, the people of Alberta are very much in favour of reciprocity." Well, are they?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


James Dew Chaplin: Possibly they are; but I would ask that hon. gentleman if the constituency that is now represented by the Minister of the Interior is in favour of reciprocity. I think the minister had better speak for the people whom he represents. He does not represent any constituency in Alberta; he sits for another constituency, and that constituency in 1911 voted against reciprocity.
I represent a border county. The people in my county ought to know something of the benefits of reciprocity. What happened in 1911? When the reciprocity pact was put forward, twelve hundred farmers from the counties of Lincoln and Welland visited Ottawa and protested against that pact; they were told it was too late. Well, they went back home and those in the county of Lincoln elected a Conservative candidate by the largest majority that had ever been given in that county. What happened in the adjoining county of Welland? I regret that the member for Welland (Mr. German) is not in his seat, but in 1911, although he was a supporter of the then government, he voted against reciprocity, and when he went home his people were so well satisfied that they re-elected him by acclamation. Is that evidence that reciprocity is all right to-day?
While I am talking on this subject, it will be convenient for me to give the House an extract from a New York paper. This "talk about reciprocity is having its effect somewhere else, and I think that that per-liaps is the reason for the talk. I quote from the New York Times of Sunday last, as follows:
Mr. Underwood declared that Canadian sentiment had changed since the popular vote rejected the Taft reciprocity treaty, and now, he said, Canadians would be glad to enter into a new pact.
I do not deny that there may be sections of this country that favour reciprocity, but I would like to see an election held on that question alone; we would then see what the result would be. It would be interesting for the Minister of Finance to confer with the member for Welland (Mr. German) and find out what his opinion is on the question of reciprocity. In 1911 the hon. member for Welland voted against the government; it would be a good idea to find out what he thinks of it now.
I wish to say a few words in respect to some of the tariff proposals. I do not intend to take up very much time in the matter, because I understand that these various questions will be discussed in committee. The first item that I wish to mention is the automobile tax. The late government tried out a number of luxury taxes. They were anxious, as everybody knows, to find means of raising money and that was one of the things they tried. Before very long they were forced to abandon those taxes, and surely wo do not want to go through that experience again. The automobile people, in my opinion, were very badly used by the late government, as it happened. When the tax was taken off there were hundreds of dealers throughout the country who had paid the excise duty on cars and had no way of getting it back from the consumer, on whom the tax properly rested. They appealed to the late government, and I understand they have made an appeal to this Government.
I do not think they are going to get anything out of it; I do not see how they can, but for goodness' sake do not let us perpetrate this evil again. It may be possible to levy a special tax on the higher priced cars; I would not say I would not be in favour of that. But to tax the ordinary car is to my mind out of the question. I am opposed to any special tax on special businesses, and for that reason I also oppose the tax on ginger beer, soda water, and grape juice. These things are not luxuries. Why do you pick out one thing like grape juice and forget about ice cream, for instance? This grape juice business is something that affects my own county. I have a telegram from the farmers of my county, signed by the president of the Niagara Grape Growers. It says:
We have asked that the ten cents a gallon tax on pure grape juice be struck oft the budget proposals. It means a loss to growers of approximately $17 per tion of grapes. Tax would affect 5,000 acres of grapes in this particular district. Would suggest that it he put on imitations which are competitors of agricultural industry.
To put a tax of $17 a ton on grapes, the product in respect to which the farmers in this district have been most successful, is something I cannot understand. I would ask the minister to reconsider the matter, or, at any rate, to give us a chance

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
to discuss it when it comes before the committee.
I have a few words to say in respect to some things that have been said by members of the House. The first that is under my hand is a statement made by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Black). He is reported in Hansard as having said:
When the hon. member who spoke a few moments ago-
Referring to the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low).
-said that 73 per cent of the produce of this country was consumed in Canada, I was almost staggered. That may be true, and I am not going to doubt the hon. gentleman's word, but I can hardly credit the fact
I want to reaffirm that statement and to say that in 1921 the total farm production of Canada was valued at $1,396,233,000, as given in the official returns. According to the figures given by the hon. member for South Renfrew, the exports were valued at $388,000,000 odd. But I find on referring to the speech of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) who was formerly a member of the ministry, that, according to his statement, the amount of farm produce exported was valued at $453,000,000. So there is quite a discrepancy between the amount given by the hon. member for South Renfrew and that given by the hon. member for Marquette. Where does the discrepancy come in, Mr. Speaker? What is the object of padding the returns? What object can be served by trying to make it appear that the exports of farm products are greater than they are? I am very sorry that the hon. member for Marquette is not here, but I have no doubt that some of the other hon. members of the Progressive party will have the material from which these figures were given. Let me repeat the facts: The minister from South Renfrew stated that the total export of farm products amounted to $388,000,000; the former Minister of Agriculture, the member for Marquette, gave it as $453,000,000.
Now, I have taken some trouble to find out where the discrepancy is, and I think the House would like to know something about it. I think hon. members would like to know what the object is of deceiving the House-and, Mr. Speaker, if my words get a little too strong I know that you will in all kindness tell me before I go too far.
I will tell the House how it comes that the figures of agricultural exports are padded and extended so that it would appear that we are exporting more farm

produce than we really are. It will surprise the House to know that in the amount of farm products exported there is included $29,000,000 for fish as a product of the farm. I wonder where the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and the members from the maritime provinces are when they allow our accounts to be made up in this way. I want to read an extract from the address of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) so that we will get on the right basis-Hansard, p. 2558:
As I say, we exported goods to the value of $740,000,000 last year.
That is the total exports, as I understand it. He goes on:
But where did those exports come from? Last year was a year of trade depression, a very trying year throughout the world. Of this total, vegetable products accounted for $318,000,000, and animal products $135,000,000 ; in other words $453,000,000 of the $740,000,000 of exports last year had. their origin in the farms of Canada.
Yet I find in the total as given by the hon. member for Marquette, the not insignificant item of $29,000,000 for fish. This is the first time that I ever heard that fish came from the farms of Canada. But that is not all. Another item that comes within the figures as given by the hon. member for Marquette, for padding purposes only, is the very insignificant sum of $14,978,000 for furs, that came from as far north as the Arctic Circle and never saw a farm. They came to Montreal, Quebec, Edmonton and Winnipeg, and that is the nearest they ever got to the farms of Canada. That is another very insignificant item.


Mr. LOVETT:: What is the hon. member reading from, and what is the date please?


James Dew Chaplin: From the Trade
Reports of Canada, March, 1922.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: The hon. member says the figures have been padded. By whom, may I ask?


James Dew Chaplin: I cannot tell, but the hon. member for Marquette, having given the figures, must be responsible for them. They are not correct. I can see no other person who is going to benefit from it except the hon. member for Marquette.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I notice that the hon. member for Marquette said "Last year".
I presume he meant the year 1921.	.


James Dew Chaplin: No, and to prove that the hon. member who has just spoken is

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
entirely wrong, I have in my hand the skeleton statement which evidently was used by the hon. member for Marquette. The hon. member for Marquette has been a member of this House for many years, and has made a study of these books, as no doubt hon. members are aware, and I say that he has no business to quote from this skeleton statement when he knows that furs and fish are included there. They have no business to be taken in as the products of the farm.


Mr. BIRD:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Dew Chaplin: I do not mind answering questions, but you can very readily see, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not get very far if there continue to be as many notes of interrogation, but I will let this one go.


Thomas William Bird: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the leader of the Progressive party stated that this amount of exports came from the farms?


James Dew Chaplin: I read his statement from Hansard.


Thomas William Bird: Will you kindly read it again?


James Dew Chaplin: I am not going to do that because the hon. gentleman has the Hansard himself, and I have already read it to the House.


Milton Neil Campbell: I submit that the hon. member is not stating the figures correctly.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER; The hon. member who has the floor is entitled to continue his address, and is not required to answer any questions unless he so desires and intimates. I would ask hon. members not to interrupt without his permission.


Thomas William Bird: Would the hon. member
permit me to make myself clear? I understand the hon. member to say that the leader of the Progressive party claimed a total of $453,000,000. Is he aware that that is not according to the figures as given in Hansard?


James Dew Chaplin: For the benefit of the hon. member I will read again the statement made by the hon. member for Marquette-Hansard, page 2558:
Of this total, vegetable products accounted for $318,000,000 and animal products $135,000,000 ; in other words, $453,000,000 of the $740,000,000 of exports last year had their origin in the farms of Canada


Milton Neil Campbell: Last year, 1921.


James Dew Chaplin: So that there may be no misunderstanding as to what year was intended, I have here the document from the Department of Customs which gives the total exports for 1922 at $740,000,000, just as the hon. member for Marquette stated, and it gives the domestic items, the agricultural and vegetable products, agricultural and vegetable products other than foods, and animal products. So there is no doubt as to what year he meant. I hope, Mr. Speaker, they will be quiet for a moment now.
But that is not all. Not only is $29,000,000 of fish and approximately $15,000,000 of furs padded into the products of the farms of Canada, but when the hon. member also includes in the products of the farm over $5,000,000 of manufactures of leather, and harness and boots and shoes, I think it is pretty nearly the limit. I find by the records that in the figure as given by the hon. member for Marquette there is included leather, $360,000; sole leather, $1,710,518; upper leather, $2,344,024; other leather, $350,410; belting, $1,348; boots and shoes, $272,346; gloves, $9,948; harness, $34,359; other manufactures of leather, $88,584, making a total of $5,171,785. After the way hon. members have talked about boots and shoes and things of that kind, I think it is rubbing it in to pad the exports of farm products with these leather goods.
But that is not all. Notwithstanding all they have said respecting canned goods in this country, they grab the canned goods as an export of the farm and add them to the list of farm exports, and that they have done both in respect to canned fruit and canned vegetables to the extent of something like $2,000,000.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton) :: Does
the hon. member dispute the fact that canned fruits have their origin on the farms?


James Dew Chaplin: Would it not be foolish for anybody to dispute the fact that fruits and vegetables come from the farms of Canada; but when an article has had manufacturing work performed on it to the extent that canned goods and boots and shoes have, I think it becomes a manufactured article. If it does not, then the arguments that my hon. friends have been using for years in respect of canned goods and boots and shoes fall to the ground. I never knew that these were products of the farm. But there are many other examples.

The Budget

Mr. Chaplin
The other night, I think it was, the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) delivered a tremendous tirade upon automobiles and automobile tires, and yet I find that in the matter of rubber goods, rubber and its manufactures are padded into the lists of goods represented in the figures as given by that hon. member. I will give you the items: Rubber, rubber waste, rubber belting, rubber boots and shoes, manufactured rubber products and tires to the extent of over $4,000,000. But that is not enough, Mr. Speaker. There is another article that our friends from the left have been giving us a lot of talk about and that is sugar; and yet they have taken the whole of the sugar products of Canada and shoved them into farm products. Why? Because a small quantity originates on the farm. Such a thing is unreasonable because these products amount to $11,600,000. Why they have even grabbed the exports of tea and coffee.


An Hon. MEMBER:: Tea comes from
the land.


James Dew Chaplin: Of course tea comes
from the land and so does coffee. My hon. friends have also grabbed tobacco, cigarettes and cigars because they naturally come from the farm. Such an article as macaroni, was also purloined, likewise corn starch, potato starch, oil cake, linseed oil and vegetable oils; all were put into farm product. Last, but by no means least, to the astonishment of myself, and no doubt to the astonishment of all the members within the sound of my voice, they grabbed all the whisky, gin and beer that there was and incorporated them in "farm products of Canada." Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit first of all that the items that I have read, which amount to the not inconsiderable sum of over $70,000,000, when taken off the figure as given by the hon. member for Marquette, will make a very decided difference in the aggregate of the export of farm products' and will cause a very great difference in the argument.
There is another feature I want to call attention to. I have made no mention of articles that might more properly be said to be articles which are no longer made on the farm but are made from materials produced from the farm. I refer especially to such things as butter, cheese, milk powder, condensed milk, milk products, and oils such as neatsfoot oil. My hon. friends have even got codliver oil, whale oil and seal oil added to their list. I want [Mr. Chaplin.!
to say this also that in respect to the articles that I have just read and that I will repeat-bran and shorts, oatmeal, wheat flour, cereal foods, biscuits, vegetable oils, cheese, butter, condensed milk, and other oils-although I readily admit that they are products from the farm their value is considerably enhanced when they leave the farm and go through manufacturing processes. Now I ask in all reason and common sense why the total amount should be put to the credit of farm products when at least 50 per cent must be credited to factories. The total amount of such articles as I am referring to would reach the not inconsiderable sum of another $100,000,000; and if it is reasonable to say that one-half of that amount ought to be credited to manufactures, as it should be, then those farm products that have been exported are further reduced by another $50,000,000. That again spoils the argument of my hon. friend from Marquette, and also spoils the argument of other hon. gentlemen who have dilated at such length on the tremendous amount of our farm exports.
The truth of the matter is just as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low) said the other day that 73 per cent -I claim 80 per cent-of the total products of the farms of Canada are consumed at home. Therefore I ask hon. members if it is the intention to do something to destroy the valuable home market that the farmers of this country enjoy? I will make this statement which I can amply prove, that more than 85 per cent of the farm products of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec are consumed in this country; and yet what did the hon. member from Marquette say here the other night when the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) asked him a question about it? Oh, he said, that does not count. Does it not count, Mr. Speaker, that 75 or 80 per cent of the products of the farms of this country are consumed in Canada? If it does not I think the Canadian people would like to be informed. Now, I noticed the other night a statement made by the member from Macdonald (Mr. Lovie) as follows:
We find that implements are sold to the Canadian farmer by the Canadian manufacturer at a profit on the cost of production and then the customs duty added to that, while at the same time the Canadian manufacturer goes to other countries and sells tlhat same machine far

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
cheaper than he sells it to his home consumer. In proof of this I will give you a concrete example.
I have gone through my hon. friend's speech in Hansard and failed to discover the concrete example to which he alluded. I want to submit a statement from the late Mr. Findley of the Massey Harris Company, in reference to a matter concerning their foreign trade, and, irrespective of what any man in the country v/ho does not know the circumstances would say, I am prepared to accept Mr. Findley's statement. He prepared this statement and sent it to the board who were examining him on the question of prices. It was delivered to the board in 1920 and reads:
My company have exported machines to practically every grain-growing country In the world for well over 30 years, and we have never during that time sold machines in foreign countries at as low prices as in Canada.
Then he gives full details as to the prices in England, France, Germany and every other country in which they are selling, and in every case it shows that the price in Canada is less than in any other country in the world, and, for my part, I am prepared to accept his word. The company of which I have the honour to be president does an export trade; we sell goods based on the cost at the factory, and it is just possible, when I relate the circumstances, that some goods may be sold at less, by the man who buys them in Liverpool, than they would be sold for in Saskatoon. That can be very well understood when I explain that I can ship three carloads of goods to Liverpool at the same price that I can send one carload to Saskatoon. I can send two carloads of goods of the same class to Liverpool at the same price that I can send one to Winnipeg, and if those goods, after they get away from me, are sold for less money, it would not be surprising, but we sell our goods at the factory at a certain price, irrespective of who buys them.


Mr. MORRISON:: Under what freight
classification are those goods shipped?


James Dew Chaplin: Fifth class freight. Most of the goods in our line are carried as fifth class freight. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) told us the other day that the United States would soon be a free trade country. I have not under my hand his exact words, but he ventured to predict that, within a few years, the United States will have its face set definitely against the principle of a protective tariff. I remember reading a speech of Richard Cobden,
and he ventured at one time on the realm of prophesy, just as the new economist who sits in the front row did, and made a certain prophesy. In 1846 Great Britain changed her fiscal policy. Mr. Cobden speaking at Manchester in January 15th, 1846 said:
Europe altogether has been corrupted by the viaious example of England in her commercial legislation. I believe .hat if you abolish the Corn Law honestly and adopt free trade in its simplicity, there will not be a tariff in Europe that will not be changed in less than five years, to follow your example.
And later on in another address he said:
You might as wall tedil me that the sun will not rise to-morrow as tell me that foreign nations will not adoipt free trade in less than ten years from now.
While Mr. Cobden may be as great an economist as our hon. friend from Marquette, he was a mighty poor prophet. For the benefit of the members of the House, particularly some of those on the other side who are in control of the treasury benches, I want to read a word or two from the speech delivered by Mr. Fordney, whose name we hear mentioned a good deal in this House and outside of it. I think his remarks will apply to Canada quite as well as to the United States. In an address before the House some time ago, Mr. Fordney said:
Under free trade we must come to a common level somewhere, sometime, if we are to compete with alii the countries of the world. To-day German labour is paid from 60 to 65 cent per day in gold,-not for 8 hours' work, but for 10 or 12 hours per day. Japanese and Chinese labour is paid from 12 to 18 cents per day in gold for 12 hours-about a cent or a cent and a half per hour. Now, if we have to be placed on a par wiitih those countries, to meet the imports from those countries, do you believe that we can lift those foreign countries up from the standard of living which at present prevails in them? Not at all. We have got to come down to a common level somewhere, and we are not ready to do that, and we are not going to do that.
And yet in the face of all that, we have people in this House saying that the American people are going to do away with their tariff. Well, may be. I have a book in my hand which will be interesting to my friends on my left. It is the Farmers' platform, and I want to read an extract from it and make a few comments on it. Before reading this extract I desire to say that I heard some of the hon. members on my left trying to ease their consciences as much as they could for not voting for a protectionist tariff, and saying that their own policy was one that was going to spread

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
over a number of years. I wish to remind those hon., members of something I saw in their platform a short time ago. It was to the effect that the principle of protection was morally wrong and economically unsound.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Dew Chaplin: Evidently, I am not very far astray in my quotation, when I find hon. members applauding the sentiment, and I ask, if the thing is morally wrong, can they compromise it? Do they want to make a compromise for five years? Well, if they do, let them make it. Now, I want to quote from this book, and I have no doubt at all that the sentiments it contains will be applauded also. It sets out the Farmers' platform. This book is a sort of treasure now, being one of the first editions published. Hon gentlemen were very specific in those days, but finding that being specific was not altogether satisfactory, they are now dealing in glittering generalities. This book is pretty well edited; it was drafted by the Canadian Council of Agriculture. It is also endorsed by the United Farmers of Alberta, the Saskatchewan Grain Growers Association, the Manitoba Grain Growers Association, and the United Farmers of Ontario. It is issued by the Canadian Council of Agriculture of Winnipeg, and printed by the Grain Growers' Guide. It is quite obvious, therefore, that a great deal of care was bestowed upon its publication. I shall now read the following extract from it:
As already explained, under a system of protection the consumer is compelled to pay a tax upon all imported goods that * come under the tariff schedule. Upon all goods of domestic origin produced under a protective system the consumer must likewise pay a tax,-although in this case the revenue finds its way into the hank account of private individuals alone. Now, it has been estimated that the domestic trade of Canada alone is at least four times as great as the country's foreign trade, and in the United States seven times as great. It follows that for every dollar collected by way of customs dues at least $4 are paid to private individuals. When one considers that the customs revenue for the year ending March 31st, 1916, was $133,000,000, and that four times that sum was paid in addition to the protected interests, it will be seen what a crushing weight is laid upon the country's consumers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Dew Chaplin: The applause that greets the reading of this extract convinces me that there are some, at least, in the party to the left of us in this House that have not gone back on their previous party professions, but still believe in their policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Dew Chaplin: It is refreshing to know that there are some people who live up to what they formerly preached. Now, hon. members to my left are reasonable men and I want to discuss this matter with them. Before I proceed I want to refer to a slight error in this book. Whoever edited it gave the customs revenue of Canada for 1916-the figures are as at the 31st of March of that year-as $133,000,000. Now, I am used to figuring myself, and I carefully checked this up. I find that there is a mistake of only $30,000,000 in this statement. Thirty million dollars, that is all! With all the editing to which the book has been subjected, and the endorsa-tion it has received at the hands of the various bodies I have cited who are responsible for !it, there is1 a mistake of $30,000,000. Of course, that is not much, but it is multiplied by four, and I think that hon. gentlemen will admit that that makes no inconsiderable sum.
If the claim is correct that under a protective tariff, all the articles that pass through the customs pay duty, and as well on similar goods produced within the country, the purchasers pay four times as much as they should to some one else, then I want hon. gentlemen to give me their judgment on some of the articles I shall mention : The first article I find in the customs schedule under (a), is "animals", the duty collected being $110,000. Now I want to know from hon. gentlemen in this House whether the duty has been plundered on all the cattle raised in this country. If so, who got the money? You will see from the very first line in this list how foolish is the argument that is put forth. It is not only foolish but false as well. I took the year 1916 because it was the year in which the revenue is given by this book as $133,000,000, when it should be only $103,000,000. Now, item 3 in this list is $4,000,000 collected on coal. Do hon. gentlemen from the West mean to tell the people of Nova Scotia and of Alberta that because we collected a duty on coal coming into Canada, therefore, on every ton of coal consumed in Canada there was a duty collected? That is the argument that is used. Let me give another item. Let us take hay. How much do hon. members think was plundered on hay?-because "plunder" is the word that is used.


Mr. HOEY:: How much hay came in that year?

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin


James Dew Chaplin: The duty collected that year was $19,000. I am not being personal in these references, but the argument that is used in this book is that a duty is collected on goods produced in this country of a similar character to the dutiable goods imported. Let us take another item, potatoes. I might say here that I gave some of these figures once before, and the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) demolished my whole argument by saying that the member for Lincoln ought to know that there is no duty on potatoes. I had not a chance to reply at the time, but I want to say now that in 1916 we collected about $1,000,000 of a duty on potatoes. I am not sure of this figure, but I think it is approximately right. I figured out for the benefit of my friends that, taking their argument as a basis, we had grown on our farms and sold to the consumers of this country, according to the trade returns of that year, in the neighbourhood of 79,000,000 bushels of potatoes. Now, if your argument is worth anything at all it simply means that somebody collected $15,000,000 on potatoes. And I should like to know which of you got that money. The not inconsiderable sum of $676,000 was collected on vegetables. Now, according to the arguments contained in this book every one who bought potatoes and vegetables helped to pay that extra duty. Well, who got the money?


Mr. WARNER:: Is the hon. gentleman aware that potatoes might rot at one end of Canada because the railroad freight would be so high that it would not pay to ship them to the other end?


James Dew Chaplin: I do not see what that has to do with who got the duty on the goods that were actually sold. I am taking the farmers' own argument. They do not make any objection such as you speak about when we have agricultural machinery or tools lying in store. I am only taking their own argument as it is; I do not believe it.


Daniel Webster Warner: But you admit it.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not believe it, and I am showing how false it is. It seems to me that when hon. members are quoting figures they should be more particular, because I find-


John Morrison: The hon. gentleman
quoted freight rates to Liverpool, to Winnipeg and Saskatoon. Is it not a fact that on manufactured products for export better rates are allowed than on such products shipped to points within Canada?


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Speaker, when we are shipping our goods to Liverpool we pay the same rail rates to Montreal from an inland factory as we would on carload shipments to Montreal. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?


John Morrison: I was informed to-day that manufacturers are allowed better freight rates on export shipments than they are on local shipments. Is that right?


James Dew Chaplin: That is possibly right in respect to the long haul over Canadian railways to Halifax and St. John where there are shorter hauls from a United States market. We, likely with all others when it is necessary, get a seaboard rate to our Atlantic ports as low as if we were shipping to Portland, Boston or Philadelphia. Does that answer my hon. friend?


John Morrison: That is satisfactory.


James Dew Chaplin: I was saying when I was interrupted that hon. members should be more careful in their statements regarding duties. I am talking now in all kindness, I am not angry, and I want to say to you that in this book you give the customs returns as $133,000,000. I do not know why they were padded, but they were. It may be a clerical error, I am broad enough to assume that such may be the case, but when you multiply it by four it looks pretty bad. Then another point: Why do you always treat the import duties as if they were on manufactured goods? As a matter of fact, in that particular year which you take in your book, 1916, over $30,000,000 of duties did not apply to manufactures at all. You made a mistake to that extent.


Daniel Webster Warner: Was not that on the raw material?


James Dew Chaplin: It was not on raw material. It does not make any difference what it was on. I make the broad statement that $30,000,000 was collected for duty that did not apply to manufactures at all. Some of that duty was on hay

for which I have given the figures-some on coal, and so on. But what have we got to do with the duty on those commodities? I could give the hundred or so articles in this list, but I do not want to weary the House. I submit that people are too prone to make statements that they cannot back up. For instance, I heard the hon. member from Kindersley, I think it is (Mr. Carmichael) declare he was a schoolmaster and would like to put figures on a

The Budget

Mr. Chaplin
blackboard, because he was great at figures and could explain everything on a blackboard. What happened? Metaphorically speaking, the first figure he put on the blackboard was that it cost the Dominion 50 per cent to collect its customs tax! Now, if that is an example of our teaching the sooner we mend our ways the better.
The other night an hon. gentleman complained about the relative prices of a kodak at Ottawa and at Niagara Palls, New York. I am not sure of the comparative figures he gave, but my recollection is that they were $14 and $27. Let us assume those figures. The duty is 25 per cent, and at the full retail price it would not be more than $3.50; the expense of bringing the kodak to Ottawa would not be more than 25 cents, bringing the $14 up to about $18. That is $18 as against $27. Where did the $9 go? Surely, you do not put that upon the manufacturer? You cannot blame that on the tariff. I am only mentioning it so you can be reasonable.
Now, I want to get back to the budget itself. Although I have not been in the House for very many sessions, I have had some experience of politics and of political pledges. I want to read and emphasize something that is on Hansard; I want to give it again because I would like the people to know something about broken pledges. It is from a speech delivered by Mr. J. Irael Tarte on April 20, 1903, in which he said:
I say it openly, I say It from the bottom of ny heart, that I fully expected that the Liberal tarty, with which I have been connected during :he last ten years, would carry out the policy it vas understood in 1896 they would carry out. i am weighing my words. I know what arrangement, what understanding took place between some pubMc men. I know what took place. I do not divulge any secrets. I know what we did in the election of 1896 in Montreal. I see within the radius of my eye public men wtho, at our request, came to the city of Montreal, went to the manufacturers, with the knowledge of the leaders of the party, and told them not only would the tariff not be disturbed, but it would be changed in the right direction when the proper time came. There was no secret about that. I shall not give names. There are men who hear me-I am sorry there are not more oh those benches

who know that I am perfectly right. I am out of office because I could not stay in office under the present circumstances. I have had only pleasant relations with most of my colleagues and have for the most of them the greatest respect. But I could not possibly stay In office when I knew that the policy we are following now Is not the right policy-when I knew what understanding took place formerly.
I ask the House cannot history repeat itself? Is it not likely that something of

the kind mentioned here has been done more recently? Did something of the same kind happen in Montreal in the last election? I leave the question with you, Mr. Speaker. I thank hon. members for giving me such a kind hearing.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Medicine Hat) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire for a short time indeed to discuss the question of the budget and the tariff schedules contained therein. I quite realize that this debate has been proceeding for quite a considerable time. I propose, therefore, to make my remarks very clear and to the point and to be as brief as possible.
The real reason why I desire to speak this evening is to define my position so far as the budget is concerned. I would like the House to understand that I was elected on the Farmers' platform known as the New National Policy. It might be interesting to the House to know just how this platform came into existence. We all realize that the platforms of the two political parties that sit in this House other than the Progressives were brought into existence by a comparatively few men who controlled their particular party. But our platform came into being in a somewhat different manner. Various resolutions had been passed by farmers' organizations all over Canada, and in 1916 the Council of Agriculture, realizing the importance of many of these resolutions, picked out what they considered the most important ones, codified them and placed them in the form of a platform, known as the Farmers' platform. This platform in turn was placed before all the annual conventions of farmers' organizations for their endorsation or rejection; with some slight modifications it was accepted by practically all the farmers' organizations throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and it became then known, as I have said, as the New National Policy.
I want to tell the House fairly and squarely that I believe in that platform; I stand four-square by all that it contains. I believed in it when it was first brought into existence. I believed in it when I was nominated to contest a by-election in the constituency of Medicine Hat last year; I ran on that platform and the electors endorsed it to the extent of giving me a majority of nearly 10,000 votes. My personality had nothing to do with the winning of that election; what the people were standing for was this platform which I am placing before you this evening. On

The Bridget-Mr. Gardiner
it that election was fought and won. In the election of December 6 last I stood upon the same platform and was returned with practically three times the number of votes the Liberals and Conservatives polled.
Now, I want to deal for a few moments this evening with some of the contents of that platform. The member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) two evenings ago placed the fiscal plank of this platform on Hansard. If I do not mention every part of it so far as fiscal policy is concerned, the House must not think that I aim trying to get away from it; I want to say as distinctly as I can that I accept the whole of the fiscal policy as contained in it. But in order to save time I propose to deal with just a few of the principles therein set forth.
The first part of the platform to which I would like to call attention and which I hope to see put into effect some day is the first section:
By an Immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff.
We have a tariff in this country which, I believe, is far in excess of what it should be. I am not one of those who would like to see industry destroyed; I believe we need industry just as we need agriculture. But I do believe that most of the industries that benefit through the present fiscal policy could stand a substantial all-round reduction in the tariff and not be any the worse for it.
The next part of the platform deals with the British preference, and here again I want to say that I accept that in toto. We ask that the British preference be brought up to 50 per cent of the general tariff and that gradual or equal reductions be made each year until in five years we have free trade with Great Britain. I believe that that would be sound policy for this country to follow, because I think we should carry on as much trade with Great Britain as we possibly can.
There are other portions of this platform that I would like to mention. We believe in placing all foodstuffs on the free list, and I would point out to the House that if there are any foodstuffs that are now taxed when they enter Canada, it was never by the consent of the farming population that I know of, for we stand for free foodstuffs.
We also would favour the admission free of duty of the machinery that is necessary to apply to the natural resources of this country in drder that wealth may be produced; also the raw materials that enter
into the manufacture of any machinery of that description that is made in Canada. I certainly believe the policy of this country should be to develop our natural resources to the greatest possible extent, and to the extent that we do develop them we shall become just that much more prosperous. We therefore submit that it would be good policy for this Government to see that no impediment is put in the way of developing our natural resources such as a tariff on the machinery of production which is essential for the development of those resources.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) made a statement in his address the other day to the effect that it was not desirable to put this policy into effect all at once. That means that he thought it was advisable to give industry a reasonable opportunity to accommodate itself to these proposed new conditions. We have made provision for that in our platform to this extent, that every claim for tariff protection by any industry should be heard publicly before a special committee of Parliament. We have many special committees of Parliament now gathering information on special subjects, and that is a good policy, for I believe the House should at all times have all the information before it that can be made available to guide it in its deliberations. So with the question of the tariff, I believe we should have a special committee responsible to this House to sit and inquire into tariff questions, and if any industry desires to have any protection whatever they should lay their claim before that committee. In that way this House would get real information that would enable us to discuss the budget intelligently.
. I would remind hon. members of the fact that we have had tariff commissions in this country galore. We had one a year ago last fall, and I noticed by a return that was brought down the other day that it cost the country between $17,000 and $18,000. We all remember that this commission sat from coast to coast but so far as I am concerned I have never seen any of the information that it gathered. I do not know whether any other hon. member of the House ever got hold of any of that information, but if they did, it is news to me. I submit that inasmuch as this country has spent that amount of money in collecting that information, it should be made available to hon. members so that we can make use of it when discussing the budget.

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner
I should like to make an observation or two as to the effects of the tariff in some respects. I sincerely believe that the tariff is a medium through which the few exploit the many in this country. It is very unfortunate that it is so, but, nevertheless, all the evidence that I have ever been able to get hold of points to the fact that the tariff does give the few an opportunity to exploit the many.
There is another peculiar thing about the tariff. The tariff increases prices, but it does not increase values. To illustrate that I will take an article of food that is used on practically every table in this country, a loaf of bread. The contents of a loaf of bread come into this country practically free at the present time. If we admit that those ingredients come in free, and that after they have been turned into a loaf of bread, that loaf is worth say ten cents over the store counter, we will admit that that loaf of bread is being sold around its actual value; but assume for a moment that we put a tax on the ingredients that enter into a loaf of bread, and after we have computed the cost of that loaf we find that it sells, say for 12J cents, instead of 10 cents. You can readily understand that in that case the loaf of bread has been increased in price, but it has not been increased in real or actual value, because no matter what its price may be, a loaf of bread can only sustain a person for a certain length of time. That is an illustration of how the price of commodities is increased by the tariff while the value remains the same.
In the early part of my remarks I made the statement that I would like to see the tariff reduced very considerably. I do not like to make any suggestions unless they are more or less of a constructive nature. We understand, of course, that if we had a lower tariff we would lose no doubt a substantial amount of revenue, and in order to provide against that loss we have suggested in our platform certain methods of making up for it. First, we propose a tax on unimproved land values and natural resources. This question was dealt with very fully the other day by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), and therefore I do not intend to take time in going over it again.
Our next suggestion is a sharply graduated inheritance tax, and I submit that that is a very good field of operation for the Minister of Finance if he desires to get extra revenue. We have in this country,

as in all other countries, many large fortunes but if hon. members will just sit down and calmly contemplate for a moment how these fortunes are made, and how reasonable it would be for the Finance Minister to place a substantial tax on large fortunes, I think most of us would agree to the principle. Taking the statistics as a whole, and estimating the productive capacity of the average man for a certain number of years, I think every member of the House will agree that it is practically impossible for any man to produce real wealth to the extent of a million dollars in the average lifetime. When we realize that that is almost an impossibility, and that we have many men in this country who are worth far more than that sum, we must realize that they have been privileged by law to acquire something that they did not produce. Consequently, when we suggest the possibilities of an inheritance tax, we maintain that the state is justified in taking from the estate of a person after he has finished with it a substantial portion of that which, by law, he has been allowed to acquire but which he did not produce.
The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Motherwell) last evening brought before us another suggestion with regard to taxation, and while I must distinctly let the House understand that this particular item is not in our platform, yet, personally, I believe it is a good idea-I refer to the excise tax placed on manufactured goods in this country that enjoy a protective tariff. I believe that perhaps a lot of the hard feeling in so far as the tariff is concerned, would be removed if our people felt that their money was going into the Dominion treasury; and the Finance Minister might at least try, in the near future, and see if he could not do something along those lines.
Now I am going to discuss the budget for a few moments. I shall only occupy a short time because the hour is getting late and I do not want to unduly detain the House. The first item I desire to discuss is the sales tax. I regret very much that the Finance Minister has seen fit to increase the sales tax. As a matter of fact, I do not believe in the sales tax in any form whatever, not even at the rate that was in force last year. The reason I do not believe in it, is because of the fact that the sales tax is a direct tax on consumers, and it violates all the principles of taxation-that is to say that taxation should be levied on those best able to 'bear it. The sales tax is based on the needs of the people and not

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner
upon their ability to pay, and when that is the case such a tax is more or less vicious.
As to the one per cent tax on bank circulation, I wish to direct attention to some very pertinent things and I am sorry the Finance Minister is not in his seat at the present time. The Finance Minister proposes to place a tax of one per cent on bank circulation, and I believe that he is, perhaps, starting in the right way provided he can toe assured that the banks will not pass this one per cent on to their customers. What I mean by that is this:	If the banks
are permitted to add that additional one per cent to their interest charges, they will suffer no loss, and they will be contributing nothing to the revenue of the country; the people who do business with the banks will toe the ones who will have to pay the piper. I would like to read for the information of the House section 91 of the Bank Act which deals with the interest that banks are allowed to charge. This is section 91:
The hank may stipulate for, take, reserve or exact any rate of interest or discount not exceeding, seven per centum per annum, and may receive and take in advance, any such rate, but no higher rate of interest shall be recoverable by the bank.
That is distinctly, I believe, an understanding, in so far as this section is concerned, that the banks shall charge no higher rate than 7 per cent. Now, if the Finance Minister desires any evidence I am quite prepared to produce bushels of old notes to show that the banks have been charging interest rates of 9 and 10 per cent, and in some instances a higher figure, in violation of this particular section of the act. Therefore, if no curb is placed upon the banks there is nothing whatever to prevent them from adding this one per cent tax on circulation to the accounts of their customers. The banks have received some very extra privileges in return for which they are supposed to give certain services.
I am going to bring a case before the House to show that the banks are not, so far as I can understand, living up to their contract in the matter of service. I hold in my hand an auditor's financial statement and annual return of municipality No. 302, which is in the province of Alberta, for the year 1921. In this statement there are assets and liabilities columns. The liabilities column shows that the municipality's assets over liabilities amount to $39,327.30-that is to say that they have assets to that amount over
liabilities. On the other hand I notice that their debt to the bank amounts to $2,200 for a school loan for the purpose of keeping the schools in the municipality running. That is all that they owe the bank. This municipality, in order to finance the schools in the nine townships contained in the municipal district, went to the bank and asked for a line of credit of $6,000 for school purposes. The 'bank turned them down, and has not up the present time, so far as I know, given that municipality any line of credit for school purposes, or for any other purpose. In view of the fact that this municipality has assets of close upon $40,000 over liabilities, and that on December 31, 1921, it only owed the hank $2,200, I maintain that the bank, bearing in mind the privileges that this Parliament has conferred upon it, is not doing its duty in refraining from financing that particular school system.
There is just one other matter I wish to deal with for a moment and that is unemployment. This question has received some slight attention here but it is not being given the attention it should receive. We all realize that unemployment is very rife in Canada at the present time; and I merely want to suggest to the Government that in view of the possibility of the situation being somewhat serious, they take steps to see to it that a programme is outlined whereby next winter the services of the men who are unemployed will be utilized in some proper manner in connection with development work required in this country. During the last winter the unemployed were living on doles contributed to by the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities, but I maintain, 'Sir, that the only way to approach this question of unemployment is to look ahead and see if we cannot provide some useful work, or works, that are necessary to the country so that these men may make a living without being pauperized by the acceptance of doles.
In conclusion I wish to say that I cannot see that the budget in any way meets the views that I hold with regard to the tariff question, and because of that fact I am afraid that I will have to vote against it. I happen to belong to a farmers organization in Alberta whose motto is equity, and this budget, in my opinion cannot be held to be equitable at all. Furthermore, our slogan in Alberta is " Equal rights to all and special privileges

The Budget-Mr. Lapierre

to none." Consequently, for the reasons which I have given, I am afraid that I cannot support the budget.


Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing) :: I wish to preface the few remarks I have to make this evening by complimenting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) upon the admirable budget he has given this country in one of its most trying moments. All the speakers who have preceded me have been of one opinion, that Canada in its present financial condition must get revenue and that the national debt of Canada must he reduced. It has been my privilege to be associated with a class of business that has, in past years, had to bear a large share of taxation, and that class has accepted, with admirable patience, the burden that has been imposed upon it by the conditions created by the war. We have heard a lot about organized labour. We have heard the critical arguments of our Progressive friends on this budget. I wish to speak this evening for a class to whom no one has yet referred, and that class is the large and unorganized body of wage-earners of Canada.
Under our complex social system there has arisen in Canada, during the last ten or fifteen years, a class of people that has contributed more to the financial, social and moral development of our country, and has accepted with more patience and resignation the burden of citizenship, than any other. I am referring to what is ordinarily called the middle class, in a great measure the clerks, the bookkeepers, commercial travellers, and office assistants. That class has supported, to a large extent, the retail business of Canada which, at the present instant, depends upon such a budget as that elaborated by the Minister of Finance to regain that prosperity which Canada once enjoyed. My Progressive friends have told us what a great burden they had to bear under the taxation that is imposed all over Canada. If they look back to 1917 they will remember that we, of the Liberal party, condemned and criticized the government which was responsible for the national debt which bears so heavily on Canada to-day.
In 1917, the great leader of the Liberal party, at an age when men are seeking comfort and rest, undertook, against the advice of his friends, a political tour of the west. It was my good fortune to have travelled with Mm on that occasion from North Bay to Sudbury. With all the enthusiasm of youth, and with the utmost confidence in our great West, he undertook that long

and tiresome journey, confident of its results, feeling and knowing that the people of the West, to the development of whose country he had contributed so much, would grant him an enthusiastic welcome. It was my sad privilege to announce to him in Sudbury, on his return trip, the disappointing news that, from the Great Lakes to the Pacific coast, they had returned but two Liberal candidates. Under these conditions, our farmer friends in large measure upheld the government that burdened us with taxation. In 1917, we experienced Union government rule. The large debt, and extravagant expenditure of that government, should have been a warning to our Progressive friends. Our great leader, on his western tour, uttered the warning, which fell on deaf ears, that under such a government there must be a day of reckoning.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after three years of Union government that day of reckoning has arrived. The country faces one of the most embarrassing qnd critical situations that ever a nation of the size of Canada encountered. We have a national debt of very large proportions, and as we listen to the speakers in this House, we cannot help realizing to what a dangerous extent we may go, if we do not curtail our expenditures. We must in the future balance our budget as between revenue and expenditure. This taxation cannot be borne by any one section of the country. Our relations are so closely interwoven at the present time that this burden must be equally distributed. Too long the class to which I have referred have borne the burden. The time has arrived when this great middle class, the backbone of the nation, the class that supplied cheerfully the men who put Canada on the map, is looking to other classes of society, and asking that they, themselves shall have a higher standard of living. This class has never joined the union, and never gone on strike. They walk to their places of business in the morning and fill our churches on the Sabbath. They have cheerfully accepted the responsibilities of citizenship. Under existing conditions, we cannot return to normality until the wheels of industry are put in motion. Our country is suffering to-day from lack of confidence, and the curtailment of industrial activity. It was, in a large measure, the policy of the Union government that created the feeling of distrust, which brought on the first period of business depression. It was by their extravagance and their lack of vision that this

The Budget-Mr. Lapierre
condition was created. If such is the case, are we not justified in asking, at least, a more loyal support from everybody in this House. The wheels of industry will never move normally until the purchasing power of the people is restored, and that purchasing power will never be restored until the unemployed portion of our population has resumed its labours. The wheels of industry will assist in creating a purchasing power in Canada for the products of the agricultural classes.
The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) stated that 85 per cent of the agricultural products of Ontario and Quebec were consumed in Canada. If such is the case, how can we hope to have prosperity in agriculture in these two provinces, when the industrial classes cannot go back to work? Under these conditions would it be wise to interfere with the tariff and create distrust in the industrial world? By adjusting the budget to meet the conditions that exist, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was only carrying out the good Liberal policy of suiting the tariff to the financial exigencies of the country. How else can we have prosperity if we do not maintain the balance between agriculture and industry? The two, co-operative, will in my opinion work out our salvation, and I repeat that the budget submitted by the present Minister of Finance is the only hopeful sign that has appeared on the horizon during the last five years. Speaking for the large middle class of Canada who will bear the extra burden imposed by the sales tax, I think I can safely say that there will be no serious objection on the part of any one, because it is the duty of every citizen in this Dominion to assume his fair share of taxation.
There is another very serious condition in the country. It has often been said in this House that the retail trade of Canada was to a certain extent responsible for the failure to bring down the cost of living. Now, the retail trade in this country is one of the most competitive businesses that we have. As things are to-day, it has to purchase goods long before the season opens, and sometimes to carry them into the following season. So that with the constant changes and vagaries of style and fashion the retail merchants are forced to bear large losses when their stock cannot be disposed of because their goods are out of style. The retail merchant has also to compete with his neighbour who sometimes through lack of sufficient capital to carry on is compelled to dispose of his
167J
goods at a loss. Furthermore, our retailers have had to compete with large departmental stores, and it is safe to say that failures in the retail business in Canada have been more numerous than in any other line of business. Now, I want to say this, that the retail merchants in this country constitute one of the most useful classes of society. If you look at the newer parts of the country, especially New Ontario where I have spent most of my life, you will find that in the early days the retail merchant not only supplied all the necessaries to the newcomer and the settler, but was also his banker. This class of the community, therefore, has contributed a great deal to the development of this Dominion, and that being the case I ask whether it is not just, in the re-arrangement of the tariff, that they should be fully considered. Is it not fair that they should receive consideration the same as the farmer, the manufacturer and organized labour? Society owes to that class, I think, a greater gratitude than to any other section of the community, and it is largely on their behalf that I make this appeal this evening.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I do not wish at this late hour to detain the House, but I do not think I would be doing my duty to my constituency if I did not place before hon. members certain facts and figures as I see them in regal'd to the budget. I wish to ally myself with the numerous speakers who have preceded me in congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on his being able at the age of 73 to present his sixteenth budget. In part of that budget I sincerely concur, but with a large part of it I am sorry to say I cannot agree. During the evening we had quite an interesting speech from the Solicitor-General (Mr. McKenzie), who gave the House more or less of a lecture in regard to the position of public men in this country. He deprecated the fact that so many people to-day did not give our public men credit for what they were doing. I would just say in passing that if there is any fault to be found in the fact that our public men are not appreciated as fully as they 'should be, it is largely due to the criticism which the public men themselves indulge in at the expense of one another. After the picture whieh the hon. member drew to-night of the House that Toryism had built, I do not think that any of us who took him at his word, can think a great deal of the public
The Budget-Mr. Spencer

two hides: weight, 62 pounds; tare off, 6 pounds; balance, 56 pounds at 3i cents a pound, $1.95; freight, 90 cents; balance due to the producer, $1.05. There was sufficient leather in those hides to make no less than 72 pairs of boots. I am sorry that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) is not in his place, because I know he has shed some political tears in regard to boot manufacturing; he has asked from time to time for tariff protection for the boot and shoe industry.
Last fall when I was going over the constituency I now represent I came across a quantity of sheep pelts on each of which there was enough wool to make a suit of clothes. The only sale for those pelts was at the price of 35 cents; it would cost the farmer that amount to get them to market, so he simply threw them away or gave them to his neighbours to dispose of them as they saw fit. And yet some people wonder why the farmers ask for freer trade and ask that some protection be taken off the manufacturer who i* charging an extra price for his goods, i notice that the boot industry has been enjoying a 30 per cent protection. Some hon. members have suggested that this protection is necessary because of the high rate of wages, but I find that the average wage paid to men working in a boot and shoe factory is only $715. That does not look as if the boot manufacturers needed a protective tariff owing to the high rate of wages. The producer of raw material, the hides, is getting next to nothing for his product, while the consumers have to pay, as I said, in some cases half as much as the total value of the animals for their boots. Yet all the relief afforded by this budget is the small amount of 2i per cent.
I have here a voucher which is also very interesting; it is in regard to wool. The member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) when he was speaking some days ago, made reference to the wool business, and I think some hon. members thought he was drawing a rather long bow. I will show you as a wool grower that he was doing nothing of the sort. This statement which I have before me relates to some wool that was sent from the farm. It averaged 13 cents a pound, but after the overhead costs were paid it brought to the producer of the wool no more than 5 cents a pound. So not counting for shearing, packing, and hauling to market, one can readily understand that at that rate it would be necessary for a farmer to shear about ninety sheep for

nothing, pack the wool for nothing, haul it to market for nothing, and after he had sold it, if he got that price, he would have enough money to buy a suit of clothes! Is it any wonder that the consumer is complaining? Is it any wonder that the producer is complaining? Yet what do we find in regard to the protection that the woollen industry is receiving? What relief has the Finance Minister given the people in that respect? We find that clothing has had a protection of from 271 to 35 per cent. If there is any country in the world where the people should have a plentiful supply of woollen goods it is Canada, but on account of the protective tariff which enables the manufacturer to put up the price of goods to the extent he does, very few people can afford to buy the quantity of clothing they really need.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Does the hon. gentleman imply that the clothing manufacturers of Canada are taking advantage of the full amount of duty?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I certainly do. If
lhev are not, I cannot understand how it was shown before the High Cost of Living Committee that the woollen textile industry was making a profit of 310 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend
is in error. He means the Dominion Textile Company.


James Malcolm: I would inform my
hon. friend that the wholesale manufacturers of clothing in Canada to-day, due to very extreme competition, are not taking advantage of the tariff at all. In many cases the wholesale price of clothing in Canada is as low as in the United States. I refer to the better grades of woollen stuff. There are other grades which may not be in that position.


Henry Elvins Spencer: 
Mr. ROBB:: We did submit an advanced policy in 1911, and our friends voted against it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: My hon. friend in his speech the other day was not referring to 1911, but to the present day. The Liberal convention of 1919 was several years after 1911. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce also said that the Government was trying to lessen the burden on those who were least able to bear it and to tax those who were best able to pay, but I cannot say that he proved his statement. Right here I would like to bring to the attention of this House a subject that has hardly been discussed at all, and that is getting right down to what we should first of all consider, and that is the need of humanity, the need of every citizen of this country. I think every hon. member will agree that all our citizens, men and women, who work, have a right to the necessaries of life, that is food, shelter, and clothing. Those are necessaries for all people whether rich or poor, and it should be the effort of every government, no
matter what its politics, to see that those three necessaries are placed at the disposal of the people without any restrictions or handicaps. At the present time we find that food, and particularly clothing, not to mention shelter, have all had handicaps put on them which makes it very difficult for a great portion of our people to live in as high a social state as they would wish.
I notice that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) argues that the Government should go cautiously in the direction of a lower tariff. I was quite surprised to hear him make that statement, considering the school in which he has been brought up in the West, and I can only hope that he is not going to follow the footsteps of his predecessor, Mr. Calder, in that portfolio, and go about face simply because he has come down from the West and now represents an eastern constituency.
With my hon. friend the member for Kings, P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes) I am usually in general agreement, but I notice that he said we have to be careful in our taxation because we must not drive capital out of business. In mentioning capital I think he was referring to organized capital only; he certainly was not referring to unorgan-' ized capital. As to driving capital out of farming, the past budgets have already done that. Agriculture, which should be looked upon by all people as one of the most important, if not the most important, of our industries, should be given a fair chance. I had a case brought to my attention the other day where some farmers tried to get a mortgage of $8,000 on 1,400 acres of land which were free from encumbrance and well equipped for business. The mortgage company said "We cannot consider this mortgage because it is unsafe." Now, if such security as that is unsafe I wonder what is safe in this country of ours? If conditions are such that it is unsafe to lend that amount of money on such safe and such good security, I consider that, at least, is driving capital out of bu siness.
Some one, I believe, during the present session, mentioned something about the con-' scription of wealth; and some people think the conscription of wealth is a harsh proposal. I would like to point out that taxation in any form-because no one likes to pay taxes-is a method of conscription of wealth. During the war we found it necessary to introduce conscription, and probably we did the right thing, but we only
The Budget-Mr. Spencer

adapted one form of conscription. We conscripted the men, but we did not conscript the surplus wealth, although the suggestion was made at the time to the government of the day. Now, if it was right to con-' script men it was equally right to conscript the surplus wealth of Canada, otherwise you put the value of wealth above the value of human lives. If we had conscripted wealth in that day we would not be confronted with the stupendous debt that is facing Canada to-day.
My hon. friend the member for Kings, (Mr. Hughes) said that Canada must develop or die. In that I quite agree with him, although I observe that the Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe) made the statement this afternoon that agriculture is not dying. All I can say is that if agriculture is not dying it is certainly like a cat and must have nine lives; but in my opinion agriculture is on its last legs unless something is done to remedy the present conditions.
I notice that no radical change is proposed in the budget in regard to raising taxation; and there is no mention at all of any change in our credit system. I regret to see this, because these are strenuous times and we must find some other means, if the present means are not sufficient, to bring this country back to prosperity. In this connection I would like to quote a few words that were written by one who is admired all over the American continent, one who is not an agriculturist but a manufacturer, I refer to Henry Ford. He says:
Affairs are coming to a jam and if those who possess technical facilities do not engage to remedy the case, those who lack that facility may attempt it. Nothing is more foolish than for any class to assume that progress is an attack upon it. Progress is only a call made upon it to lend its experience for the general advancement. It is only those who are unwise who will attempt to obstruct progress and thereby become its victims.
If you want any further proof of the condition of agriculture, particularly in western Canada from which I come, I may say that in a return that was given to me I find it stated that the amount of money that is owed on principal and interest to the federal government in back payments on school lands alone in the western provinces amounts to no less than $3,000,000.
There is one other subject I wish to touch on before I sit down. We have heard a great deal about the necessity of building up our manufacturing industries, of building up great cities; and figures are produced to show the amount of our exports,

the amount of our industrial production, and the number of men that are employed in our industries. But there is one thing, it seems to me, that is overlooked. I have before me some astounding figures in regard to infant mortality, and if we have, through our manufacturing towns, produced a great deal of manufactured goods the prevailing system is certainly not lending itself to manufacturing human goods. Looking over our statistics showing the death rate per thousand of children under one year these are some of the figures that are submitted. I find that in St. Hyacinthe the death rate is no less than 252; in Joli-ette, 245; in Hull, 240; in Levis, 231; in Westmount, 215; in Quebec, 213; and in Montreal, 178. When I point out that the death rate in the whole of Great Britain is only 78 per thousand, it will be seen that the death rate for the city of Montreal exceeds by over 100 per thousand that of the United Kingdom, including London. A few days ago the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) informed the House that the department were bringing to Canada some 15,000 children from Great Britain. I would like to ask where those children are being brought from? They are not coming from the best of homes, they are not coming from the average homes, they are not coming from homes that can possibly keep them, because their parents would object. Therefore I take it they must come from the poorer homes, or from the slums, of Great Britain, and I would like to ask this question which I think is pertinent: Would it not be more beneficial to Canada if we looked after our own children and stopped this tremendous death rate? Would it not be better if we made it possible for our own children to become our future settlers, before bringing to Canada children from the poorer homes in the cities of another country? I think we are making a mistake to-day in this country-probably in other countries it is the same-because we are possibly laying too much stress on the value and the sacredness of the almighty dollar, and not enough on the sacredness of human life. I have here a Montreal paper with the heading, "Where Disease is Spread in Montreal". The article proceeds to expound on the slums that exist there. Montreal has its slums, as well as its millionaires. I notice that when the last issue of Victory bonds was made a certain number of people in Montreal were able to make a safe investment in those Victory bonds of no less than nine times the amount than

The Budget-Mr. McBride
the whole of the people of Alberta were able to invest. Yet, with that amount of riches in that city, we find that they have slums there, and that it has been thought necessary by one of their leading papers to make a crusade on the slums to get them abolished. I find in looking up the record of Australia, that they seem to place a greater value on their children than we do. They have brought in an endowment bill, the intention of which is to allow each mother the sum of six shillings a week for each child over three until she with her husband is getting the minimum wage. They think this is necessary in order to look after the welfare of the children.
If I can leave any thought with the House, after my few remarks, it is that we will in the future pay first attention to the needs of our own people, starting at the base, and then as a secondary matter, look to the interests of land and capital.


Mr. T. J. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: There are two things, Mr. Speaker, that have struck me very forcibly since this debate started. One was the number of boquets thrown at the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). After throwing these boquets, hon. members start to criticise and tear his budget to pieces. The next thing that struck me was the time that some speakers have taken up in this House. I am not referring to the leaders of the parties, or to the ministers. I think they should have all the time they require, but when any hon. member occupies the time of this House for three hours, well, I do not think he should inflict such punishment on his fellow members. I understand it costs $2,000 an hour to hold sittings in this House. Now, does any hon. member think that what he would say in a three hour speech is worth to the taxpayers $6,000? If so, he must have a higher estimate of his value than I have. I think the limit to any member in this House should be half an hour, with the exception of the leaders and ministers. I do not think that any man who cannot say what he has to say in half an hour should be given the floor.
It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that I am the only black sheep in the so-called dilapidated annex. Much as I would like to support the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the Progressive party, when it comes to a question of free trade, somehow their glasses do not seem to have the right focus for my eye sight. During
the campaign I spoke at nearly a hundred meetings in different parts of my constituency, and I do not think there was one meeting where I did not make the statement that I was not a free trader, never had been a free trader, and that I never would be a free trader.
There are many points in connection with the budget, on which I do not quite agree with the Finance Minister. There is the paragraph in relation to farm implements, clothing and mining machinery. I think they should come in under much smaller tariff. At the same time, I have no doubt the minister and his associates have given the question a great deal more consideration than I have. Therefore, I do not pro pose to criticise the budget along those lines. The item I take exception to most is the fruit dumping clause; it strikes at the very root of protection. It is practically a life and death struggle for a great many men who went overseas and fought for this country and are now trying to make a living out of a fruit farm. We have a great number of them in British Columbia, and if that clause is struck out, as suggested, the Government will have a great many more idle men, with their families, on their hands than they have at the present time. What are they going to do with them? I do not know. These men fought our battles in France- and their one thought during the long weary nights they spent in the trenches was to win the war-come home, settle down with their families and live comfortably. If this dumping clause is struck out, it will deprive them of the opportunity to do that. I say that without hesitation. Some fifteen years ago, I was engaged in the building supply business in Vancouver, and contracting generally. At that time we could buy brick on the Canadian side of the line for $8.50 a thousand on the cars or scows as the case might be. This price scarcely paid the expense of making, and owing to that condition, the market was never supplied as it should have been. I went over on one occasion to Seattle to size up the situation and see how the market was there. I found that the general price was $10.50 per thousand, a little more or less, according to the quality of the brick, but to my surprise, when they heard I was from British Columbia and was prepared to buy a quantity of brick to take over to British Columbia, they were willing to sell me the quantity I required at $6.00 per thousand, loaded on the car or scow
The Budget-Mr. McBride

as I might require. I entered into a contract with a manufacturer, had it signed and then I asked him what profit he was making out of the brick. He did inot seem to want to tell me. Later on however in the evening he seemed more talkative. Again I asked him the question. Well, he said, to be honest about it, I am losing about 50 cents to a dollar on every thousand bricks that I have sold you. I asked him why he did it and he said he did it because he considered that it was good business. In the first place, he said, after having sold that amount of brick I shall be able to run my yard steadily and thereby cut down the expense of production, as the men will work for a lower wage if they get steady work. In the second place, so long as I can ship brick to British Columbia and supply the market there, the manufacturers in British Columbia will not feel like making brick, and in that case we shall always have a market to dump our surplus on. How can we expect manufacturers of brick to compete under these conditions?
Let me give another instance. In 1897, there was quite a lot of maple sugar and syrup shipped to British Columbia. The syrup sold at $2.75 to $3 per gallon, according to the package it was put up in. A Seattle firm was at that time shipping what they called pure Canadian Bock Maple Syrup to British Columbia. What did it consist of? It was 80 per cent granulated sugar 20 per cent maple sugar with a little burnt sugar to give it the proper colour. You would be surprised to know that that firm controlled the maple syrup business of Vancouver for five years. Canadians simply cannot compete under such circumstances, and they should not be expected to do so. I have no hesitation in saying that if this dumping clause is not properly enforced it will not only strike the fruit growers and the small farmers in general but it will strike at the very root of protection.
The fruit growers on our side should have a reasonable profit, so that they can make a living. Surely those men who thought Canada good enough to fight for overseas are entitled to a living when they come back. And that is all they are asking for now. Why should they not be given the protection they are entitled to? I am told that there are indications to-day of a very large fruit crcrp in Oregon and Washington. In fact, they expect the largest crop they have had in years. Now, if they are allowed to ship their surplus to this side, they will dump their No. 3 grades into Can-
Mr. McBride.]
ada in competition with the Canadian No. 1 grade. All they have to do is to put a fancy name on their packages and place them on our market. I contend that each box of apples coming from the United States should be marked with the name of its place of origin whether it is Washington, Oregon or elsewhere, and the grade sold be printed on the package, as is required in this country. Are we asking too much in that respect? I do not think so. The American fruit growers can always get the very best prices for their No. 1 grade in Chicago, New York, Boston and the other large cities, and they never have a surplus of this grade. They can also usually dispose of their No. 2 grade in the United States. It is the No. 3 grade that they will try to dump into Canada. I do not think the Minister of Finance has had time to go fully into this question. I have no doubt his time has been taken up with other matters, and I would suggest that he let this question stand as it was until he has had an opportunity of visiting British Columbia and witnessing for himself the conditions there. If he leaves this matter as it is and comes out to British Columbia after the session I shall be willing to take him through some of these districts, and I am sure he will then be convinced of the truth of what I have said. If I cannot convince him I am prepared at the next session of Parliament to support him in his proposals. I do not think that is an unfair proposition.
I want now to refer to the Transcontinental highway. A good deal has been said about this in the past; not so much in other parts of Canada as perhaps in British Columbia, but very little has been done. Suppose the different provinces began building railways, each on its own hook; what would it lead to? And yet that is what is being done in connection with the Transcontinental highway. This Government is supplying money to each province to go ahead and build a road here and there, wherever it likes, always directed to some extent by politics. We have engineers and surveyors who could locate a highway in a very short time. It is the duty of this Government to undertake this work themselves. It would serve two purposes. It would give employment to those who are now out of work. Those men who went overseas antd made good there could surely make good again in Canada. If the Government would start this work they would find a portion of the road in British Columbia already surveyed, there

Questions
is no reason why they could not go ahead with it. I do not suggest that they build a transcontinental highway and leave the taxpayers to foot the bill. No, what I do say, is that they could build the road and then charge a toll on automobile traffic that would not only pay the interest but also the sinking fund. The statement has been made that there are 800,000 automobiles in Canada; and I understand that there are over a million people who do nothing else but tour the United States during the summer. Suppose we had a transcontinental highway second to none in the world, is it not conceivable that a very large percentage of these people would use that highway? The toll that we could charge the automobilists would pay for the construction of that road in a very short time, while the people living along the highway would have the free use of the road. I say it is the duty ofthe Government therefore to construct this highway and let the tourists pay the expence of construction. Soon after I put that motion on the Order Paper I received about sixty letters from automobile companies, clubs, and private individuals urging me to go ahead with it as the Government ought to undertake the work and the writers would be behind me. Why should we not go ahead with such an undertaking? The country wants it and should have had it years ago. I think it is time the work was started. There are many points in connection with the proposal that I should like to explain, but as the hour is late I will not take up the time of the House any longer.
On motion of Mr. Stevens the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 12.25 a.m., Thursday.
Thursday, June 8, 1922