OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle):: I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to lay on the table of the House a petition from the council of the township of Marchand, praying for an act to provide for old age pensions.



THE WAR CHARITIES ACT, 1917, REPEAL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 47, to repeal The War Charities Act, 1917.
He said: The War Charities Act was passed in 1917 entirely as a war measure. It provided that all associations collecting moneys for works of charity during the war should be licensed, and that a register should be kept in connection with these organizations; it was also provided that returns should be made to the Department of the Secretary of State every six months in regard to the work done, showing what moneys had been collected and what disposition had been made of them. During the war 846 of such associations were licensed, and, of these, since the close of the war 671 have been dropped from the register, being no longer in existence. There are 143 associations now under license as chapters of the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, and these are practically all the organizations at present under the licensing system. It has been deemed advisable to repeal the act, as it is felt that the system of licensing such associations is no longer necessary and is only a burden on the women working in these organizations. The officials of the department have advised me that there is no longer any necessity for this particular statute.
Motion agreed to apid bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is
the government aware of the establishment recently of a national committee for the relief of the Nova Scotia miners? If so, will the government take into consideration the possibility of extending financial assistance to that organization?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am sure that every
hon. member will be pleased to know that a national organization has been formed for the purpose mentioned, and will hope that it may be successful in its efforts. I do not see, however, that the formation of such an organization should be expected to change in any particular the attitude which the government has taken in this matter, from the outset.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 27, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting 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 Sir Henry Drayton.
Mr. ROBERT MILNE (Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks in this debate I cannot help referring to the changed attitude in certain sections of this House during the last two or three sessions. If the pictures that have been painted of the calamity that has overtaken Canada and the glowing scenes that have been depicted of conditions prevailing in the United States and France are to be taken as a test of patriotism, then I think the Progressives are entirely exonerated from reproach for any unpatriotic speeches that have been made here at any time. Our Conservative friends have certainly painted a very gloomy picture of existing conditions in the Dominion; on the other hand, the government and its supporters have endeavoured to convince us that members of the official opposition were entirely wrong and that everything was running along satisfactorily. Now, I do not like to believe that conditions are as bad as they are pictured by our Conservative friends, and at the same time I am sorry that I cannot believe they are as rosy and as satisfactory as pictured by the government and its supporters. Knowing that agriculture is the basic industry of the Dominion I feel perfectly

The Budget-Mr. Milne

satisfied that other industries cannot be more prosperous than this basic industry. I know the conditions of our agricultural sections, and therefore I am forced to the conclusion that things are not as good as we would like to see them. Undoubtedly many of our citizens are leaving their country for the United States, and our tax burdens are too heavy; but our main trouble is that we cannot sell our commodities at a profit.
The causes for these unsatisfactory conditions are not all to be laid at the feet of the present government. No doubt world conditions have had a considerable influence in causing the depression which we are now experiencing. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that in the past there has been a good deal of blind optimism in running our national affairs, and in addition for the last thirty or forty years there has been considerable unsound financing. By blind optimism I mean that our railways were constructed fifty years ahead of our requirements, and many of our public buildings have been erected in an extravagant manner and. equally far ahead of our needs. These huge expenditures that were never warranted are to-day imposing an extremely heavy burden on our citizens, a burden which will have to be borne for generations to come. We have heard a good deal about our huge national debt of 82,400,000,000. This debt has increased since 1911 by five hundred per cent. A good deal of the increase has been attributed to our war expenditure and the cost of demobilization. If we deduct the moneys paid out on this account, we find that we still have an increase since 1911 of over 135 per cent. The expenses of government have increased from $122,681,000 in 1911 to $344,221,000 in 1923, or about 173 per cent. While this mountain of debt has been piling up what provision have we been making to meet its payment? It is true our population has increased from 7,206,643 in 1911 to 9,082,000 odd in 1924, or about 25 per cent. Since 1867 our national debt has been reduced only nine times, the reductions totalling less than $80,000,000. There has been no attempt to establish a sinking fund to meet maturing bonds and to take care of depreciation, or anything of that nature. We have followed since confederation the insane policy of borrowing money to pay the interest on our debt. We know very well that if a business concern adopted such an unsound practice it would be only a very short time before it would be bankrupt.

While this insane financial policy has been pursued, what has been happening to our natural resources? Our farms have become depleted of their fertility; we have plant diseases, insect pests, weeds and many other things established in our soil; and these are going to increase our cost of production tremendously. W'hat is happening to our forests? Large areas have been wiped out entirely. I refer especially to the forest areas of the western provinces. The country has suffered the loss in order that certain influential individuals might become immensely wealthy. What has this depletion brought in its train? I could show hon. members areas in the western provinces through which flowed streams that had their source in the forests and watered our prairies for miles and miles. To-day those streams run only for a veiy short time in the spring, thereby depriving many districts of a regular water supply.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The hon. gentleman, I
am sure, is making some very interesting remarks, but we in this end of the House have not been able to hear him.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that there is so much private conversation going on in the Chamber that I myself can hardly hear what the hon. member is saying.


Robert Milne: I will try to make hon. gentlemen hear, but I fear it is impossible to drown the conversations that are being carried on.
I was speaking about, the streams having dried out due to the forest being cleared away in some of our prairie sections. Besides, we are informed-and we believe it to be true-that the presence of forests has an imiportant effect upon the extent of our rainfall1. Through the wiping away of our forest areas in the prairie sections our rainfall has decreased, and that is one of the things the prairie provinces need in the very worst way.
What has been happening in our mines? We are informed that certain coal mines have been drawn on to such an extent that it is necessary to go several miles under the sea to secure the coal, thereby increasing the cost of getting it to the head of the mine. I may say just here that I am decidedly opposed to the increased duty on coal. I am not an admirer of the dole system, but I would rather dole out assistance to the miners if I know it is going right to them than to dole it out to a corporation or company which has absolute control of the whole situation, there

The Budget-Mr. Milne
being no assurance that the workmen of our country will reap the benefit of the protection afforded.


Mr. LOGAN:: Is the hon. member aware
that there are a large number of independent coal companies operating in this country?


Robert Milne: Yes, I believe there are, but what I say to one I say to all. What has been happening to the fisheries? A good many of our lakes throughout the Dominion are fished out. We used to hear of tremendous catches of salmon in the British Columbia streams, but to-day, I understand, many of the canneries that formerly operated there have had to shut down owing to the want of fish. It is essential that large sums of money be spent in the very near future to replenish our supply of fish in order to keep this industry going.


Hance James Logan: Why keep the fishery industry going if you are not willing to keep the coal industry going? The coal companies to which I refer have been working from one to three days a week for the last year and a half. Is the fishing industry to receive assistance and the coal industry to receive none?


Robert Milne: That is a very pertinent
question, I suppose, especially when a man is interested in coal mines. You cannot make coal; but no departure from policy is involved in the suggestion that the streams and lakes of our country be replenished with fish, the policy is regarded as a sound one and there is no question in my mind that it will have to be carried on to a greater extent than it has been in the past.
In any reference I make to our resources being depleted, I do not mean to intimate that they are practically exhausted or anything like nearly wiped out. We still have unlimited natural resources, but the resources that were easily accessible, Mr. Speaker, are practically gone, and the production costs of all these basic industries have been greatly increased. The sorry part of it is that instead of making some reservation while these easily accessible resources were being exploited, nothing was done in that direction and our liabilities were increasing all the time while the resources were being depleted.
It seems to me we have been wallowing around in financial difficulties long enough and that we should turn our faces the other way and head for some solid ground. All the conditions I speak of have been brought about while we have been following the old policy of protection. There has been very little difference between the tariff policies in
161i
force in this country as far back as I have been able to get information. From 1915, ut to the last few years the highest average dutj on our total import was 26.1 per cent; to-daj it is about 22.3 per cent. As a matter of fac* a few years ago it was down as low as 20.5; in the last two or three years there seems to have been a slight increase. But I do not consider that these slight fluctuations are due to any change in policy; the policy, so far as we can ascertain, has been practically the same. When one party was in office the other was advocating lower duties, but when those in opposition got into power the other party promptly started off on the same tack. My observation has convinced me that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are protectionist parties. Some try to get under the flag of low tariff, but they have a hard time to establish themselves there and an even harder time to convince the people that they are sincere.
Let me deal for a few moments with agriculture and agricultural conditions-and I do so because I have been familiar with those conditions all my life. In this respect I may depart from the general method that is followed in the east, because from what I can gather it would seem that most people in this part of the country like to talk about agricultural conditions when they know very little about them. Agriculture is one of the most important industries of our country. It is our basic industry-and you do not have to go very far these days before you get conclusive proof of that. During the Easter recess I was visiting around the country a little, and every business man I spoke to about business conditions would say, "Oh, if the west gets a good crop this year, things will foe all right; we shall be on the royal road to success." I have heard that, I would not like to say how many tames, but at least a dozen times during the last six months. That convinces me more than ever that agriculture really is of vital importance to the country. Our friends in the government do not seem to lay much stress on agriculture this year, that is, if we are to assume that their sympathy is indicated by the proposals in the budget, but some of the officials in the government service apparently realize its importance. I will read an extract from Seasonable Hints, No. 31, March, 1925:
Canada's prosperity depends largely on agriculture, and in turn agricultural prosperity depends on our ability to satisfy local markets and produce a large surplus of superior quality for export. Unless this surplus is produced at a cost per unit sufficiently low to compete with other exporting countries, then our export trade, in fact our agricultural prospe-:*v. is curtailed if not doomed.
252*
The Budget-Mr. Milne

I say that when our agriculture is doomed there is not .much hope for Canada's prosperity.
Agriculture leads in our products exported. The total exports of agricultural products, including raw, partly manufactured, and manufactured, amount to $527,807,628; products of forest origin, $273,603,598; products of mineral origin, $170,686,286; of marine origin, $30,988,812. I think that is a sufficient reason why agriculture should receive consideration, and I propose to deal with it for a little while.
What are the farmers of Canada doing? The value of their total field crops has increased from $899,834,000 odd in 1923 to $995,234,000 odd in 1924. Our 'butter production has increased from approximately
126.834.000	pounds in 1923, to 182,287,000 pounds in 1924. There has been a slight decrease in the amount of cheese produced. Then as to the total value of our live stock -and I might say that I did1 not try to get the numbers, because to give the numbers in each, particular class of live stock would have meant giving a lengthy list of figures -the total value of our live stock in 1923 amounted to $613,260,000, and in 1924 to $641,144,000. That shows an increase in the value of our live stock, and at the same time the price per animal was somewhat less than in 1923. Our poultry also shows a substantial increase.
I want to be pardoned for referring to Manitoba specifically, but I do this for the reason that the western provinces are continually-being accused of "wheat mining"; that is the term that is invariably used, especially in eastern Canada. I will give you figures to give you an idea of what Manitoba produces. In 1924 her total field crops were valued at approximately $136,000,000. Her total wheat crop was valued at $55,296,000. That shows the proportion of the wheat crop to the total field crop. Other field crops that were produced in Manitoba were fodder corn to the amount of $2,070,000; potatoes, $2,063,000; hay and clover, $5,320,000; turnips and mangels, $540,620; alfalfa, $208,000. Other cereals produced were: oats, approximately $33,250,000; barley, $28,500,000; rye, $6,000,000; flax, $6,500,000.
Manitoba has increased her number of cattle holdings from 691,000 odd in 1923 to
710.000	odd in 1924; sheep have increased from 93,000 to 95,000; swine from 291,000 to 425,000; poultry from 3,289,000 to 3.693,000 odd. Her butter production has increased from 10,730,000 to 12,632,000 pounds; her cheese from 231,000 pounds to 500,000 pounds;

her honey production from 66,047 pounds in 1920 to 1,302,000 pounds in 1924.


Mr. PUTNAM:: What does her grain aggregate?


Robert Milne: Our wheat crop was valued at $55,296,000. Does that answer the question?


Harold Putnam: Does that include all
grains, oats and barley?


Robert Milne: No, just our wheat crop. Our oats amounted approximately to $33,250,000, barley, $28,500,000, rye $5,750,000, flax $6,500,000.


Harold Putnam: What was the total production in buckwheat?


Robert Milne: I have no information as to buckwheat.


Edward Joseph Garland: Was that export value?


Robert Milne: I could not say. I have given the House these figures to show that Manitoba is not a " wheat mining " province, as it is generally considered to be. The farmers of Manitoba are producing live stock and dairy products, and are developing practically every branch of agriculture that can be followed in that country, and with the exception of fruit I think they have nearly as wide a range of production as any other province in the Dominion.
Now, do the farmers of Canada know their business, or are they really working at something they do not know anything about? We would be inclined to think from what we hear sometimes that we did not know very much about our business, but I want to put on Hansard the number of prizes that Canada has won for her live stock at the International Fair in the last three years. In 1922 Canada won at the International Live Stock Show at Chicago 30 first prizes, 28 seconds, and 26 thirds; in 1923, 42 firsts, 40 seconds, and 32 thirds; in 1924, 68 firsts, 47 seconds, and 35 thirds. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, do the Canadian farmers know their business? I think the figures I have given will answer the question definitely; our Canadian farmers are producing and their products are of a high quality. But they are not doing this without considerable effort. There are many toilworn hands on the farm; there are many stooped shoulders that have been accomplishing these things, shoulders that will never straighten. There are many women on our Canadian

The Budget-Mr. Milne
farms that I pity. I would rather not say what I am about to say, but I believe that unless these things are known we shall never be able to solve our problems. Here are the conditions that exist. I can take hon. members to many farms where the women milk daily seven, or eight cows, feed calves, and keep a flock of from a hundred to a hundred and fifty chickens. Besides doing these things they are raising a family and looking after the home. Now, what are these women getting in return? The farmer's wife works night and morning, Sunday and Monday throughout the year. But if she wants to get a power washing machine to lighten the labour in the house she is taxed 30 per cent. I believe the rate is 25 or 35 per cent. If she wants to exchange her butter or eggs for a pair of boots or some woollen underclothes for the children she is taxed 25 to 30 per cent. But, besides this, after that woman has gathered her five-gallon can of cream and taken it to the dairy, the government planks a twojcent tax on the paltry little cheque of probably S2.50 or $3 which she receives for her cream. I think when we come down and consider the facts as they are to-day in our country we find conditions that are really disgraceful. The farm woman's small cream cheque of two or three dollars is taxed, but a cheque for three or four thousand dollars is not so heavily taxed speaking relatively. I certainly think that this stamp of two cents on a cheque for $2 or $2.50 is-


Mr. FORKE:: The last straw.


Robert Milne: Yes, very nearly the last
straw. And what is she offered in compensation for that? Cheaper grape fruit for breakfast. In a nutshell that is what the hard working farmers are getting to-day from this budget -an additional tax of two cents on their cream cheques and a reduction on grape fruit. But perhaps I had better make that statement clear. I imagine there are some people living in the east who use grape fruit every morning for breakfast, but it is not a common article of diet for the farmer's breakfast; I do not believe there is one fanner out of five hundred who ever eats grape fruit at his morning meal.


Robert Forke: Porridge.


Robert Milne: His breakfast consists
mainly of oatmeal. Now the farmers are doing their share and are willing to continue doing so; there is not a respectable farmer in the whole country but is willing to do his share. There are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking that may be said of
the farmers of the country. Now, you may tell me that the farmers in western Canada, and even the farmers in old Ontario, have made money in farming and consequently my argument absolutely falls to the ground. As to that I want to say something about the changed conditions in farming, and I am not going to deal with Ontario specially, because Ontario went through the condition I have in mind a good many years ago and the situation there now is entirely different from what it is in the west. Perhaps my description is applicable to sections of Ontario as well, but I am going to apply it more particularly to the west because I am better acquainted with conditions there. In the west twenty years ago we had cheap land, we had free homesteads and' we could buy land at from $2 to $5 an acre. To-day in the west we have to pay from $20 to $50 an acre for our land. Twenty years ago we had big yields; there was no difficulty in getting, for example, forty bushels of wheat to the acre, that was quite a common thing; and if we did not get thirty-five bushels to the acre we thought Providence had been hard on us. What do we get to-day? Fifteen or sixteen bushels to the acre. That falling off is caused, as I mentioned before, by various plant diseases, for example rust. We cannot estimate how rust has diminished the value of our grain crop. We have plant diseases, we have plant insects, and we have weeds. These things were unknown twenty years ago. Then too at that time we had low taxes. I can remember when our municipal tax amounted to $5 on the old homestead. What is it today? It amounts to a neat $100. I know of quarter sections in western Canada where the farmers are paying $130 a quarter section and1 where there are probably only forty or fifty acres under cultivation out of one. hundred and sixty. In those days only a small capital was needed to enable the farmer to carry on; today a huge capital is necessary and he must have recourse to borrowing. Most of the farmers are compelled to borrow, and they have to pay from 8 to 10 per cent interest on the loans they get. At that time also fuel was cheap. There were few sections of Manitoba where we could not get our fuel from the woods in a day's drive. To-day we have to buy coal, and to relieve that situation an increased tax of fifty cents a ton has been placed on coal. Furthermore, at that time we had cheap building material. The farmers could haul logs from the woods and build their outbuildings and-even, as a good many did-their homes, log houses which were very comfortable and very good in their day This facility
The budget- Mr. Milne

is not available to-day; you have to go to the lumber yard and buy lumber at 850 and 860 a thousand in order to get your home established. Then, taking the cattle industry into consideration, years ago we had all kinds of pastures. We could go out into the meadows and cut around as much hay as we thought we could put up, and we would have plenty of hay to feed our stock. The cattle were turned out in the spring, and roamed over perhaps a section or two near by-free pasture. What have we got to-day? We have to confine our cattle to our own land which is probably worth $30 or $40 an acre, and we have to provide hay off our own farms. These are the changed conditions that we have to face to-day; they are entirely different from what they were twenty years ago. I will admit that under the conditions which formerly prevailed the farmers were able to pay the extra burden of taxation that was thrust on	them and perhaps did not
feel it. But to-day the	farmers are
suffering from a tremendously increased cost of production and are groaning under the load. I do not mean to say that the present government is responsible for these conditions, but I say that these conditions cannot be remedied without an effort. While I appreciate the work of our press I desire to say that as long as the hand that controls the pen is directed by others, the press is not going to help us very much in solving our problems. I do not want to say anything about other organizations that are in existence. We find these organizations more in the industrial section of Canada than in the west, but if we are going to solve our problems we want the help of everybody. The people have got to help themselves so far as they can. We cannot expect better conditions on our farms and in our agricultural districts unless we have a diligent and careful people, and I maintain that generally speaking we have. We must be ready to adopt better methods of farming; we must be ready to co-operate in every possible way to promote the community or Dominion interests. Unless we can do that we cannot expect prosperity. No family can get along if one member of the family takes all the cream for his porridge. Dad will look after that; he will spread the cream around But if Dad takes all the cream for himself, what will happen? The youngsters get out as soon as they can. That is the condition existing in Canada to-day. Unless the provinces of the country are prepared to deal justly with one another, we cannot expect good results; but the fellow who is getting
[Mr. Milne.l
the skimmed milk is going to press for justice. I claim the government, instead of following a fiscal policy that will encourage special privilege should be doing just the very opposite, they should prevent such a thing as that occurring. I am satisfied that the tariff has had a lot to do with the condition that exists in our country to-day. We cannot hope to increase the price of our products, because the price is set in competition with the world; it is hopeless to assume that we can do that, we cannot do it by any system of taxation or anything else that I know of. The only alternative we have is to lower our cost of production, and in order to do that we have to look for cheaper production costs, and I maintain that the tariff is one of the main things by which to bring about that result. If we had cheaper implements of production and cheaper necessities of life, it would materially assist in cheaper production.
The credit machinery of our country never was adopted for the agriculturist. It is just about as applicable to the farming industry of our country as a clover huller would be to husk or shell corn. I say that a three or four months' credit was never adequate for the agricultural people, and the day for the mortgages maturing in three or five years is past and gone so far as agriculture 4 p.m. is concerned1. I am not going to deal with the credit phase of the question very much because I do hope that the government will take some action this session. Last year we were living in hopes all session; this year we are still living in hopes. I merely mention the matter to impress on the government the necessity of taking some steps in this direction. Many farmers in our country have given mortgages bearing eight, nine or ten per cent. Very often you will meet a farmer, who will tell you, "Well, I have been able to pay the interest on my mortgage this year, but have not been able to pay any principal". I claim that the interest he is paying at the present time should amortize that whole debt in twenty-five or thirty years. In that event he would have some encouragement, whereas at the present time he goes on paying interest and at the end of twenty or thirty years his debt is just as great as ever. Something must be done, otherwiio many farmers will become insolvent and leave the country. We were looking for some remedy last year; I believe the Banking and Commerce committee recommended that the Bankruptcy Act be amended, and I would cerlainly advocate that that action be taken as early this session

The Budget-Mr. Milne
as possible. We have thousands of farmers leaving our country and our Dominion simply to get rid of their debts. The creditors might just as well make some arrangement and free these men of their debts, because they will never get anything out of them any other way. Cheaper credits would naturally reduce our cost of production.
Transportation is another big problem and requires immediate attention. When we consider the amount that is taken out of our product in getting it to the ultimate market, we realize how important it is, especially to western farmers, who are located far inland. We have a national railway which was left on our doorstep by private enterprise. I say by all means transfer some of the capital of the National Railways to our national debt or to some other account. I do not know what you would call the "other" account unless you call it the "political bungling" or "campaign" account. I am pretty well convinced that if the government had been true to the people of this country an account of this kind would have been opened long ago. The load that is tied around the neck of the Canadian National Railways has very little to do with the value that is in the National Railways, and I say by all means get rid of that. Until we can get rid of it, we will have to pay interest on the bonds, no doubt. But why burden the National Railway in its management when no private corporation could carry on with that load? If the road had gone through the ordinary- court of bankruptcy we would have had the debt added to our national debt but it would have been off the railway. I say therefore that when transportation is of such vital importance we cannot afford to strangle our carrying system or to allow it to be crushed under any unjust or unfair load.
There is a suggestion that the National Railways should be taken over by the Canadian Pacific, and that is something to which I would be absolutely opposed; I would oppose any such bargain. I do not think it would be in the best interests of this Dominion to have a monopolistic corporation of such magnitude - operating a public utility such as our railways. Perhaps the ideal condition exists to-day from the standpoint of stimulating an efficient management; we have one road privately owned and one road publicly owned, and satisfactory results should accrue from such a condition, if some regulating agency will prevent duplication of service and extravagance of equipment. We cannot allow wasteful competition to continue. I think that there should be some control by
means of which the duplication of train service might be eliminated, and I should also like to see such a measure of control as would cut out some of the extravagance that now obtains in connection with some of our palatial office buildings as well as in the matter of dining car service, hotel service, and Pullman car service. The companies will tell us that the Pullman, dining car and hotel services are run at a loss, and I see no reason why we should continue to carry these conveniences at a loss. If the people who demand this class of accommodation really want it they should pay for it; there is no justice in making the citizen who rides in a day coach and eats from a lunch box pay for the exclusive service which is provided in the Pullman and dining cars and in the hotels. I would advocate action, and immediate action. Last year it was rumoured that something would be done to get the heads of the railways together. Well, they have been together and have parted again, and so far as I know and the Dominion knows we are no further ahead now than we were before in the matter of reducing useless com-pefjtion. Frankly, I do not believe that the heads of the railways would care to have any interference in their affairs; they have a big job and they have a complete staff to do the work, and I do not think they are apt to invite us to interfere with them. But I claim that we should interfere to the extent of regulating things to some degree. If we cannot carry on the two systems under separate management, efficiently by some means of regulation, then by all means let us bring them under one head and make the joint system a publicly owned affair. We cannot continue under existing conditions to lose $50,000,000 a year, when we might be saving at least $100,000,000 a year, according to figures quoted in the House yesterday.
I shall now touch briefly upon the soldier settlement problem, which is of vital interest to the agriculturists of western Canada. I mention western Canada -again because I am more familiar with conditions there than I am with conditions in the east, the same thing might apply in this connection to the newer parts of Ontario and other provinces. Here is the condition of affairs. When the soldiers were established on the land it was necessary to build schools and construct roads; and other things that go to make up a community had to be done. In the province of Manitoba, over twenty-five per cent of these farms have been vacated, and I know certain municipalities in which as high as sixty per cent of
The Budget-Mr. Milne

such lands have 'been abandoned. What load does that throw on the rest of the people who are left there? We have to maintain these school systems and carry on all the community work, and we must keep up the roads that go past the idle farms. This is an absolute burden on the people who are left. The burden becomes almost unbearable. I certainly think that the municipal taxes should be paid by the government on vacated lands. There is an objection to that; it is held that if this were done in one place it would have to be done elsewhere as well. So far as that is concerned, I notice an item in the Auditor General's report which strikes me as being almost parallel with this, that is to say, in the matter of road construction. I understand that in Peterborough the city wanted the street repaired past some of the public buildings there, and the government here appropriated $1,163 for the purpose of carrying out the work. It is held that there was a precedent for this grant, although the Auditor General questioned that claim. Let me ask this question: Is the . city of Peterborough any more entitled to a road past that government property than the people in my municipality are entitled to a road past a quarter section there?
I have endeavoured to show in my remarks that instead of trying to increase the price of the farmers' products we should try to decrease the cost of production, and that this could be brought about by a lower tariff on the implements of production and on the necessaries of life. Cheaper credits and cheaper transportation if possible, would also assist materially in cheapening production. There are other things that have to be considered, and I want to give everyone credit where any credit is due. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is in his seat, because I am going to say that in my opinion the Department of Agriculture and its officials are doing a really valuable work from the point of view of investigation. I do not approve of all that is done on the experimental farms; a good deal of the money spent in this direction could be utilized to better advantage in other ways. The work that has been carried on by the plant and animal pathologists is I think excellent, and we cannot do too much to develop it. We have been so far devoting all our energies to increased production, which is all right; but we should not forget the importance of distribution and marketing. It costs more than half the price of our agricultural products to distribute them to the ultimate consumer; that is, the railway companies, the commission men, the merchants and the retailers get more than the
[Mr. Milne.)
producer. I believe that we should have an economic expert to study the problem of distribution, a system might be evolved by which a considerable saving could be effected. Up to the present time it seems to be nobody's business to bring about economy of distribution; everybody steps in and takes a slice wherever he can, thus adding to the ultimate selling price. I think some of the work that is being done to-day by the Department of Agriculture might well be dropped in favour of a study of a more economic system of distribution. And this study should not be confined to the products of the farm; I think the economic distribution of manufactured goods should be included. It is rather startling to compare the manufacturers' price with the retail price. A short time ago I met the agent for a company that makes trousers, and I was surprised to note the difference between the prices at which he was selling his goods as compared with prices the consumer pays. Therefore I think the manufacturer could well afford to make a careful study of the economic distribution of his products.
I do not propose to discuss the amendment to the budget. To my mind, it is like the chip in the Scotchman's porridge-it does not amount to much. What I would urge most earnestly is this-if we expect conditions to improve in this country we must stop throwing mud at each other, and seek a common basis to solve our national problems.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker,
the period preceding a new budget is always attended by a certain expectant anxiety. Some desire the enforcement of certain restrictions which will protect them against competition; others want greater trade facilities and lower prices on everything necessary to their own industries; every hon. member strives to obtain for- those he represents all that he possibly can to make life pleasant for them. It is the duty of the government to listen to all the representations made, to lend an ear to the legitimate claims of the members of the House of Commons who represent the constituents of the various ridings and then to bring before the House the measures that it considers in the best interests of a majority of the. population of the country. Hence, the budget, whatever its nature, cannot appeal alike to everyone.
Last year the government made certain changes in the tariff which chiefly affected the implements of production necessary to the development of the natural resources of the country. The benefit of these changes accrued

The Budget-Mr. Casgrain
largely to the agricultural community; this was in the nature of an encouragement. One may say that the budget of last year raised the morale of the farming class. The Tories were dissatisfied ; they claimed that the government went too far in reducing the tariff and that the downward revision was contrary to the best interests of the country. This year the government has not touched the tariff; but the Tories are still not pleased and we even hear that a goodly number of the Progressive members who represent a considerable part of the west, are not altogether satisfied either. As regards the Tories particularly, the government has merely followed the advice emanating from that quarter last year, that is, to call a halt in the downward revision of the tariff which the government had begun, to protect the interests of the farmers. This year we have almost completely attained the tariff stability of which there was so much question two years ago, which the opposition demanded then and is still demanding now. I believe it was the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) who said recently in Montreal: "No matter what we do, we shall never be able to satisfy the Tories". I may add that when the Last Judgment comes, when we are about to receive our eternal reward, there will still be critics and malcontents and I feel quite sure that we shall find the Tories among them.
Representing, as I do, a constituency where the chief activities are farming and fishing it is once more my duty this year, as it was last, to support and congratulate the government and more particularly the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the budget brought down in the House. The export duty on electric power is most timely and is in perfect accord with the wise policy of the Quebec provincial government. The decrease in the duties on tackle and other material necessary to our fishermen of the Atlantic and the Pacific and of the lower St. Lawrence is sure to be a great help to this interesting class of our population. The duty on soft coal will benefit our friends of the Maritime provinces without undue interference with the industries in other sections of the country.
There is a new departure in the budget of this year: the Acting Minister of Finance has announced the appointment of a commission to study the tariff. I fully believe that such a commission may be very useful; but may I be allowed to express my humble opinion that the commission's powers should be purely advisory and that it should nowise decide the tariff policy of the government; this to my mind is the absolutely exclusive prerogative
of the representatives of the people in the House of Commons. I therefore accept the second Robb budget, without the slightest reservation, as coming from a wise, prudent, honest and practical man of affairs. It is a budget which gives a reasonable measure of justice to all classes of society. For the second time the hon. minister has had the honour and the pleasure to present to the people of Canada a balanced budget, that is one which shows a surplus of revenue over expenditure, a feature unknown to this country for more than ten years.
Since the beginning of this debate most of the hon. gentlemen who sit immediately to your left, Mr. Speaker, the remnants of the Tory party, have done all they possibly could to paint the economic state of the country in the darkest colours. Were we to believe them, the country is at the end of its tether; the country is ruined! They are the worst calamity howlers one could meet. They are defeatists of the very worst kind and were it not that I mi^ht be accused of exaggerating, I would even say that the attitude they take before the House and before the country, spreading bad news the way they do, is not the attitude of real patriots and true Canadians, irrespective of what may be their race or creed. If a man should have faith in his country, there is assuredly nothing comforting in the attitude taken in this House by the members of the Tory opposition.
Now let us see if what they claim be true. If we look at the newspapers, especially at the financial page, we find1 rather that the country is doing pretty wel after having been through the financial crisis brought on by the war and its aftermath which were so disastrous to our country.
C.P.R. Handles Big Hardware Train Largest Shipment of Dairy and Barn Equipment Ever Sent West
(Special to The Gazette.)
Fergus, Ont., February 22.-The largest shipment of hardw-are ever made in Canada left the plant of Beatty Brothers, Fergus, on Saturday afternoon in a special Canadian Pacific train of 24 cars and was composed of more than 2,000 iron farm pumps, 1,000 step and extension ladders, 1,000 electric and hand washing machines and barn equipment for spring delivery to 700 dealers throughout western Canada, the invoice price of the shipment being more than $150,000.
And further in the same article:
The firm intend shortly to extend their Fergus plant, and will spend many thousands of dollars this year in an extensive advertising campaign.
Therefore the people have confidence.
In the morning Journal of March 24, 1925, Sir George Paish, an authority on economics, stated:

hopes we entertained. Although there is a reasonable surplus on the yearly operations, we must nevertheless each year, disburse millions to help meeting the commitments of all the merged railways, and of which the government guaranteed the payments in becoming owners.
Let me, while on the subject, draw your attention to a strange fact and which, in my opinion, is an injustice towards the province of Quebec. It is, that although the province of Quebec, has never guaranteed any of the National Railways' bonds, not more than those of the Canadian Northern originally owned by Mackenzie and Mann or others, it pays, to-day, a large share of them, through the revenues which the Dominion government levies, in taxes direct or otherwise, from the province of Quebec and the French Canadian tax-payer of that province; and this to the benefit of the province of Ontario, and especially the western provinces, which, years ago, through an unwise policy, entirely pledged themselves by guaranteeing the bonds which they thought they could pay in the future, but which they never were able to meet, and that the Canadian government rendered themselves responsible for, when purchasing the National railways, merged in 1919. Quebec, per capita, has far less railways, than,-and1 not as good a service as,-any of the other provinces of Canada. However, when it comes to being stalled, Quebec is never forgotten. If it becomes necessary to do away with the service of a train, to dispense with a station agent during certain periods of the year, Quebec catches it like the others and as much as the other provinces. If it becomes necessary to extend a platform, to construct a side line necessary for the development and progress in a rural district, Quebec is always refused. Under the plea of economy, the development of certain parts of our province is impeded and prevented. If it is a question of giving a better service to certain parts, as for instance the peninsula of Gaspe, which my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil), has had the honour of representing for a number of years, the excuse is given that it is impossible to do more at present; is it found necessary to build a branch line or a new line needed, as in my district, from Murray Bay to Chicoutimi, it is impossible to do so now because of the deficits which we have to meet. In the district just mentioned, there is space to open up for settlement two or three new parishes, these cannot be established owing to the fact that we must economize so as not to increase the debt of our railways and to make both ends meet. This also prevents, in 
many cases, the members of the province of Quebec from obtaining recognition of certain claims that we have been putting forth for a number of years, and it also prevents us from obtaining the improvement of certain essential services for the development of our districts, for instance, the establishment of a boat service between Murray Bay, Tadoussac and intermediary ports, in Saguenay county, which I have the honour to represent in this House. I state that, when to pay these enormous deficits of our railways which threaten to perpetuate themselves, when, so as not to increase the national debt, we are obliged 'to refuse such works,,, which fare necessary to certain districts, it is more than time to think of doing something to solve this great problem of our railways. It has become, to-day, Sir, the most important question. The government that wall finally solve that problem will secure the universal and everlasting gratitude of the Canadian people.
Many proposals have been submitted. Again, yesterday, I was listening with pleasure to the chairman of the committee on railways, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler), who was giving his views and telling us which, in his opinion, were the three proposals that could be resorted to. I have no technical knowledge as to how railways should be administered. I could not say which of the proposals he advocated yesterday would be the best, but I shall say that the people of this country are looking forward to one thing: the adoption of either of these proposals.
. Only after we have succeeded in dealing properly with this important problem, will the people of this country be satisfied and happy. Some suggested a merger with the Canadian Pacific. I do not know that this would be the best way out, but that company, I believe, whose able management was of such great advantage to this Dominion, could perhaps, to a certain extent, administer this country's railways, provided, however, that the interests of the Canadian people were safeguarded. Sir, there is another question on which I would like to say a few words; this question has been discussed in this House last year and is to come up again this year. It is about a grant to the Quebec Bridge company for the carrying out of improvements which are contemplated on a large scale. Last year a certain amount was voted for preliminary work to be undertaken. The reason given for not voting a larger amount, was because the final plans and estimates were not ready. This year, I believe, everything is ready. As a member

The Budget-Mr. Casgrain
of this House representing a riding, which forms part of the Quebec district, I am in duty bound to ask the government this year to do all in their power to develop the Quebec harbour. The rights of Quebec district should be on a par with those of any other section of the province of Quebec and of any of the other provinces in this Dominion. With the Quebec harbour properly equipped, properly fitted and extended so as to accommodate the large ocean going steamers, it should bring to this country instead of expenses and deficits, a substantial amount of revenue, while such improvements and equipment could not in any way detract from the trade that goes to the port of Montreal. There is, I believe, on the St. Lawrence river, in the province of Quebec, room for two great national harbours, that of Quebec and that of Montreal.
Another point that has been dealt with this y ear perhaps oftener this year than in the past; it was discussed at length by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Hammell) and later, by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Robinson); both these gentlemen suggested that the government should allow a greater amount for the development of the tourist trade in Canada. Coming from a district which a great number of tourists visit each year and to which a great many persons come each year from other parts of Canada, from the States and from every country in the world, I feel that I should join those hon. members and ask the government to advertise more fredly so as to reveal the natural beauties of Charlevoix, Montmorency and Saguenay counties and more particularly the district of Murray Bay where the distinguished Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, spends the summer each year. Some years ago I urged upon the National Railways to carry on a more active campaign to boom this district. I hope that this year, with reduced deficits, the government will be free to vote a handsome amount for publicity work in favour of that district. Last year and in the preceding years, the question of amending the income tax act was referred to. That act, I believe, as it stands to-day, is responsible for a great deal of trouble and handicap for those who honestly and regularly pay their debt tc the country. As it stands, this act offers a way out to those who are anxious to avoid paying the tax. It might well be modified; the government could do away with a few troublesome clauses of the act and, by so doing, increase the amount collected heretofore. Mr. Speaker, to revert to what I said at the outset the Tories complain of the fact that
the expenses of the country were not reduced, that they were increased and that we do nothing to better the conditions that exist in this country in this respect. I have before me the budget for the year ending on the 31st of March, 1926, and I notice a decrease of $6,933,279.38 in the estimates for the year; last year brought also a reduction in the amount expended and so did the preceding year.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) speaking on this question last night, told us that the government always brought down large estimates, and supplementary estimates just as large. He was not telling the whole truth because the government have reduced expenditure as much as they could; they have kept down construction .and public works, and if any had to suffer, it is certainly the members of some rural districts which, in many cases, were obliged to wait until the following or another year, to Obtain what they had requested. Fortunately their electors, who are intelligent .and full of common sense, understood that the government, under the circumstances, could not do more. Therefore, the Tory party is very ill advised to preach a greater economy.
I was listening with pleasure, yesterday, to the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) telling us that he had a great admiration for our public employees, but that the civil service is too overcrowded at present. If the civil service is overcrowded, it is due to the fact that, under the Conservative government, from 1911 to 1921, the departments were packed as much as possible; and moreover, the government, in 1918, 1919 and 1920, seeing election time approaching, had a spurt of energy and brought from the United States certain representatives of the Griffinhagen & Young Co., whose services were retained at enormous fees. These persons were paid the sum of $510,747.83 to carry out the classification of the civil service. Result: when this government came to power, there were as many employees as before the arrival of these Americans, and the government was forced in the first and second year of its administration, to dismiss at least 4,000. In the amount which I just mentioned aibovq, spent for the classification of the civil service under the Tory regime, there is an amount of $162,475.26 which w.as spent for the reorganization ,of the staff of the National Printing Bureau, with the result that three or four hundred French Canadians were dismissed. That was about the only result obtained. The Tories wished to practise economy but only the kind we call penny wise and pound foolish. In fact, today, almost all the work, instead of being done
The Budget-Mr. Casgrain

at the Government Printing Bureau, is awarded outside by contract, and all the departments receive allocations to have the required printing done outside.
There is another subject, Sir, upon which I wish to draw your attention-although tihe thing may not be of any consequence-it is the campaign which the Conservative party have been waging for some time in the province of Quebec. If we criticize the Tories, if we put to the fore all we have to reproach them, and if we praise the government, we are taunted with being prejudiced and acting in a spirit of partisanship. The other day, while travelling to Montreal, I read with pleasure, in a newspaper, which I can call an independent paper Le Droit of Ottawa, an article which if jrou will allow me to read to the House, is as follows:
A Conservative campaign. Strange attitude-The Conservative policy during the war-The heritage bequeathed to the Liberals-Mr. Meighen, imperialist. Mr. RodoLphe Monty must have been inspired when he stated the other day: "We must not examine political questions from the viewpoint of parties, but from the national viewpoint." Himself and the other Conservative speakers unfortunately did not put this excellent advice into practice, when, last Sunday, they placed at the door of this present government all the wrongs, all the political blunders made by the governments -which have succeeded to one another for the last twenty-five years.
They behaved themselves like real partisans, warmed up by the approach of general elections, and wishing to sow among the people suspicion, prejudice, and blame capable of harming the political opponent.
The present government is not perfect. Nobody thinks dt is, not even those composing it. That it is open to criticism, there is nothing astonishing: otherwise it would not be human.
But what takes the wind out of our sails, is that it is the Conservatives who reproach the government for the unstability of the tariff, the treking of the Canadians towards the United States, the upholding of the British preference, the increase in taxation, the raising of our debt, the banishment of the French language, et cetera.
Let us distinguish between a public man who carries on constructive criticism, and the one who through envy or hatred, is always bent in destroying and refuses to give his opponent any merit.
It is always the privilege of one who has erred to acknowledge his mistake and try to make amends for it. But what are we to think of a person, having erred, trying to throw the blame on his neighbour's shoulders? That is of what the Conservative speakers were guilty last Sunday.
Conservatives must have a tremendous amount of cheek or their memory must be very poor to broach the subject of the national debt, the deficits of our railways, the extravagance in the administration of public funds. One should not make painful allusions.
The present government has to face problems of an economic, social and international order, almost without solution. If we take into consideration the political contingencies and the rooted practice of carrying on the government by opportunism and half measures, it is doing the best it can.
However, we must not forget that if we have a national debt which staggers us, it is due to the late government. They are the ones who forced
fMr. Casgrain.]
Canada into an excessive participation in the war, who nationalized the Canadian Northern system, who thus contracted obligations of which we shall never see the end. By coming into power, in 1921, the Liberals did not come into a very enviable heritage. The governments, for years to come, if they wish to balance their budgets, must seek a thousand expedients and expose themselves to criticism.
Instead of endeavouring to amend their blunders, the Conservatives aggravate them by rendering more difficult the task of the present government. They should, however, be the first to help them for the welfare of the country.
However, they will have much to do to blot out from the minds of the people, the remembrance of their participation in the war of 1914, with its consequences: Such as conscription, the national ill-feeling, the increase of our debt, the high cost of living, et cetera. Mr. Meighen's attitude, since the end of hostilities, and still recently, is not of a nature to lead us fro believe that the Conservatives, in the event of another war, would be more thoughtful of the Canadian interests.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: On what
date was this article published?


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: April 24,
1925. Mr. Speaker, certain passages of this article which I have just read fit the Conservatives like a glove. The hat fits splendidly the leader and other members of the opposition party who sit directly on your left, Sir.
It is very strange, Sir, that in the speeches delivered in this House, by certain leaders of the Tory party, nothing has been suggested to remedy this state of things that these gentlemen so much deplore. The amendment itself which was moved by the ex-Minisfer of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) is not of a nature to bring relief to the ills which are said to exist to-day.
When we consider the financial situation in which the country found Itself when the present government came to power, it is astonishing to note what the government have been able to accomplish. I state that the members of the government are giants for having been able to so well adminster public affairs in so difficult circumstances. Although there are always people ready to criticize and never satisfied, so long as they have not obtained the last cent, the pound of flesh contracted for, I have too much confidence in the people of the province of Quebec and those of the other provinces of Canada, as to not be convinced that, when the day of reckoning comes, the people will, once more, remember the administration of the leader of the opposition, that they will separate the tares from the wheat, and on the voting day, they will mark their ballots as they did in 1921, in favour of the present government.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City):: Mr. Speaker, during the discussion on the bud-

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
get the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) made the statement that the manufacturers of logging equipment on the Pacific coast had not suffered to any considerable [DOT] extent as a result of the cuts in the tariff made last year. On that occasion he referred particularly to a firm known as the Vancouver Machinery Depot, Limited1. I find on inquiry that this is not a manufacturing firm but is rather a firm that is dealing in American machinery and in machinery from the Old Country; it is also agent for one eastern Canadian firm. It has nine agencies,
I understand, of which six are American firms, so that quite naturally under those conditions it is in favour of cuts in the tariff.
With regard to the effect of the tariff reductions in these particular commodities, let me say that early in 1924 tenders were called by the Victoria Lumber Company of Chemainus, on Vancouver island, one of the largest logging organizations in the whole Dominion. Bids were entered by Canadian firms, but when it was learned that the tariff reductions had been made on 5 p.m. April 11, 1924, the order was immediately placed with the Diamond Iron Works Company of Minneapolis, and the contract amounted to some-think like $200,000. I have here copy of a wire from the Metal Trades Employers section of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, dated at Vancouver, April 17, 1925, addressed to Hon. J. H. King, Minister of Public Works. It states:
Companies here actually engaged manufacture of logging and saw mill equipment strongly deprecate statements ascribed to you in local press recently as to the effect on industry of tariff reduction, more particularly as your remarks were based on information supplied to you by principal of firm here who are not and do not claim to be manufacturers and who do not even hold sales tax license but who are jobbers principally of Americal equipment, and whose interests naturally dictate the maintenance of the lowest possible tariff basis to facilitate their sale of imported equipment, irrespective of indisputable serious effect of low tariff in curtailing and discouraging efforts bona fide local manufacturers logging and saw mill equipment.
I have also a letter here from the Britannia Wire Rope Company, Limited of Vancouver, manufacturers of toire ropes, wire products and modern logging equipment, dated at Vancouver, April 14, 1925. It says:
Hugh Dalton, Esq.,
Secretary, Canadian Manufacturers Association,
Pender Street, Vancouver, B.C.
Dear Sir,-
As an indication of just how this juggling with the customs tariff by the Mackenize King administration at Ottawa is affecting young industries such as ours struggling to establish itself, the following figures may be of interest.
In our machine and blacksmith shop, whose work is devoted entirely to the logging industry, 31 men were employed in March 1924, at a monthly payroll of $3,046.73. In March 1925 it was the utmost we could do to find employment for 20 men, with a payroll totalling $1,700.32.
Comment is needless. These figures speak for themselves. If, however, there is any further informatior you desire, or any manner in which we may be oi service to you in bringing home just how much th< reduction in tariff is affecting the workers of the community, we shall be only too glad to have you call upoi us.
Yours very truly,
Britannia Wire Rope Co. Ltd.
T. S. Campbell,
General Manager.
No further comment is necessary, I think, under the circumstances.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: If I might interrupt for just a moment, my hon. friend is placing on Hansard certain observations made by manufacturers in western Canada to refute a statement I made in the House some weeks ago, when I met the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in which he claimed, not that they had been injured, but that the factories had been closed and wiped out. That is not so. There are only two logging concerns in the city of Vancouver who make logging cars, and they are continuing business to-day, and have not been wiped out.


Mr. CLARK:: Are they manufacturing
logging cars to-day?


John Warwick King: Yes, they are.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I just brought this to the attention of the House so that we might know the truth. That is all we want. We do not want any unfair advantage at all in connection with matters of this kind.
Now with regard to the budget, I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that after listening to the discussion of the budget for several weeks as we have done, we feel that after all people living in one part of Canada know very little about the particular conditions under which people live in other parts of Canada distant from where they are located. It ha3 brought to our attention from day to day the absolute necessity for us to know more about the general conditions of the country, so that when we come to discuss matters in this House we can look at them and take them up in more of a national way rather than in a provincial way. I do not know of anything that would be of greater benefit to us than to possess this knowledge and this viewpoint. Some few years ago I proposed dn some remarks I was making here that it would be to the great advantage of this country if, after
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

an election, the members were afforded an opportunity of moving from one end of the country to the other and meeting various organizations, chambers of commerce, boards of trade, and so forth, so as to familiarize themselves as much as possible with the conditions throughout Canada, and: then when gathering in this House they would be in a position to discuss the matters brought up here in a much more intelligent way than they are able to do at present.
If there is one other thing that is of great importance to this country, it is the creation of a national spirit, and the stimulation of a feeling of pride that we are Canadians and proud of our country, as we should be. I think we might certainly take a lesson in that respect from our neighbours to the south in the way they celebrate the fourth of July. If we could fill our Canadians with the same enthusiasm for the first of July that the Americans display on the fourth, so that they would celebrate it in the way in which it should be celebrated, I am sure we would be rendering a great service to this whole country. Somebody interjects "The twelfth of July." Well, that would be extra.
I think I am on perfectly safe ground when I call attention to the fact that we are in need of all the business increases that we can secure in this country. We should develop every possible line which will promise to bring us revenue, at the same time reducing our expenses to the greatest possible extent and practising economy within the country. I propose to-day to call attention to just a few points in connection, with which I think this might be profitably done.
On the 22nd of September, 1922, our American friends introduced what is known as the Fordney tariff. Up to that time the tariff on agricultural products coming into Canada from the United States, and the tariff on the other side of the line on Canadian products going into the United States were practically equal, with a very few exceptions. But when the Fordney tariff was introduced, we find that their tariff on the other side was raised very much, and there has been no compensating raising of the tariff on this side of the line, and this government has permitted those conditions to go on from year to year, bringing down budget after budget, without ever meeting the situation. I think if we want prosperity in this country, one of the first things that we might do would be to bring our tariff on agricultural products up to that of the United States. After all, the diversified farmer in this country is naturally a protectionist, with very few ex-

ceptions indeed. If he is not when he begins, he soon will be when he has met a little of the unfair competition I propose to call attention to to-day.
I was pleased with one phase of the budget, and that was the proposition to create a tariff board. No tariff should be administered in such a way as to enable any person, either a manufacturer or a farmer, to take unfair advantage of the protection afforded to him, and if this tariff board is carefully selected, if the personnel is such that, it will be able to function intelligently and without any political influence, then a real service will be given to the consumers of Canada, to the farmers, and also the manufacturers. After all, all that the farmer asks in connection with the administration of the tariff is absolute fair play, fair play and equalization of the tariff so that it is just as much a protection to him as it is to other parts of the country.
Taking the commodity of eggs, one that is common to all farms where diversified farming is carried' on, I would like to call attention, Mr. Speaker, to the unfair competition that the Canadian farmer suffers from in this direction. In the first place, there is a tariff of 8 cents a dozen on eggs produced in Canada going into the United States, while we charge only 3 cents a dozen on eggs coming the other way. I have been engaged in the poultry business as a side line on my farm out west, and I know a little bit about the cost of production of eggs under varying seasonal conditions. Now the unfair competition that the Canadian producer has to meet is simply this:	During the months of January.
February, and March, we import into this country immense quantities of eggs from the United States. At that very time our Canadian producers are under mid-winter conditions, requiring a better and more expensive poultry house in which to keep their poultry and protect them from the cold, richer and more expensive feeds to keep up the bodily heat, and in addition to that, anyone who has any experience in the poultry business will know that under these mid-winter conditions you do not receive nearly the production from the hens that you do-under early spring conditions. Now while our Canadian farmer is labouring along in the face of those obstacles and those high expenses, the American producer of eggs in the southern states, and particularly in California, is enjoying during these same months excellent spring conditions when the output is very much increased. As you all know, the greater the output per hen the less the cost per dozen eggs, so the American producer has a decided advantage

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
over his northern competitor. Advantage is taken of these conditions by our Canadian buyers who buy eggs to put in cold storage for the winter supply. Knowing they can secure these American eggs during these early months of the year, they are not particular to put into storage as large a quantity as they might otherwise do if they were faced with an 8-cent tariff, and the result is that when hens on this side are producing eggs in quantity and the eggs have reached a low price, these buyers come forward, secure these eggs and place them in storage, being careful and anxious only to have enough to carry them to that period when the American eggs will be coming in. In that way the local producer of eggs is handicapped. If he were protected with an 8-cent tariff, the local buyers would be careful to put in a much larger quantity, and this would have the effect of stiffening the price on the Canadian side.
Now, to show you the importance of this industry, let me say that in 1924 the value of Canadian egg products was 856,822,439, and of poultry products, including poultry meat, in the same year 8106,266,756; or in dozens the Canadian hen produces 238,648,685, while in the United States the production reached the huge quantity of 2,196,194,000 dozen. The Canadian consumption of eggs averages about 26 dozen per year per capita while in the United States the per capita consumption is only about 19.36 dozen. It will be seen from these figures how easy it is, under certain trade conditions, for the United States producer to flood this market. Now let us see what we import from the United States, and also what we export to that country. In 1923-24 we imported from the United States eggs to the value of $1,961,477, and in the same year we exported to that country only $49,458 worth. In 1922-23 we imported from the United States 82,494,650 worth, and we exported during the same year 898,181 worth, showing a very distinct and large balance in favour of the United States. The question that I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, under these conditions is: Would it not be good sound sane business to increase our tariff to 8 cents a dozen, and to save and conserve for the Canadian producer the great amount of business I have just mentioned?
But the government, not satisfied with the competition met by our poultry producers from the United States, have also allowed them to be brought into competition at a very low tariff with our oriental friends on the other side of the Pacific. During the early months of the year we imported from oriental 162
points 3,500 cases of eggs. Of this number 2,500 cases graded as seconds, which is really the fourth grade of eggs in this country. One thousand of these cases could find no grade whatever; they were of such bad quality they were of no use to Canada and they were sent to New York. In this particular connection I beg to offer a resolution from the Surrey Farmers' Institute, a farmers' institute located on the Fraser river at Clover-dale, British Columbia, which resolution is signed by H. Bose, secretary. With the permission of the House I should like to place this resolution on Hansard.
Whereas there has developed, due to natural conditions, a large poultry industry in the lower part of British Columbia, to such an extent that a very important trade is being established with the prairie and eastern provinces of the Dominion.
And whereas this industry owned and controlled by small farmers is placed at a great disadvantage and being seriously handicapped by reason of the flooded importation of eggs into Canada from both the United States and China which uncontrolled by regulations completely demoralizes the markets.
And whereas the freight rate on grain for export is *22J cents, as against the domestic rate of ,41i cents, a difference of $3.80 a ton.
And whereas the duty on eggs imported into Canada is only three cents per dozen as against that of a duty of eight cents per dozen on eggs exported into the United States.
Now therefore we your petitioners humbly solicit the earnest consideration on the part of yourself and your department to the equalization of the duty, the marking of all foreign eggs with the name of the country of origin, and a uniform freight rate, believing that in so doing a more stable market will be maintained and the public best served.
Our Canadian producers also suffer in another direction, largely owing to climatic conditions. We import early vegetables into this country by the millions. This is a very important industry. Many of those engaged in it require considerable skill, and much hard work is necessary in connection with the business. The men who operate in this particular line are perhaps the most intelligent of those working on the land, and they need adequate protection. Owing to the fact that vegetables produced to the south come on the market so much earlier than Canadian early vegetables the demand for early vegetables has already been pretty well satisfied with the result that the Canadian producers do not reap the high prices they otherwise would secure. In addition to that they are met with the competition from mid-season districts after the first flush of the season is over, when the grower in the United States has obtained already his high prices and is bent on getting rid of his surplus stock. Towards the end of the season these cheaper products are brought into Canada and enter

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

United States and 80,000,000 in Australia, and hon. gentlemen will realize the position.
A great factor in stabilizing the sheep industry in this country would be the placing of the wool market on a good sound foundation. I think that would have a greater effect in stabilizing the sheep industry in Canada than anything else. We have at present a varying price for wool.


Mr. BALDWIN:: I desire to ask the hon.
gentleman simply for information; is it not my hon. friend's opinion that the greatest curse, and hindrance to sheep raising in this country, is the dog nuisance, which brings no revenue to anybody?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, we have dogs troubling us to a great extent out west, but out in my district we have learned to shoot with a forty-five calibre rifle, and we always keep a horse and rifle ready for use at any time, so that if a dog enters your premises he becomes the object of your attention. I may say that out in British Columbia the dog nuisance got so bad that a provincial law was passed allowing a farmer to shoot a dog which happened to be on his premises where sheep were kept, if the dog did not have an attendant with him. Many dogs disappeared after this law was passed, and nobody knew where they wTent. Out in British Columbia we have no objection to a man owning dogs and chasing sheep with them, providing he owns the sheep himself.
We also have trouble with the coyote and in the coyote section out on the prairies and British Columbia we have to care for our sheep under herded conditions. In the open country a man will herd two or three thousand sheep a day, but in British Columbia a man will only handle about a thousand sheep.
I have heard that people will not go into the sheep business on account of the coyote; but by making proper provision, putting up fences and taking other precautions you can protect your sheep against depredations of the coyote. The hon. gentleman has placed his finger on one of the chief dangers that we have to encounter out west. However, I have always thought that there was enough money in the sheep business to stand that loss.
We imported last year about 5,205,926 pounds of wool. We can practically produce now nearly all the kinds of wool that are necessary, with perhaps very few exceptions. However, we should make an attempt to produce at home the very kind we import at the present time.

On the prairies they are now producing the Rambouillet merino wool and they are producing a very much better quality than formerly. On May 27, 1923, when speaking on the budget I called attention to the fact that there was a fifteen per cent tariff on our statute books on combed wool, and that this had never yet been put into effect. I pointed out that year that we were in competition at that time with the bonused combed wool from Australia and from Japan, and nobody can ever hope to compete with the Chinese or Japanese successfully. In this particular instance, again the farmer has been permitted to hustle for himself, as he has in connection with the matter of eggs, and also in connection with early vegetables. I would strongly urge on the government that they put this provision into effect. I should like to put on Hansard a letter I have received from the Dominion Combing Mills, Limited, dealing with this very matter. The letter reads:
Dominion Combing Mills Limited Top Makers
Commission Merchants and Wool Brokers Toronto
April 23rd, 1925.
Hon. S. F. Tolmie,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir:-
1.	Are you aware of the fact that the action of the Department of Customs in not enforcing the Customs Act is equivalent to discrimination against our firm.
2.	Items 555 and 556 of Customs tariff are not being enforced.
3.	The Commissioner of Customs and his staff are aware of this and admit the facts.
4.	This duty was placed on the statute to encourage someone to establish a key industry.
5.	After investigating the matter and being assured there was a duty on wool tops, we established the finest combing mill in the world at Trenton, Ontario, capable of taking care of the entire requirements of all the worsted spinners in Canada.
6. Over 15,000 citizens of Canada are financially interested in the success of this company and all the wool growers in Canada, and numerous other industries, will profit by its success.
7. The failure of the government to enforce and collect the duty as called for, means a loss of over half a million dollars a year in revenue, on wool and wool tops, and a severe hardship to the shareholders in this company.
8.	The officials of the department claim that they cannot enforce this duty without instructions from the Finance Minister.
9.	As one of the law makers of this country, will you please call the attention of the Finance Minister of the unfairness to us in this matter, and use your best influence to have the law properly administered.
Yours sincerely,
A. E. Rea,
President.
The prospects for the production of sheep in the immediate future are very good. We

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
have assurances that there is a shortage of wool in the world at the present time amounting to about 395,000,000 pounds. Every effort should be made to improve the quality of our wool and also of our sheep and meat products. The best way to do this is by the distribution of pure bred sires, but we are met with the obstacle of the tremendous increase in our freight rates and you can understand a man not washing to buy one sheep for the purpose of improving his stock when it will cost him a considerable sum to have that animal shipped to him. He could afford to do that years ago, but now the freight charges render it almost impossible for him to obtain these sires.
I should like to urge as strongly as I can the advisability of co-operating with the provincial government and the Live Stock Associations clubbing together and buying in carload lots pure bred animals, so that they might be shipped to the nearest point for distribution, and sent to their destination either in automobiles or by express. I might suggest also that the distribution of new breeding stock might be carried on in the same way, and I am quite sure that in building up this industry we are working, on perfectly sound ground. I have no doubt that it will add greatly to the value of agriculture in Canada if we can get our people thoroughly interested in sheep.
With regard to the swine industry, the market at the present time can be said to be good, indeed, it is much better than it was a little while ago. And it is interesting to note that hog raising is coming into greater favour than it was a few years ago. When this industry was first introduced it met with a good deal of opposition simply because our farmers did not understand the situation and1 did not appreciate the absolute necessity for placing on the British market such animals as would secure for the producers of Canada the highest possible price. There is no use trying to fool the Englishman about what he will eat; he knows more about that than anybody else in the world. I listened with interest to the discussion that took place with regard to the estimates for live stock when they were under consideration, and it was pointed out that it would be a great favour to some of the producers of hogs in this country if we did not tie them down so closely to weights in the production of the Wiltshire sides which the British market requires. It was proposed that there should be a little latitude, that the farmers might be allowed an extra ten or fifteen pounds of weight in the hogs they raised. That would be all right for the producer but it would not produce the kind
of hog which the Britisher wants; and the price would be immediately cut down.
I think we should hurry up the hog industry; if one thing should be speeded in the whole live stock business it is this particular industry, if we are to secure a sound footing on the British market. If we want to get such a market we must increase the volume of our output. To-day the British market desires not only a steady but a uniform supply and of sufficient volume to keep it interested. Why is there need of haste at the present time? It is necessary for this reason. We find that Russia, a great grain producing country, has regained her feet and she will be in the market shortly looking for a place for her surplus products. Then we must remember that Poland has a hog population of eight to ten million; in that country there will be a production of some five million hogs every year which will be thrown upon the market. In comparison with this, we have altogether in Canada only about.
4,800,000	hogs. And Sweden is also aiming at a place in the British market. So that if we can increase the volume of our hog output and send the right sort of animal, and if by this means we can once get located firmly on the British market, there will be little chance of these other countries dislodging us. But we can only do this by means of education among our farmers and demonstrations that will show exactly what kind of hog is necessary.
I am glad the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is here, because when we were discussing the live stock estimates he was good enough to promise that some day he would have a demonstration carried out either at the experimental farm or at one of the packing houses to indicate exactly what a bacon hog was. That demonstration would show just what kind of animals should be produced and what the British market requires. This is an excellent opportunity for the minister to put that promise into effect. There are a number of men here who are making their living on farms, besides others who are interested generally in farming, and if such a demonstration were carried out there would be missionaries who would carry the information to the four corners of the country. I sincerely hope therefore that the minister will take advantage of the opportunity he has and will see that this is done some time before the close of the session.
There is no reason at all why we should not be in a position to beat our competitors in the British market, even such a competitor as Denmark. By strict attention to business
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

and a careful study of the types required in Great Britain Denmark farmers have been able to establish a market in the United Kingdom second to none. On the average they receive probably the highest prices the year round for their bacon. But we should be able to beat Denmark in this direction for the reason that to-day they are importing over sixty per cent of the grain necessary for the production of these hogs as well as for the production of butter, whereas in Canada we grow our own grain and ship our product in the more concentrated form of bacon and also in the shape of butter. If what I have said is of importance, I would suggest that if we are to speed up production we should take this opportunity of promoting, in the manner I have described in discussing the shipping question, the distribution of breeding stock so as to stimulate and increase the volume of our output at the earliest date.
I come now to the cattle situation. I am glad to note that there has been a steady increase in our exports to Great Britain particularly after thirty years of fighting, on the part of both Liberal and Conservative governments, for the removal of the cattle embargo. In 1922 our exports of cattle to Great Britain numbered 18,475 head; in 1923 it had increased to 56,672; and in 1924 we shipped overseas 79,435 head. In addition to this there has been a slight improvement in prices. A very interesting fact that has developed in connection with the beef industry of the world, and something that was quite unexpected a short time ago, I might here refer to. In 1921 prices dropped over fifty per cent and cattle were produced at a loss in Australia, New Zealand and South America owing to the low market in Great Britain. What caused the change? The surplus in 1924 has entirely disappeared and the outlook at the present time for the cattle producer is better than it has been for some time. It was so bad in the Argentine in 1922 that they destroyed on birth hundreds of thousands of calves; and besides this, the pastoral lands given over to the grazing of cattle have been ploughed up in many instances and now cereals are being produced. The continent of Europe, up until the war, consumed mostly pork; they imported more pork than anything else. Since the war, however, they have learned to eat beef, and fortunately they have learned to use frozen beef. This is all the more fortunate for those producers south of the equator. That the people of Europe are satisfied to take frozen beef is due to the fact that they boil or stew their meat, adding flavourings of various kinds that disguise the taste, so that they do

not notice the difference between frozen and fresh beef, as the Englishman discovered years ago. This trade in Europe has increased to an enormous extent; whereas in 1922 the people there consumed 113,240 tons of frozen beef, they bought 223,000 tons in 1923, and the consumption increased in 1924 to 459,000 tons. This meat has been used by France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Holland, Czecho-Slovakia, Austria and Germany, and the trade appears to be on a fairly permament footing. This meat, finding another outlet, is not forced on the British market, and the result is that the Britisher will have to pay a slightly increased price for his meats, and 'Canada will benefit in consequence. The consumption of frozen beef on the continent has had an interesting effect on the United States, who are finding that so far as their pork shipments to that part of the world are concerned there has been a reduction of some fifty per cent. Now, our farmers can help themselves to a great extent in the beef industry. In fact I think they should always take the position-if I may be allowed to offer suggestions, having been in the ousiness all my life-they should take the position of helping themselves, of doing their best, under all conditions. While they can look for a certain amount of assistance from the government and from the live stock associations, after all what they do themselves is what actually counts. During certain periods of the year, particularly the months of October, November and December, if you take a trip out through that western prairie country, you will find trainloads of skinny cattle being shipped to market; they are only half fat and many of them are of very poor quality indeed. Improving the breed of our cattle has made very fair progress in past years until to-day it has reached the point-and I think the minister will agree with me-where it is more important to see that the animals are properly fed before they reach the market. The farmer can assist himself to a very great extent by properly fattening his cattle. There is another way whereby he can improve his position, and that is by avoiding crowding all his cattle on the market during the months I have mentioned; he should scatter them over the winter period and on into the spring. If he will do that he will be able to get better prices, wherever that is possible. I know that in certain sections intelligent farmers are buying these half-fat cattle, feeding them and selling them at a very fair profit.
Concerning immigration, which is linked up very closely not only with agriculture but also with our national prosperity, I quite agree with those members who have said it is nonsense

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
to bring settlers into this country on any large scale to compete with those who are already here unless we can assure them a good living. Immigrants, however, are not nearly so easy to secure as they were a few years ago. With our national debt of two and a half billion dollars, with only four people to the square mile, and with 22,000 miles of government owned railway on which there is an annual deficit of from 860,000,000 upwards, you will see how necessary it is that we should fill up our vacant spaces if we are to put our railways on a sound basis and be able to meet our obligations. There are two or three ways in which our railways might be placed on a paying basis. Perhaps one way, the least to be desired, would be for the Canadian National to compete with its great competitor, the Canadian Pacific, in such a way as to obtain from it a sufficient amount of business to attain a paying position. This would be very unfortunate indeed, because I think the Canadian Pacific Railway to-day deserves great credit for what it has accomplished. It is one of the greatest organizations of its kind in the whole world. If one of our great transcontinental systems were to profit at the expense of the other it would be very unfortunate for the whole country. The next way would be to settle our land, fill up the intervening spaces so as to get revenue for the railways from the land adjacent to their lines. This will be necessary even if a certain degree of amalgamation or working arrangement is brought about between the two lines. I am heartily in favour of some sort of agreement that will operate these railways at a lower cost and so reduce the deficit. I think it is a far better plan for us to sit down and try to work out a proposition of this kind than to continue year after year to pay railway deficits.
In connection with immigration, the prairies have received most attention in the past. To-day we hear complaints from various parts of the country, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific as to why immigrants do not come here now as they did before the war. In the first place, intending immigrants are met with heavy fare, very much greater than it used to be. At the present time to bring over a man and his wife and four children from some point in Europe to the prairie sections of this country costs at least $450. In addition to that, the immigrant would require at least $1,000 to make any kind of a start on a farm. If he has this money, whether he lives in the Old Country or on the continent of Europe, but particularly in the latter, he is in a position, under present conditions there, to be "somebody" and perhaps can do just as well at home as by emigrating. Canada can absorb an immense number of agricultural labourers and farmers, but we have reached the point where these men have not got the money to come, even if they desired to. It has been suggested by some that we should adopt the open door policy, that is, allow immigrants to come in unchecked. This in my opinion would be a very unfortunate policy. In the first place, we would fill up the country with a class of people whom we do not desire at all, and we would be seriously increasing our unemployment and adding to our bread line in the winter time, for many of such immigrants would soon become a public charge. Moreover, I think it is only fair to assume that we would simply become the back door to the United States for those immigrants who had enough ginger to move across the line if they were not satisfied to remain here. Now, we would like to secure Scandinavians. I have seen them do remarkably well in the western United States, particularly in the state of Washington, and also in western Canada, where I have an opportunity to observe them. They are hard workers, careful, and usually very thrifty. But Sweden, Norway and Denmark discourage emigration altogether, and do not permit the spreading of propaganda within their borders. The United States has been the source of our immigrants for a number of years, but conditions have changed there considerably, and during the last four years the western states particularly have been pretty well combed by our immigration agents without very great success. After the great boom during the war, when farming paid high prices and when the value of land went up to $150 and $200 an acre, there was the usual crash such as usually follows an experience of that kind, and over one hundred thousand farmers in the western states, particularly in those sections where the single-crop system of farming is carried on, drifted away to the cities. In addition there were a great number of bank failures. Now, many farmers in those sections who would like to come to this country are so heavily mortgaged that they cannot sell out and secure enough capital to move anywhere.
Therefore, under present conditions the British Isles offer the best field for the development of immigration. But even there we find that in many cases they are hard put to it after the war, and for lack of means cannot move out to this country to establish themselves. The British government, recognizing this fact, in 1921 passed legislation
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The reports from the agricultural experiment stations situated in the provinces I have mentioned indicate that these lands are of a very fertile nature, and that they are quite capable of sustaining the thousands of farmers who wish to engage in diversified farming, being well adapted for dairying, for live stock raising, for poultry raising, and so forth, as well as being able to produce large amounts of fodder for carrying live stock through the winter season. I might point out that in addition to the fertile soil situated in these districts I have mentioned, there is an ample supply of water, plenty of rainfall so as to assure crops every year, ample timber for building fences, houses and bams, plenty of fish and game in many of these districts, and in addition there is an opportunity for the man *who is getting under way, and who possesses only a small capital, to engage in work in the various camps, lumber camps, tie camps, mining camps, fishing camps and so forth, so that part of the year he can put in on his farm and the balance of the time be earning a little ready money if he so desires.
Some one of you may perhaps shake your head at the proposition of a man going on to a bush farm in Canada at this time, but let me just point out that this great country was opened up by the pioneers who went on to the bush farms, and who cleared them up under much more adverse circumstances than are offered to the men who engage in that line of work at this time. In those days their markets were very limited indeed. They were also badly handicapped for transportation. They had1 no railways, and in many cases no roads, and sometimes the roads they had were of very poor quality, but in spite of all these handicaps, being men of spirit, they went on to these farms, raised large families, and they were the predecessors of

some of the most prominent business men in Canada at this time. In those days they disposed of their dressed pork in some eases at 2} cents a pound, eggs at 15 cents a dozen, and butter at a very low price, and they had to take most of it out in trade at the country stores, so they were entirely at the mercy of the storekeeper. The man taking up one of these farms to-day will be in a much more favourable position, inasmuch as his markets are very much better, his means of transportation much better, and in no way can his lot foe compared with that of the earlier settler to whom I have referred. Of course to engage in this line of work we would not want a class of farmer who would farm in the summer time and be a tourist in California during the winter. To begin with, he would have to be a man who would be willing to work, and in the second place the fact that he was the right kind of man and that he was engaged all the year round would keep him much better satisfied than it would the man who is only engaged for a portion of the year. This settlement is most important to the progress of this country, and it is particularly important in connection with placing our railway problem on a satisfactory basis. It is also important to the preservation of confederation, so as to link up the Atlantic with the prairies on the one hand .and the Pacific with the prairies on the other. This is a matter, as I have said, of great importance to this country. The federal government in my opinion should take very keen interest in it and by co-operation with the provincial governments and with the Old Country government-for	the latter are
anxious, as I pointed out to-day, to send settlers to this country-they should be able to accomplish a great deal of valuable work in this direction. When we have solved the problem of bringing the different sections of the country closer together under mutually satisfactory conditions, then we will have solved many of the other questions which we have under consideration at this time. I think in this connection the federal government might go to the extent of largely engaging in the financing of this colonization scheme, and money spent in that direction I think would be money very well spent.
Now, while I have said something about the importance of immigration to this country, let me touch on one other very important point, and that is the preservation of the young Canadians who are bom here. I want to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a few rather interesting figures in reference to infant mortality in Canada. And
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
here let me say that after all, the Canadian makes the very best settler on the land that we could possibly get. Now the average rate of infantile mortality in sixteen countries is as follows:
Per thousand
Canada	 86.8
Australia	 52.7
Austria	 156.8
Belgium	 115.3
British Isles	 79.4
Denmark	 85.4
Finland	 94.6
France	 122.7
Germany	 133.8
Japan	 168.3
The Netherlands	  67.3
New Zealand	 41.9
Norway	 57.9
Sweden	 64.6
Switzerland	 74
United States	 75.6
In the infant deaths per thousand of the population you will find here that Canada is in the eleventh position. In the nine provinces of the Dominion you find the infantile mortality to be as follows:
British Columbia	 66.8
Alberta	 94.5
Saskatchewan	 93.5
Manitoba	 85.6
Ontario	 84.9
New Brunswick	 106.4
Nova Scotia	 97.8
Prince Edward Island	 88.9
Showing British Columbia with the lowest
infantile mortality of 66.8. Now, the last records for eleven cities of 40,000 and over in Canada are the records of 1922, and they are as follows:
Victoria	 45.1
Toronto		90.4
Winnipeg	 77.5
Vancouver	 58.5
Hamilton	 87.8
Ottawa	 129.8
Calgary	 80.5
London	   91.9
Edmonton	 89
Halifax	 134.5
St. John, N.B	 146.9


Mr. MERCIER:: What was the percentage for Quebec?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have no statistics at all for Quebec, I am sorry to say.


Paul Mercier: Do you conclude that
there are none?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have not come to any
conclusion on that point; the fact is I have none here. Now in this particular case Victoria is shown with 45.1, the lowest infantile mortality. That was in 1922, but in 1924 Victoria broke all the records in this particular connection by reducing her infantile mortality
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

to 31.1 per thousand. At the great Child Welfare Conference held in London last year there were no mortality figures, urban or rural, that came within twice this figure shown at Victoria. The point I wish to make plain to the House is, that this result has not been attained by chance. Victoria has a very live medical health officer and he has worked out a plan for an absolutely clean milk supply, or as nearly as possible. In 1922 the infantile' mortality in that city was 45.1. That was reduced to 44.1 in 1923, and in 1924 to 31.1. As a further proof of the quality of the milk supplied in that city let me say that in 1924 not a single infant death was due to digestive trouble. The medical health officer there has had the close co-operation of the Victorian Order of Nurses, an organization that is very well known for the excellent work that it does. Together they carried on a eompaign of education in the care of young babies. The Victorian Order of Nurses educates mothers on pre-natal care with the result that from
1,000	births the death rate of infants bom alive but incapable of sustaining life totalled 34.4 in 1922, 25.4 in 1923, and only 17.8 in 1924, indicating the great value of this work.
.Now I do not believe that the excellent showing made by British Columbia is the result of chance merely. Let me say in that particular province we have carried out tuberculin testing of dairy herds, and have insisted on good sanitation in the dairies for a very much longer period than any other province in the Dominion, with the result that many of the herds have been clear of tuberculosis for very many years. The record that Victoria has shown, however, is but another added attraction to a city that has already become famous for its wonderful climate, its purity of air, its general healthiness and natural beauty, all of which make it one of the most attractive cities in the world. What has been accomplished in the city of Victoria, and in the province of British Columbia, can be accomplished everywhere else. I should like to see the federal government give every possible assistance to this work, particularly to such organizations as the Victorian Order of Nurses, and especially to give assistance to the Minister of Agriculture in securing the needed money to carry on tuberculin testing in Canada so as to make our herds as clean as possible, because I believe there is nothing more important in this country than the saving of our young life.
In the early part of my remarks this afternoon I made the statement that if there was one thing Canada needed more than another it was business-that we should encourage

every possible source of revenue that we can. In this particular connection we have a very important business engaging our attention in this country, one that is growing very rapidly, one that last year was responsible for bringing $136,000,000 into Canada. I refer to the tourist traffic coming to the Dominion during the summer months. As I have said our income from that source in 1924 is estimated at $136,000,000 divided among the provinces as follows:
British Columbia	 $36,000,000
Alberta	 20,000,000
Saskatchewan and Manitoba	 10,000,000
Ontario	 30,000,000
Quebec	   30,000,000
Maritime provinces	 10,000,000
The. national parks are estimated to be responsible for an income of $21,000,000 while the cost for their administration was only
81,250,000.	It is estimated that tourists brought into southern California in 1924 no less than $148,000,000 of business. There is another very striking statement fmade by Californians, and it is to the effect that 75 per cent of the settlers and investors in that state first came to California as tourists, indicating that the tourist traffic is of the very greatest possible value as an advertising medium. In fact it may well be said that many of the tourists to-day will be settlers in the country in a short time. I may say in this connection that it helps to promote a very much better feeling between the two countries which lying side by side, have maintained peaceful relations for a hundred years, and improves our international relations. The federal government, perhaps noting the importance of this work and the magnitude to which it should grow within the next few years, might render I think a certain amount of assistance by advertising on a somewhat large scale at the seasons of the year best suited to attracting tourists to this country.
There is one other important thing the federal government can do, and that is to remove every possible impediment that confronts the tourist when he comes to this country. At the present time it is possible to climb into an automobile in this city and motor to Sault Ste. Marie, go into the United States and enter Canada again at Emerson, Manitoba. From there you can ride to Princeton, British Columbia in the western end of the Similkameen country, and there you can go into the United States and up to Blain, Washington and then back to British Columbia. The government of British Columbia at the present time is constructing a piece of highway over the Fraser canyon

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
and through the beautiful Hell canyon, one of the finest bits of scenery in British Columbia. When this road is completed, as it will be in a very short time, it will be possible to motor from Emerson, Manitoba, not only to Vancouver but further into the prairie country. Now the length of time allotted to an American tourist coming into the country at the present time is thirty days. He has to report out at the end of that time or secure an extension. If he is going to stay in the country longer he is supposed to put up a bond of $25. I have had several communications from the west in which the parties express a strong desire to have this period extended from one to three months, so as to permit the tourist to come in from the east, take time leisurely to cross the country and get out at the west coast, allowing plenty of time to do it. I would strongly urge this matter upon the attention of the government and I hope they will give it close attention.
There is another matter in which the federal government can render a little assistance to the city of Victoria particularly, and such assistance will be very much appreciated indeed. Outside of Victoria, at William Head, we have a quarantine station. Steamers from Australia, from New Zealand and from the Asiatic countries, come up from the straits of Juan de Fuca and report at quarantine before landing at Victoria. They remain there very often two or three hours, tourists have a chance to go ashore, the Victoria people are afforded the opportunity of meeting the tourists and everybody is happy. But occasionally when they land at the ocean docks at Victoria the immigration officers take such a long time to examine the passengers before permitting them to go ashore that perhaps darkness sets in, or the period of the stay of the steamer at that point is so largely taken up that it is not worth while for them to go ashore and look around. We would like the government to send their immigration officer with the pilot to William Head, where the pilot climbs on board the ship; so that the officer could begin his examination there, and when the ship ties up at the dock at Victoria the examination will be pretty well completed, the passengers will be permitted to go ashore at once, and the people of Victoria will have a little longer time to extend their hospitality.
Another subject on which I touch very briefly is this:	In 1873 two or three schooners
went out from Victoria into the north Pacific ocean to begin fishing for fur seal. This business grew at a very rapid rate until a few years later some fifty-nine vessels were
engaged in sealing, and some fifteen hundred people made their living in that occupation. This was an important business and was very profitable. I might point out that the seal rookeries in the Pacific ocean where the first seal breeds were located are confined to the islands off the coast of Russia, and Japan, and Prybiloff island in the Bering sea, the property of the United States. This point is very important. It simply means that the vessels coming out from Victoria at that time and carrying on their work for a number of years established the claim of the British Columbia people to the sealing industry, because we had no rookeries in our own territory. In 1886-87 the United States closed the Bering sea; Great Britain objected and claimed that it was part of the ocean. After a number of conferences and agreements following one after the other, at Paris, at Quebec and at one or two other places, the Canadian sealers, under the various regulations that were put in force at these different conferences, were practically regulated out of their business, with the result that for three years these vessels lay in Victoria harbour tied up, expecting that at some time in the near future	a settlement	of	the question
would be reached and they would be permitted to proceed with their business again.	During those three years when
the ships were tied up, four other Victoria sealers proceeded to sea, and broke all the laws and regulations which had been made, did not respect any treaty and carried on illegal sealing during that period. When the commission sat for the purpose of awarding proper damages to the men whose business had been taken away from them, they awarded damages to these four, law-breaking schooners, but did not give the others anything. That was their reward for enterprise.
In 1911 Great Britain, the United States, Japan and Russia entered into a treaty prohibiting sealing until 1926. Great Britain is to receive fifteen per cent of the value of the skins kept, and up to the present time their income from this source has amounted to $694,54S. When the treaty went into effect in 1911 it was estimated by Professor Elliot, an expert on sealing, that this should bring a revenue of $7,250,000. Either Professor Elliot was very much out in his calculation or something else went wrong. It is necessary to give twelve months' notice before the present treaty can be cancelled, and I have a resolution endorsed by the chamber of commerce of the city of Victoria, and also by the city council of Victoria, asking that
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

the necessary twelve months' notice be given for the cancellation of the treaty, so that the Victoria sealers may resume their business, and with the permission of the House I will place it on Hansard.
It is dated 6th April, 1925, and reads:
Whereas the Pelagic Sealing treaty expires next year;
And whereas, prior to the treaty, sealing, for fur-seal, was an important British Columbia industry, employing large numbers of white men and Indians, and adding materially to the prosperity of the Pacific coast, and it is desirable that the industry shall be renewed;
And further, it is desirable that any industry training and accustoming young men to a hardy, seafaring life shall be encouraged;
Therefore be it resolved that the board of directors of the Victoria chamber of commerce go on record as being opposed to the renewal of the Pelagic Sealing treaty, and that the Dominion government be communicated with and requested not to renew the said treaty; and also request that, in December next, written notice of such termination be served upon the other parties to the treaty, such notice, at the expiration of fourteen years, as provided by the treaty, being twelve months in advance of the expiry date;
And that a copy of this resolution, together with suitable communications requesting support, be forwarded to Victoria's representatives in both the House of Commons and in the Senate.
I sincerely hope that the government will give this resolution very careful consideration and endeavour to look into the matter very thoroughly from all angles. The people of Victoria will be very pleased if the government find in their favour and recommend the cancellation of the treaty.
While I have been speaking on constructive matters very largely since I commenced today, I desire to say that we are drifting along as far as defensive works are concerned. Out on the Pacific coast during the war we had an opportunity of realizing our defenceless position. At that time there was a very live German cruiser squadron cruising around the Pacific ocean, and we did not know at what time we might be attacked. If it had not been for the interference of the British, who secured the services of one of her allies to protect us, ws probably would have suffered severe damage at that time. Now everyone will acknowledge that, although the war is over, the world is certainly not in a very restful condition. We know that countries are arming on all sides. We have competition for trade, many international questions are arising that might cause an outbreak of war at any time, and I feel that it is very foolish to lull ourselves into a feeling of false security, or to follow the example of the ostrich, hide our heads in the sand and imagine we are safe. It is better to face the proposition squarely and devise some plan of whatever nature we may deem best and just.

and then to carry that plan to a successful conclusion.
In the matter of naval defence, it is quite apparent that the great powers are not satisfied that all danger of war is over. I have here a copy of a White paper issued in London on March 4 giving particulars regarding the number of vessels of certain types under the control of different countries; and the ships are very heavily armed. The following is a comparative table of these vessels:
British Empire.. .. United States.. ..
Japan	
France	
Italy	
Cruisers Destroyers Submarines
8	2	49	12	1511	36	599	23	285	26	20
I quote the following despatch:
The admiralty give details of the designs of many of the new foreign ships in the White paper, but discreetly suppress all details about our own vessels.
Thus we learn that there is a probability of the new Japanese cruisers of the Nachi class carrying the stupendous armament of twelve 8-inc.h guns. They will presumably be mounted in four turrets, and the broadside fire of such a cruiser would be 3,000 lbs.- five times as much as that of the pre-Washington cruisers.
The new French cruisers will have an armament of eight 8-inch guns, and the same number is allotted to the new Italian vessels.
This would indicate quite clearly that the great powers are not satisfied that all danger of war is over. Looking at our own condition, we find that we are practically helpless at the present time. We forget that the mere fact of our being disarmed will not save us from attack, and our losses in the event of attack would be simply tremendous. On the Pacific they would destroy our commerce and levy toll on our cities, perhaps destroying the coast cities; and they would ruin the coal mines of Vancouver island and destroy the dry docks and docking facilities generally as well as our elevators. And in the dry summer season they would set fire to hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of timber which could never be replaced. Altogether an attack would set back Canadian prosperity perhaps a hundred years, on the cpast at all events. Our defence provided at the present time to protect us against any possibility of attack consists of two destroyers and four trawlers. These are not considered naval ships anywhere in the world that I know of except ini Mexico, which country does not stand among -the first. These destroyers do not possess the necessary accommodation for training purposes so that training work cannot be carried on besmnd a day's voyage. The trawlers are slow little vessels steaming about nine knots

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
under favourable conditions and in good weather, and they are fortunate if they make four knots in a gale. I understand that they are unable to lower the boats in rough weather and they have no power to tow. And everyone who knows anything about the Pacific knows what the weather is like there in certain seasons. They are also inadequate for life saving purposes, and nothing but the best equipment should be used in this direction. In case of shipwreck with vessels of this kind a serious loss of life might result.
On the east coast the naval equipment is practically the same, except for the fact that they have an opportunity of training with the British navy at certain seasons of the year in the West Indies.
The personnel of the navy in my opinion is first rate in every respect, and most of the men during the war had an opportunity of serving in conjunction with the British navy. You can imagine therefore what their feelings must be, after having participated in the war, to be required to put up with the meagre equipment at hand. They are carrying on , from year to year in the hope that at some time some substantial improvement will be made in our naval establishment. They get no pension and no separation allowance, and I would call this fact to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) with a view to having these men placed on an equal footing with our other defensive forces. There is the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and there is also the Royal Volunteer Reserve, both of which are doing well, the officers being interchangeable with the British navy under certain conditions. Now, in considering the naval question we should remember that it requires about four years to train a seaman or seaman-gunner and seven years to train an officer. So that time is a very vital factor. With regard to our defensive measures, that is simply a matter for experts. After talking about all sorts of things in relation to agriculture I would not risk for one moment any suggestion touching the question of naval defence, for I do not know anything about the subject. I wish however to present a resolution passed by the Air Force Club of British Columbia, and with the permission of the House I would place it on Hansard.
The resolution submitted reads:
Whereas in the consideration of Canada's general defence policy, and having in mind also the trend of modern warfare, some thought must be given to the question of countering the use of aircraft by an enemy;
And whereas an air arm of defence, capable of cooperating with the present or future land and sea defence forces of the Dominion, becomes a matter of
necessity;
And whereas financial considerations make the maintenance of an adequate and efficient permanent air force impossible;
Therefore be it resolved that the Department of National Defence of the Dominion of Canada be asked to give due consideration to the suggestions embodied hereinafter and to take appropriate action in the same connection:-
1.	That a Reserve Air Arm be formed to supplement the existing Royal Canadian Air Force.
2.	That the personnel of such a reserve be drawn from the membership of accredited air force clubs in each province.
3.	That the training of such personnel be done at the existing R.C.A.F. stations and under the supervision of officers of the R.C.A.F.
4.	That supplementary equipment be supplied to each R.C.A.F. station to make such training possible, due consideration being given to the physical requirements of each locality.
5.	That priority be given in the supply of facilities for training to the province of British Columbia in view of the fact that owing to climatic conditions training can be carried on at Jericho air station at Vancouver all the year round.
6.	That training be commenced at the earliest possible opportunity at the Jericho air station for members of the Air Force Club of British Columbia under the supervision as No. 3 provides, all active members of the before-mentioned club to be automatically enrolled on the Air Force Reserve (vide No. 1), and all such active members to be instructed or reinstructed, according as to whether they have flown before or not, and brought to a standard of efficiency to be decided on by the senior supervising officer or O.C. station.
It is submitted that by adopting the action outlined above the Dominion of Canada would be assured at all times of having at the least possible cost the maximum of trained air personnel, both available and in a state of efficiency that would make it a force of the greatest value, both when acting as a first line of defence, and also when co-operating with naval and military forces guarding the coast of British Columbia which lies nearest the most probable zone of warfare in which in the future Canada might be defensively engaged.
What is Japan doing? She has the third largest navy in the world, is very efficient, and is establishing several stations on the Pacific. And the United States is rapidly preparing for any emergency. She has provided for naval defence on three sides and for this purpose she requires a very large force. On the Atlantic coast she is strongly fortified, and she has fortifications on the Panama canal and along the southern section of the country. On the Pacific coast as well as on the Hawaiian and Philippine Mands she has also considerable fortifications. And she is establishing naval bases at all these places. In Alaska She has three military posts already and is talking of establishing a naval base at a place called Dutch Harbour, while at Puget Sound she has six powerful fortifications. In addition to that she has a strong naval base at Bremerton, where there is a 700 foot dry dock; and she is building works for the accommodation of the
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

whole north Pacific squadron. At the mouth of the Columbia river she has three strong forces and in California she has fortifications, naval training stations, marine barracks, naval air stations, army air stations, destroyer bases and huge storage capacity for oil, gasoline and lubricants. In Hawaii she has established very powerful forts and is building a strong naval station at Pearl Harbour, which is being fortified with sixteen-inch guns. In the Panama canal she is placing four sixteen-inch guns at each end and in addition to that she will maintain forty seaplanes besides other defensive works.
Apparently therefore the United States is not going to allow itself to be lulled to sleep by any peace conferences; and with the United States and Japan arming, we in Canada must wake up to the possibilities of the future. Canada is much more favourably situated than the United States from the standpoint of defence. In the first place, it would not be of any use for an army to attack us on the north, even on the Hudson bay. And on the north Atlantic, from Labrador to the north shore of the St. Lawrence, as far as Saguenay river, an attack would be futile. Our eastern strategic area would be Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Gaspe. On the Pacific we have a long coast line which, taking into consideration all the islands and indentations into the shore line, would cover some
10,000	miles. There are very few points along that coast where there would be access to railways or where there would be good roads, while parts of the country are so rough that it W'ould be altogether useless for a force to attempt to land. With our long narrow channels and our deep fiords running into the mainland, certain lines of defence could be very effective. The great question in the event of Japan and the United States engaging in war would be the necessity for our maintaining a position of complete neutrality. There would be an opportunity on the long coast line of the Pacific for one of the belligerents to establish a submarine base and we should be immediately involved in a complication unless we could preserve a strict neutrality. We would, it is true, expect the assistance of the British fleet, but the British fleet might take a considerable time to get under way, as it did in the last war, inasmuch as it must extend over the whole globe for the protection of British dominions wherever they exist. So that the delay might be serious if we did not have adequate defensive works to serve us in the meantime. A good, defensive equipment on the Pacific coast would, on account of the nature of the coast and of

the country there, cause any enemy to hesitate for some time before proceeding to attack us. Now, as I have already pointed out, the plans for our defence should be left entirely in the hands of experts, but I would suggest the following procedure under present conditions. We may be involved in war at any time, and in that event we would be absolutely helpless. No one realizes the necessity for economy more than I do, and I would not for one moment propose that we go ahead and build immediately any big defensive works; rather I would propose that we should have a carefully thought out plan of defence, and then decide on certain construction work and proceed gradually, adding a little every year, until we had completed a very effective defence. I would call this to the attention of the government, and particularly of the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to briefly
express my views on the budget, and to do so in the French language. It has sometimes been a matter of reproach to French Canadian members that they do not make a more frequent use of their native tongue in the debates of the House of Commons. No one more than myself, Sir, wishes to uphold our claims in favour of the rights of the French language. Is it necessary for me to add that, when we express ourselves in another tongue than ours, we do not do so because it eases our task or we think that we can express ourselves more fluently in a language which is foreign to us. However, it may be necessary, in a brief debate, when views are exchanged in the course of the same sitting and the vote must be taken that very evening, it may become necessary, if we wish to acquaint the House with our views as to those very rights connected with the French tongue, to couch our remarks in a language which may be understood by those for whom they are intended.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is why the French
Canadians in this House, often take part in English, in the discussions, and furthermore, because they wish to maintain, in the Parliament of Canada, the influence of the province they represent. Far from rebuking them, I think they should be congratulated on the unavoidable effort they are forced to make to reach this aim. Nevertheless, I am fully aware that, if we go to extremes, there would be danger of not hearing often enough, in this parliament, the lovely accents of the French language; there are other discussions,

The Budget-Mr. Rinjret
such as those that are protracted, when it is, on the contrary desirable that the French language should be heard. I, therefore, think that the discussion on the budget, or the one in answer to the Speech from the Throne are occasions when one may do so without any inconvenience. Quite a number of my colleagues, before I rose, took advantage of this privilege in the course of the present debate, and it is a pleasure for tne to follow suit.
There is, at present, a committee appointed to revise the rules and regulations of the House, and through the partly opened door, we have already heard the rumour that one of the reforms will tend to limit the speeches of members to half an hour. It is my intention, Sir, even before this new regulation is submitted to the House or is adopted, to apply it to myself, and I shall endeavour to express myself as briefly as possible.
I wish, first, to express my astonishment that, in the course of this debate, so little was mentioned about the tariff. In listening to the members of the opposition last year, and even sometimes when they are delivering speeches before the public of this country, the most important question, was that of the tariff. Yet, we 'have heard quite a number of members from the opposite side, we have equally looked into the empty and distressed amendment of the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) and we have noticed that no mention whatever is made of the tariff. I am anxious to hear the leader of the opposition to see if he will not take his cue from his lieutenants on this question or whether they only obeyed formal orders from him. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will fall back, no doubt, on his contention that he has placed on the order paper of the House, a motion which outlines and explains his policy on protection. He has already, on more than one occasion, made use of this subterfuge to avoid being dragged on these grounds by questions or other means. I am inclined to think, Sir, that when the leader of the opposition placed this motion on the order paper at the beginning of the session, it was not with the idea of discussing it, but rather to give himself a pretext not to do so when, as in the present circumstances, he would be called upon to state definitely, both his views and those of his followers, on the budget.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Hear, hear!


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: And why? Why did he,
through the intermediary of his lieutenant, move an amendment in which are not included his views on the tariff? He wished to drag behind him,-which is an easy task- the very small phalanx of those who support him in the House; however, he also wished to transmit a message devoid of a tariff proposal to a whole group of agrarian members holding entirely different views from his own, on this question, but who on other grounds may disagree with the government.
The Conservative party last year had forecasted that the King government would entirely demolish the tariff walls. In the city of Montreal, Sirr, they published beforehand the photographs of the factories which, it was said, would close their doors in the course of the year. This year, the opposition is very much disappointed to notice that in the present budget, the government not only does not lower the tariff, as it had been foreseen, but that on certain items the changes are upwards. And, in my opinion, this is an excellent policy, a policy of good common sense. Tariff, to my viewpoint, must not be a question of fast rule. It always amuses me, I wish to be frank, to hear certain members in the House for whom there is but one rule to follow in tariff matters: if you lower the tariff, it is an excellent policy, if you increase the tariff, it is a bad policy. While you have others who, obeying the same impulse, but in an opposite way, take absolutely the same attitude in favour of what they call protectionism. I would further add that the tariff should not be based on local consideration. Very often a member who proclaims himself moderate in tariff matters takes the following attitude: He demands protection for the industries which are in his county, although he is perfectly willing to open the doors for those which happen to be in the neighbouring counties. I do not agree that we should look at the tariff in that light. I think, on the contrary, that tariff is above all a business question, an adjustment to be established among the various interests of the country. The present government was quite justified, last year, in lowering the tariff on farming implements, as it wished by this measure to help the farming class which needed it, and events have shown that this lowering of the tariff has given excellent results.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Hear, hear!


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: However, I equally state that the present government is quite right, this year, when they increase the tariff on coal; for, in so doing, it adjusts a situation which was extremely complicated and greatly
The Budget-Mr. Rinjret

to the disadvantage of our Canadian coal producers. Once more has the government proved its wisdom.
For my part, I would approve with pleasure a budget introducing, on the one hand, reduction in tariff, where they can be useful to certain classes; however, on the other hand, raising the duties where they are necessary. In other words, I would support a tariff policy which, leaving aside fast rules and theory, only acknowledges the practical interests of the country.
While on the subject, I would like to point out: That a certain group has been led to believe that the -word protection was identical with that of high tariff. I maintain that the only way of protecting industries is not necessarily to raise the tariff. For instance, last year, by decreasing the tariff on the raw material which enters into the manufacture of farm implements, the government was protecting, on the one hand, these industries, in the proportion that it had, on the other hand, exposed them to foreign competition.
The industries of this country are at various stages of industrial development. It has happened to me, in the course of a session of parliament, to receive representations on the part of two industries requesting, as means of protection, measures which were the very counterpart of one another. And why? The former manufacturer, who was located in the county of my good friend from Rouville (Mr. Morin), turned out a finished product; and what he wanted, was a high tariff on the finished article. On the other hand, the other manufacturer received from foreign countries a product which he but finished, therefore, his interest was that we should allow this half finished product to enter free, while the manufacturer who produced the same article wanted it protected by a duty. You cannot, under one tariff, afford equal protection to all industries; if you admit the raw materials free of duty you protect certain industries more effectively than with a uniformly high tariff wall.
Another way you can help industry indirectly is by increasing exports, by obtaining .tariff concessions in the way of decreased duties on our products entering foreign countries. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is undeniably wrong to confuse the term " protection" with the term "high tariff," since quite frequently the effects of the one and of the other are conflicting.
As to the British preference I think we might with advantage study this question. .Were I to find fault, it would be to say that the British preference is too restricted. Just

as I balk at a doctrinaire tariff so with the British preference I would have preferred that instead of being on a straight level it had left some margin for readjustments, had retained some elasticity. I believe it is time to ascertain right now if there be not certain products on which the British preference should be curtailed or done away with entirely. Moreover I would like to see a certain measure of reciprocity granted Canada by England. However, I have read with interest in the newspapers that the present Imperial government in its budget, will restore the famous McKenna duties. Once that is done the 'home government may be in a position to grant us certain favours over foreign products.
I would like now, Sir, to say a word concerning our transportation problems, which are many and varied. This year the government will attempt, through the medium of a subsidized company, to control ocean rates. The question has been referred to a special committee. Those who have followed the proceedings before this committee realize how very complicated the problem is; and for my part I shall certainly have nothing to say on the matter until the committee has finished its work. But I might request the Conservative organs to do as much; while the parliamentary committee is compiling the testimony of those who are best acquainted with the subject, I cannot be expected to evince mudh interest in the forecast of these Conservative organs which have already decided that the evil is non-existent or that the government's plans are worthless. We shall be at leisure to judge matters when we are fully apprised of the whole situation.
The House will be called upon also to make a very important decision with regard to freight rates established under the Crows-nest pass agreement. I shall not go into the history of this agreement which is well known to you, Mr. Speaker. You are well aware, too, how matters stand. At the present time the rates laid down by this agreement are in force, since the suspension was lifted. The case was taken before the Supreme court. The court held that the act creating the Board of Railway Commissioners did not give the board jurisdiction in the matter at hand. The House will have to decide whether or not we should extend this jurisdiction to the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is quite evident that we will have to study this question ini the light of the needs of every district in the country; and on this point, as on the tariff, I am willing to concede that our attitude should not favour one part of the country to the detriment of another. But it

The Budget-Mr. Rin/ret
in a flagrant contradiction that while we give the railway board the authority to fix rates on our Canadian railroads, the board's hands should be tied with respect to one part of the country. It appears to my mind impossible for the board to devise a harmonious schedule of rates for the whole country if, at the very start, jurisdiction is denied it over certain commodities and certain districts. We are desirous of protecting the interests of the whole country; but I trust that the government, with the support of this parliament, will bring down a bill granting the needed authority to the railway board which is essential to its efficiency.
Another transportation problem with which we have to deal every year is that concerned with the government merchant marine. During the last campaign we were very severe on the preceding administration for having built these ships and saddled a tremendous debt and an annual deficit on the taxpayers of this country. I admit in all frankness, Mr. Speaker, that personally I have more sympathy for the present government than for the marine bequeathed to it and I wish that circumstances would reveal some manner of getting rid of this problem. I realize that any definite advice would be premature. We are told that some of these ships co-operate with our National railways; and if the Petersen contract becomes a reality it is possible that some of them may be added to that fleet, although very grave doubts exist on that score.
At any rate, I must congratulate the government for having offered some of those ships for sale and even if there has not been any satisfactory bidders so far to relieve us of part of that burden, I would certainly be ill-advised to reproach them with maintaining inevitably the balance of that fleet.
But there is something far more important than the government merchant marine: I mean the government owned railways, and on that question I wish to express myself very definitely. Nobody will deny that the fair trial which has been made of public ownership has brought about some improvements, unquestionable improvements in our railway service. Everybody will admit it. But the result is quite different as regards the financial improvements of these roads, for as you study that problem, and ae you go through the public accounts you will find at every page of the public ledgers more items than ever relating to the National Railways which show that the deficit and the obligations are still greater than most people would imagine. We took no exception to a fair trial being made- of public ownership, but 163
I think that such trial, if it is to be fair towards the railways must also be fair towards the taxpayers who have to bear the cost. We can already foresee the day when we shall be bound to realize that the experiment cannot be carried on forever.
The other day, when I was present at the committee inquiring into the estimates of the National Railways, I was greatly impressed by two formal statements of Sir Henry Thornton. First, he said that there was not enough traffic in Canada to support two competing roads such as we have at present .and he added that owing to the progress of the motor cars which are now carrying not only passengers but freight, the 'loss thereby sustained by the railways was greater than the gains they were able to make elsewhere. The president of the National Railways further stated that, in his opinion, if the two roads were merged into one system, he thought their profits would be sufficient to pay the interest on all fixed charges. We must face the actual facts. The losses are not operating losses, for we are told that there are profits from that source. It is due to the tremendous amount of interest which we have to pay on obligations and fixed' charges. That is why, if we have done wrong in building or in giving grants for the building of too many roads at a time when nobody could expect that the war would revolutionize our financial system, it was also a mistake, in my opinion, and perhaps a greater mistake to take over these railways, especially so because the government, when they bought the roads, assumed all their obligations, whereas it certainly would have been possible, had they proceeded otherwise, to assume only part of these obligations. Whereas no private concern in the world would have taken over the Canadian Northern or even the Grand Trunk and assumed at the same time the whole of their obligations, the government of the day, that is the government preceding the present administration, bought the roads and said: All these obligations, all these guarantees, all these debts, we are ready to assume and endorse and we will pay each year the interest on these charges. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when people talk about changing the train schedule and doing away with so many trains on such or such a line, I think that is merely adding a drop of water or rather taking it from the ocean. Naturally, under such conditions, any saving, how small it may be, would be welcome; but is it not evident, at first sight, that it is not the way to secure for the railways not even profits, but a lesser deficit than that which we have at present.

The Budget-Mr. Rinjret

The fixed charges will always exist and we shall always have to meet them. But, Sir Henry Thornton says, if the two railways were merged, leaving only one system, the returns to be derived therefrom could balance the interest charges to be met and then we might be able to make both ends meet. I admit that there, are considerable objections on both sides. If the government or the National Railways are to take over all the railways of this country, it means that we shall go deeper into public-ownership and you know, Mr. Speaker, that it has not been a success anywhere in the world. So far as I am concerned, I would be very sorry, notwithstanding the stand taken 'by some hon. members from this side of the House, to see the government aggravating our situation in that direction. On the other side, if the railways are; absorbed by the great private company operating it at present, I very well see the danger of a monopoly. The fault rests with the topography itself of our country, trade moves from east to west and vice-versa. Perhaps the fault also rests in the way we proceeded, not only in the last twenty years, but since the inception of railway construction in Canada. How different is the American system. There exists in the United States a great number of railway companies. Each state has its own. There exists no transcontinental railway. We do not find in that country this rivalry to extend from ocean to ocean which drove, first, the Canadian Pacific Railway, then, the Grand Trunk Railway and finally the Canadian Northern to build from the eastern centres as far as the Pacific coast. Moreover, the United States forming a perfect quadrangle, the movement of trade spreads in all directions. It is clear that the railway situation is far better and easier than ours.
Therefore, Sir, in view of this intricate situation and the drawbacks which I fully perceive, I am disinclined to definitely come to a conclusion. However, I think that we should, at least make provision for the time when we shall have to put an end to the present situation, when the trial, as fair as it may be, will end by weighing too heavily on the shoulders of the taxpayers; and consider a project of merger. It will, however, be necessary that, by this merger, the government that is the country, should secure reasonable conditions in regard to financial readjustment of those obligations which run up our public debt, and that the new service obtained, be placed under the complete control of the railway commission, so as to guard against the danger of monopoly.

Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the government on the fair and just way in which it has undertaken, since it is in power, to re-establish the proportion which is due to the French-Canadian element in regard to the various positions of this country. And if I do so-it is always a delicate matter to talk upon a question which gives rise so easily to prejudice- if I do so, it is precisely because we have been challenged by the opposition on this question. A very satisfactory answer has been given, by enumerating a great number of positions which have been allotted to our people, or which, in certain cases, have been for the first time, as for instance in the case of the Auditor General, allotted to a French-Canadian.
It is, I repeat it, a very delicate question. We only claim our fair share. Never would the thought enter our head to precipitate a conflict on this question. The Liberal party, on the contrary, has always been a party of moderation and conciliation; it has always been challenged right and left precisely on such questions. However, it would be very unfair not to recognize that, from the bottom to the top of the ladder, the present government has done enormously to re-establish in the realm of influence the share which belonged to the French Canadians of this country.
I might also, myself, recall the splendid way in which we were represented both overseas and in Washington, by FrenclwCanadian ministers. And, were it not that I see two, who do me the honour of listening, at this moment, and were it not for the fear of wounding their modesty, I would dilate at greater length on the subject. There are others. Never, perhaps, at any time in our history, have we been given, in foreign representation, the recognition granted to us by the present government. The same may be said of appointments to the bench, of our share of influence in the government itself, of the important appointments in the civil service: I recall that at one of the first sessions of this parliament, I strongly advocated that the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) should appoint a French-Canadian deputy minister in his department. The leader of the opposition, who was sitting on the opposite benches, rose then, and, in the satirical tone, which is particular to him, prophesied that we would never obtain such a favour. Nevertheless, a few months later a French Canadian was appointed Assistant Postmaster General. On other occasions, a more favourable proportion, for our people.

The Budget-Mr. Leuris
was re-established. Everything cannot be accomplished in a day; and I would be the first to ask, that in the assertion of our claims, we do not go so far as to precipitate a regrettable conflict or revolution. We lost so much ground under the preceding government that it was impossible to hope that within a few months equilibrium would be restored. However, what astonishes me, to-day, is that, while we are discreetly endeavouring to obtain favours or our rights, which are generously granted to us, it is the representatives of the party who infallibly refused them to us, that rise in their seats to loudly claim justice. And they are the ones who are held up among certain groups as the saviours of our race.
I wish to point out the fact that in many cases, of equal competence, preference was given to French Canadians, because it was deemed proper to restore our fair proportion. We did not even consider the political affiliations of the candidate to whom we granted a promotion, if in obtaining it that could better the situation of our people. I could understand, perhaps, that certain Liberals carried away by their zeal made us a slight reproach on the subject; I could still understand that in certain cases an English speaking member would rise to ask for explanations on some appointments; however, what I cannot understand, is that it is precisely those of the political group who maintain that they have no other aim than to seek the interest of French Canadians, that they are precisely those who reproach us when we obtain favours of that nature. Fortunately, however, the people are not to be deceived. We witnessed in 1910 and 1911 such a campaign. It was equally said, at the time, that the Liberal government were not fair to our people. A number of our people were deceived1, they voted for certain members who were to save our race, and we well know that when they reached this House they did not even save their skin. The Quebec people know where to find their friends. When I say that I am astonished at this campaign, it is but my first impression; no, I am not astonished. Ever since they have come into existence, since that memorable time when, in 1909, that party came to life in broad daylight, they have always taken that attitude towards us. They have never placed any faith in the Liberal party and neither have the}'' ever acknowledged what we have done for our people; they have never ceased criticizing. Whenever we obtain a favour, instead of congratulating us as we deserve, they hasten to point out some other thing upon which, it seems, we have gone wrong;
163i
and far from registering the successive stages of our conquests, they only create difficulties and throw obstacles in our way which very often prevent us from obtaining more. I stated, Sir, at the outset that I would remain within the half hour limit; I hope that I have not gone beyond the time stipulated and that I have complied beforehand with the excellent new regulation that your committee will submit to the House in the course of this session.
Were I to sum up my views, I would first state that I am in favour neither of free trade nor protection, but of a tariff committed to no fixed rule or sentiment, or that is inspired by the true interests of the country. And as to our railways, without going deeply into such an important and intricate question, I state that the time has come to study carefully a merger scheme which would lighten the burden of state ownership; providing that this merger scheme be of a nature to free us from our public debt, of part if not from the whole of the obligations which these railways impose on us; and that we can place the new service under the perfect control of a commission which will see to it that the interests of the taxpayers are fully protected.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS ((Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, my only reason for rising to take part in this debate is to deal with the financial situation of Canada as I see it. But before dealing with the financial statement, I should like to make a few remarks with regard to certain questions that have been raised and brought to my notice during the past few days.
A few days ago I read in the newspapers that a certain gentleman from western Canada had suggested a scheme that would relieve us of a great many of our difficulties and possibly solve our financial problems. I read the brief report of his remarks and afterwards received the full account of what he said. I thought at first he had some new scheme to offer that would afford a remedy for our present difficulties, but after going into it very thoroughly, I find there is very little in it that is new; it is simply the old National Policy intensified and carried to the "nth" degree. I have reference, of course, to the Patterson scheme for Canada. I will first synopsize it and then briefly criticize it. It proposes a protective tariff "high enough to guarantee that goods will be made in Canada." Well, there is not very much new about that. Then, protection for the consumer by ' regulating the price of goods made in Canada. There may be something new in that
The Budget-Mr. Lems

if it is possible to accomplish it. Then, limiting the import of goods to the extent of eighty per cent of their present figure. Now, in attempting to carry out this scheme, the first premise would be fairly easy; and I can readily understand that such a premise would appeal to those whose slogan is, "buy goods made in Canada." It would be easy enough if the right party got into power to make the tariff high enough to guarantee that commodities would be made in Canada. The second premise is a little more difficult; the control of commodity prices when you shut off competition is admittedly difficult. It would be possible to place on the statute book a law to provide that the present prices of any commodities protected by the new legislation should not be exceeded, but who is to say whether the price is justified or not, and who is to enforce the law everywhere in Canada? When you attempt any artificial restriction with or interference in commerce, in nine cases out of ten the consumer suffers. To stop eighty per cent of the present imports into Canada could also be arranged if the tariff was high enough, but what would be the result? At present we sell over
200,000,000 bushels of wheat in the European market, Great Britain being our largest buyer; and we also ship bacon, eggs, cattle, butter, fruit, flour, and so forth, in large quantities to those markets. How will these people pay for the commodities we ship to them in such large quantities if they are prevented from selling to us? It is beyond my comprehension. Even if it were possible for them to pay in gold, what about the return cargo?' How long would the shipowners continue to carry our cargoes at the present prices-and there are many in this House who think the prices are already too high-if the ships had to come back empty? It could not be done. The scheme is absurd, fantastic; the child of a disordered brain; a scheme the results of which would make the present confusion appear as law and order. If we hope to sell in a foreign market we must reciprocate by buying in that market, otherwise the consumer and the primary producer will ultimately suffer.
I know there is a 'great demand in Canada for lower taxation. I have spoken to ministers, to bankers, to business men, to boards of trade and to hundreds of farmers in the west, and they are all very anxious that the government should show some signs of tackling the problem and of instituting some scheme that will ultimately bring about a reduction of our national debt. Yet we are' forced to the conclusion that we must raise

a larger revenue. I have studied the question very carefully and I believe that if the government will get down to real business it can be done. We have to make a start and we should give the people a lead and encourage them. The people of Canada are very much depressed and I know it is difficult to remove that depression. But your difficulties and problems are not solved by putting your hands down to your side; by inactivity; by submission to the powers that be. On the contrary, they can only be solved if we courageously shoulder our burdens and give the people a square deal, and that can only be done by taxing those who enjoy special privileges that are not enjoyed by the masses.
Before passing to the financial question, I would like to congratulate the member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) on his contribution to this debate, and especially his contribution to agriculture. It was full of pregnant suggestions, and there is not a doubt in my mind that if many of them were carried out, the agricultural communities in Canada would be greatly assisted. But we are too often fed up with suggestions. We realize that many of our own men are practical farmers, experienced in every detail of their work and yet under these conditions they are not able to make their farms pay.
The other day there was placed in my hand a paper with reference to Canada's competitors in the various markets of the world. I do not think that our farmers need very much advice on how to farm or as to what system of farming they should cultivate, but what I do believe is this, that the government and the powers that be should assist or at least attempt to provide adequate markets for the great production of our farmers at the present time. Here is one suggestion that I want to make, and it is in regard to butter. Three years ago I was in Moose Jaw at the time of the by-election, and when I returned to the House I made the statement that eggs and butter were selling at a certain price, and a friend of mine diametrically opposite read a certain passage out of the Moose Jaw Times of the same date evidently contradicting what I bad said. I was new to the House at the time or he would not have got away with it; he would not get away with it to-day. I want to point out that at that particular time he was quoting from an editorial, and that editorial was copied from an editorial that had appeared somewhere down in Fort William, so it had absolutely no reference whatever to the situation. Let

The Budget-Mr. Lewis
me read this in regard to Canada's competitors:
Let us look at the possibilities of the British market, as it is the only stead}' market in the world and should be catered to by the Canadian people, as is being done by numerous other countries. It might be interesting at this point to know something of the amount of butter imported by the United Kingdom. We find that the figures for the year 1924 are 592,789,232 pounds. Again, let us look where this butter comes from. We find Denmark at the head of the list with exports of 194.226,032 pounds, or 32.8 per cent of the whole import of Britain. Next in volume is New Zealand with 121,706,704 pounds or 20.5 of the whole. Following in line comes Australia with 70,567,616 pounds.
That is Australia, farther away from the British market than, we are, but it has 11.9 per cent of the whole import.
Next in order is Argentine with 60,340,448 pounds, or 10.2 per cent. Next in order the Irish Free State with 51,666,832 pounds or 8.7 of the whole. Next comes the little land of Finland with 15,071,168 pounds, or 2.5 of the whole. Next is Canada with 14,713,888 pounds, or about 2.5 of the whole.
I shall not go further down the list. There are a few other countries with an even lower amount. What I wish to suggest is this: Here is an opportunity for the Department of Agriculture, the pools and the co-operative societies to get together to see if it is not possible that we in western Canada shall have part of this market for our dairy products. In the recess while I was at home, butter was selling at 20 cents a pound. There is very little money in it at that, and all the local dealers could get for it if they sent it to the city of Moose Jaw was 17 cents. New laid eggs were selling at 15 cents per dozen. Now there is very little use in advocating diversified farming in western Canada because the local market is already glutted, and unless we get some co-operative marketing system, and a definite understanding of what is required for the British trade, it is not much use continuing as we are doing. The British trade, as I have already said, offers a steady market, and I believe it is worth our while to cultivate it. Prom the figures I have read you can readily see that we are only touching the very fringe of it. A dairy commissioner from New Zealand, who wa3 on his way back home from Great Britain via Canada, and whom I met in Central Butte told me that as a result of his year's work the average price in the British market of New Zealand butter was nearly 50 cents or Is. ll^d. per pound.
I do not know what it will cost to take butter from western Canada to Great Britain. I know it costs 3 cents a pound to get it to Montreal. It may cost another 3 cents to take it overseas, and with commission charges
of 4 cents, there would still be a margin left to the western dairy farmer of 40 cents a pound, double the amount that he is getting at the present time. But to capture the British market we shall have to have a uniform standard of quality and also be in a position, I understand, to guarantee a regular supply to that market. It is well worth while, and if ou authorities, provincial and federal, and our co-operative societies would get together in an attempt to get a fair share of the trade of the British people it would solve one of our dairying difficulties at the present time.
Attention has already been called to the proposed extension of the stamp tax to be applied to cream cheques. It has been, mentioned by many of our western members, and I have received letter after letter from various companies in the west and numerous letters from many of the dairy farmers. In view of the reports made by the western members, I think the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), when he makes his reply, should announce to the House that this tax will apply only to cream cheques over $10. As has already been explained, many of these cream cheques are only for $5, and some of them for less. Without stressing any further importance of this infant industry of the west, I would point out that the minister has already many examples of such exemptions on the statute book at the present time. Por instance, cheques over a certain sum, over $2,500, are tax free, even though the cheques may run up into the millions. It is true that a tax is paid up to a definite figure, but once that figure is reached the balance is untaxed. Now if the Acting Minister of Finance listened to the pleading of his wealthy friends or the capitalists, because that tax was changed to meet their wishes, surely it is just as reasonable for him to accede to the wishes of the struggling mass of primary producers. Another example is the tax on automobiles. On automobiles under $1,200 the excise tax is 5 per cent, and on cars over that amount, 10 per cent. This is eminently fair, as we feel that those who can afford to buy a better and a dearer car can afford to pay a higher tax. We also exempt from the income tax incomes less than $2,000. Here we have three specific instances of tax relief or total exemption under certain sums, and I feel that the Acting Minister of Finance would be only following these precedents if he eliminated from the proposed new tax all such methods of payment in the case of sums under $10. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is
The Budget-Mr. Lewis


Mr. MARLER:: Referring to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, I would remind my hon. friend that there is a difference in the figures, because the calendar year and the fiscal year are not the same.


Arthur John Lewis: I understand that. I have taken the net deficits and not the loans-just simply the deficit of the railway. The further figures are as follows:
Debt of Dominion, consolidated 1925.. $2,431,487,113 Loans from Dominion government to
Canadian Northern Railway	 560,397,957
Interest accrued 1925	 31,271,043
Total	*3,023,156,113
We have also backed the Canadian National Railways with respect to their bonds sold to the public to the extent of:
Bonds 1925	*913,913,082
Interest 1925	 38,361,704
Total	*952,274,786
The Budget-Mr. Lems

If we add this to the public debt we have an indebtedness of $3,975,540,899, which means a per capita debt of approximately $441.70. Besides all this the Dominion government have made appropriations in cash to the Canadian National Railways amounting to $451,712,484.98. The total assets on which this company is called upon to earn a profit amount to $2,074,255,348 while the Canadian Pacific Railway including its steamship service has assets of only $1,113,756,696.56, or approximately one-half. How can we really expect the management of the Canadian National Railways to make the railways pay under such disadvantage? Even if we adopted the system of my hon. friend who interrupted me a moment ago, an opponent of public ownership, we could hardly expect the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway to make the amalgamated lines pay, unless we first reduced the capital indebtedness of our own lines; and if thi3 were necessary, if the lines were amalgamated in order to give the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway a fair chance, and we had to add the amount of the reduction to our consolidated debt, why not do it now and give the present officials and public ownership a fair chance? It seems to me that before we attempt to incorporate the two lines, we should see if a system of co-operation and strict economy would not be to the best advantage of the people and of the companies. The officials are only human; they are fully aware of the difficulties of the Canadian people and they know we can only stand so much taxation. Why then does this parliament not go on record demanding that the officials of the two railways get together, and not only cut out duplication in passenger lines, but duplication in freight service and in building extensions? Failing this, inform them that the government will legislate in the future to merge the two systems into one Canadian National system.
Now in the face of such a statement I do not think the budget address will bring very much hope to the Canadian people, or inspire them with fresh confidence in the country, or even in the present administration. Instead of reducing our capital debt we go on adding to it year by year, which forces the government to increase our taxation. This taxation is already heavy, and unless we attempt in some measure to decrease it we shall drive people out of the country. It is quite true a large amount of our expenditure is fixed charges, but the reduction of expenses for last year is very

small indeed. It was $5,100,000 this year and the previous year $7,480,542. Our expenditures are still well over the $300,000,000 mark which means that every man and woman in Canada will have to pay a federal tax of $33 for ordinary revenue of this Dominion. The Acting Minister of Finance states that the situation is one of which Canadians may be proud, and he goes on to explain in part the reduction of revenue by stating that as a result of decreasing the burden of taxation the government will receive $52,837,000 less from the people of Canada.
This is a very nice way of handing a lemon to the Canadian people: in other words, we tell them that the loss of revenue is due to decreased taxation. I think we shall have a very difficult task if we attempt to prove to our people in the west that they have had any reduction in taxation. It is true partially that the reduction of revenue was due to the reduction of the sales tax and also to the reduction in the customs tariff last year; but it is also due to the fact that in many places in Canada a great many people did not have the purchasing power to buy even the necessities of life. That is nearer the truth than the former.
It was estimated by the Minister of Finance last year that as a result of the reduction in the sales tax the loss of revenue on the same amount of business transacted would be $20,000,000. The loss of revenue however has been $35,000,000 and this shows that the loss in the purchasing of goods by the Canadian people must have been in the neighbourhood of $300,000,000 on a basis of a sales tax of 5 per cent. The loss in customs duties has been some $14,000,000, which is almost twice what the minister expected last year as a result of the reduction in the customs tariff. This also means that the condition of the Canadian people was worse, in the purchasing of such commodities, to the extent of $70,000,000. So that the loss of revenue to the department as a result of the reduction last year was $28,000,000, the rest being due to business and financial depression in the country.
I do not blame the government for this. I readily realize that it is due to the condition* that have come as the aftermath of the Great War, and it is due also to the depression that now exists in Europe and in other countries of the world. I say I do not blame the government for it. But I have been sitting on a certain committee lately, and when we ask individuals to explain the reason for this decline in business they tell us one and all that it was due not to the tariff or tariff

The Budget-Mr. Lewis
changes but to the financial and business depression that prevails throughout the world ac the present time. I am sorry therefore that the government have apparently fallen into the error of believing that this depression is due to the reduction in the tariff. I regret that they have lost faith so soon in their own pledges. I would urge the government to overhaul their platform, which is similar to our own, except for the fact that although they have had an opportunity to put it into force they have not done so. If the Liberal party have really lost faith in the policy to which they pledged themselves, I think the Progressive party had better put their policy to the test; it would at least have this virtue, that the people of Canada when called upon to vote the next time would know where we stood.
I want to suggest to the government most seriously a scheme whereby we may reduce our national debt. I think that if we look the situation fairly and squarely in the face as business men, anxious in our own hearts to put this country on a paying basis, we shall find that this can be done. I said a moment ago that the total consolidated debt of the whole Dominion was in the neighbourhood of approximately $4.000,000,000; and in spite of the remarks of my hon. friend opposite,
I believe that the Canadian National Railways have at least some assets. We might place them say at $1,500,000,000. On the other hand, as I pointed out just now, we have a loan to the Canadian National Railways, with interest, of $600,000,000. Let us take this $600,000,000 from the railways and put it into our consolidated debt 'and that will bring the total consolidated debt up to $3,000,000,-
000.	That means that if we are going to pay our ordinary interest on the consolidated debt and make provision for reducing it at the rate of say $50,000,000 a year, we must raise in revenue through taxation 10 p.m. between $425,000,000 and $450,000,000 a year. The first duty I would urge upon any government in power would be to see to it that provision was made not only to pay the interest on the debt and to run the government but to introduce a system that would reduce the debt. If we started some system whereby we could devote $50,000,000 a year towards the reduction of the debt, in sixty years we should get it down to zero. It is a large sum, but it must be reduced. It will take Great Britain sixty years to get rid of her debt, and some of the European countries even longer; and I do not see why a young nation like Canada, with immense
natural and great potentialities, should be unduly discouraged. It is a just debt and I feel sure that the people of Canada, if taxation is applied with equity and justice, will be willing to discharge it. To carry out such a system looking to the reduction of our national debt to the zero point in sixty years, under the present administration, with a deficit in connection with the Canadian National Railways and discharged by a population of
9,000,000, it would mean that every man, woman and child would have to pay $50 in federal taxation. But if we were to increase the population to 10,000,000 we should automatically reduce that per capita contribution to $45; while if we increased the population to 15,000.000 in the next ten years-and I see no earthly reason at all why this could not be done under a sane business administration and a sound immigration policy-we should reduce the amount still further to $30 a head. And with the increased immigration, with the increased trade, with the increased commerce the railways themselves would begin to pay; and there is no doubt in my mind that there would be a reduction in the deficit to the extent of $5 a head. If this system were carried out, in ten years we should be on Easy street, and we should have cut taxation in half.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I take it that we are to deduce from all this that the hon. member's idea is that the solution of our trouble depends mostly upon an increase in immigration.


Arthur John Lewis: Not particularly in immigration; it depends upon the raising of our own people too. I think this is an object that is worthy of due consideration. I do not believe that this country can stand much longer any sort of political gerrymandering or angling for patronage or power. With such an ideal as I have suggested we could be on Easy street in a few years. As we have all read in history, Nero fiddled while Rome burned; but that could not be much worse than the spectacle presented here of war scandals being resuscitated and dirty linen washed while the country is fast going into bankruptcy. The moment we put into force such a system we shall make progress. And I have no doubt at all that if the Progressives were returned to power such a system would be carried out; I am sure it would have been put into practice during the past four years, and it would result in elevating the present depressed morale of the Canadian people to a normal, sound, sane, optimism, which is the right-
The Budget-Mr. Lems

ful heritage of a northern energetic, virile people On the other hand, to go on as we are at present would simply breed unrest, dissatisfaction, misery and disunion. Indeed it is already here. It is all very well for people to try to close their ears against it. Last year I addressed dozens and dozens of meetings in the west, meetings composed of business men, members of boards of trade and the general public, and at only one meeting was I not asked what the result would be in the west if we had secession. I am not advocating secession, I am simply endeavouring to show what our people are thinking. They are thinking seriously of these problems, and they are wondering whether secession would not be one form of relief. I do not think it would. I stand for unity, but I also stand for a sane, business administration.


Mr. JACOBS:: Does the hon. gentleman
believe that the Progressives could give us such an administration?


Arthur John Lewis: I think it would be just as
sane as the immigration policy advocated by my hon. friend a few days ago.


Samuel William Jacobs: I had in mind the success
of the Progressives in Ontario; that is why I asked my friend.


Robert Forke: That is too small for Montreal


Arthur John Lewis: I was not going to say anything about immigration, but since my hon. friend has mentioned it, I may tell him that I do not agree with some of the statements he made regarding immigrants from the British Isles. I have been in western Canada twenty-three years, and during that time I have had the privilege of visiting mission fields eighty and ninety miles away from the railways, and there I have come in contact with many British settlers. I want to say that those settlers are just as good as any that come to this country; and when we have had to help any in a charitable way, it was not the British settlers but those of other nationalities. I do not altogether stand for the open door policy, although I should like to see more people come to Canada. I remember my hon. friend said that Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt and they made a success of it; but it is just as well to remember the kind of cattle scheme that Jacob inaugurated; it is also well to remember that they even had to sell one of the brothers to get the almighty dollar; and further it is well to remember that when one of them was in slavery he managed to get a corner on wheat. So for those reasons we need to be careful how we let these people in.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Progressives could not
teach them anything on that, could they?


Arthur John Lewis: Perhaps not. Now, the question before us is:	How are we going to raise the
$450,000,000 required to pay our way, in view of the fact that everyone is demanding lower taxation? It is true that there would be a considerable saving on the Canadian National Railways if the amalgamation proposed by some hon. members were to be put into effect. I do not agree with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), nor do I think many others will agree with him, that we could save $100,000,000 a year by such an amalgamation, but I do believe that a saving of say, $25,000,000 could be effected. That would leave us at least $425,000,000 to raise in order to pay our way. I am not going to criticize the government unduly for extravagance, although I do think that the Minister of Agriculture, mind you, has added just a little too many men to the civil service.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I suppose the hon. member ought to know best.


Arthur John Lewis: Perhaps. I notice that about every two or three days we receive one of these papers, and recently I noticed that five positions were advertised, four being in the Department of Agriculture. I am not saying that possibly these men are not needed, but I think the minister has been a little extravagant in filling positions in his department during the last four years. I also think that when everybody is demanding economy our cabinet ministers should be satisfied with less expensive cars to run around in, driven by liveried chauffeurs, and so on. This may be all very well in a prosperous country, but when there is such urgent need for economy, let us at least cut out some of these expensive frills.


William Richard Motherwell: Might I inform my hon. friend that ever since I came to Ottawa I have been using a second hand Tory car?


Arthur John Lewis: I am afraid that my hon.
friend is an exception to the general rule. Even with the strictest economy we cannot very well get along with the amount I have mentioned. The difficulty of the Acting Minister of Finance is increased by the loss of revenue. However, I am going to suggest a few ways and means whereby I think he could raise $50,000,000 additional revenue, and the taxes necessary for this purpose would have at least this virtue,-that they would fall upon those who are able to pay. Now, there are certain taxes which might be de-

The Budget-Mr. Lewis
scribed as optional, and I am going to make a comparison between these and other taxes which are inescapable. For instance, if a man finds a binder is necessary to run his farm, he has no option, he must buy tihat binder and pay the tariff duty assessed against it. But if the government were to place a 10 per cent tax on tickets for admission to professional hockey or professional baseball games, the man who does not want to pay the tax need not buy a ticket; therefore the tax is optional. You will find in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Regina, Saskatoon and other Canadian cities thousands of people who will pay prices ranging from one dollar to two dollars for tickets of admission to professional hockey and professional baseball games. Now, if they are so fond of this kind of professional snort, there is no reason wihy the government should not take a certain amount of that money; indeed I think they ought to. It is just as logical, just as sane as placing a tax upon woollens, boots and shoes and other things that a man who is raising a family must buy. Then I see no earthly reason why the government do not get after the bachelors. When there is drastic need of revenue, you have to take drastic means of raising it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you know how
many there are?


Arthur John Lewis: There are a great many. I
would tax all bachelors over twenty-five years of age.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about old maids?


Arthur John Lewis: Never mind the old maids.
A man, no matter how patriotic he is in raising a family, is penalized, while the bachelor to a large extent escapes taxation. I think the right hon. Prime Minister is setting a very bad example to the young men of this country. I read a speech delivered by him at a dinner that he attended in the Old Land, in the course of which he spoke of his illustrious grandfather, the "Little Rebel," the man who stands so high in Canadian history. If there is not very soon a change in the right hon. gentleman's condition, he will never have any grandchildren to boast of their illustrious grandfather! Now, to raise a family in this land costs thousands of dollars, and I consider that the husband and wife who are raising a family to-day are our greatest patriots.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur John Lewis: And I consider that the
men who shirk that responsibility ought to be taxed so that they may be compelled to
at least pay their share of the cost of government. I have not figured out what would be a fair rate of taxation, but it should be graduated, beginning at age twenty-five and increasing for every year thereafter that the bachelor shirks his responsibilities. I am going to suggest seriously ways and means of raising the revenue.
One source of revenue that the minister has overlooked is the automobile industry, one of the most flourishing industries in Canada. I do not agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) that the tariff should be lowered, but it is my opinion that, the excise tax should be increased upon Canadian manufactured cars. The hon. member for Macleod, and also the Acting Minister of Finance himself, spoke of the number of oars owned by Canadian people and pointed out that the price paid for these cars was at least 35 to 40 per cent higher than that paid in the United States. The value of the cars sold in Canada last year, the product of Canadian manufacturers, was 863,541,000, which, plus the tariff, would bring the selling price to the consumer up to 8100,000,000. The imported cars were valued at 811,000,000 and upward, but these would not be included in this new source of revenue. The tariff on these cars was shown to be about 35 per cent, so that the manufacturer in Canada has protection to the extent of one-third of the price of the cars compared with the manufacturer in the United States. The excise tax is from 5 to 10 per cent-5 per cent on cars up to $1,200, and 10 per cent on cars in excess of that value-still giving a protection to the Canadian manufacturer of from 25 to 30 per cent. The sales tax is the same on both United States and Canadian cars. If the minister would raise the excise tax on Canadian manufactured cars from 5 to 10 per cent and from 10 to 20 per cent, allowing the tariff to remain as it is, the cars would still sell at the same price to the consumer, because if the manufacturer raised his price the cars that were bought would be obtained from the United States. Thus the home manufacturer would still be protected, as also would the workmen-of whom we talk so much but for whom we do so little in this parliament-and there would be paid into the public treasury a sum of from $12,000,000 to
815,000,000.


Harold Putnam: That is on the assumption that just as many cars would be sold?


Arthur John Lewis: Yes, I am not assuming that there is to be a decrease in the number of cars bought.
The Budget-Mr. Lems


Harold Putnam: If you raise the price you will decrease the number purchased.


Arthur John Lewis: I am not raising the price at all; I am suggesting that a larger excise tax be imposed. This would still give the Canadian manufacturer the benefit of 20 to 25 per cent protection over all other rivals and I feel sure that no injustice would be done to Canadian industries. The hen. member for Macleod showed quite clearly the other evening that the Canadian manufacturers could stand this extra tax, because they are exporting to all civilized countries in the world, with the possible exception of the United States.
There is another source of revenue that the minister might with a good deal of profit investigate. I have reference to the excise tax on cigars. I mentioned this fact to the minister in my speech on the budget in 1922, when the value of the cigars imported was in the neighbourhood of $14,000,000, and this figure has not since been reduced. I showed at that time that the increase of the excise tax on cigarettes was out of all proportion to the increase on cigars, and that while cigarette? were generally smoked by the working people the expensive cigars were used by those who could well afford to pay. The tax on cigarettes was raised from 75 to 90 per cent, while on cigars it remained as low as 5 per cent. I want that to sink in. This is hardly in accordance with the professions of the Liberal party that they were in favour of the principle of placing the taxes on those who could afford to pay. Later the minister lowered very slightly the excise tax on cigarettes, but the tax on cigars remained the same-65 to 70 per cent lower than on cigarettes. If the duty on cigars was made the same as on cigarettes-and for the life of me I cannot see why there should be any discrimination-it would bring in an additional revenue of over $6,000,000 on the basis of the present consumption. Here is a source of revenue that well could be utilized, without any resort to a nuisance tax such as the tax on cream chequer which is now proposed and which affects every farmer in western Canada; for in the final analysis the consumer and the farmer are always called upon to pay.
Now, I want to say something about the French treaty. As a result of the French treaty, last year we imported into this country nearly $15,000,000 worth of brandies, perfumes, and other luxuries of the kind, these commodities coming in under a preference provided by the treaty. It is a pity that after they 
come here the government cannot place an excise tax upon them; for certainly they are luxuries, and those who use them, those who can afford to buy such things, can pay a little extra, especially when the nation is in such great need of funds.
Another thing that the minister has overlooked is the luxury tax. I know this is a verv delicate subject, but when people satisfy their expensive tastes; when they delight in luxury, it seems to me they should be willing to make some contribution to a much depleted federal treasury. I want to say this for the city of Ottawa:	I have been in many cities in Canada and I believe the ladies of Ottawa are the best dressed of those of any other city in the Dominion. But if they can afford to buy such expensive dresses, if they can afford to buy the expensive fur coats that we see galore on our streets, then it is fair that they should pay something into the public exchequer. In other words, we should be willing to pay a luxury tax. I do not wonder that some of our young people do not wish to stay on the farms. I was speaking to a man the other night and he was sajdng that on the farm we ought to grow everything, ought to card our wool, make dresses, and so on. Yet when you go into the city you see most of the young girls with shoes that cost as much as eleven dollars, but which are not worth two; you see extravagance on every hand-and then you wonder why our young people are not remaining on the farms. I submit that that is a source of revenue that the government should look into. It would bring in millions of dollars, and it is much fairer to tax the people who can buy these luxuries than it is to tax those who can hardly make ends meet.
Another prolific source of revenue that has been overlooked in this country is the radio industry, which has become a very extensive industry indeed. I do not wish to be misunderstood:	I am not desirous of raising the
prices to the radio fans, because the prices they pay are already too high. But the profits that are made on radio equipment are out of ail proportion to those made on other manufactured goods. The bill that was brought in here the other night made the situation quite clear so far as certain tubes used in radio sets were concerned. These tubes have been sold at $6; an hon. member behind me says that they have sold as high as $9. I have bought them at $6; to-day I believe they sell at $4. In the committee, when we were hearing a discussion of these radio matters, a gentleman from the United States who had gone into the question said that it cost just sixty-seven cents to produce these tubes, yet

The Budget-Mr. Spence
they have been sold to the Canadian people at as high as $9. Here is a splendid source of revenue. It was also stated in the committee that we have over 400,000 receiving sets, and a great many of these are not paying a license fee. It was estimated that the Canadian public consumed over one million of these tubes, and in the near future, as radio is extended to every part of the country, the number will go far beyond that. Why, then, not place a tax upon these things if they are going to sell them to the Canadian consumer at four, five and six dollars? I think it is quite time the government took their fair share of the profits on these sales in order to help pay our national debt.
Under the same head of luxuries would come, I think, jewellery. There is a great deal of expensive jewellery worn in this country, and you get a glimpse of it when you come to this parliament. There is no reason in the wide world why, if people can afford to buy these things, they cannot afford to pay a part of our national debt. These are the people the government should get after, and let the workingman alone who has to buy leather mitts, overalls, woollens, and boots and shoes for his family. At the present time the average man and woman cannot afford to raise a family, and we have to resort to a policy of immigration to fill up the vacant spaces which under healthy and normal conditions should be filled with our own children.
As to economy, I know that subject is taboo, but it seems to me that our war debt and our war obligations are decreasing year by year, the administrative expenses are only very slightly less. It is a very difficult thing to economize in a country like Canada, where the administration of the government must extend from the 49th parallel to the Arctic sea and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Nevertheless, our position is such to-day that trenchant economy is absolutely necessary, and if we are going to pay our debts, we must have this economy and raise the money. So far, I say quite seriously and frankly, no real attempt has been made to pay off our national indebtedness. We heard from the Prime Minister before the last election that the late administration, in spite of all the war profits that had been made, had not paid off one cent of the national debt. That may be true or otherwise, according to the manner of analysing the book-keeping, but it is all very well to criticize the old party for what should have been done eight or nine or ten years ago and was not done. I say that we
in this parliament, and I am taking my own responsibility in the matter, have been here also for four years, and we have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Great Britain in regard to our war debt. We have also collected millions and millions of dollars of special war revenue in this country, and so far we have not paid off one cent. Is it not time that we should begin to sweep our own house and accept our own responsibility, and give the people of Canada a lead?
I would urge the government to get down to business and take stock of our natural resources and of the possible sources of revenue that I have indicated, sources that would be less burdensome to the masses, and let the government make a serious attempt not only to balance our ordinary expenditures but to pay the whole yearly expenses of the government. We cannot go on ad infinitum increasing our debt without seriously affecting our standing in the financial world. The people are anxiously awaiting signs of statesmanship in this respect from this parliament, not only from the government but from all sides. They are demanding that the expenses shall be kept within the revenue of the government. They are asking that we at least seriously grapple with the problem, instead of weighing in the balance how many votes will this policy gain or lose. If the government will come out definitely and with faith in their pledges and tell us what they really intend to do, I am willing to give them my serious support and make the very best contribution I can in the matter.
Before these budget speeches are concluded,
I would like to hear the Prime Minister make a speech on the budget. I would like to hear him definitely state what he is going to do in regard to the Grain Act this year, which is so important to our western people. I would like him to state definitely what the policy of the government will be in regard to the Crowsnest pass agreement. I would like him to say definitely what he is going to do in regard to rural credits, and in regard to soldier settlement and re-establishment. I would also like him to state definitely what he is going to do in regard to the Hudson Bay railway. If he comes down with a sane, healthy, business programme, I am willing to give him my very best support.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I seldom worry the House, and if I worry it for a little while to-night I hope hon. members will be indulgent. I hesitate to take up the time of the House at all, after so many speeches have been made by
The Budget-Mr. Spence

so many hon. members on all sides. My own view is that a vote should have been taken on this question two weeks ago, yet we are still going on in this lackadaisical way without the government apparently exercising any control. I see members getting up and seeing how many pages of Hansard they can fill, simply playing to the gallery. The first thing will happen it will be impossible for any man who has any business to attend to to come to this House at all. As I said last year, you should apply economy to yourself. It is irritating to have to sit and listen to the stuff you hear in the House. There are only two classes of people who Should be in this House-those who have made their pile and need no more, and those who have no visible means of support, but I do not know that then it would be better than it is.
I must confess that I had a speech ready at one time, but now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to have all gone. One member has stolen a piece, another has stolen a piece, and I must now try and do the best I can with what is left.
I had intended to discuss the railway situation, which is the most difficult problem this country has to contend with to-day, but my good friend for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) expressed my views the other night very well. I must compliment him on the splendid address he gave us on the railway affairs of this country. AVhile I do not agree with him in regard to the compromise he suggested, I feel that if he. and I and a few more would get together and make a few compromises, we might solve the railway situation. I do not mean myself particularly, but members of the House, because we are not very far apart after all on this question. Something has got to be done with the railways, but I will not touch on that further, as I do not want to repeat what hon. members have said. I will try and confine my remarks to the administration of this government and to business generally.
We all regret the absence of the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I feel that industry and commerce in this country would not have been in the state of chaos it is in to-day had the Minister of Finance been in his own good health, because I think he would have followed a policy of stability. However, the government are to be congratulated in having an Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) so capable of preparing a budget to suit the government's purpose. It is apparently satisfactory to them all, and may I say that it took some manipulation on the

part of the Acting Minister of Finance to show surpluses where deficits exist.
I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am not a politician. My life has been a busy one, trying to eke out a living in the business world. May I say that at no time in the last thirty jmars has it been so difficult to carry on a business as it has been in the last two years, regardless of anything to the contrary that may be said by hon. members opposite. It is to be regretted that such a diversity of opinion should exist among hon. gentlemen on this side and hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the actual financial situation of the country. Is it not possible that the government in reality see eye to eye with hon. gentlemen on this side and is really aware of the true state of affairs? Let me say that a proper system of accounting should be adopted in preparing the financial statement so as to make it impossible for any political party to deceive the Canadian people by not presenting the finances of the country in the proper light. Any auditor of repute who might be called in by any branch of the government service should prepare a reliable statement which would disclose the truth in regard to the financial situation. The country should not be deceived at any time, but I believe that deception is being practised in regard to this matter. I am not a financial critic. I am not qualified like my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) to speak with authority on financial matters. I have done some financing in my time but nothing bearing any resemblance to what is done here. Very often I had to do my financing without any resources behind me; here you have the whole country behind you so you cannot be short of cash.
Why did the government bring down its budget before the end of the present fiscal year? Was it because it did not want to show that a deficit really existed, and what the amount of that deficit was? A statement was issued by the Department of Finance on February 28 for the eleven months up to that time which showed a decrease in revenue of 854,970,000 as compared with the same period of last year. That was a creditable showing, I must say-a decrease in the revenue of this country in that period of time of over 854,000,000. For the month of February alone the decrease amounted to
84.760.000,	a total decrease for the year of
860.000. 000.	Then hon. gentlemen opposite wonder why the country is not prosperous and why business is not good.

The Budget-Mr. Spence
This falling off in revenue would not be a real calamity if there was a corresponding reduction in the expenditure, but there actually was an increase in the public outlay for the same eleven months of $1,558,197, so hon. gentlemen can understand that the country is getting no better fast. The government endeavoured to lead the public to believe that the advance to the Canadian National Railways amounted to $56,000,000, but some time later a supplementary estimate came down for $7,500,000, making the total advance to the national system $63,500,000. That is what I call handing it out easy by piecemeal to the public. No wonder the government is ashamed of the financial statement in connection with the National Railways when it has information with respect to it handed out in that way.
The Conservative party to-day is to be congratulated on its tariff policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


David Spence: "Hear, hear" is right. Since the Liberals have started to tinker with the tariff they have ruined Canadian industries and caused the depression which exists to-day. The government's action with respect to the tariff has been the cause of the great depression which prevails in this country at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Unemployment.


David Spence: Naturally that follows from the injury to our industries brought about by the tariff changes. The government has now called a halt which proves conclusively that the Conservative policy was correct. The changes in the tariff which the Liberals made in 1923 when the duty was lowered on textiles killed the textile industry in this country, and drove the textile workers from Canada to develop the industry in other lands. In 1924, the duties were lowered on farm implements.


Joseph Archambault: Is it not a fact that the textile industry has been suffering in every country in the world-


David Spence: I do not know about that; I am only discussing conditions in Canada-


Joseph Archambault: -particularly in England and in the United States?


David Spence: -and my conclusion is that they are very much worse here than they are m any other country. I hope to be able to prove that after a while. This government also lowered the duty on farm implements, thus depriving the country of much needed revenue. When the government saw it had killed the implement business it tried to prop
that industry up again by taking off the sales tax, and removing the duty on raw materials entering Canada. That probably made conditions better for the Massey Harris Company and the International Harvester Company, but the country was deprived of the revenue which it should have got, and we have been making good the loss 'by personal taxes, or something of that kind. The injury to Canadian industries from the tariff changes resulted in the killing of a number of subsidiary companies; I know of one such company in Owen Sound which did a business of making bolts and nuts for the Massey Harris Company and the International Harvester Company. I know of another concern in Welland that had a contract for $50,000 worth of malleable iron with the International Harvester Company, and immediately the duty was taken off agricultural implements that order was cancelled. The Conservative party are now advocating a revision of the tariff on account of the industrial upheaval which resulted from the Great war. Other countries have become selfish and are taking steps through tariffs to protect themselves. We must follow their example if we wish to hold our own. Every other country has a higher tariff to-day than it had befqre the war. Yet Canada is trying to reduce its tariff. We cannot sit idly by and ask our Canadian people to live on starvation wages or permit them to leave Canada in order to seek a living in some other land.
We have heard talk from hon. gentlemen opposite about the elimination of combines, but we harve not seen any action taken yet in that direction. Hours at a time in this House have been occupied in discussing the Petersen contract. I have some knowledge of the transportation business and I have come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to obtain lower ocean freight rates by the method adopted by the present government. It is merely a sop to the farmers of Canada, particularly to the farmers of the west, to make them believe the government is going to reduce the freight rates on their cattle and their Wheat. There is also an attempt to lead the public at large into the belief that the Conservative party are behind a combine and have no consideration for the Canadian farmer. This action on the part of the government is deception pure and simple. Let me say that the Conservative party does not hope to gain any advantage by misleading any element in this country. Our aim is the initiation of sane and sound policies that will be in the interest of Canada and its people. Our policy has always been one of progressiveness.
The Budget-Mr. S-pence

A year or two ago this government undertook to regulate the question -of 'lake and other freight, and we all know the mess it got into. The only result of the government's action wias to drive vessels from the lakes and it cost the farmers of the pnairie -provinces some 84,000,000. Eventually the government had to -coax -these vessels back into the trade again. Now the government is talking of controlling rates on the Atlantic but its policy is nothing but a delusion and a snare in the hope of fooling the farmers again. Every hon. member here believes in low freight rates and would support any honest and tangible policy that would bring that result about. This parliament wlas not asked to vote for -control of ocean -rates; it was asked to vote a grant of $13,000,000 to -the Petersen company without any hope of controlling o-cean rates. We h-ave a merchant marine of our own, and if we could at all control ocean freight nates it ought to be through that merchant marine. Why pay a subsidy to another steamship company to get lower rates on -cattle? If you have any idea of helping the producer or exporter of cattle, why not pay him five or ten dollars a head, and then you would be sure that those you intended to help would receive the benefit themselves. A statement was made by the Prime Minister that the ocean rates had killed industry. That is absolutely wrong. If rates on the ocean are high, they are still too high on the land. The railways themselves have done a great deal to injure the country and to kill business. They did not give a proper service and they did not give any attention to the country's need, particularly in the express business. I will give the House an instance of what the people of Toronto were up against a few years ago when the men who operated the railways were trying to run them. Between Toronto and Hamilton there is a fine fruit growing country, and thousands of crates of strawberries were shipped from every station along the line. There is a large business in that commodity between Toronto, Hamilton and St. Catharines. The train came down at eleven o'clock each day and picked up from 800 to 1,000 crates of strawberries. Some days when the conductor was in a bad humour, when there would be a large number of crates lying on the platform, on a hot day, he would say, "Go on, let them lie there". Possibly the engineer would be in the same kind of humour and would say the same thing. We appealed to the railways, and they replied that the passengers were always kicking about the service. This course drove the business from the hands of the railways to the motor trucks. Hundreds

of trucks of berries would be carried in that way between Toronto, Hamilton and St. Catharines and other places. It is no wonder the business of the railways suffered. However, I do not blame it so much on the people who had the money in the railways as on the people who were running the railways. In any event the rates at the present time cannot be compared with the rates some years ago, particularly before the war. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) gave a splendid illustration ot how impossible it would be to have freight rates on the ocean as low as they used to be. He told the House particularly of the cost of the boats to begin with, and of the wages paid to the captain, the steward, and first and second mates, all the way down the line, each one drawing twice or three times as much as he was receiving before the war. That is the reason why it would be impossible to get freight rates down to the pre-war figure. No one would expect the men of the merchant marine to work for such a small pittance as they used to get, while men on the land received 100 to 150 per cent more than they received previously. I think the -men o-f the merchant marine deserve -the best of treatment, on account of their conduct during the war. Their loyalty to Great Britain should never be forgotten. I have had great respect for these men ever since the war, and I hope each and every one of us will remember, when we are paying our freight rates, that we should not begrudge the men of the merchant marine a reasonable and fair salary.
To my mind the subsidizing of a fleet of boats similar to the Petersen steamers would never have any effect on the Atlantic. We might just as well set two countries at war, one with a dreadnaught and the other with a row boat. You know which would come out on top. If the United States Shipping Board with 300 vessels in operation and 900 in reserve could not offset a combine on the Atlantic what could ten boats the size of -the Petersen fleet be expected to do?
The present government are absolutely opposed to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. They are prejudiced against it, and they are not getting the best results. When I first heard the merchant marine ridiculed by hon. gentlemen on the government side,
I advocated, as I do now, the inauguration of a service with the merchant marine between Canada and Mediterranean ports. I pointed out to them the commodities we could get from those ports, the number of boats which could be kept running and the amount of -tonnage. I also advocated putting on the merch-

The Budge'-Mr Spence
ant marine between the West Indies, which is a British possession, and Canada and building up a trade 'between the two countries. But nothing has been done. If we had established a proper and regular service between Mediterranean ports and the West Indies today we would be carrying thousands of tons of freight to the Canadian National Railways and keeping the merchant marine going at the same time. But there would be no use in doing that unless we had proper refrigerating service and a heated dock at either St. John or Halifax. There is no necessity for a heated dock at Montreal, because we cannot get up there in the winter-time, but it would be absolutely necessary to build a heated dock at S't. John or Halifax, and in that way we would develop our country and develop the British possessions, and good results would be obtained. I understand that it may be the intention to withdraw the Canadian Government Merchant Marine boats from the West Indies. I may say that that would be a terrible disaster for the West Indies, and we would be putting the business in the hands of the United Fruit Company of Boston, which is the greatest known monopoly in the world. The West Indies could1 never succeed if the business got in the hands of the United Fruit Company. We should develop a large business with the West Indies. We can create a large market for wheat, and we could extend that market to all classes of Canadian manufacture. I understand there is a great demand there for shoes and other commodities which we produce. May I say that the WTest Indies must have our support, or it will be lost to us entirely. The Americans are keeping their eyes on it very closely, and something might happen in that regard. It is up to the government to make a statement as to a permanent policy regarding steamship service, equipment, refrigeration to Canadian ports and heated docks at St. John or Halifax. We should be able to dispose of a million dollars worth of produce in the West Indies. All the people of Canada are thinking along the lines which I am now proposing. My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Harris) received a letter, I think from a gentleman in North Bay, and it deals with the question of the government giving steamship service to the West Indies. This is an important question and I wish the government would1 give attention to it. The letter says:
So that they could obtain remunerative prices, and many thousands of acres will again be brought back to a productive state as a result if refrigeration is provided. Pineapples, bananas, grapefruit, oranges, lemons, and so forth. Cocoanuts and every kind of tropical fruit can be produced.
If all that he suggests can be produced in the West Indies, and we have any interest in that country, let us do all we can to give a proper service between our own ports and the West Indies.
The letter continues:
I should say that if the government agrees to put on a refrigerator service (and I cannot imagine such madness as that they will refuse to do this), their fruit buying agencies in the colonies must be arranged at once, so as to put an end to the present monopoly.
That is a letter that came from a gentleman in North Bay who I presume is interested in the West Indies. I happened to get it this morning from my hon. friend from East York. From the information that is available, money is now being lost under present rates. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) the other night said that the tramp steamers were a very important factor in the reduction of the cost of ocean transportation. He is right; but the difficulty with the tramp steamer is that she travels only when she can get a cargo and therefore does not give the service; and what the people want is regular service. This the tramp steamers cannot provide. There is not nearly so much stuff shipped to England, Germany and other European countries to-day as was sent over before the war. The people in the British Isles, in Germany, France and other European countries have not the money to purchase to the same extent as they did before, and what money they have is depreciated. I remember that before the war everything that was produced in this country in the line of fruits would be shipped to France, Germany and England, particularly apples, evaporated or dried; and even the cores of the apples were baled and shipped to Germany, coming back here in the shape of wine, or brandy or champagne or something of that kind. To-day our producers are suffering because of the lack of demand for the poorer class of apples which we could dispose of under normal conditions in the European countries. As a result, business on the Atlantic has suffered and that is why the rates are a little higher than they should be.
Generally speaking, a low tariff is worthless. The home market is the best for all our producers. My hon. friends to my left do not think so, but I will not deal with that point just now. Our need in this country is an increased home consumption. Our population is being depleted in the industrial centres; our workers are leaving for lack of employment; and even people with incomes large enough to live on comfortably in normal times are being forced to get out, because our taxes are so numerous and heavy. There

The Budget-Mr. Spence

can be no question that the home market is decidedly the best for our truck farmers and fruit growers. Take the tract of land for about 100 miles between Toronto and Niagara Falls, and you will find that the people there grow nothing but fruit and garden truck. Now, if unemployment gets any worse and our people continue to leave the country, and if such cities
11 p.m. as Hamilton and Toronto are drained of their working population, then there will be no hope for the truck farmer and the fruit grower. Their market is entirely in the city at home, because they have no chance of getting into the American market. The Americans produce all their own fruit and vegetables, so that there is no other market for the Canadian truck farmer and fruit grower than the market in this country. This is unquestionably true of Ontario, and it applies also to the good old province of Quebec. There may have been a time when there were large farmers in Quebec, but the farms in that province have been cut up so that every farmer there operates now on a small scale. And as in the case of the Toronto farmer, the truck farmer and fruit grower of the province of Quebec must look to the industrial centres to find an outlet for his product. If therefore our population continues to drift, to the United States these farmers will be wiped out. We all know that the United States is a great producing country, and this can readily be understood when we consider that the climatic conditions there are so very much more favourable to truck farming and fruit growing than they are in this or any other country. In Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee and North and South Carolina they get from two to three crops a year under these ideal conditions while our farmers in this country spend all their time trying to grow one-crop.
Now, as a result of the low prices that are obtained for fruit and garden truck in thi3 country the prices of our farms are going down; the value of farm lands is being depreciated. Men who have acquired farms in the last five or six years are finding it difficult to eke out a living in Ontario in those places surrounding Toronto, Hamilton and other cities. I know several of them who are going through this experience. And'the same thing is true of the farms adjacent to Montreal. These farmers are finding it exceedingly difficult to meet the interest on the money they agreed to pay for their farms, and they are not getting the protection they deserve. I do not know whether a higher tariff on

vegetables coming into this country this spring would bring about the results we should like to attain, but I might give you an illustration of the condition that exists. Even this year this country was filled with new carrots around the month of December, something that never happened before. We got carload after carload of new carrots in bushel baskets from the state of California in the month of December, and as a result of that new supply coming in the farmers around Toronto lost on nearly the whole of their crop. The reason is not far to seek; so long as the public can get the new stuff they will not buy any of the old vegetables. If we had had a tariff commission that knew something about the business conditions of the country they would have advised the government to put on an embargo for a couple of months to enable the Canadian producers to dispose of their output. Millions of dollars' worth of produce from the United States is being sold to-day on the streets of Montreal and Toronto, although the men who buy it do not make a dollar. The man who buys this stuff is in competition with the other fellow and so long as his competitor buys it he feels that he must do likewise. And while the streets of our cities are loaded with the American produce our own garden truck is rotting. The home market to-day is in a deplorable condition. Two months ago new potatoes sold at $12 a barrel, No. 2 American, while Ontario first-class was selling at from 70 to 75 cents a bag. Yet there was a demand for the new potatoes. A barrel of that old stuff would be worth $1.50 while a barrel of the new potatoes would fetch $12. At the present time a barrel of the new potatoes sells for $6 and the old potatoes around $1 a barrel; yet the people demand the new potatoes. And so long as we have people with champagne tastes this will be the case. We need a tariff commission to advise the government as to what should be done in circumstances of this kind.
Some of my hon. friends to my left and some opposite are changing their minds with regard to the tariff. Some of them are advocating a duty on certain commodities produced in their own ridings. I do not want to mention any names, but I have heard gentlemen this year advocating a tariff who denounced protection last year. We are glad they are coming our way, because the policy of the Liberal party has been tried and found wanting and I see no reason why hon. gentlemen to my left and protectionists in front of me should not support the policy of the Conservative party, a policy devised to protect the interests of all.

The Budget-Mr. Spence
Let me say that there will be a demand yet for protection on the prairies, as I told my hon. friends a year or two ago. I congratulated them on the development of their industries in Alberta and in Manitoba. As soon as they get away from mining the country, growing nothing but wheat, and go in for mixed farming they will foe making the same howl for protection as they have made here for free trade during the last two or three years, and then they will give the Conservative party the credit which is its due.
The business administration of this government has not been altogether up to date. I doubt very much if any government ever gives a real, business administration, but this is about the worst I have yet seen. They have been bargaining and making treaties, and in the treaty arranged with France I do not think our negotiators got the best of the bargain, and I am satisfied that the government are disappointed with the result. What followed the ratification of the treaty? We bought $5,000,000 worth more from France and we sold them $3,000,000 worth less. I cannot see what benefit that was to Canada. The imports included wines, silks, satins, and so on, on which we should have collected a revenue. These are luxuries, and those who can afford to buy them can afford to pay duty on them. After all, that is what is ruining this country to-day-the lack of revenue and too much taxation. We hear that another treaty is in course of negotiation with Australia. Whether it will go through or not we do not know. I am not going to enumerate the ' articles on which Australia extends to Canada the preferential treatment, but among the commodities on which we offer Australia a preference rate are meats. Now, that is one of the the things that we export, we have an over supply, and so long as that is the case I am not going to support the treaty with Australia. Then there is a preference given on eggs, cheese, butter, onions and other articles. It is my opinion. I do not know whether it is Shared by my party, that we have lots of those things in this country. To encourage their importation tends to kill our producers, the tillers of the soilv and they are the men we have to protect. I am just as anxious to protect the man who tills the soil as I am to support the manufacturer- in fact I have lost a certain amount of respect for the manufacturer. Then dried fruits, raisins and currants, are dealt with, and to these I have no objection. But I do object to our giving Australia preferential rates on vegetables. This country is so full of veget-1644
ables that we could supply Australia and England combined. All this tends to ruin our men who produce this stuff. So far as I am concerned, I hope there will be no more such treaties negotiated with any country; I think our motto should be "Canada first."
I wish the government would give the country an economical business administration instead of a political administration. I hate to say that they have been endeavouring to humbug the people, but that is really the only way I can express it. They have been manipulating our trade figures to show that there is a national prosperity that really does not exist. The right hon. Prime Minister spent two hours one night trying to tell the House and the country how much better off we are this year than we were last. Any hon. member need only ask himself and his relatives and friends how much more money they have in their pockets now than they had last year to realize the hollowness of such claims. That is what I call humbugging the people-the Prime Minister of this Dominion standing on the floor of this House trying to tell the people they are better off to-day than they were two or three years ago! He could not convince anyone of that. He also boasted that our exports were so much greater than our imports. But we all know why. We have been exporting raw material, such as wheat, copper and pulp-wood; that is the reason why our exports are so much in excess of our imports. The principal reduction in our imports was in bituminous coal, steel and other raw material, which proves that our industries were shut down and did not need either coal or raw materials. An argument of that kind is absolutely nonsensical.
Last year I spoke about government by commissions and committees, and I remarked that the House was run like a six-ring circus. You can add another ring to that this year, if you like. This session committees are the fashion as usual. The government are trying to make the country believe that they are absolutely fair in everything they do, and especially when they adopt the recommendations of any of these committees. But every hon. member knows what might be expected from a committee composed of eight members of the Liberal party, four members of the Progressive party-which is worse than the Liberal party-and three lone members of the old Conservative party. You can imagine what kind of a deal we are likely to get out of that sort of committee. The government can say to an anxious public and to

The Budget-Mr. Spence

any interested corporations: " That committee has not reported yet. Just wait a little while. They may recommend so and so." The government can promise anything and everything to keep themselves in power, and that is the only policy they have got.
Last year I pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture (-Mr. Motherwell)-is he there?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes.


David Spence: I must congratulate him this year: I see he cut several thousand dollars off the item for -publications. Yet there are many publications still being sent to members of the House which I do not -think are ever read. I pointed o-ut the waste and -the uselessness of having our postlm-en lugging these publications there -and 'here and dropping them in our homes. My wife said to me, "I wish you would1 stop that stuff icoming into the house." I say it is a waste of money to distribute so many publications all over the country. What are not distributed are baled and solid ait the price of scrap, probably half a cent a pound. I think -the item for scrap paper sold last year was $24,000 or $25,000. The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) knows all about that, because last yelar he told me I was wrong. It seems to me that the Civil Service Commission could keep a printing bureau of their own -advertising for help needed in the Department of Agriculture. Where -the minister pubs them all I cannot tell you, whether he hires -them there and sends them somewhere else I do not know, but every day the Civil Service Commission is advertising vacancies in his department. And worst of all, we will soon need a new dictionary to understand the nature of the duties which these additions to his staff -are -expected t-o undertake, for no one can understand the berms used in the advertisements. Where the money goes we do not know, but it goes just the same. I will give you an idea where some of it -goes, and I will show that large amounts of -money have been wasted-I will not say deliberately-for the -purpose of camouflage or of fooling the public. Some -time ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) had an advertisement -published, entitled "Canada is coming back."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: "Coming through."


David Spence: - "Canada is coming through" -inserted in several newspapers; and here are the papers that were paid for this bit of camouflage: Manitoba Free Press-I do not know that that is a Conservative paper, anyhow; Gazette Printing Company-well, I do not care, it is a matter of policy; Canada

Congress Publishing Company; Globe Printing Company-I do not see the Mail and Empire there; Saturday Night; MacLean's Magazine; Financial Post

an item of $2,893 for publishing an advertisement that was not true, and every hon. member knows it was not true
We spent last year $21,402 for an agricultural investigation, and nothing at all came out of it. An investigation into ocean rates is being held, supposedly arising out of the report of that committee, though I thought it was because of W. T. R. Preston's report. Then we come to our friend Mr. Preston, who received $10,698, salary and expenses, in connection with various activities on behalf of the government. The Great Lakes freight investigation cost $2,291; the secretaryship of the grain commission, $5,310; allowance for house in England, $150, and so on. Now, this is something I do not -approve of; I do not think it is necessary. Then, we had another commission known as the pulpwood commission. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) asked what was the total cost to the country of the pulpwood commission and the reply came from the Acting Minister of Finance that it wras the tidy sum of $75,672.51. The question was also asked, what was the cost of the grain inquiry and what were the estimated outstanding accounts, to which the minister replied that from June 30, 1923 to March 31, 1924, the cost had been $107,612 and from April 1, 1924 to February 5. 1925, $59,994.88, a total of $166,606. Mr. Speaker, if a man had to work hard for this money himself I do not think he would spend it in that way.
Then, ini 1924-25, W. T. R. Preston was paid $12,000 and $9,000. My own opinion is that there should be fewer committees and commissions and that the government should take the responsibility and do this work themselves. Let me assure the government that from what I am -able to gather the people are going to take a more active interest in the next election than they have taken in elections in the past. Their friends and relations are being forced to leave -their native -land, many to seek a living in the United States, and these people are now ready to stand behind the good old Conservative party, which is always relied utpon to restore confidence and to bring things back to normal conditions.
Somebody on the government side of the House said the other day that two hundred new industries had been started in northern Ontario. Well, if that is so, it is a case of two hundred men individually starting ou-t in industry themselves in order to -provide little

The Budget-Mr'. Spence
jobs which they were unable to get in any other way.
A great deal has been said with regard to the desirability of our manufacturing our pulp-wood rather than shipping it out in the form of raw material. The Ontario government are to be congratulated on what they have don? in this respect; they prohibited the exportation of pulpwood from crown reserves, with the result that employment has been given to many hundreds of people. Why should we in Ontario or in the Dominion of Canada send out, our pulpwood and our men to develop an industry in Tonawanda, near Buffalo? To-day that place is booming as a result of those activities. It is clear that a great deal of this material should be manufactured into the finished product in Canada before it is exported. We cut 4,350,000 cords of pulpwood last year and nearly all of that went out in the form of raw material.
It is well known that we have valuable resources of copper in this country, but nearly all the copper we produced went to the United States, and the result is that the English and German business is going to that country instead of coming to Canada. Canada sold only 7 per cent of this product to these countries. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. Of iron ore we imported $128,000,000 worth. If our iron ore industry was developed as it should be, there would be no necessity of our buying a dollar's worth of this material in the United States. Reports of the best geologists in this country tell us that there is any amount of iron ore in the Hudson bay region which will test at 55 to 60; and I understand there is a movement on foot on the part of the Ontario government to have it brought down to Moose Factory for transport over the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway in the near future. I hope that will be done.
I noticed by the budget that the duty was taken off West Indian grape fruit-that is, grape fruit from Jamaica. I approve of that but there is no use taking the duty off grape fruit unless a proper steamship service and refrigerator accommodation are provided to take care of the imported products when brought to the ports of Halifax and St. John. I was talking to an importer of grape fruit the other day in Toronto, whose brother is now in Jamaica. He said he appreciated the removal of the duty from grape fruit, but the trouble was that the Canadian ports were not provided with the facilities for handling this product. My opinion is that there is too much duty at present on the Florida grape fruit. The Union government put a duty of a cent a pound on grape fruit from Florida. I advocate a
specific duty. I do not like the ad valorem duty, because there is always some difference between the buj^er and the customs officials as to how many pounds a box of grape fruit contains. There is always a tendency on the part of the buyer to try to show the Customs department how little the box contains, while the Customs department try to show how much it weighs. The best system is to put on a specific duty of so much per box. The specific duty does not penalize the man who ships a good, thin-skinned, juicy grape fruit as against the man who ships a thick-skinned, pithy grape fruit with very little juice in it. The man who ships the inferior stuff pays 65 cents a box, while the man who ships the first class fruit is required to pay 75 cents a box. I would therefore advise the government to reduce the duty on grape fruit from Florida to at least not more than fifty cents per box, making it a specific rather than an ad valorem duty.
We have another grievance. Last year we had an over supply of onions in Canada. In the district of Leamington and Windsor we had more onions produced last year than this country could consume. There is a duty of 30 per cent on onions coming into Canada and a dollar a bag, or a cent a pound, on onions going into the United States. Had our duty been the same as that of the United States, we would have cleaned all the onions out of this country, with no loss to the producer of onions. So instead of having a 30 per cent duty on onions coming into Canada, let us have a duty of one cent a pound, the same as the United States, and give our own people a chance in this country.
We have strawberries coming in here with a duty of two cents a pound. That is another problem that it is difficult to contend with, for our customs officials have to weigh several boxes in a carload of strawberries. I would advise the government to make the duty so much per box, instead of so much per pound, because there is always trouble over how many ounces each box weighs. Instead of a duty of two cents a pound, which makes three cents a box, I would make the duty on American strawberries five cents a quart box. and two or three cents a pint.
I have always opposed special taxation, the sales tax, the stamp tax, and all that sort of thing. What I would suggest as an alternative is this. To-day the price of oranges, bananas and pineapples has gone up so high that a duty of 25 cents per box would make little difference; it would add nothing to the resale price. Bananas are coming in here
The Budget-Mr. Spence

plentifully at the very time of the year when our own Canadian strawberries, cherries and peaches are coming in,, and they are the biggest menace that our growers have from any foreign market. Bananas are in the hands of the greatest monopoly in the world. I remember many years ago w*hen bananas would not be worth three or three and a half cents a pound. To-day you cannot buy them by the carload for less than 7-i cents a pound, and many times they have to keep them and let them rot there rather than sell cheap. That is the result of a lack of the steamboat service that we should be giving these countries.
My opinion is that the simplest and easiest and cheapest way of getting the money to run our country is by the tariff as far as possible. It is not so irritating; people do not know they are paying it. They get their medicine regularly in small doses. The customs officials are always on the job, and there is no reason why they Should not be kept busy. To-day this government is establishing tax collection offices at different places and employing extra help, which always eats up a great percentage of the money collected. You could eliminate entirely the tax offices if you collected all the money you require by means of duties.
I am in favour of doing anything that will help the prairie provinces or the Maritime provinces, and if Nova Scotia is as badly off as hon. members say I have no objection to the individual fisherman getting the duty lowered on equipment for their boats. I am in favour of the duty on slack coal, but I am also in favour of protecting the man who finds that duty adds largely to the overhead of his business. I will give you an instance. I know of a nursery business whose overhead has been increased by $7,000 or $8,000 by that extra duty of 34 cents on soft coal. Now something should be done to help an industry that that duty hurts. I refer to the Dale's Nursery at Brampton, one of the biggest nurseries in Canada. To-day we have only a 17 per cent duty on cut flowers coming into Canada, while the United States have a duty of 45 to 46 per cent on cut flowers from Canada going in there. What should be done is to help this nursery or any similar organization by increasing the duty on the goods it raises coming into this country when it is affected by this duty on coal to the amount of $7,500 or $8,000 additional overhead.


Mr. McMASTER:: And the consumer will
pay that duty.


David Spence: Why will the consumer
pay it?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Who is going to pay it if not the consumer?


David Spence: Why will any Liberal member advocate destroying an industry by adding $8,000 to its overhead? It cannot stand it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am not proposing
that.


David Spence: What is the difference when you allow cut flowers, high-class roses, to come into Canada under a 17 per cent duty, when our cut flowers have to pay 45 and 46 per cent going to New York and Philadelphia and other places in the United States. People who can afford to buy American roses in this country at from $2 to $8 per dozen can afford to pay the extra duty, and help the industry you are killing.


Mr. STEVENS:: WThat is the difference
between coal and roses so far as paying the duty is concrened?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The principle is bad in both cases.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is going to vote for the principle in the one case, but he would not in the other.


David Spence: We have too many methods of taxation and they are too rigid. I am absolutely opposed to the sales tax. The income tax I have no grievance with because anyone who makes sufficient income should pay an income tax. I am sorry to say that the income tax I will have to pay this year will be very low as compared with some years ago. I will be very glad to pay income tax. However, the income tax is not administered just as it should be. Let me give you an instance of how the department treated a perfect gentleman, a man I know very well, who made a mistake. He was executor of a certain will in Toronto, and he was three days late in making his return to the Income Tax department. He was fined $50, although he had paid the tax within the time limit. That was about the time the Hon. Mr. Fielding took sick, and I tried to intercede for this gentleman. That is what makes men like that, men of the highest type, get sore on governments because the system is applied so rigorously. I know another case in our own business. In this case the party was using horses and wagons for livery purposes. They were changing from horses to motor delivery, and in the statement they made to the Income Tax department they put down $600 for old wagons and one horse and some harness and

The Budget- -ifr. Spence
things like that. The next year all the party got for their horses and the whole outfit was not $600, but $150. Do yo.u suppose the tax department allowed them anything for that? They said: No, we will allow you 25 per cent depreciation. The man showed them the actual receipts of the sale, but the officials insisted on his coming back and paying income tax on $337.50 that they had no right to get whatever. A system that is unfair in that way is a bad one, and makes bad friends for any government.
The stamp tax I think is absolutely against the ordinary man. The man who issues cheques from $2 up to $200 is penalized, while the man who issues cheques for $50,000 is always protected. We have so many classes of taxation to-day, federal, provincial and municipal, that they are becoming very burdensome. It is very difficult for the ordinary business man to understand these taxation laws; they are not sufficiently simple in form. I know an instance where several parties who were going out collecting money decided that it would be proper to put a two cent stamp on every receipt over $10. These people were going out and collecting say $10 and putting a stamp on each $10 paid on account. Others were not putting on any stamp at all; they thought it was not necessary unless the whole amount was paid to affix a stamp to the receipt. I saw an account which came back to one of the hon. members of this House some time ago and it was marked "Received your cheque. No need to send a receipt." So you see these laws cannot be enforced. From what I know of the mercantile world the government must be collecting much less income tax every year. There are so many old established firms being driven out of business that it could not be otherwise. The hon. member for East York suggested the other day that we had too many representatives in parliament. I concur in what he said in that regard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


David Spence: "Hear, hear" is right. The unit of representation should be increased. W*e have too much government for our population. I believe in representative government, but we have enough representatives in this House for a population 20,000.000 greater. I want to say there is too much time wasted in discussing radical proposals and economic conditions, and it costs the country too much money. We have township, county and city councils in addition to our federal and provincial legislatures. We are governed to death and in making this statement I am not
giving you my own views; I am repeating the views of the man on the street. The people are sick and tired of too much government; what we should have is a less number of representatives in this House.
Now as to immigration, I agree practically with what one hon. member said the other day. We spent millions on immigration and have induced 350,000 immigrants to come to Canada, but we lost 450.000 of our own Canadian people in the same time. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are importing muscle and exporting brains to develop the industries of the United States. I would spend very little on immigration. I would allow every healthy individual from the British Isles or northern Europe, and a quota from other countries, to come to Canada, and they should all become Canadians or else stay out. We do not want any race of people that we cannot readily assimilate and make good Canadians of. We have immigration agents here and immigration agents there, but the class of immigrants we have been getting for the last few years are a detriment to any country. There never was a time when we had as good an opportunity to increase the population of Canada by the inclusion of good English, Irish and Scotch immigrants as during the present year. There were a number of people coming out from the British Isles and naturally they all wanted to get to the United States because they had heard so much of the great prosperity of that country. When they were refused admission to the United States by reason of the quota having been exceeded they stopped in some of the larger cities of Canada; and had there been a possibility of getting employment in Canada my opinion is the population of this country would have been increased by several hundred young immigrants from the British Isles. A number of them hailing from that part of the Old Country where I was raised, came to me to know if I could assist them. Many of those immigrants made their way illegally to the United States; I believe quite as many entered the United States illegally as were legally admitted.
I may say that I advocated the appointment of a tariff commission in the sessions of 1922 or 1923, and I am still of the same opinion. I suggested that there should be a tariff commission to advise the government, but I would not want the government to accept the views of such a commission if at all illogical. Neither would I have the government appoint a body of this kind merely as a figurehead or an ornament. Competent men are needed in an advisory capacity of
The Budget-Mr. Spence

this kind. My reason for first advocating the appointment of this commission was this: When the present government was elected it was supposed to be a low tariff party and I was afraid it might carry out the platform of the Liberal convention of 1019. Accordingly I wanted to head the government off but it did not keep its promises.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You thought a tariff
commission might have that effect?


David Spence: It would have the effect of not allowing you to ruin the country. The tariff commission should be composed of men of outstanding ability, men of the highest integrity; they should be men who had been trained in the commercial world, in the fields of industry and commerce, on the farm or in the factory. I would make one suggestion, however, to the hon. members of the government who are listening to me, and that is that Mr. W. T. R. Preston should not be the chairman of the proposed tariff commission. That would be a political commission and these henchmen would always be on the job.
I listened with a great deal of interest the other day to what the hon. member for Prince, (Mr. MacLean) said about discrimination in freight rates in this country. He said that a certain Mr. Armstrong had quoted certain rates, and when I heard the statements of the hon. gentleman I thought I would endeavour to find out whether they were true. He informed the House that the rate on potatoes from Kentville to Sydney, 312 miles, was 53 cents while the rate from Toronto to Winnipeg, 1,232 was 55 cents. Now I happen to know something about rates. The Saturday following when I went home I observed a bill in my own warehouse showing the prepaid freight on a car of carrots to Winnipeg, and the rate was 80i cents. This year on account of the scarce crop in the ivest and the big volume in Ontario the Canadian National Railways made a sacrifice and cut the rate to 66 cents on a 4,500 car. What I wish to say is that hon. members should not make statements of such a character unless they know them to be true, otherwise they are simply creating trouble.
The hon. member in question also talked about the Minister of Trade and Commerce developing a market for Canadian potatoes in the Old Country. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that when a commodity is scarce you can always find a market for it without going to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A few years ago when this country

had a dearth of potatoes the men in the
business did not have to go to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to find out where they could get a supply. They discovered there were lots of potatoes in Ireland, England and Scotland, and they brought potatoes here from those countries. I do not therefore see any particular reason why the Minister of Trade and Commerce should be given credit for developing a market in the Old Country. If the minister had succeeded in getting Britain to remove the embargo from potatoes he would have done something for which he could hlave claimed credit. The hon. member to whom I have referred' said, the Maritime provinces had no market for their .products in Ontario; they had to go to the United States in order to sell their fish and potatoes. Now I may say that we get 7,000,000 pounds of fish from Nova Scotia in the vicinity of Toronto alone, and that city is filled1 with seed! potatoes from Prinice Edward Island. It is not fair either to say that there is no market in Ontario for apples from British Columbia or Nova Scotia. Let me say that I 'have seen thousands of barrels of Nova Scotia apples in the city of Toronto alone. If Nova Scotia would become up-to-date, and if they would use a decent looking barrel or get a good box and pack them nicely, I would guarantee that Toronto would) 'take 100,000 boxes a year. It is their own fault they are not getting the trade. The difficulty has been dishonest packing and old-fashioned, antiquated ideas. They are using nails four inches long instead of inch and a quarter. You would) think the boxes came out of Noah's ark.
The hon, member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) was howling about everything. He was opposed to the duty on coal. He did not like to see one of his sister provinces getting something to help her along. I must congratulate my hon. friends to my left this year. I never heard so little howling in my life. Last year it wias a continual 'howl, but .this year it is different. I think they have been told to be good boys and keep quiet or we will go to the country. They are breaking up internally, and I am going to leave them to their fate. Individually there is not a better class of boys than the hon. members sitting to my left, but collectively their policy is absolutely ruinous to every .part of Canada except their own district. I am informed on good authority that when hon. members talk in this House about secession, they are not expressing the views of the western people, and I am convinced that there is nothing whatever in this talk about the feeling in the west with regard

The Budget-Mr. Spence
to secession. I wanit to part good friends with hon. gentleman to my left and if we should have an election (this year I am -satisfied the present repreeenitation from the west will not bo here again. I may travel out west this coming winter, and I hope to meat them and be friendly with them. I know for a positive fact that, although other Progressives may come here, very few of my hon. friends will be here and I desire to ipart with them the very best of friends. There is a fuelling that there is going to be an. election, and I am honing it will be very soon.
Hon. members have been talking about there being more unemployment in the United States in proportion to population than in Canada. I think the hon. member for Cham-bly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) said that the Associated Press made the statement that in New York alone there were over
300,000	unemployed. He also said that in the New England textiles there was misery and unemployment and stated that it was a better year for the Massey Harris and International Harvester companies. I do not care what the statistics, the hon. member or the Associated Press state I say it was not a better year for the Massey Harris people. They are located within two thousand yards of my riding, and I can remember the time when they employed from four thousand to four thousand five hundred men, with the exception of a short time in the fall of the year, and to-day there are not a thousand people in their employ, and at the present time I know some of the stock holders have very little to live on and there is no dividend. Why any hon. gentleman rises in this House and says they are doing better this year than previously, I cannot understand. I would not believe it. Then there is the Abel Company right in my riding. This company used to employ 1,500 men. They are now the Rumley people of Chicago, and there are only four or five men distributing goods obtained from their plant in Chicago, and Canada is holding the bag in the distribution.
Then another statement my hon. friend made was that a change had taken place in regard to certain lines of boots and shoes. I was talking to a friend the other day who knew the facts, and I regret to say that his report is that the Ames Holden people are going to shut down their factory in Montreal. I have a report from one of our commissioners in New York which proves the statements I have made to be correct and that the statements made by the hon. gentleman and by the Associated Press are incorrect.
This report is by Commissioner Frederick Hudd and reads:
Industry continues at a comparatively satisfactory level of activity and the maintenance of production and distribution point to a favourable business outlook. There is no decrease in production in the basic industries. Pig iron production in February was the highest on record for any February and there was an increase in steel ingot production. In the automobile industry, production has expanded and it is estimated that 277,600 cars were produced in February as compared with 240.912 in January, while at the beginning of March the industry was more active than in February.
The Guaranty Survey appraises the present business situation in the following terms:-
The continuance of a large physical volume of trade is evidenced tby the seasonal record in freight car loading during the first ten weeks of the year. The average daily number of loadings last month was greater than in the preceding month or in February a year ago. Moreover, current reports of retail dealers indicate an active movement of goods into consumers hands. The business of mail order houses and tencent chain stores was about 11 per cent larger.
Factory employment in the state of New-York has increased. This is especially the case in the textile industry. There has been increased employment in the iron and steel and textile industries.
Then here is the money and the exchange situation:
The Money Situation
The discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York rose from 3 per cent to 3J per cent at the end of February. Payments through banks for the first quarter are above the corresponding figures for last year. Exchange of cheques at the principal clearing houses of the United States in March rose to a total of $41,946,379,288-an increase of 12 per cent over February and of 14.4 per cent over March, 1924. This total exceeded that of any other March on record and March, 1920. by $608,119,597. Clearings in New York city aggregated $23,349,010,749, which was 10.9 per cent over February and 18.8 per cent larger than March, 1924. The exchange of cheques outside New York city totalled $18.597.368 539. an advance of 13.4 per cent over February and of 9.4 per cent over March, 1924.
The Exchange Situation
Our decrease in clearing house returns in eastern Canada was $553,000,000-1924.
I got this out of Commercial Intelligence issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce April 18, 1925.
The policy of protection to my mind multiplies employment. It will attract capital which will be adding to industry and constantly improving conditions in the factory, accumulating assets.
To-day even-body is discouraged; there is no stability and every investor feels himself to be under suspended sentence. There is too much money in victory bonds. I went into this subject last year, and advised borrowing cheaper money in New York. We have barrels of money in Canada now to put into industry, but no one will take a chance and never will as long as the present government
257S
The Budget-Mr. SpenC'

are in power unless they swallow our policy. I say to hon. members of the government: throw up your hands and give Canada a chance; go to the country and ask the endorsa-tion of the people.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Thurston) made a statement in this House on the 20th April, that in twenty-five years there would be no Conservative party. Let me say to the hon. member that in five years there will be nothing left but the Conservative party, and the hon. member himself will be out of it in less than five months, with some good Tory representing his riding. I always back up my statements if anyone challenges them.
It seems to me that the government are really forcing the people to consider annexation, and we all know that people will do anything rather than starve. This government's policy is one of wait and see, and they will do anything at all to keep in power. And they got into power through misrepresentation; there is absolutely no doubt about that. They tried to put the blame on the Conservative party for everything that happened in the war, and they pitted the minds of the good people of the province of Quebec against my hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) and the Conservative party. But their luck will change, the chickens will come home to roost. The government's time is nearly at an end, and their doom is certain the moment they appeal to the country. My hon. leader has been accused of making pessimistic speeches. Well, we are all more or less pessimistic, according to the meaning we attach to that word, when we see things as they are and point them out with a view to remedying them. So far as any charge of pessimism is concerned, my leader is altogether misrepresented. I wonder whether hon. gentlemen know just what the word pessimism really means. Do you think that it is right that the country should not know the true state of affairs? Why should the people be deceived? So far as I can see, there is no reason whatever why there should not be a proper statement of the financial condition of the country submitted to the people at large so that they might know just how we stand. Suppose you were at sea on a great ocean liner and a storm arose; what would you expect the captain to do if he had the interests of his passengers at heart? Would it not be the part of wisdom for him to nail down the hatches and so save both passengers and ship? Would it be pessimistic for him to see danger ahead and try to avert at? Let me tell the members of the government that we are trying to save the ship of state.

That ship is listed southward and unless some remedy is applied immediately it will list to a dangerously greater extent before long.
I want to read from a letter I have received from the French Ivory Products Limited, a manufacturing concern in my constituency. Hon. members will see what the state of things really is when they hear this.
Toronto, April 1st, 1925.
Dear Sir,-
Our business consists of the manufacture of toiletware such as mirrors, brushes, hair receivers, puff boxes, jewel boxes, combs, etc., from French ivory (celluloid). This industry has been developed during the last ten years from a very small beginning until to-day it is quite a considerable business and able to cope with legitimate import competition, such as English, where rates of wages, while lower than Canadian, are nearer our standards than are the wage rates of other countries such as Germany and Japan.
Realizing that the bulk of our lines sell most freely in the fall, when merchants stock up for the holiday trade, thus necessitating much short time in our factory during the early part of the year, we set about developing our comb lines which are an all year round seller, and this finally grew into a very large proportion of our business. (One of these lines we were able to supply the government in large quantities during the War). This development has enabled us to keep our workmen more steadily employed throughout the year.
Recently this comb business, which we have built up primarily to keep our wheels turning, and our men employed during the early part of the year, has been imperilled by German competition. We have had to reduce our staff and cut our working hours, with a result that our wage bill has been cut practically in half. During the last year some of our employees have gone to the States owing to the fact that we could not keep them employed.
The prices at which German and Japanese combs can be sold in Canada are below our production cost and yet we have every reason to believe that the ridiculously low prices at which these combs are being bought in Germany gives the agents and jobbers and dealers profit before the public get any benefit of it.
We know the prices at which these combs can be bought in Germany and the large profit that is possible on them, as we were offered an agency. We turned this down as we preferred to manufacture rather than throw our workmen out of employment and try to sell German manufactured goods. We find, however, that the Germans secured other Canadian agents.
Since the war the government have enacted several commendable pieces of legislation in an endeavour to guard against this unfair and undesirable competition, but at present none of these are in force and Germany is now a real menace to our industry.
Only last week our Toronto traveller called on several of the largest jobbers in our line and found them all solidly sold on the German line on account of the prices.
As an illustration we will take a pocket comb with case. This costs in Germany $4.50 per gross. Our nearest comb uses $4.28 worth of material alone which is only charged in at scrap value as the comb is made from small pieces. To the $4.28 must be added our labor, factory expense and commercial overhead.
A similar English comb sells wholesale in England at a little over $18 per gross.
As this is only one illustration which might be multiplied, it is not difficult to see what will happen to the Canadian comb business if some steps are not taken

The Budget-Mr. Spsrte
at once to protect the Canadian workmen against unfair German working conditions.
We would respectfully urge upon you the importance and necessity of immediate amending legislation which will provide greater protection based on Canadian values and Canadian wages and would appreciate your support of any legislation along these lines.
I have another letter along the same lines but I will not read it. But it all goes to show how the country is suffering from this cheap foreign labour in countries where they work ten to fifteen hours a day in competition with our workmen.


The :: hon. member for Chambly and Ver-cheres tlhe other evening endeavoured to stir up a little strife-it .may have been unintentional-on the expenditures incurred in connection with the war. Now if any wrong was done, and I do not admit that there was, the Liberal party were equally guilty; whatever was done at that time was done under the administration of the Union 12 m. government. The hon. member quoted the cost of sending unnecessary men to France. But who knows whether we sent unnecessary men or not? It is possible that the men were not all fit for the firing line, but there were many other uses to which men who were not sufficiently sound for the trenches could be put in the rear in connection with transportation and so on. He also condemned the government of that day for having wasted $247,000,000 on the Ross rifles and other equipment. That is a ridiculous statement, for the hon. member knows that the Ross rifles were in use before the Union government got into power. Then he referred to the waste of $80,000,000 on the Canadian merchant marine, all of which he attributed to the Conservative party; and he talked about $10,000,000 expended on useless Canadian Northern Railway stock. The hon. member knows that the Canadian Northern had to be taken over, so that his remarks in that direction are not pertinent- Then he spoke about the loss of revenue in tax free bonds. But if he knows anything he knows that our bond market was in very poor shape at that time; England was in the war and America was not sympathetic, and we had to give some encouragement to the people here to buy the bonds. That is why these bonds were sold at 5-'. per cent. The hon. member puts down the loss at $110,000,000. Now. we had to give some encouragement in order to sell those bonds at all, because as I have said, we had no bond' market and were in a difficult position. Statements of that kind should not be made on the floor of the House; they simply promote strife between the good people of Ontario and the good people of
Quebec. There is no necessity for such discussion; the war is over, and we may as well have peace; there is no use for us to be continually fighting. Those of us who are comparatively new members have been more or less disgusted with the way in which certain hon. members quarrel across the floor. We are here to legislate for the present and the future, and we should care very little for .the past. Sometimes I get weary listening to hon. members resurrecting things that happened years ago. If it comes to extravagance, no government has sinned more than the present, unless it was the Drury government in Ontario, whose members spent money like drunken sailors. You all know what Ontario did to them. So people in glass houses should not throw stones. A few evenings ago the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte) delved into ancient history, to thirty-two years ago, respecting a commissioner whom we sent to the World's Fair in Chicago., for the purpose, I presume, of entertaining distinguished guests, and the hon. member gave us details of hotel bills and so on, in an attempt to justify the expenditure last year on the trip of himself and1 two other gentlemen to the Wembley exhibition. I am not criticizing that expenditure, the sum apenit by the boys at Wembley was not very large; but .maybe there was no necessity for sending them to London at the country's expense. However, the criticism of that expenditure by certain hon. members in no way justified the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond referring to a member long since dead, and I do not think he added any dignity to our proceedings by his counter attack. Matters of this kind should not be brought up in the House for they always create more or less trouble.
The government are continually blowing about how Canada is coming through, and they are spending barrels of money advertising how it may be done. I want to tell them how to bring Canada through without spending so much money-just give the people a chance at an early general election, and they will provide the remedy. I believe this government is a menace to Canada, I believe they are actually willing to trade off any part of it for any emolument. They are sacrificing the industries of this country in pandering to the few Progressives to my left in order to continue themselves in power. That is simply their whole consideration. I hope that in the very near future, if they do not soon make up their minds to go to the country and secure the verdict of the people on their administration of the past four years, they will at least
2580	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Elliott (Dundas)
try to give the country a business administration between now and the next general election.


Mr. PRESTON ELLIOTT (Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) on his very short speech-extending over two hours. If there is one man in the House who has criticized members in this corner for long speeches I think it is the hon. member. I do not intend to detain the House at any great length at this late hour, but I desire to touch very briefly on some of the things mentioned by the hon. gentleman. In speaking of the home market he emphasized the fact that the truck gardeners near our cities must depend entirely on that home market. Then why should he need protection? Who is to oppose him in that home market? There cannot be any opposition if he is depending entirely on that market. Who is sending in anything to compete with him? If that applies to the Canadian truck farmer, it will also apply to the American.
We were very sorry to hear the hon. gentleman bid us good-bye. We expected that Tory Toronto would still remain true to the hon. member, and that he would be back again next session, but we regret to hear that he does not expect to be a member of the next House of Commons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I dislike to prolong this debate, but I do not wish to give a silent vote on this budget or on the amendment. I do not intend to support the latter, for the following reason. I was elected on a platform entirely opposed to the proposition contained in the amendment. As I understand the speech of the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), I cannot see how any man in this country to-day could support his amendment. He takes into consideration our imports today and places them at $892,000,000, and of : bis total he would bar out $700,000,000, as representing goods which could be manufactured in Canada. Apparently he would bar out everything with the exception of a few raw products, such as silk, wool, coal, crude rubber and so forth. The net result would be that our only imports from Great Britain would be coal. This means that the Conservative party intend to cut off entirely any tiade with Great Britain, with the exception of coal, and yet expect her to furnish a market for our own products. Britain is not in a position to pay in gold for what she buys from us to-day, although the Baldwin government have just declared that the country will return to a gold basis at once. Therefore she must exchange her goods in payment for what

she buys from us. Now, if Canada will not exchange goods with Britain, Britain will look somewhere else for a market. There is this further objection to the purpose of the amendment. If we are shipping goods to Britain, and are taking nothing back in return, we must bear an overhead expense greater than if we were bringing back return cargoes. No doubt this is the considered policy on which the official opposition intends tc appeal to the country. 1 would go a little further. We have been fed on protection for fifty years, and Canada is in her present position in spite of - I think I am within bounds in using that ph'-ase-in spite of our tariff policy, or the old National Policy. Our friends to the right speak as though they considered nothing of any importance in this country today but the industrial structure-the development of factories and financial institutions. They do not take into consideration the fact that the producers of this country are of some importance. The production of the necessaries of life is an essential function, but the necessaries of life are not all manufactured goods. The real measure of the prosperity of a country is the amount of happiness and prosperity that is found in the average home. In this country to-day that prosperity is not prevalent throughout the rural districts, and for that reason I am going to oppose the amendment proposed by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). As I said before, I was elected on a free trade platform, and I am going to read one or two planks from the platform on which the present government was elected:
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
Part of their resolution has been carried out. Concessions were made last year so far as agricultural implements were concerned which resulted in a saving to the farmer, as one hon. member has put it, of 83 cents on a 150 acre farm. Now, we acknowledge that we have received some benefit from that, but I do not believe we should come here and advocate something for ourselves alone; we are in favour of giving the poorer or the labouring people of this country some benefits. The tariff platform as laid down and adopted by the Liberal Convention of 1919 called for what I have just read. But I would like to go a little further and make reference to the fact that the platform received its blessing

The Budget-Mr. Elliott (Dundas)
from the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr Motherwell). Let me read some statements taken from his speech on that occasion:
Whatever conclusions are arrived at here in regard to the platform, the leadership, or anything else, when we go forth to our respective homes we must stand by these conclusions to the last ditch. There is no use of coming here, harmonizing our differences and then going away and everybody having a platform and a leader of his own. Do the best you can to impress your views upon the great body of this convention and, having done that, stand by the net result.
Further he states:
There is another thing I would suggest and that is that no platform, no matter how good it is, will carry itself into effect.
And further:
It is necessary that we should have full confidence in our own platform and leader if we are to instill similar confidence in other people. We must if necessary sound forth a clarion note, even from the housetops, and then people will stop and listen because they will see, that we, ourselves are in earnest.


Mr. LADNER:: May I inquire who it waa
who used these words?


Preston Elliott: The present
Minister of Agriculture. He says further:
I have talked so much since I left home that my voice sounds almost like a buzz saw.
If the present Minister of Agriculture would stand-up now on the floor of this House and make these remarks, what would be the effect? But he was not alone in calling on the Liberal convention or the Liberal party to stand by their pledges. I am going to quote from the remarks of another hon. member on this occasion the present Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau).
He said:
If we are to have a great nation, it is not the platform of the party that comes first; there is no use in having a platform if you have not the men with the heart to put that platform into practice. First, we must be united. Let us be Canadians; let us be Liberals; and we shall have a great country, progressive, prosperous and happy.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the last plank in that tariff platform that I read has never been touched. Now, I do not want to pick out one or two members of the present government and throw ail the responsibility on them. Our friends here to the right are talking of an election, but I think they want an election least of any in this House, because with the policy they have to go to the country on, they will never come back. I am going to read now from the speech of Mr. Duncan Marshall, who I understand, is at present engaged as Liberal Organizer throughout this country:	He said:
The Dominion government should take from off the backs of the farmers of Canada the burden of the protective tariff. If governments will do these two things for the farmers of our country then the farmers will take care of themselves.
He said further:
We are willing to go as far as anybody will go along the lines of free trade; personally, I should be glad to burn every custom house between Canada and the United States.
I would like to ask whether this man is preaching the same doctrine to-day. If he is, what right have the people to pay any attention to him?
The statement has been made from the right hand corner of this House that the people of the province of Ontario are all for protection. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) made the following statement the other night:
I think that the average man in Ontario, whether farmer or manufacturer or labourer, is a protectionist on principle, and the man in the west should have some sympathy for their viewpoint, which is just as honest as the free traders'.
In the last election in 1921 there were twenty-four Progressives elected in Ontario, and they were elected on a low tariff platform. There were also elected from Ontario twenty Liberals who subscribed to the tariff policy which I have just read. I submit that these men have not been true to the promises they made to the people of Ontario. I intend to vote against the present budget for the very reason that it does not conform to the platform which I advocated and which I promised the people I would try to carry into effect.


William Richard Motherwell: May I interrupt for a moment? Can my hon. friend recall any time since confederation when the duty on the chief agricultural implements of the country were as low as they are now? Is my hon. friend aware that a very substantial number of the imports from Great Britain have now a 50 per cent preference as set forth in that platform-a very substantial preference?


Preston Elliott: I am willing to admit that concessions were made along the lines of agricultural implements and other machinery used in well drilling and the like.
I will concede that, but what I contend is that this plank in the Liberal platform, which apparently was to look after the poorer classes of the people in this country, has been entirely disregarded. The duties on the necessaries of life, such as boots and shoes, clothing and so on, have not been touched.
2582	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Elliott (Dundas)


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would the hon. gentleman advocate reducing the duty on boots and shoes lower than it is at present?


Preston Elliott: I would answer
in this way:	I am a farmer, and I have to
compete in the markets of the world against everybody. I do not believe in handing out special privileges to anyone.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the hon. gentleman is
consistent, he would then eliminate all customs tariffs in their entirety.


Preston Elliott: If the tariff
commission that is appointed is an absolutely independent and efficient tariff commission- I do not mean a tariff commission that will be sent broadcast all over this country such as we have had in previous years-but a commission formed of experts in the different departments, and we have men in the departments here who are quite capable of handling any question pertaining to trade in any line in this country, and if the people who are engaged in any industry come to that commission and show why they should have protection, I will be willing to see that our industries are not pushed off the map; but go further I will not.
I have some more choice gems here. I have one here from the Minister of Public Works for New Brunswick. The question has been raised here to-night as to how the revenue should be raised. The hon. member for Parkdale said that his policy was to increase the tariff. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) the other day, in a very clever speech, showed that the tariff at the present time was between the two extremes for the purpose of raising almost as much revenue as it was possible to raise. Everybody knows that if the tariff is raised to an extreme point it performs the same function as an embargo, and that if you carry it down to the bottom you get less revenue. This question of raising the revenue came up at the Liberal convention, and the Hon. Peter J. Veniot, Minister of Public Works for New Brunswick, answered the question how they would raise the revenue in this way:
There are some who contend that the lowering of the tariff will injure the industries of the Dominion. There are some that contend that the lowering of the tariff will reduce the revenue of our country, and that having regard to the conditions brought about by the war and to the fact that Canada is in need of a large revenue, it would be disastrous to reduce our tariff at the present time. There are even some Liberals who hold that view, and to those especially allow me to say a word. Allow me to take them back in imagination to 1896, the time of the introduction of the Fielding tariff. Notwithstanding what our Conservative friends may say as to there being very little difference between the Fielding tariff and the National

Policy, we know that there was a considerable reduction in the tariff of 1896 as compared with that of previous years.
That is a question. He goes on:
Notwithstanding that reduction, ladies and gentlemen, the revenues of Canada increased by leaps and bounds; so much so that when the Liberals were defeated in 1911 the revenues of Canada had soared to such a figure that the like had never been known before in the history of our country.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the Liberal solution of the problem of raising the revenue. I have a number of other extracts that I am not going to weary the House by reading at this late hoiir. I have brought these in for the purpose of explaining why I was going to vote against the budget. I believe the mandate that was given to the present government was to lower the tariff, and had the tariff been lowered the people in this comer I believe would have supported it. It has been said that this present budget is a stand-patter, but I think it is a rock-a-bye, for it goes backward and forward. For that very reason I am not going to submerge my own personal convictions on the question of the tariff by supporting any budget that is not along the lines laid down in this platform. I do not care what the consequences are, and if it means an election should the Progressives in this corner stand out against the budget, the sooner we have it the better, and let the people decide whether the pledges given to them by this present government have been put into effect.
The discussion of this budget, although it has been long, has been very amusing and educative as well. I am going to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) the other day in this House. Someone from the official opposition asked him if he had advocated a low tariff during his campaign. His answer was that he did not know where they advocated low tariff, but it was not in his riding. Now that goes to prove that in the present House there are some who did not believe in the platform which their party adopted in 1919, and it would be very easy for me to name some more of them.
Many statements were made the other day by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), who spent considerable time explaining the system of bookkeeping that this government followed in bringing down the budget. I venture to say this, that the present budget would be similar to the Speech from the Throne in that it would be prepared and placed in the hands of the Acting Minister of Finance by the officials in the de

partment, who would probably be the same as under the late government, and I expect that

The Budget-Mr. Elliott fDundas)
their system of drawing up the budget would be the same that was followed in previous years. But I would like to draw attention to this:	The man in the street does not care a
rip what system of bookkeeping the government follows so long as they pay their way.
The sum and substance of the budget, as far as I can see, is this: When we take every expenditure into consideration, including the advances or loans to the railways, we find there is a deficit, which means that that deficit is added on to our national debt which means :n turn that the taxpayer of this country has to provide more interest in other years. That, to my mind, is of greater importance to the people of this country than the system of bookkeeping that is followed by the government.
Another thing that came up in the House the other day was the disclosures, if I might use the word, made by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). 1 need not recall, because you will all remember, the charges he laid against the official opposition of profiteering that went on during the war, of the money wasted in building the merchant marine after the war was over, and a number of other things I need not go into. But those things are over. I am not saying that the Conservative government of that time was guilty of chicanery or anything like that, but I do say this: As the time is not far distant when we are going to have another war. if ive are to judge by what we see in the papers from day to day, the duty of the government at the present time is to bring down measures which will prevent anything of that kind taking place again in the future. That is the lesson we should learn from the speech of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres. The one regrettable feature in connection with that expenditure is this: If it was reckless, it is passed on to the men who fought to save this country, and they will be carrying that burden till their dying day. That is one of the hardships which those people have to suffer. Surely if it is in our power to prevent such a thing as that happening again we should not hesitate to do so.
There is one more matter I wish to discuss before bringing my remarks to a close-a question that has been brought before the House in many different ways-and that is the condition existing at the present time in Cape Breton. The situation there has been referred to as a strike. I do not think the word "strike" is appropriate; I think it should be regarded as a "crisis." I do not wish to cast any discredit on the corporation that is operating there, but it looks to the public at large
in this country as if that corporation cannot carry on. If such is the case there is a duty devolving upon this government, and that is to provide for those people in Cape Breton who are starving. I am not trying to introduce this matter in a political sense at all; I do not care who is right, whether it is the employees or the corporation, but what I do say is this: That we should not in a country as rich as Canada allow women and children to exist in the conditions which prevail in the Glace Bay district to-day. No matter what the cause of the controversy may be, I say it is a blot on the name of Canada to allow those conditions to exist. If we go back only a few years when the war was on we found thousands of those miners enlisting. When this country was in need those people responded to Canada's call. To-day they are in need and what is this country doing in their behalf? We have heard different sides of this question presented in the House. But I had the pleasure to-day of listening to the superintendent of relief conditions in that district, and I understand that he is to address the members qf this House to-morrow afternoon. I think there is enough human-itarianism among hon. members to go and give that man a hearing. I venture to say that after hearing his statements hon. gentlemen will adopt an attitude towards that community very different from what they do today. We have been told by the Prime Minister, and I do not dissent from his statement, that technical questions prevent him from stepping in and taking some measures for the relief of the miners and their families. But technical questions did not prevent this country from granting relief at the time of the earthquake in Japan, at the time of the Halifax catastrophe, of the earthquake in San Francisco and many other emergencies. Now surely if the Canadian government was justified in spending money of the Canadian people in relieving distress outside our own boundaries-as was the case in two of these emergencies at least-are they not more justified in meeting the necessities of our own people in a case such as the present?
I listened very attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). In his closing observations he appealed for national unity. I think his appeal should be listened to by everybody in this country. If Canada needs anything it needs unity because we have in the Dominion people of different races and different religions. I think if hon. members would study intelligently all the troubles and problems of the people of Canada, no matter
The Budget-Mr. Lovie

in what district they may be found, national unity would be achieved very much more quickly than is likely to be the case from the way we are proceeding.


Mr. W. J. LOVIE (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, although the hour is late I recall the fact that in the budget debate last year I had the good fortune to secure the floor at a quarter past three in the afternoon, so I am not going to indulge in any kicking about the lateness of the hour on the present occasion. In taking part in the budget debate of 1925 I had hoped to be able to assure the House that I would not take up very much time, but I am afraid I shall have to speak at some length as there are quite a few points I wish to touch upon.
I wish to say at the outset that the present budget lends itself to criticism on the ground that it is not following up and extending the admirable policy so worthily started by its predecessor the 1924 budget. The budget of last year was accepted by the country as a whole not so much for what it actually contained as for What it portended. The people of Canada thought that a start was being made towards relieving them from the crushing burden of taxation which hangs so heavily on the shoulders of each and every one. An editorial in the Manitoba Free Press at the time the budget was presented last year, announced that that budget gave general satisfaction all over the west, although the reduction in duties was practically confined to agricultural implements, a slight reduction in the sales tax, and a few exceptions. The budget of 1925 offers no reduction in taxation. It is generally called in this House a stand-pat budget, and as such will not be received with veiy much favour by the country in general. Another reason why I at least will reject the present budget is that it is a protectionist budget and as such does not sound the much heralded "death knell of protection" of which we heard so much last year. To listen to arguments in this House one is forced to the conclusion that in advocating the wiping out of a protective tariff one is advocating the wiping out of customs duties entirely. That is not so. What the Progressive party stand for, and what they are fighting for, is to 'have the protective feature wiped out of the tariff entirely. Now, the question will be asked immediately "Where is Canada's revenue to come from?" and I believe it has been asked even this evening. That question, Mr. Speaker, is very easily answered. A protective tariff does not raise revenue; it was never intended that it should. The objective

of a protective tariff, brought to its logical conclusion, is to prevent importations. Therefore no duty can be paid where there is no importation.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Where does the hon. gentleman draw the line between a protective tariff and a tariff for revenue ouij'? Surely a tariff for revenue ipso facto is a protective tariff?
Mr, LOVIE:	I .think I will answer that
question of the hon. gentleman as I go along in my address.
Canada at present raises $344,000,000 of revenue annually, of which only $108,000,000 or about 31 per cent is raised from customs. Of course in wiping out the protective feature of the tariff one is not doing away with (the customs house as a means of raising revenue, there could still be duties on tea, coffee, silks and so on which are not produced at home, and excise tax on wines, spirits, tobacco and so on which are prodtuicedi at home to a limited extent, and which should all bear their share of a revenue producing tax. The income tax and the sales tax, two methods of taxation, started since the war period, are responsible for raising a large share of the revenue of Canada, and were the plan adopted that I have outlined I have no doubt that the increased volume of business transacted would make the income tax and the sales tax more and more available as a revenue producer. There is no doubt, in fact it is a foregone conclusion, that the fetters of protection duties once removed Canadian trade and prosperity would advance with leaps and bounds. On one point all in Canada are in perfect accord: A remedy for existing conditions must be found and applied quickly. As to what the specific remedy will be there is difference of opinion. Our Conservative friends-there are not many of them here to-night but those that are here are on the job-are constantly advocating that a protective 'tariff high enough to protect the industries of this country and to keep out competition is all that is necessary bo promote trade and give prosperity to alii and sundry. They claim that raising the tariff will stimulate industries at home, prevent the importation of products that 'can be manufactured in Canada, do away with the unemployment problem, stop the exodius bo the United States, and in short, cure all the ills from which we are suffering at the present time. This to my mind is a fallacy of the worst kind. The party in this House that advocates high and still higher protection points with pride to the United States as a, shining example of the benefits of a protective tariff. On this point I should just like to read an extract which

The Budget-Mr. Louie
came to my notice about half an hour ago.
It is taken from the Treherne Times, a paper published in my own 'Constituency:
April 23, 1925: Henry Ford is credited with the following:	We in America can live within ourselves.
We can even raise rubber. We can place a tariff wall about ourselves high enough to keep out the goods of other countries if we so desire. But I for one do not favour that narrow provincial policy. I am for free trade unrestricted and unhampered among the nations of the world. The free, natural unhampered and unrestricted trade between the forty-eight states of the United States is a perfect demonstration of the line that world trade should follow. And sr.ch a course will be followed when we come to know 1 hut all tinkering and monkeying with natural free trade hurts and restricts all legitimate business and industry.
Such world trade based on labour and fair exchange of goods and no favours does not need armies and navies for its protection. It needs only the go-.dwill and confidence of friendly neighbours, who have been helped and not hurt by its development.
And of course Henry Ford's ability is well known and no comment need be made on that article. The party in this House who advocate high and still higher protection point with p: ide to the United States as a shining example of the benefits of a protective tariff and entirely overlook the fact that the United States is the largest free trade area in the world, that on account of her diversity of products and industries, on account of the north being able to trade with the south, and the south with the north, the east with the west and the west with the east, protection has done that great country less harm than it would have in a more restricted area. In short, the United States has prospered, not because of protection, but in spite of it; but we in Canada from our geographical position cannot claim the same results from a protective policy, such as we have had for the past.
To those m this House who are recommending a still higher protectionist policy than we have at present, as a cure-all for the financial sickness of Canada at the present time, I would like to quote for their benefit part of a speech delivered by Richard Cobden in London on September 28, 1843. Richard Cobden was reciting the condition of the people in Great Britain prior to the breaking of the back of monopoly there by the repeal of the corn lawrs, and these are his words. Conditions in Great Britain seemed to have been on a par with what we in Canada have at the present time, namely, starvation in the midst of plenty.
I quote these words to show what conditions were in Great Britain on September 28, 1843.
I do not think I will take time to quote the speech, but I have it here if anyone doubts it.
I may say that the conclusion reached by Mr. Cobden was not the conclusion reached by the Conservative party of to-day as to the 165



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
nature of the remedy to be employed, but history has demonstrated that Richard Cobden was right in the conclusions which he reached and in the remedies which he advocated for the cure of the economic ills of Great Britain. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has mentioned in this budget debate that all Great Britain's prosperity was achieved prior to the repeal of the corn laws in 1846. The hon. member has gone back quite a few years for his comparison, but I am able to go back just as far. I might say that I for one worked with and alongside farmers in Scotland who farmed both before and after the repeal of the com laws, and these men were able to tell, and did tell from actual experience, how much conditions had improved for the agriculturist and the working man and incidentally for the whole population after the repeal of the com laws. I do not want hon. members to take my word, but I will quote Cobden's speech in 1884 as to conditions in Great Britain. He gives the conditions in Scotland, England and Wales all separately, and I will take a short quotation from what he said about the Scotch labourer and farmer because I know those conditions better. He said:
Yet I find the following description of the diet of these labourers in a Scotch paper:
"In East Lothian, the bread used by hinds and other agricultural labourers is a mixture of barley, peas and beans, ground into meal; and you will understand its appearance when we inform you that it is very like the rape and oil cakes used for feeding cattle and manuring the fields; and it is very indigestible. coarse food."
He says also:
In this country (Forfarshire), the mode of engaging farm-servants is from Whitsunday to Whitsunday; in some cases the period of engagement is only for half a year. The present average rate of wages is eleven pounds per annum, or a fraction more than four shillings per week, with the addition of two pecks or sixteen pounds of oatmeal, and seven Scotch pints of milk weekly. The amount of wages may be stated
thus:-
8. d.
Money	
4	0Oatmeal, two pecks at lOd	
1	8Seven pints of milk at 2d	
1	2Total	
6	10
That is the current weekly wages of an able-bodied agricultural labourer. An old man-that is, a man a little beyond the prime of life-if employed at all, hi? wages are considerably lower.
These are the conditions as they were in Scotland before the repeal of the com laws and it is practically the starvation that was brought about that put the protective tariff out of business.
Conditions in Scotland such as Cobden describes prevailed prior to 1846 but do not obtain to-day. These dark days are left be-

[Stage Direction]
25S6
The Budget-Mr. Lome
[Stage Direction]
hind never to return. The putting of the trade of Great Britain on a free trade basis with a revenue tariff on certain articles not produced at home, and an excise tax on certain articles produced at home, has shown the world a method of conducting the financial affairs of a country which is both sure and stable, as it gives fair play to all and special privileges to none, and the record of Great Britain since the signing of the Armistice in the payment of war obligations, and in the reduction of her war debt, has shown that her method of financing is efficient, effective and stable.
The secret of the success of Great Britain is that she trades with the whole world on an equal basis. During the whole period from 1846 to 1914, manufacturers in the United Kingdom had to meet the competition of every country in the world that must find overseas markets for the output of its factories. This competition British manufacturers had to meet, and did meet with success, without a vestige of tariff protection at ports in the United Kingdom. In 1912, only two years before the war, the total value of the import, export and re-export trade of the United Kingdom, was $1,343,602,000. It exceeded the foreign trade of Germany by nearly 40 iper cent; it exceeded the overseas trade of the United States by 70 per cent, and it exceeded that of France by 125 per cent. Our fiscal policy, said the Economist of London, in 1912, approximated that of free trade, while the fiscal policies of our three principal rivals, Germany, the United States and France, was that of high tariffs and trusts. The moral appears to be obvious. If the people of Canada will not trust the Conservative party to apply the so-called cure of high protection to economic ills from which they are suffering, how about the policy of the Liberal party? I will take a few quotations from an editorial in the Manitoba Free Press of May 17, 1924, headed, "A Turning Point in Political History." This editorial will describe the feeling of the majority of people in western Canada in choicer and more concise language, than I can command. It says in part.
The Liberals were protectionists, where they needed to be to get elected, and believers in a revenue tariff where that view was popular; with the result that the parliamentary representation, in place of being a compact body, was a combination of two wings, one protectionist, the other low tariff with a nondescript centre, prepared to be governed entirely by consideration of expediency.
Now, we may ask ourselves the question, what is wrong with Canada and Canadian conditions. That she is sick, no one will deny, and it is no use doctoring the effect. Let us get to the cause if we can. Canada has unlimited natural resources but at present

they are undeveloped. They consist of agricultural lands, mines and fisheries. Of these four sources of wealth which Canada has in practically unlimited quantities agriculture is the greatest. There are in Canada
440,000,000 acres of arable land of which 110,000,000 acres are occupied, only 60,000,000 acres being under cultivation. On what is under cultivation we raised in 1923 over 400,000,000 bushels of wheat, of which 80 per cent had to find a market outside Canada. The export market also ruled the price of the balance sold on the home market, so that the farmers received for their wheat what it was worth in the open market of the world, less storage and transportation charges. The farmer in the disposal of his surplus product has to come into competition with the cheap labour and low standards of living of other countries, as well as depreciated currency and other incidentals. He is prepared for that competition; he accepts it as part of the day's work. But he has to face something far harder at home in his own country, and that is the problem of the high cost of agricultural implements and machinery, excessive' transportation charges both by rail and water, high interest charges on borrowed money, high taxation, and1 a high cost of all articles he has to purchase; while the cost of the necessaries of life is enhanced by the protective tariff and the cost of the distribution system as well. The great problem in Canada, then, at the present time is how to make agriculture profitable. Not only is agriculture unprofitable in the three prairie provinces, but the conditions are even worse. Let me quote from an Ontario newspaper the following:
The Kincardine (Bruce County) Review tells how for years past the Western Ontario United Boards of Trade, representing organizations in Perth, Essex, Brant', Huron, Waterloo, Kent, Grey, Lambton, Elgin, Wellington, Oxford, Middlesex, Bruce and Norfolk, have been collecting information from the 157 township clerks in these counties. They now find that agriculture is on the decline in the area they have beer studying.
It is found that in these fourteen counties 212 60' acres are known to be for sale; farms actually vacant not including those abandoned as useless for agricultural purposes, come to 75,000 acres; there is reported to be 100,000 acres more, land in pasture than is necessary.
All this indicates a decline in the agricultural activity throughout many of the finest counties :* the province, and the western Ontario organization means to call a conference later in the year to discuss the facts and see what can be done to improve matters.
Everybody knows that western Ontario is a highly important part of the province and dominion, and everybody in western Ontario knows that the foundations of its prosperity are in its agriculture. The moving away of skilled farmers, the departure of the farmer's family for the city, the inability to secure useful farm help means at first idle fields and later idle farms, and a reduced and poorer countrvside.

The Budget-Mr. Lovie
It is time city people paid more heed than they have ever done to the warnings given in these columns that the province and dominion can have no real prosperity unless that prosperity begins with agriculture-the corner-stone of everything in this country.
From 1920 to 1924 the farmers of Manitoba, part of that great country which has been rightly called the granary of the empire, would have been better off financially had they allowed their farms to rest for three years, just raising sufficient for their own use. This period includes the year in, which there was a rusty crop which was not *worth the expense of handling; and from 1920 to 1924 the more the farmer raised the further he went behind, by reason of the high cost of production. It took two years before that calamity had reflected itself in the balance sheet of the eastern manufacturer. But it has got as far as eastern Canada; and it would be amusing were it not tragic to contemplate the different reasons assigned for the depression of trade conditions in this country. One of the real reasons for this depression is the fact that the prices of the products the farmer has to sell have been depreciated to pre-war level since 1920, while the prices of all the things he has to purchase have stayed at what they were during the war. Taken in bulk, everything the farmer purchases is twice as expensive now as it was in 1914, and it is small wonder he is making so few purchases on capital account. Very few farm implements have been purchased in these years of depression, and that condition has been reflected back to the makers of implements, who through lack of orders are unable to keep their factories going. This has resulted in unemployment. Very few buildings are being erected on the farms, and this means that the builders have had no employment; while building material has not been required and as a. natural consequence there has been no business for the lumber yards. This has been reflected back in the saw mills and further back to the bush cruise. Again, no nails have been required, nor has there been any need for general hardware, so that there is less business for the hardware stores, and this is reflected 'back to the wholesalers. Small wonder there is unemployment and the men are leaving this country and going elsew'here to get a chance to earn their daily bread. But they will come back as soon as conditions improve.
What is urgently needed in Canada above all else is a method to make agriculture profitable. In spite of all squirming and twisting, we will admit sooner or later that this basic truth remains, unshaken and undeniable, that the farmer's business must be made profitable or no one else's business is worth five cents.
And this should be kept squarely before us in any form of readjustment we may have 'in view. Nor do conditions relating to agriculture, such as I have described, obtain in Canada alone; the American farmer is in the same boat with his Canadian cousin. The Breeders' Gazette of December 4 last contained an editorial commenting on President Coolidge's remarks delivered at the Chicago stock yards. This article was written by Mr. Saunders, the editor of the Breeders' Gazette and president of the company, and it says in part:
We share in the President's sympathy with practical movements promising to give farmers a decent reward for their labours. The greatest single question before America to-day is how to make the farm pay. To the solution of the problems involved must be brought the best thought of the nation, and a disposition upon the part of all other industries to confess the great truth enunciated by the president in his down-town Chicago speech to city businessmen, to the effect that we must not and can not divest farming of the "human element" entering into it. His business must afford him a decent living for himself and family. In the language of the president, "He wants a fair show, and when he gets it he can be relied upon to take good care of himself and to contribute substantially towards taking care of the rest of us."
The question looms up larger than ever, how to make agriculture profitable. You cannot by any possibility raise the price of commodities on the markets of the world, and therefore the only thing is to lower production costs. The Montreal Gazette last fall had this to say about agri-1 am. cultural conditions, that it was neither the tariff nor high freight costs that hurt the west but the low world price for wheat. The same writer told the western farmers that they must look to the home markets because of the uncertain prospect of stability and economic recovery in Europe as a result of the adoption of the Dawes plan. I may say this about the home market for wheat:	With 7 bushels per capita
as the outside consumption, how is a population of 10.000,000 to consume an output which in 1923 amounted to 400,000,000 bushels and which in future years may easily exceed that? The Gazette's economist, out of a sense of patriotism and devotion to his economic views, might multiply, the consumption of wheat fivefold, but this would be beyond the capacity of the rest of our 10,000,000 people. This means that we shall have to sell our wheat to the British, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the Chinese-to every nation under the sun which imports wheat; and to get into these markets we shall have to conform to world conditions. If the prices fixed 'by these conditions are so low at times as to wipe out the margin of profit,
The Budget-Mr. Lovie
[Stage Direction]
the result will be stagnation, in the west with resultant hard times down east. The east is suffering to-day from a lack of purchasing power on the part of the western farmers; and until this revives there will be industrial depression.
Now, as to making agriculture profitable. It is no use at this time suggesting the home market as a remedy, because, although that might be a factor fifty years hence, relief from existing conditions must be given at once if agriculture and industry in Canada are going to be salvaged. The farmer had the value of all his stock and products depreciated in 1920 and 1921 to pre-war levels. He took his loss, and it was a heavy one, but he perforce had to take it and grin and bear. No other portion of the community have yet taken the loss and depreciation the farmer took in 1920 and 1921, and it is up to them to trim their sails and adjust their business to the conditions which now obtain. Manufacturers stated when deflation started there would be no reduction in prices of implements or machinery until implements manufactured from high priced material were sold at war prices, and this has militated against a return to normal as farm implements are almost twice the price they were in pre-wair days. Labour in Canada as a whole is 25 per cent better off in wages than it was in pre-war days, but the cost of living is high and rents are higher; consequently they will about break even. Freight rates are high, also express rates, and these last named play havoc with the marketing of produce, such as eggs, butter, cream and so on.
I do not know whether railroad wages are too high or not, but they are certainly out of line with the wages paid the men who are producing the freight for the railways to haul. Possibly the men on the farm are paid too low wages, I am inclined to think they are, but they are paid all the business of farming will afford. I will give a personal experience as to the difference between railway wages and farm wages. Last harvest I had stooking and threshing for me a Canadian Pacific fireman who was out of work. I was paying him $3.50 for stooking and $4 for threshing. He stayed with me until the weather became very wet, when he said, " I can get a job at railway firing and earn twice as much money as you are paying me." That is a far higher rate of wages than the farmer can afford to pay. Consequently I repeat, I do not know whether our farm men are paid enough, but they are paid all the business of farming will afford. Nine men out of every ten will tell you that because of the seasonal nature of railway work

in Canada high wages have to be paid to compensate the men for the season of the year when they are perforce idle. To find out just how seasonal railway employment is in Canada, I wrote the Dominion Statistician asking him to give me the number of men employed on Canadian railways month by month. On receiving his answer, I wrote him asking for the payroll of employees on Canadian railways month by month. I must say I was surprised, for the statistics certainly do not bear out the contention of seasonal employment and the consequent necessity for veiy high wages. These' two tables are in my hand, and they can be placed on Hansard if the House is willing:
Number of Employee^
All Railways
1823	1924
January	
153,956	152,153February	
153.716	151,854March	
151,782	151,191April	155,916	156,025May	
172,504	172,187June	
180,240	179,822July	
184,669	175,694August	
184,491	165,456September	
177,112	159,818October	
177,535	156,338November	
164,687	149,209December	
154,343	143.761Average	
167,572*	159,030*
^Includes adjustments.
Total Amount of Pay Roll All Railways
1923	1924
January	
$19,133,573	75	$19,015,214	05February	
18,169,590	77	18,743,719	76March	
19,073,757	60	18,911,121	30April	
18,639,187	72	18,673,740	73May	
22,023,160	88	20,524,241	12June	
21,172,384	96	21,293.746	84July	
21,661,827	20	20,471,203	42August	
22,526,734	27	19,267,039	00September	
21,165,703	31	18,778,061	51October	
22,789,150	22	19,692.386	58November	
20,820.582	11	18,326.350	45December	
19,269,074	76	17,848,121	13Total	
246,444,727	55	*231,517,862	89
*Includes adjustments of $27,083 (deducted).
The question of deficits on the Canadian National railway system should at once receive the attention of parliament. This subject has been taken up a good many times and I desire to mention it again in order to impress it on the House. No board cf directors can give their best service in the interests of a system that they know is in such a position financially, through over-capitalization, that it is impossible to earn operating expenses and pay interest on fixed charges. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) dealt with this question so fully that there is no need to go into it any further than to say that this proposal is not new; it has been brought before

The Budget-Mr. Lovie
the House and the country on several occasions, but it will have to be emphasized over and over again before the government will move in the matter. The government should, at as early a date as possible, write off the excess capitalization of the Canadian National Railways and add it to the national debt of the country. Give Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors a fair field with no favours and1 no political interference, and let them understand that if they cannot make the system pay under conditions extremely favourable, they must resign and make room for men who can accomplish the job. But, Mr. Speaker, I have faith enough in Sir Henry and his business ability to feel satisfied that he could accomplish the job successfully. The successful operation of the railways will not be accomplished by a raise in freight rates, as rates are now as high as the traffic will bear, and in some cases higher, but economy and good business management must be exercised, and duplication of service must be reduced to the minimum.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to say a word on the coal situation. I am not familiar with the local conditions in Nova Scotia, but I am going to touch the coal question from a national and international standpoint. I am strenuously opposed to all duties on coal and seeing that the United States has no duty on coal, against any nation which allows American coal in free, I would strongly urge that American coal be allowed entry duty free, in other words, there should be reciprocity in coal. I have never been convinced that Alberta coal could be brought to Ontario, in fact I consider the proposition is not feasible commercially, and I am strenuously opposed to the taxpayers' money being paid out to assist impossible trade ventures. Winnipeg is as far east as Alberta coal can be drawn by rail as a commercial proposition, and even then it is worth 812 per ton, which is certainly its extreme value. With free trade in coal, Alberta mines could supply not only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba but also North and South Dakota and Montana, which would give them quite a territory contiguous to their mines; Ontario would get its coal supply from Pennsylvania; and the Maritimes would supply the local market and the New England states. The fuel problem certainly looks simple when you wipe out the restrictions upon trade, imposed by man in his so-called wisdom and apply the law of geography and common sense, which is, that the shortest hauls possible should be utilized for heavy freight.
Our friends of the Conservative party are fond of throwing out the taunt to the government, "They are afraid to go to the country and submit their policy to the electors." Well, the life of the Canadian parliament is supposed to be five years, and personally I see no reason why general elections should be brought on oftener than is absolutely necessary. There is a certain amount of dislocation and unsettlement of business accompanying every general election, so the less of that unsettle-menit the country is subjected to the better for the country. While at my home in Manitoba during the Easter recess meeting my constituents, when the question of a general election was discussed the general expression of opinion was that these electors figured that they had done a pretty good stroke of business in 1921 in sending to parliament 65 members, all Progressives. These Progressive members owed allegiance to neither of the old political parties, were men and women who would vote on questions coming before parliament solely on the merits of the question at issue and in its reference to the good of the people of Canada as a whole, and with no consideration for party advantage. A record of the votes cast in this chamber during the sessions of 1922, 1923, 1924, and so far this session will show that so far the Progressive party have voted about as often with the official opposition as with the government, and sometimes the Progressive party have stood alone against the combined forces of the government and the official opposition. The men and women of western Canada who sent Progressive members to parliament in 1921 feel to-day that they played a very safe game in electing to the federal parliament members who thoroughly understand rural conditions, who are hampered by no party affiliations and to whom the lust for power or the spoils of office make no appeal, and these electors are quite prepared to repeat at the next federal election what they did in December 1921,
The policy proclaimed and preached by the Conservative party is anathema to a prairie farmer. He knows absolutely that no amount of protective tariff can assist him in any possible manner. Consequently he is not going to cast his vote to give the other fellow the privilege of taxing him in the so-called "interest of industry", as he well knows that the ability of any industry to establish and	sustain	itself	in	a free	field is
the	measure of its public utility.
A western farmer and those dependent upon him know absolutely that a vote cast for the Conservative party means a vote which, carried to its logical conclusion, will rivet more firmly than ever the fetters that have been hindering and handicapping him ever since the inauguration of the National Policy
The Budget-Mr. Louie
[Stage Direction]
of protection The only party who will obtain support in the prairie provinces is the one who will absolutely stand squarely for equal rights to all, special privileges to none. If these manufacturers in Canada who clamour for protection would devote the same energy and expense to keeping their factories strictly up to date and keeping down production and distribution costs intead of maintaining an expensive lobby at Ottawa, they would enter the same class as the Brantford Cordage Company's binder twine factory at Brantford, Ontario, which claims to be doing veiy well under free trade conditions. I have an article here with regard to the conditions in connection with the Brantford Cordage Company: I will just read the last paragraph of it:
Regardless of political convictions, every Canadian must recognize in the Brantford Cordage Company a concrete denial of the oft-repeated doctrine that no Canadian company can battle unprotected against American competition. Here is a purely Canadian organization, created and operated with no governmental protection, possessing no peculiar advantages, which has succeeded, with constant progress, against the best efforts of the largest companies in the world through no means other than sheer courage, efficiency and hard work.
It would be unwise to generalize too freely from this instance to success. But the history of the Brantford company does indicate that where the necessity of selfreliance is accepted it is possible to substitute for tariff protection the independent defence of increased efficiency; that such necessity embodied in free trade conditions stimulates inventive effort and resourcefulness; that it tests courage and in testing it, strengthens it.
I wish to quote also a short paragraph from the Toronto Telegram of April 13, which is a report of a speech delivered by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Harris). Under the caption, "Canada needs Protection," the report quotes the hon. member as saying:
There was shipped into Canada from the United States 195,000 barrels of apples, 5,000,000 pounds of strawberries, 17,000,000 pounds of pears, 1,000,000 pounds of tomatoes, 27,000,000 bushels of potatoes and other farming produce which we grow ourselves. Let us protect ourselves against the men who can ship a month earlier than we can produce ready for market by a protective tariff and give our farmers a chance.
And at the bottom it adds:
Mr. Harris was received with great enthusiasm.
I may say just here that three years ago I was in a very southerly part of Ontario, on the 24th of May, and I went to see a gentleman there whom I knew. That particular country lying between Leamington and Windsor was a hive of industry: men and women were busy putting in all kinds of garden truck. The farms are small, but four or five men were employed on each one; in fact they were so busy at the time I was there that the people were unable to take in the

sports that were going on not half a mile away. I asked this gentleman where they found a market for all the garden truck that was being raised in that part of the country. He said: "We get all the market we want in Detroit." When I remarked about the duty, he said; "Oh, the duty does not bother us. The people come from Detroit with their motor trucks; they drive right into the fields and they take away all the stuff we can raise." Now, if the farmers in the Leamington district can find a market for all their garden truck in the city of Detroit, I cannot see that there is anything wrong with some of our people in Canada buying earlier fruit and vegetables from across the boundary.
Andrew Ross McMaster: It is the Liberal part of Ontario down there.


William James Lovie: I do not know as to that. Let me quote the following with regard to shortage of British Columbia rhubarb:
The fruit and vegetable jobbing trade of Winnipeg are puzzled to understand why more British Columbia rhubarb is not reaching this city. So far, it was learned yesterday only one car of British Columbia rhubarb had arrived, while seven or eight cars have come in from the state of Washington. There is a large demand in Manitoba at this time of the year for this article of diet before the Manitoba product comes on the market, after which all outside shipments cease.
Note these last words: As soon as the home product comes on the market, all these outside shipments cease.
I wish to make some reference to the immigration problem, but I shall not say very much about it at this time, because the matter will come up later in the House, probably on the estimates. Moreover, the question has been discussed from every possible angle and I do not think I can throw very much light on it. We have had the open door advocated, and on tihe other hand there are some who are advocates of keeping out immigrants altogether. This is a tremendously big country- I have said, with 440,000,000 acres that are arable, only 110,000,000 are occupied, and
60,000,000 under cultivation; so that there is certainly room for a lot more people. I am not in- favour of the policy that was advocated by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) in his very able speech of the other day, to which we all listened' with so much interest-a policy of the open door for immigration. There are certain countries from which I think our immigrants should come. First and foremost, I would draw the Americans from the northern states, because they are already acquainted with conditions such as obtain in the Canadian west. As a rule when they decide to move to Canada they have farms to sell, and they bring their

The Budget-Mr. Bovie
outfits with them-horses, implements, and probably enough money to give them a start; they know the conditions and exactly how to go to work and make their work count. So I would take the American first. Second, I would take British born; third, Scandinavians and Icelanders, and, fourth, people from northern and central Europe. If we had about as many as we could assimilate every year from these two countries I think Canada would be on pretty safe ground so far as the question of immigration is concerned.
In the constituency of Macdonald, which I have the honour to represent in this House, particularly south of Glenboro, and Cypress river, there are a good many Icelanders, and these men are ideal farmers. They have splendid houses and foams and seem	to adapt	themselves	readily	to theconditions in that part of the country. The Icelanders and the Scandinavians seem to be very closely related, and I would say that from	either of	these countries, as	well asfrom Denmark, we can get the very best settlers. One thing I am entirely opposed to as regards immigration is allowing people who come	from other countries	and who	do notknow	the ways	of Canada	to settle	here in
colonies. That has always been a mistake. The first large immigration I remember in Manitoba was an immigration from the west highlands of Scotland, sent out under the auspices of Lady Gordon Cathcart. These men were fishers or crofters, but having settled in a colony near Pelican lake they did not do well and ultimately lost their land. But the young people who came from Scotland along with their families, who grew up and strayed around the country, were the nucleus of the very best settlers we have. I am very much in favour of allowing only those people to come to Canada who can be assimilated into our population, with whom we need not be ashamed to have our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, intermarry-men and women whose descendants will grow up and be what we call the very best Canadians.
Those of us who are in this quarter of the House have been looking forward to having a measure to provide for the single transferable vote put on the statute book of this country. We were promised by the Prime Minister that that would be done at the last session, but it was not done and we have not heard a word of it this session. However, we still hope that a measure for the transferable vote will be enacted into legislation before the close of this session.
In .conclusion, so far as the amendment to the budget moved by the bon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) is concerned,
about the only comment I can make on that is one that I often heard made by a farmer in our part of the country, a very old man mow, but who in his early years lived in Mus-koka, later moving to Manitoba, where he made an ideal farmer, and he is now finishing his days in British Columbia. In commenting on patent medicines I often heard him say, "'They are just like a drink of water-little good, little harm." This amendment strikes me as a good deal like patent medicine-little good, little harm, and I for one am going to vote against it. As far as the budget itself is concerned, as I am an absolute believer in free trade, I cannot conscientiously myself, nor in the interests of my constituents, support this budget.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the debate was adj ourned.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Jessie Louise Cowan.-Mr. Duff.
On motion of Mr. Lapoinite the House adjourned at 1.28 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, April 29, 1925