PATENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANDREW MoMASTER (Brome) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 37, to amend the Patent Act.
He said: The present Patent Act provides that if a person has invented any new or useful improvement or process, he may obtain a patent upon it; but as the law presently exists, that patent may be defeated and the real inventor deprived of the reward of his inventive faculty, if someone else has used this apparatus or process in any other part of the world. Thus a man might have an improvement, entirely unknown in Canada, for something in connection with an automobile, but someone in the south of Italy, altogether unknown to him, may have invented the same improvement. The object of . this bill is to give a patent to anyone who is the first inventor in Canada. I am informed that this bill will place our patent law on the same basis as the patent laws of the United Kingdom and the patent laws of the United States. Our law, as it at present stands, is harder on the inventor than the patent law of either of those two countries.
The other part of the bill provides for the correction of what is not exactly a clerical error, but an error of inadvertence, in the drafting of the Patent Act some two years ago. The draftsman forgot that there had been carved out of what used to be known as the Northwest Territories two very important provinces named Saskatchewan and Alberta. The act provides that what was called the Supreme court of the Northwest Territories should have jurisdiction over patents until that court disappeared and supreme courts of the provinces carved out of this part of the Dominion took its place. When that patent law was passed Alberta and Saskatchewan had been in existence for a number of years. This part of the bill corrects what I might call an historical inexactitude.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What is the total cost to Canada in connection with the special committee appointed by parliament February 28, 1923, to enquire into agricultural conditions?
2.	What amount was paid to witnesses who appeared before the committee, for fees and travelling expenses?
3.	What was the cost of printing reports of proceedings before the committee?
4.	What was the cost of fees and travelling expenses for witnesses in connection with the inquiry
into Atlantic ocean rates?


Hon Mr. COPP:: 1.	$21,402.53.
2.	$2,674.15.
3.	Cost of printing proceedings
before the committee.. .. $ 7,019.29 Cost of printing report (Eng-glish and French) of the committee	 11,709.09
Total	$18,728.38
4.	Many witnesses gave evidence on various subjects under investigation. No separate accounts were kept for any subject.	[DOT]


MR. W. T. R. PRESTON
Hon. Mr. MANION:: What is the total amount of money paid by the government of Canada since January 1, 1922, to W. T. R. Preston for any services whatsoever?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Labour-
Date	Services
1922, April 21 to June 17. Chairman of board of conciliation in dispute of Algoma Eastern Railway and its employees	 $320
July 21 to September 15. Chairman of board of conciliation in dispute of Pere Marquette Railway Company and its shop employees	 425
August 10 to September 14. Chairman of board of conciliation in dispute of Pere Marquette Railway Company and its steamship clerks, freight handlers, etc. 235
Department of Trade and Commerce-
Inquiry re lake grain rates	$ 3,270
Inquiry re ocean freight rates.. ..	1,305


$ 4,575 SOLDIERS' ADVISERS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What are the names and addresses of each of the soldiers' advisers appointed by the Dominion government under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act?
2.	What amount has been paid each of the said advisers: (a) as salary; (b) as travelling and other expenses?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1 and 2.
		Authorized		Other payments	
annual rates:	Paid as	to 31/1/25 (a) for	(a) for part time	salary from date	steno.	assistanceservices; (b) foi	of appointment	(b) for travelling	Name and adress	Date of app't.	steno. assistance	to 31/1/25	and other expenses	II. D. Johnson, M.D., Charlottetown..	.. 3/10/23	(a) $1,200	*1,593 55	fa)	300 00(b) 240	(b)	43 90H. F. Hamilton, Halifax	.. 3/10/23	(a) 2,400	3,187 10	fa)	247 50(b) 480	fb)	299.70*C. H. Boudreau, St. John	.. 3/10/23	(a) 1,800	2.240 32	fa)	520 00(b) 360	tb)	401 35A. Pettigrew, Quebec	. 3/10/23	(a) 1.500	1,991 94	(a)	375 00(b) 300	fb)	83 10J. V. Locke, Montreal	.. 3/10/23	(a) 3.600	4,780 64	fa)	900 00(b) 720	fb)	76 45C. Askwith, Ottawa	.. 3/10/23	(a) 1,800	2,390 32	fa)	450 00(b) 360	fb)	104 50J. V. Conroy, Toronto	.. 19/10/23	(a) 3,600	4,625 82	fa)	840 00(b) 720	fb)	317 80E. Fremlin, London	.. 3/10/23	(a) 2,400	3,187 10	fa)	520 00(b) 480	fb)	95 95J. R. Bowler, Winnipeg	.. 3/10/23	(a) 3,600	4,780 64	fa)	875 00(b) 720	fb)	20.35F. J. Rowan, Regina	.. 3/10/23	(a) 1.800	2,393 01	fa)	520 00(b) 360	fb)	395 95S. G. Petley, Calgary	.. 3/10/23	(a) 2.400	3,187 10	(a)	600 00(b) 480	(b)	722 37I. A. MacKenzie, Vancouver.	.. 3/10/23	(a) 3.000	3,983 87	fa)	750 00(b) 600	fb)	28 00G. II. Sedger, Victoria	.. 3/10/23	(a) 2,400	3,187 10	fa)	600 00(b) 480	(b)	41 20
* Resigned February 28th, 1925, and has been replaced by Mr. A. I. Machum.

Questions


ROSS' FERRY WHARF
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What work was done on Ross' Ferry wharf, Victoria county, Nova Scotia, during the calendar year 1924?
2.	Was the work done by contract or day labour?
3.	If by contract, who was the contractor, what was the contract price, and were tenders called for?
4.	If more than one tender was received, what were the names of each tenderer and the amount of each tender?
5.	If the work was done by day labour, how many persons were employed, what were their names, what was the rate of wage paid, the number of days each person worked, and the number of horses employed?
6.	If the work was done by day labour, what amount was paid for the different classes of material, to whom and at what price?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: For calendar year 1924.
1.	Trestle approach to wharf reconstructed.
2.	Day labour.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	(a)	16 persons employed; (b) R. R.
McKenzie, foreman, 19 days, $3.50 per day, $66.50; Dan Campbell, labourer, 3 days, $2.50 per day, $7.50; Donald McDonald, labourer,
3	1-2 days, $2.50 per day, $8.75; John Howatson, carpenter, 9 days, $2.75 per day, $24.75; Rod Morrison, labourer, 3 days, $2.50 per day, $7:50; Angus Morrison, carpenter, 8 days, $3.00 per day, $24.00; J. P. Morrison, carpenter, 5 days, $3.00 per day, $15.00; A. B. McDonald, labourer, 12 days, $2.50 per day, $30.00; Murdock M. McKenzie, labourer, 2 1-2 days, $2.50 per day, $6.25; D. H. Corbitt, labourer, 2 days, $2.50, per day, $5.00; John M. McKenzie, labourer, 3 days, $2.50 per day, $7.50; Murdock D. McDonald, carpenter, 1 day, $3.00 per day, $3.00; R. R. McDonald, labourer, 2 days, $2.50 per day, $5.00; Dan. McDonald, labourer, 1 day, $2.50 per day, $2.50; Dan Campbell, self and team 4 days at $6 and 1 day at $4, $28.00; Murdock McAskill, self and team 2 1-2 days at $4 per day, $10.00.
(c) 4 horses employed.
6.	Dan Campbell.-36 round spruce logs, 612 lin. ft. at 10 cents 1 ft., $61.20; R. R. McDonald.-10 rounds spruce logs, 210 lin. ft. at 10 cents 1 ft., $21.00; Murdock McKenzie.- 5 round spruce logs, 65 lin. ft. at 10 cents 1 ft., $6.50; 8 sticks 8x10 spruce 12 ft. long, $19.20; total, $25.70; Frank A. Bill & Sons.- 1 peavey, $2.95; 2 kegs 8-inch spikes at $4.80, $9.60; 1 gallon white paint, $4.75; 450 pounds 18x3-4 drift bolts, headed and pointed 6c, $27; 1 brush, 95 cents, total, $45.25; J. P Morrison.- 4 spruce stringers 8x10, 21 ft long, 560 feet. B. M. at $30, total, $16.80; A. K. McKenzie,- 2,250 ft. B.M. 3 inch plank at $26 per M., $58.50; 630 ft. B.M. 2x4 at $26 per M., $16.38; total, $74.88.


DARTMOUTH PIER
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What was the size of the lot of land acquired at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, from Beazley Brothers for the site of a pier?
2.	Whose properties does the site adjoin?
3.	Is there any property owned by the Dominion in the immediate vicinity of the pier, and, if bo, does the pier site abut thereon?
4.	Did the property acquired from Beazley Brothers include a right of way to the pier? If so, from what locality, and over whose property does the right of way run?
5. What price was paid per square yard for the work and other material used for filling in the approaches to the pier?
6.	Was this work included in the contract for the construction of the pier?
7.	If this work was separate, who had the contract for filling in the approaches?
8.	What was the cost of this filling in?
9.	What was the estimated cost of the pier exclusive of the site?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	2,464 square feet; 27,850 square feet covered with water; total, 30,314 square feet.
2.	North and east Canadian Government Railways; west and south, Public Harbour of Halifax.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes.
4.	(a) No. (b) Property adjoins public dock opposite foot of Mott street, Dartmouth.
5.	SI.68 per cubic yard for stone and gravel fill in place.
6.	Yes.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	S43.844.64.
9.	Approximately $158,006.20.


ST. MARY'S RIVER
Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	Is the government aware that on account of the lowering of the water in the St. Mary's river many Canadian boats are unable to dock on the Canadian side of said river?
2.	Is the government aware that as a result the coal and other supplies formerly purchased on the Canadian side for use on these boats is now being purchased on the American side of the river?
3. Is the government aware that the captains of these boats refuse to accept freight for delivery at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, greatly to the inconvenience of merchants and others residing in that city ?
4.	Have representations been made to the government or the Department of Public Works with the view of having these conditions improved? If so, by whom ?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to undertake this work during the present year?


John Warwick King: 1,	2 and 3. Representations to that effect have been made to the Department of Public Works, and the matter is being investigated.
4.	Yes, by delegation, January 26, 1925.
5.	The matter is under consideration.
Health oj Animals


IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
Mr. FORRESTER:: 1.	What was the total immigration into the Dominion of Canada from March 31 to December 31, 1924?
2.	How many Canadians migrated to the United States during the year 1924?
3.	How many Canadians returned to Canada from the United States during the said year?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	100,570 from March 31 to December 31, 1924.
2.	No record is kept by the Department of Immigration and Colonization of outgoing Canadians.
3.	A record of returning Canadians has been kept by the department since April 1, 1924. The number who returned to Canada, between April 1 and December 31, 1924, after an absence in the United States of six months or longer and with the intention of permanently remaining in Canada, was 37,317.


MONCTON POST OFFICE SITE
Mr. DOUCET:: 1. Has the government purchased a site for the proposed new post office at Moncton, New Brunswick?
2.	If so (a) What is the exact location of such site: (b) from whom was it purchased; (c) what is the purchase price; (d) what public bodies in Moncton recommended such site; (e) were representations made by any public bodies against such site, and, if so, what public bodies?
3.	If no recommendations of public bodies were made in favour of such site, what person or persons recommended such site?


John Warwick King: 1, 2 and 3. No site has been purchased.


HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. II. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):
I desire to bring to the attention of the government and particularly of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) the very severe handicap under which importers are suffering in consequence of a certain regulation of the Department of Agriculture which provides that goods shall not be importd packed in hay or straw from areas in Great Britain and other countries infected with the foot and mouth disease. I wish the House would allow me to mention one circumstance and to base a question upon at. One shipment which has been ordered returned was packed and consigned in November last, but it missed its sailing and was held over until January. I understand that the final ruling of the department was not given until some time in January, fixing the fifteenth day of that month as the last on which such shipments
[Mr. J. H. King.)
would be received. The point I wish to bring to the attention of the government, and it .'s a serious one, is that innocent Canadian importers are suffering great handicaps, being in some eases threatened with losses, as a result of breaches of this regulation made before the final ruling of the department was known in the Old Country. Would the government not, consider it wise bo permit the unpacking of goods coming in the prohibited material, and the destruction of that material, so as to obviate any loss to the importer? This I think would completely safeguard the health of animals in 'this country and it would save the innocent Canadian importer very serious losses. It is a matter that affects more than the health of animals and I wish the government would take the point into consideration.
Hon. W. R, MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):	I quite appreciate the embarrassing Position which some of our importers have been in with regard to the matter raised by my hon. friend. Since he last brought the question up I have inquired into the whole situation in minute detail, discussing it with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) who also is familiar with the difficulties that are complained of. Last week again I took the matter up with my staff, especially with Dr. Hilton, whom I requested to prepare for me a statement regarding these shipments, which are coming not only to Vancouver but to every other open port in Canada as well. I wanted to see whether the shipments were diminishing at all under the present policy. I recognize that the fault is with the shipping 'companies, but how to remedy the evil I have not been able so far to find out. I have been making inquiries with regard to their culpability. I might point out that they are subject to prosecution; but so far I have had no opinion from the Department of Justice. In the meantime, however, we are obtaining a compilation of shipments from each port. At the port of St. John the difficulty has been almost eliminated, there are few shipments arriving there in the prohibited packing material; but at Halifax the situation is different, the shipments of prohibited form are increasing and there is no indication of improvement, I have not had any report so far from Vancouver, and do not know yet what the condition is there. However, in co-operation with my colleagues, particularly with the Minister of Public Works and others, I hope to devise some effective method of meeting the situation, although I do not know at this time

The Budget-Mr. Robb
just what it will be. We are working on a policy now, and should our information indicate that these shipments are not coming in in as large numbers as before, the natural conclusion will be that in a few more weeks the situation will dear itself up. I am rather disposed to think that the evidence is in the opposite direction so far as the Atlantic ports are concerned.
Mr. STEVENS:: Would it not be possible, in the case of the particular shipment to which I have referred, to permit the landing of the goods and their unpacking, afterwards destroying the packing material? This I should think would compose the difference between the department and the importer.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: If there is evidence that these goods were shipped before the announcement was made as to what the rule would be after January 15, there would be a good claim. But my information is that there is no evidence of that nature.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In this case the shipment
was actually consigned in November.


William Richard Motherwell: I shall be glad to
look into the merits of that case.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must remind the House that questions before the Orders of the Day are called should be brief and to the point. This also applies to answers.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Einance):: On Tuesday last the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) requested some further information regarding the revenues we expected as a result of tariff changes. I submit the following statement: Memorandum of Estimated Net Increases, Revenue:
Customs	$ 914,618
The Special War Revenue Act	 47,500
Export of electricity	 400,000
Net increase	$1,362,118


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Could the minister not give the details of what he expects from each customs subject affected, both by way of addition and deduction?


James Alexander Robb: I shall be able to give my hon. friend that information when we are in committee! He understands, it is purely an estimate based on last year's business.


Arthur Meighen: I know that; but it is usual to give the information in the budget speech.
OCEAN SHIPPING RATES On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia): Referring to the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday for the appointment of the committee to investigate the question of ocean shipping rates, I would ask the right hon. gentleman to give the House an assurance that the instructions to the committee will be comprehensive enough to enable it to inquire into other effective methods of control and to report back from time to time.


Right Hoa. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The motion indicates just what powers the committee will have and the resolution includes all that is in the bill.
I think the committee will have all the power it will need to deal with the matter.
SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Does the government propose to introduce any legislation this session with regard to the revaluation of soldier settlement land and stock?
Hon. J. A. R.OBB (Acting Minister of Finance): I answered that question a couple of days ago.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I remind the minister that he did not answer that question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


CANTEEN FUNDS-CORRECTION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert James Manion: I want to make a correction with regard to certain figures which I submitted to the House yesterday in the course of the debate on the canteen fund. The figures I gave to the House were given to me by the Great War Veterans' Association, and I should like to read to the House the following telegram which I have received from Mr. H. McLeod, the Secretary of the Grand Army Veterans:
Toronto, Out., 26 March, 1925.
Hon Dr. Manion,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Would ask you make correction re your statement in House March twenty-fourth Hansard. Figures supplied you reference this association entirely absurd. I appreciate source of supply. Our membership figures available but have not been asked for. Those supplying your information grossly exaggerated their own membership. Grand Army of United Veterans has a membership equal to that of any association in Canada.
H. McLeod,
Secretary, Grand Army Veterans.

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton



GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY SECURITY PACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mi. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): Mr Speaker, I should like to inquire if the government have been in eommunieation with the British government regarding the proposed agreement with Germany referred to by the British Foreign Secretary in the course cf the last few days? If so, has the Prime Minister any communication to give to the House and to the country in connection with the matter?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): My hon. friend refers to the discussion which is taking place at the present time with regard to the security pact?
Mr. SHAW:: Yes.


John Warwick King: The British
government have been keeping our government informed in a general way of the nature of the discussions which are taking place, but no communications have been received which could be given to the public at the present time. Speaking generally, the information we have received is almost identical with what has appeared in the press, but there is nothing concrete to report so far.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 24, 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.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, when speaking to the motion a couple of days ago I addressed myself, amongst other .questions, to the alarming increase in the obligations of the Canadian National system, and pointed out the direct connection those obligations had with the country's financial responsibilities. I do not know that I should further labour that question to-day. I think it is something which is already absolutely clear to hon. gentlemen who have ever taken the trouble to look into the railway accounts, but I merely want to indicate to the House where this method of handling these debts is leading us. In the fiscal year 1922-23 my right hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) received from England $56,000,000. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb)
EMr. Manion.]
points out to-day that the only reason payments were made to the National Railways in cash, as they then were made, was because the Minister of Finance had that large sum of money. We had not last year, nor have we this (year, any corresponding sums of money in the treasury. Let me pause for a moment to make this observation. As a usual thing in matters of business, surpluses on the one hand or deficits on the other have relation to the amount of cash available. Here we have this strange position: In the fiscal year 1922-3 the right hon. Minister of Finance pays his way, pays great sums of money to the National Railways, and reports -honestly reports-a deficit of $31,000,000: last year, without the cash and without the payments, we had, strange to say, a surplus claimed: and this year, not only without the cash but in face of heavy declensions in the country's revenue, we have again the claim of a surplus. Well, if my hon. friend's method of reasoning appeals to this House, we must have a new orientation, we must pray that we may have no cash, because in that case we will have a surplus-that is, the condition will be such that under such reasoning the government may claim a surplus. By contrast, with $56,000,000 of cash falling into the treasury and with proper accounting, we had a deficit of $31,000,000 in 1922-3. Now, Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that the point is so clear that I ought not to insult the intelligence of hon. members and the intelligence of the country by further elaborating it.
I now propose, Mr. Speaker, to say something on the question of protection. I think it is due at this time to inquire why the government is again in the twilight zone, why there has been another wobble. And I am going to tell hon. gentlemen in advance that I still believe in protection, that I still feel it is the only policy for this country, and that I know that it is the only policy that can be adopted if we are going to do what we ought to do-have some proper regard for the Canadian workmen. The first observation I make is this. Hon. gentlemen to my left, and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) in (particular, delight in selecting some item in the tariff and talking about the tremendous degree of protection that under it some manufacturer enjoys, and what a high protective tariff we have in force. Now, at the outset I desire to submit that we have not a high protective tariff, and, what is more, have not had for many years; that, on the contrary, the tariff instead of being high is low. But I also desire to submit this

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
-and I think I can cany at least the judgment of the hon. member for Brome, because when things are pointed out to him he generally thinks them over-I venture to say that not one hon. member can take any item in the tariff and say, "That constitutes the protection which the particular industry manufacturing it enjoys." Why do I say that? Here again I think I can carry the judgment of the House. A duty, to be protective, must represent that percentage of net protection which the industry enjoys. Can there be any dispute at all about that? I do not think so; I do not think that even the hon. member for Brome will dispute that statement. But running through all the items in the tariff we have other charges, charges which are made upon this activity and upon that activity, protection carried along to those who supply the raw materials, machinery and the like of a particular industry. There is no question about it. As a matter of fact to-day, having regard to the change that has been worked as the result of currencies out of line here and wages out of line there, increased by a great multiple since the war, we have to-day this condition under our tariff: It would be in some instances cheaper to manufacture in the United States, close our factories here, and ship the goods in. I am going to give just one illustration; more can be given. The duty on manufactured brass is 10 per cent. If the ordinary course was followed, my hon. friends who are so fond of low tariff and free trade ideas would at once say, why can brass not be manufactured in Canada when there is a protection of 10 per cent to the brass manufacturers? Well what are the facts? Copper is the chief raw material entering into the manufacture ol brass. Our copper mines enjoy a protection of one and a half cents per pound on theii copper. During the greater part of last year copper sold at as low as 13 cents a pound. Here you have the spectacle of a so-called protected manufacturer paying 15 per cent on his raw material-because that is how it works out: one and a half cents per pound which sells at 13 cents a pound-and his whole protection is 10 per cent. Yet some people wonder why workmen are walking the streets! We used to have two brass factories in Canada. One is closed altogether and the machinery gone to the United States where it is doing useful work and giving employment to American workmen; the other has been bought by a large American brass company.
Is it not ridiculous to talk of this tariff being a high protective tariff, when you look at the figures of our imports? If it was such
a high protective tariff, these imports could not be coming in; but they come; they persist; they are always with us. I am going to give the House a few figures as to our imports.


Mr. McMASTER:: Before the hon. member proceeds further, would his proposal be to put up the duty on brass, or take down the duty on copper?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member (Mr. McMaster) asks what my policy would be, but I think he understands it by this time. I think he understands that that policy is such a measure of protection as will enable all Canadian industry, all Canadian mines, to function. If, for instance, we came to the conclusion that the large copper mines of British Columbia would, without the duty, be obliged to close, then that duty should stay.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to give the House the figures as to our imports, and I do so with a view to showing how perfectly absurd it is, in view of the facts, to talk about Canada's high protective tariff. In 1924 we imported $173,795,660 worth of fibre textiles and textile products; of wood and wood products and paper, $40,976,833; iron and its products, $173,473,503; non-ferrous metals and their products, $43,432,617; non-metallic metals and their products, $155,899,393; chemicals and allied products, $26,088,041; miscellaneous commodities, $48,205,401, a total of $661,871,448. To this total have also to be added imports which have to do with things other than manufactures; which have to do with our own national production. And after all, are not the farmers of Canada such a people that they ought to be able to have and hold the market in their own country? So I add the imports of agricultural and vegetable products, amounting to $186,468,685, and of animal products, $45,026,734.


Mr. HOEY:: Before the hon. gentleman departs from that, has he worked out the proportion of these goods that have come in free or upon which drawback has been paid?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I have not. That has nothing to do with the point I am making.


Robert Alexander Hoey: It might show that there are some things upon which there is a very high tariff.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think so. It might show that certain commodities which are supposed to come in under a tariff got the benefit of the drawback. But I am not interested in that at the moment. I am

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
not dealing with the question whether there is or is not a tariff on the commodities imported; I am considering the plight of the Canadian worker who is having his job taken away from him-that is all. Now, I admit at once that there are certain things we have to import. We have to import, for example, raw cotton, raw wool, raw silk, crude rubber, and so forth.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the ex-minister
pardon me if I interject a question? He has said that we have to import raw wool. If the protective principle is sound, why should we import raw wool when we have plenty of sheep in this country?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will answer
that very quickly. There is not much question about it. As matters stand to-day there is practically no protection to the Canadian producer of wool. This country has boundless acres of magnificent pasture lands. Take, for example, British Columbia or, on the other hand, New Brunswick. The climate of British Columbia is such that those rich, soft wools, with the long, delicate fibres can be produced there. But we have not enough sheep. We have to import wool until we get sheep. We have to import wool until agriculture is put upon a proper basis in this country so far as wool production is concerned. It is just the same with coal: we have to import coal too. Why? Because so far Canadians have not solved the question of coal production and distribution. We ought to be able to get along without importing coal, but we cannot do it as yet; and the same applies to raw wools, in the absence of the production of wool crops in our own country. We ought to have them, but we have not. We may get them, and I hope we will. We also have to import iron ore, and will continue to do so until Canadians learn how to handle their iron deposits. So that a large number of our imports are quite essential. Some of them I hope will not be essential for so very long. I give the House those essential imports: raw cotton, $28,391,278; raw wool, $6,837,781; raw silk, $2,745,482.


Mr. FORKE:: What is the duty on these commodities?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder why
the hon. member asks that question, if it is not simply to make for delay? What I am trying to point out is that the result of our importing a great many of the commodities that we do import is to take the day's job and the bread and butter away from the Canadian workman. I stated some exceptions; those
[Sir Henry Drayton.l
exceptions included raw cotton, and the hon. gentleman asks what the duty is on raw cotton. What is that to do with it? We do not grow raw cotton in this country. The question has nothing at all to do with the point I am making. In addition, we import crude rubber, $8,047,394; coal, $88,432,856; iron ore, $5,437,604. We have in all, including these main raw materials which we must import, $139,892,395 worth of imports. Over and above these items-which are the main items-there are other commodities rvhich we also require. I shall not take the time which would be required to give these in detail. But we require, for example, in the chemistry trades raw material, we require in the furniture trades raw material; and instead of taking up a lot of time I am going to assume that we have to import a sum much larger than the fact is, and I am going to suggest to the House that for the purposes of our consideration we should take these other raw materials at the total of $53,574,472, which would make a total for raw material necessities, and the like, of $193,366,867, leaving a balance of $700,000,000, which, as I desire to submit and do submit, with a policy the basis of which would be a proper regard for the Canadian workingman could be kept in this country. That is what protection means. To-day $700,000,000 is being sent out of Canada, on the one hand, and1 on the other: "Get out of here," to hundreds of thousands of workmen who cannot get jobs. The idea of protection is to change that state of affairs.
Just let us see what that would mean. Mr. Speaker, sixty per cent of the cost to the consumer is looked upon to-day as a low percentage which labour enjoys, and which represents wages. In many trades, trades where you have a finished product right down the line, a product involving several trade changes, the percentage can be easily shown to be eighty per cent; but I desire to be under the mark, and so I take sixty per cent. Let us see what sixty per cent of $700,000,000 means. Let us assume that the worker would get on an average $1,200 a year for his work. That means that if this $700,000,000 were kept in Canada we could give employment to 350,000 workers who have left Canada to seek employment or are idle in Canada. I will go a step further.


James Alexander Robb: May I ask my hon. friend in what regard has the tariff as between Canada and the United States been changed from the tariff he himself administered?


Henry Lumley Drayton: So often in this parliament we are met with the pitiful plea:

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
You too. Why, it is the only answer which we had all day the last time this matter was discussed-"You too." But does my hon. friend think that conditions are not changed? Does he not know the cumulative effect of mass production? Does he not know what the present dislocation of foreign trade and commerce is? Does he indeed not know that Canada under his administration is the only civilized nation in the world to-day that is reducing her tariff? Surely he knows it. Does he not also know this, that in business what is a fair price to-day may be an absolutely unfair price to-morrow? Does he not know that in connection with many articles where you have a fixed rate per pound, the multiplication of prices, with the protection given at a low price, becomes almost a premium on imports into this country to-day? Surely my hon. friend knows that.
I was going on to point out that, given four dependents for each worker, you would have in Canada to-day a population with means of subsistence and livelihood of 1,750,000 people; that is on the basis of last year's imports only. Is that worth while? Is it not worth while trying to keep Canadians in Canada? Is there any governmental responsibility to the worker? Well, if there is, there is only one way that has been found out so far in which that responsibility can be discharged, and that is by the country seeing to it that to the fullest extent possible the worker shall have the benefit of his own markets.
But then, of course, hon. gentlemen say- the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) has said it, and said it often in very eloquent-terms and phrases-if you don't buy, you can't sell. He nods his head in complete approval. Now if goods can only be paid for by goods-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Or by service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -or by service, and my hon. friend again nods his head. Now I am ready to admit at once that there is something in this ism;-there is something in every ism, but isms do everything except hold water. They are about the best things in the world for academic debates. Academic reasoning will run through them all.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Has not that principle been demonstrated in the findings of the Dawes commission, and in the finding that reparations are very difficult to get from Germany because Germany can only pay by services or goods?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: She would be paying a lot of interest on capital invested from abroad.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am so glad
to get that admission from my hon. friend. That is something I have striven so long and so vainly to get from him. Why, with that admission, the whole of this hollow pretence goes. Do we not all know that Canada, like Cuba, is heavily indebted? It has been calculated-I do not know what the exact sum would be, nobody knows-it has been calculated by an authority that we pay out each year the enormous sum of $250,000,000 in connection with what might be termed this hidden trade, this hidden exchange; and when my hon. friend points out that that is exactly the same as buying goods he is very tardily recognizing what is an absolute economic fact. My hon. friend now shakes his head; I trust he is not going to dispute that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, no; I have always recognized that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am so glad to have that admission because if that fact be recognized so far as Canada is concerned we can forget the ism entirely; forget entirely that we will have to go on importing in view of the large sum of $250,000,000 which we have to pay out each year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Forget what ism?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That goods can only be paid for by goods. So far as Canada is concerned she would pay for them to a very large extent by the payments which she has to make.
But I am going to give my hon. friend the balance of the figures which he interrupted


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not catch the
word "coupons" which my hon. friend spoke of.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, interest
coupons.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Those coupons would
be attached to bonds issued by the country of importation and taken by the country whioh had invested the money abroad and had sent money there in the form of goods.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But that has
absolutely nothing to do with the question I am now discussing as to the necessity of buying before you can sell. In the case of Cuba and the Argentine the figures are theie and speak for themselves, and I must point out that both countries have a smaller population than Canada. If Cuba and the Argentine can do what I have described is there any reason why Canada-with an equally tremendous drain on her in the form of interest coupons-cannot do the same? My hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) is driven to this point that the only case where it is not necessary to buy in order to be able to sell is where you are a heavy debtor. Then your interest payments create the credit which permits of the importation of goods. My hon. friend shakes his head. I wonder whether I am to take that as in affirmation of the principle?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Most of your interest
payments will be on something which you have imported from abroad, perhaps years before, and on which payments have been deferred. The interest payments that Canada is making to-day represent, in large measure, vast amounts of foreign capital which were invested in this country between 1900 and 1911.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will have lots of time-


Andrew Ross McMaster: We borrowed pretty
heavily in the British market and created credits on which we bought goods from the United States when we were developing this country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I
hope you will not look upon that as a speech from my hon. friend. I would like him very much to have the opportunity of discussing this question.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not want to have any misunderstanding in regard to what my hon. friend calls my "affirmation."


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not object to my hon. friend making any speech he likes so long as he can speak again at the proper time. He has already spoken half a dozen times but I hope he has not exhausted his right to speak. I am going to develop the point which has been referred to in regard to the great importance of the interest coupons. What my hon. friend has stated as to the result of the railway debacle which existed in the ten years preceding 1913, is perfectly correct. My hon. friend shakes his shoulders but I am going to demonstrate the fact to him and if he is just as fair with me on that point as I hope he is going to be on another question in a minute, he will admit it.	_
I am going to invite my hon. friend to go to a country which is the greatest creditor nation of the world, the United States. There is a country that sells without buying very much; there is a country that is collecting the interest coupons of the world. She is not a debtor nation, she is a creditor nation. Let us see how the "ism" works out there? Well, the figures of the United States are progressive figures. For the ten years ending 1893 her excess of exports was $531,073,572; for the ten years ending 1903, $3,839,744,076; for the ten years ending 1913, $4,564,462,410; for the ten years ending 1923, $20,729,457,292. Let us apply our percentage for one minute and see what that means; let us apply the 60 per cent of the cost which goes to labour, low as it is. That means during the period mentioned that while the United States has taken out of all other countries 4 p.m. the sum of $29,664,737,350 the workmen of the United States have been employed at the expense of the workmen in other countries with a resultant gain to themselves of fifteen billions of dollars. Is there any reason why anyone should wonder

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
at the tremendous growth and the tremendous financial strength of the great republic? My hon. friends opposite will not say that that enormous balance has been met by the United States paying debts which she owes. Why, she is trying to collect debts.
How consistently Canada has worked to put her where she is! Let us come to that period of railway exploitation to which I was referring a moment ago. During the first ten years of chat forty-year period our imports from the United States were $486,927,738. In the ten-year period ending 1903, they were $828,485,184. In the period of railway exploitation, Grand Trunk loans which smashed the property, transeontinemtals, Grand Trunk Pacifies, Canadian Northern railways, the load of which to-day is bending our backs, how is that iooked after? Our imports from the United States in the period ending in 1913 were $2,216,293,258. During the war period our imports rose to $5,986,957,558. We see where the world in general comes out as a result of the forty years' trading. Let us see where Canada comes out. The net result of the forty years' trading with the United States is an adverse trade balance for Canada amounting to $4,397,248,129. Was that not a remarkable achievement for a country of our population? Is it not remarkable evidence of-I am going to leave the naming of that action for the moment to the hon. member for Brorae (M". MdMaster). Let us see how much Canada helped the United States in the period of railway exploitation. In the period ending in 1913, the United States enjoyed the comfortable, favourable trade world balance of $4,564,000,000 odd and Canada accounted for no less than $1,303,000,000 odd of that enormous sum. Just think of it I-out of a favourable trade balance of $4,564,462,410, Canada accounts for $1,306,950,513. My hon. friend would think that sort of thing ought to go on; that it should be made still easier to exploit this market instead of something being done to keep Canadian money wording for Canada. There is a great deal of it working for the United States. What we did in that ten-year period in helping to make the United States the world industrial colossus that she i3, is indeed remarkable evidence of the resources and purchasing power of this people, but the thing can be done only at the expense of the purchasing power of today, and where is it? At the same time k is a monumental example of misapplied energy (,nd wasted opportunity.
But there is another way in which this matter could be settled, and that is by grid 100 [DOT]
imports. My hon. friend did not suggest that, and perhaps I had better come to it a little later on.
I would like the government to put this question to themselves:	Is it not
about time at least to try to secure
some of this work for Canadian workers, some fairer and better share in the work of Canada for Canadians? What is government policy? Is government policy a policy which is to be a pro-Canadian policy or a pro-American policy? There ought to be a sharp difference between the two. Is there thait sharp difference in the minds of some hon. gentlemen? The government, of course, could very well object to a Canadian answering this question: Is the government pro-Canadian or proAmerican? They might very well say: Political bias, the desire for greed or something else renders you an unfair witness. The best way of judging policies is by their effect, and I am going to call as a witness, no Canadian, but expert American opinion. The United States Department of Commerce is a very well organized and complete department, and it has excellent publications which appear regularly. Its publication of November 3, 1924, has a great deaJl to say about Canada. It first reminds the reader that it is interested in extending his sales in our territory; that Canada affords the second best market for the American seller.' At page 265 of this issue the article on the ^hare of -the United States in the foreign trade of Canada commences as follows:
Economically and socially Canada may be considered as a northern extension of the United States and our trade with Canada is in many respects more like domestic trade than our foreign trade with other countries. The movement of industrial raw materials from Canada into United States and the return flow of a miscellaneous assortment of partly or wholly manufactured goods is not unlike a similar flow between the west and south, and the more industrialized northeastern part of the United States.
Here we have an expert, unbiased opinion as to the result of Canadian policies. This opinion is unpalatable in the extreme to any Canadian that thinks somewhat of his country, that sees in Canada, with her great resources and1 her virile people, a great nation of the future, strong and potential, if her resources are used for Canada and are not exploited by the foreigner, no matter who he may be, or for the benefit of other countries. Hon. gentlemen have all heard a great deal about the losses which this country today suffers from in the exportation of pulp-wood at $10 a cord as against paper at $70, and they are familiar with the payroll that is lost to this country as a consequence. I

1560	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
merely draw that matter in this connection to their attention. It is another confirmation of the correctness of this expert's opinion. I will give just one other case. Canada produces a very large share of the asbestos of the world. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) nods his head in approval. I am gratified. It is true, she does. What does she get out of it? Exactly what this expert tells us.	All we are getting out of
it is simply the wage roll which the first rough operation provides. We are the providers of the raw material for our friends to the south.
Mr, McMASTER: Just as they supply the raw material for our cotton factories.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has great difficulty in making a point. In the minds of some hon. gentlemen, the fact that the United States supplies us with a little bit of raw material here and there is a sufficient warranty for this enormous inundation of imports. But that could never be accepted by the mass of the Canadian people. There is one thing however which the hon. gentleman forgets; he forgets that cotton is an annual crop while pulpwood is not and asbestos certainly is not. And this shows the reasonableness of most of the objections raised by the free trader. Here we have the suggestion that because the United States gets rid of a small portion of its annual crop, which it is quite anxious to dispose of, we should therefore send out in the raw state irreplaceable material which should be manufactured at home.


An hon. MEMBER:: Won't pulpwood grow here?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the hon.
gentleman has some prescription whereby pulpwood may become an annual crop I shall be glad to know what it is, but until he produces it I will not discuss the question with him. Now, the United States tariff commission held an investigation into the asbestos factories and this is what they have to say on the subject:
Known deposits of asbestos in the United States are entirely inadequate to supply domestic needs, and, although efforts are being made by the government to discover additional areas, it is probable that no very large deposit of the mineral exists in this country.
At present our chief source of supply is Canada, which supplies fully 95 per cent of the total annual imports. The bulk of the imports from Canada consist of " mill " fibre, and the rest " crude " fibre. Imports from other countries consist wholly of crude fibre, and come in large quantity from southern Africa-Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa.
tSir Henry Drayton.]
Canada produces about 85 per cent of the total world output and exports about 90 per cent of its annual production to this country.
The United States is the world's largest producer and consumer of asbestos manufactures. The total annual domestic production of asbestos textiles and manufactured textile products alone is estimated at from $60,000,000 to $70,000,000. This does not include the heavy asbestos products, such as shingles, slates, wood or lumber, paper and millboards, and pipe and boiler coverings, the production of which amounts to several million dollars annually.
In 1924 we exported to the United States $5,546,769 worth of raw asbestos and $994,500 worth of asbestos sand and waste. And that sum, considerably less than $7,000,000, is increased in the United States through process of manufacture to at least $75,000,000. Does any hon. gentleman think that this country with its exodus of population can afford to throw away a pay roll like that? How can anyone call it reasonable unless we proceed on the assumption that this country owes no debt whatever to its workers?
Then as to gold. In the ten year period ending 1893, the United States shipped out some $187,582,000 of gold more than she received, but in the next ten year period evidence of the payment of adverse balances by gold become apparent. The excess of gold received by the United States in this period was $98,088,000, in the period ending 1913, $86,698,000, and in the period ending 1923, $1,997,724,000. As a result, in these forty years when the United States has an excess balance in her world's trading of $29,664,737,350, she only receives in payment of this balance excess gold to the amount of $1,994,928,000. The war obligation of the Allies to the United States accounts for much more of the movement but a vast sum still remains to be accounted for. And there is another way in which payments can be made, which hon. gentlemen forget all about, and that is by debts, by loans, by the acquisition of property. That is how it is done, and it is also done by transfer of ownership. I saw a statement the other day, although I do not know just how true it is, that American investments in Canada were in excess of some $2,500,000,000. How does that come about? Why, it comes about as a result of these enormous adverse trade balances.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It has come about
largely because the tariff enables the American manufacturer to come here and establish branch factories owned in the United States, whither the profit goes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
is very ingenious, but he is entirely wrong. The period in which that took place, a period of American expansion in building in Canada,

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
was not the period ending in the year 1913; my hon. friend will find that it was during the war.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It has been going on
for the last twenty- years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but I am
referring to the really big movement. After all, we might as well get down to rock bottom and deal with the situation as it really is. It is serious enough and we should try to get at the truth. What was really the cause of the big factories coming here? What for example brought the General Motors here? If my hon. friend wants evidence I will again quote an American authority from that same article. That great establishment was not completed here until 1921 or 1922, I forget which, and it was brought here in order that exportations could be made from the Canadian market so that they might get the benefit of the Canadian preference in Great Britain.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But that preference has existed only a very few years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And I am giving investments that have been made within a very few years past. Now, the fact is this, that if our tremendous adverse balance does not account for these holdings it means something very much worse; for it is worse to pay for it by loans out of Canada "than by factories established in Canada to afford Canadian workmen employment. I leave my hon. friend to take whatever horn of the dilemma he likes. I was helping him out, but I will take the argument his way. Let us say that the establishment of American factories here has nothing to do with the adverse balance, that they come as the result of tariff regulations.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The hon. member was
dealing with investments in Canada; that was the question. I was pointing out that American branch factories had been induced to come here through tariff regulations; I pointed out that the tariff was responsible to a certain extent for that investment, whether it was a good thing or a bad thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder what my hon. friend wants. I wonder if that is another grudge against the tariff. The whole effect is that we have got a tremendous adverse trade balance, which can only be paid for by acquisition by the Americans of great properties in this country, or by the floating of a large number of Canadian loans in the American market. I was just going to point out to my hon. friend how it is done. Hon. lOOi
gentlemen, if they will take the trouble to look at the American Statistical Abstract, will find that at page 678 a singular compliment is paid to Canada; they will find that of all countries in the world Canada alone is named in connection with these issues. They deal with municipal bond issues in that great money market of the world as it is to-day and the form of the table is:
Municipal-Domestic Canadian
United States Possessions
I have no idea whether we are so sandwiched there because we are regarded as more American than the United States possessions; but I do know that if the query was to be: Does the United States make more money out of Canada than it does out of its own possessions?-why, we would certainly have to come in front of them, for undoubtedly they do make more money out of the Dominion. So I submit that it is just about time that we gave serious consideration to this question. We have often heard it said that a nation cannot be both bond and free. This country is a perfect shandygaff to-day so far as its fiscal policies are concerned; it is neither one thing nor the other.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Explain.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend asks what is a shandygaff. I am afraid that if I ventured upon a definition it might lead to a discussion with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster).


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, we are agreed upon that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very good, everybody knows what it means. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that no Canadian has the slightest right to blame the American people for this situation; we ought to admire them. That article, unpalatable as it is, was intended for the perusal of gentlemen who intend to further exploit this market. But the article is true, and being true, it ought not to be resented; on the contrary, I think that if the writer only succeeds in awakening this country, in making Canadians think for Canada, he is deserving not of the blame but of the thanks of the nation. Instead of blaming, we ought to extend to our friends to the south the sin-cerest expression of praise possible-imitation; we ought to imitate their tariff policy and the principles which they have so successfully put into effect.
There is another point that I desire to take up at some length, and it is an important one-I refer to the British preference. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that with conditions as
1562	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
they are, with many thousands, yes, hundreds of thousands of our skilled workers to-day no longer with us, protection cannot immediately be put into operation everywhere and produce results at once. It will take time. You cannot create an industrial condition in a day, although you can destroy it in a very short time with ill-considered, ill-digested tariff resolutions tinkering with the foundation of your prosperity. But there is something which we can immediately look after. The British preference to-day is being used to the injury of the Canadian worker. Look at the position of the wool industry and of the boot and shoe industry. The British preference may be a great instrument in the hands of Canada at this minute.	It ought to be
used for the purpose of removing our tremendous excess purchases in the United States to the Mother Country and to Europe, putting them where we get our real market for our wheat and other products, and so aiding our ultimate purchasers' purchasing power and improving the position of every Canadian exporter. Sir Henry Thornton and other officials of the merchant service were examined before the committee on railways last session. The evidence which they gave, and there was absolutely no variance of opinion about it, was that the justification for high ocean rates on the eastern movement was that there were practically no loadings at all for the western movement, and that consequently the eastern movement had virtually to cover the cost of the round trip. Likewise we have a lopsided movement on land. We have a tremendous grain movement from the prairies, and we have also a tremendous movement of empty box cars into that territory to look after the grain movement. This absolutely lopsided condition would be very much counteracted if we were to transfer our excess purchases to Great Britain and the Continent so that to the fullest extent possible those box cars would go west loaded-or would run east loaded if the unloading was at Vancouver; in a word, with a balanced movement of freight infinitely more can be done in the reduction of freight rates than can ever be accomplished by a process of subvention, special privilege, or robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is no question whatever about it. There is the reafl economic grievance, and there is the remedy if we have the courage to apply it.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Would the hon. member increase the British preference at the present time?
fSir Henry Drayton.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I
would have such a general tariff here as would leave lots of room to give Great Britain an opportunity for sharing these markets. And that sharing-let me be perfectly frank with my hon. friends-would not be at the expense of the Canadian workers. Because, as I see it, the first duty of this country is to the workers within her boundaries. But with the tremendous field we have to look after, the tremendous amount of excess purchases from our neighbours to the south, there is any amount of room to help British conditions.
My hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) is smiling at me. He is just thinking this-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I believe in reciprocity.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He is just thinking this-he has said it so often that I am going to say it for him, though not half as well, I know, as he would say it. Protection, he would say, will make the manufacturers inefficient. Protection will increase the cost of living. Protection will increase the cost of manufacture.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought I
would get him going, Mr. Speaker. Protection, he says, would make our manufacturers unable to meet the competition of others in the export trade.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am delighted to have my hon. friend's recognition that I so fairly express his views.


Robert Alexander Hoey: -and bear heavily on the agriculturist.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, and bear heavy on the agriculturist. Now, I think that completes the list. In the first place I desire to point out that it is extremely doubtful if protection does materially increase costs anywhere to-day. My hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) leans forward expectantly-I wait the blow, but it does not come. It does increase costs in the first instance, until the manufacture concerned can get going. But it is true that any country which removes local production and places itself in the hands of the foreign manufacturer will be exploited by that foreign manufacturer. I am going to tell my hon, friend, if he has not yet learned it by looking at the tariff regulations of every country except Canada, and to a certain extent except the Mother Country, that every country has realized it. While much was said about the

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
cost of agricultural implements in Canada, they were sold in Australia, where there were no factories, at a multiple of that sum, and so much was that condition felt in Australia, an agricultural country, that they put a duty on agricultural implements, if I remember rightly, of sixty per cent, so that they would be able to get home production and home competition. Again I am going to remind my hon. friend of something that he should not need to be reminded of. We had an up-to-date glass factory in Canada; I am reminded that it was at Hamilton. That glass factory was put out of business by competition from Belgium. Producers in Belgium sold window glass in this country at such a price that the Canadian factory could not continue. To-day the machinery is working in the United States, giving employment to United States workmen. And what has happened in Canada? The price of glass first came down, for the purpose of killing a Canadian industry, which was left defenceless by this government as a result of their repeal of the law as to debased currency; and when the job was done the price of glass went up and to-day it is greater than it was before the price cutting took place. My hon. friend should know that. But apart from all that, my hon. friend will not complain of protection as practised in England. I would say from personal observation and knowledge -yes, from the bills which I myself have had to pay-that the cost of living in England today is greater than it is in France. There you have the logical result of the application of my hon. friend's doctrines. It is a doctrine which does not care a bit about employment.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Is it not true that the difference between the cost of living in England and in France is due to the taxation imposed in England in an attempt to meet her debts?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is perfectly right. Direct taxation, according to hon. gentlemen here who are free traders, never hurts anybody-


Robert Forke: Nobody ever said that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the indirect tax, the protective tax, which is such an evil.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Taxation always hurts, but it hurts worse when it is in favour of private profit rather than the public interest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
is now making a speech.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You invited it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is only another evidence of the manner in which one whose mind is sufficiently contracted by isms will approach the discussion of subjects of this kind-no consideration for the rights of a fellow man; no consideration for the rights of labour or for the national pay-roll. The whole truth of the matter is that the free trader, brought up and nourished on isms, is awfully solicitous about the workman who may have to pay twenty-five cents here or twenty-five cents there more than he thinks that workman ought to have to pay for a necessity of life, he is awfully anxious about that; but he does not care a snap of his finger for this problem: Where is the working man going to buy anything, even in the cheapest market, without wages? That is never thought of at all. Here is one of the reasons why living is so dear in England, and everybody knows it. Following out that principle of "never mind about employment," we see that labour that is fortunate enough to function to-day has strapped to its back the burden of 1,200,000 workers who unfortunately cannot find employment. There is the fruit of free trade. Go across the channel; just take the short trip to France and see what we find. Who will say that the land of the Mother Country is not good land? Who will say that her workers are not efficient? Who will say that her bankers are not capable? Who will say that her manufacturers, with their wits sharpened by "free trade, free trade, free trade," are not competent? Well, just take the little twenty mile trip to France and see the difference. On the one hand, doles, unemployment, want, plus a high cost of living; on the other hand, employment, plenty of it. Why, following the Armistice, and down to the first of January, 1924, France has received, provided with work and assimilated one and a half million immigrants. When I was there last summer she was receiving workers at the rate of 6.000 a week and there was still a lack of labour in the mines and for agriculture.


Mr. GOOD:: Does my hon. friend attribute this wholly to tariff differences between the two countries?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the only thing I can see any difference in, except, of course, that taxation is lighter in France.
1564	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton


Mr. EVANS:: May I ask a question there? How is France paying her national debt as compared with Britain?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We all know
what the situation there is. She is not paying it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If I did not pay my
debts I would have lots of money to spend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder-


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. member who has the floor invites interruptions and is willing to answer any questions put, there is no
objection, but such a practice may degenerate into an abuse. It seems to me that when an hon. member is addressing the House he should be given a free hand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I assure you, I rather welcome the interruptions. I do not mind them in the slightest, but I bow entirely to your wise direction. Perhaps we have been having a little too much, but would you allow me to refer to the last interruption of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). That hon. gentleman says he would have lots of money if he did not pay his debts. I wonder if the hon. gentleman really believes that France deserves that gibe?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of
order. I implied nothing derogatory to France. I was endeavouring, perhaps improperly, by interjection to meet an argument which I thought was unsound. I am not going to interrupt again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says nothing derogatory to France? What else were we talking about? If there be any sense in his remarks, it meant this surely: "If I do not pay my debts I will have money" was a reflection upon the country we were talking about as not paying her debts. Yes, it meant that, or it meant nothing. I would just like hon. gentlemen to attempt to visualize for one minute the position of France, and see What that wonderful country, the cockpit of the war, has done. Her forests and best countryside decimated and tom;
863,000	dwellings and erections of different kinds destroyed; 200 coal mines destroyed; 39 iron mines put out of business; the very soil so twisted and tortured as to be useless for agriculture; trees, disappeared, nothing left. Gentlemen talk about France's financial position. Why, what would they have? France over and above what every other country in the world suffered as a result of the war, over and above her tremendous war

debts, over and above her tremendous losses, had a devastated countryside which represented a tremendous percentage of her whole production, the percentage running into staggering figures. What was she to do? What did it amount to? Over and above all other losses, there were claims of 130 billions of francs filed. Those claims were cut down. There were miles and miles of railway and railway bridges destroyed; highways and highway bridges, canals, locks, and the like, all gone. The material damage of public property, irrespective of churches and municipal buildings, that has been made good by France for public services alone on the 1st of January, 1924, was 20 billions of francs. Yes, and there was also paid at that time approximately 56 billions of francs for the restoration of all this property that was destroyed. I wonder how hon. gentlemen think that can be done? I wonder if that is a situation in which it is fair to say to France, "If you do not pay your debts, you will have lots of money." Why, France is out all that. It is a special charge against her, and she has to restore that damage before she can do anything.


William Irvine: I would ask, just for information, whether the hon. member knows if France deflated to the same extent as Great Britain, and if he thinks that would have any effect on the relative positions of the two countries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman is quite right. France could not deflate. France was put in this position, that she had to find the money to cover that enormous sum, and she has found the money to cover that enormous sum. It means a tremendous added financial burden thrown on the country. What was the first thing to be done under the treaty? France was to have her damages for destroyed property paid to her. She never got them. France making up her mind that she 'would again function, has spent all her money in reparations, and I wonder if any hon. gentleman honestly thinks that at the present time it would be decent, in view of the tremendous financial sacrifices thrown on France by reason of her special damages, to ask her, Why have you not started paying? But the hon. gentleman has carried me far from what I intended to say.
I am now going to give hon. gentlemen a few figures as to French tariffs, so that there will be no doubt as to what in France at least was thought to be the duty of the government to the French worker. There are two schedules in France; there is the minimum and the general tariff. I am going to

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
give the increases in the present minimum and general tariffs of France over the tariffs of 1913. These percentages which are worked out bring into them the coefficients which form part of the French system of customs
taxation:	Increase in	Increase in
	Minimum	General
	Tariff	Tariff
Article	per cent	per cent
Finished aluminium			700
Fine steel for tools	
160	600Iron and steel wire.. ..	.... 300	900Locomotive crank axles..	.. .. 700	2,000Prepared dyes (increases	varying	from)	
300	500650	1,400Crude celluloid	900Ordinary window glass..	.... 400	1,200Linen yarns	
400	1,200Cotton yarns	1,100Woollen piece goods.. ..	.... 300	1,000Vehicles for commerce,	agri-	culture and cartage.. ..	.... 500	1,500These increases, Mr.	Speaker, can be looked	upon as very fairly	characteristic.	France
maintains a very stringent policy of protection, and she does not stop with her customs tariff, in that policy of protection. She uses embargoes. She would be horrified with our pulp situation for example, and with our asbestos situation. She either has an absolute embargo, or export taxes on hides and leather, wool, cotton, iron and steel scrap, copper and brass scrap, coal and coke, patent fuel, unworked fur skins and common woods. The whole idea is that France wants to get the additional pay roll which the fabrication of these commodities means to her if they are held in the country.
How has the plan worked? Look at the figures; look at the statistics showing the progress she is making; look at the great market France is working up for herself and the buying power of this market is measured by the number of workmen that have constant-employment there in turning out their goods which she supplies. Take cotton piece goods. Hon. gentlemen know what a tremendous lead Great Britain has with respect to cotton. Well, France's importation of cotton piece goods which amounted to 240,000 quintals in 1919 dropped to 29,000 quintals in 1923, a reduction of 87 per cent.
Are her manufacturers being crippled, are they becoming inefficient, are they failing to meet the competition of the outside world, are they shackled by protection so that they *cannot meet the costs of manufacturers in free trade England? Let hon. gentlemen consider these figures:	Her exports to Great
Britain in 1919 amounted to. 2,116,000,000 francs, and in 1923 the total had grown to 6,155,000,000 francs. France sold Great
Britain 14,000,000 francs worth of woollen goods in 1919, and in 1923 her sales of these goods amounted to 352,000,000 francs. Her export of automobiles grew from 12,000,000 to 165,000,000; her export of linen drapery from 101,000,000 to 760,000,000; of cotton goods from 30,000,000 to 109,000,000; and of wool and wool worsted from 24,000,000 to 92,000,000; of copper from 8,000,000 to 71,000,000; and-just imagine this, Mr. Speaker-her exportation of pig iron, steel and iron from 8,000,000 to 196,000,000 francs.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What was the value of the franc in 1919 and in 1923?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There have been fluctuations from time to time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What was it in 1923?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend is not satisfied with -the figures in francs I will give him the figures in weights. It makes no difference whether our yard stick is in francs or weights; French trade is advancing by leaps and bounds in spite of every single free trade theory in the world. Let me now give some figures in weights.


James Alexander Robb: I do not like to disturb my
hon. friend in his argument but will he tell us what Great Britain did with the extra quantity of goods which she imported?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Every single
million dollars worth of imports into England added just so many more English workmen fo the throng of unemployed. You cannot at one and the same time support workmen in a foreign country and workmen in your own country. That is one of the elementary lessons I wish I could impress upon my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: He sees it all right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You cannot support your own workmen and the workmen of foreign countries at one and the same time. What has happened by reason of these important importations from France into England has been that the application of the dole has been extended and the number of unemployed increased.


Mr. HUGHES:: How did Great Britain pay for those goods?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend wants to know how they were paid for? I do not know by what theory he would provide for the payment, I do not know what kind of national policy he would suggest; but the

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
policy I would advocate would be a policy which would provide employment for the workmen of our own country.
Now as to aluminium: the whole export of France in finished aluminium amounted to 281 tons in 1921 and this grew to 903 tons in 1923. Again I ask, is France progressing? Well, the export of manufactured articles in 1923 exceeded the export of 1922 by 458,000 tons in weight and 3,900,000,000 francs in value. An added weight of 458,000 tons in manufactured articles in one year is a pretty wonderful accomplishment.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, the genesis of free trade. Free trade was introduced into England to ensure cheap labour. My hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) shakes his head. He might not find that in Cobden but if he disputes the statement he has not read aright the briefs of those materially interested in the question-that the free trade movement in Great Britain was forced by the efforts of the manufacturers who were interested in getting cheap food so that there would be cheap labour. Then, Mr. Speaker,
5 p.m. I desire to point out that the whole underlying principle of free trade is the operation of the law of supply and demand. Does my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) agree with me there, or not? I invite a contradiction if there is any room for contradiction. My hon. friend remains mute, and as he is not at all 6low in speaking up on other occasions I take it that there is no room for dispute in this instance and that my statement is correct: Free trade is based upon the free operation of the law of supply and demand, of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, and so on. Very good. I desire to point out to to some hon. gentlemen opposite and to hon. gentlemen to my left something the significance of which they have as yet failed to grasp-that the principles of free trade in application to-day are as dead as the dodo; they do not exist; they cannot exist. Does the law of supply and demand apply in Great Britain? Theoretically?-yes; absolutely?-we all know it does not. The law of supply and demand is the law to regulate prices, costs. At least sixty per cent of the cost of production is labour. Every hon. gentleman knows that the time is long past for considering labour as a commodity to be judged and weighed by the law of supply and demand.


John Evans: What of agricultural exports from Canada?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is making an interruption which, perhaps, I
TSir Henrv Dravton-1
shall have time to deal with later on, but not at the minute. I want to follow out in the free trade area what the real situation is, and we might as well try to get the real situation. Everybody knows that wages today in Great Britain are paid on a scale fixed either by trade unions, or by agreement, or by arbitration. They know that they are rates which are fixed, having at least some regard, as much regard as is possible perhaps, to the right of man, the right of the worker. Just imagine what remuneration would be to-day in England if the law of supply and demand were to operate on the labor market! What kind of pay would those who might get a job receive if the law of supply and demand were to operate in a market with a surplusage of one million two hundred thousand workers? It cannot apply at all. It is impossible to apply the principle of free trade in any country and maintain for any length of time a higher standard of living than the standard of living of your competitor. In the long run, you get down either to the standard of living of the lowest, or you will do what the Mother Country is doing to-day -you will be living to a large extent on your accumulated profits of past years.
I must apologize for the length of my remarks. They are far longer than I intended to make them, but we have had some very interesting interruptions. Might I return to the budget itself, having regard to its concrete proposals, and I am not going to detain the House very long in connection with them? There is not very much to talk about in this budget. There is a good deal of room in it for moralization . There is any amount of room for wondering how it is that, under a policy of no protection for anything which is to be used for development, production, instruments of production, we can have a protective duty on coal. There is certainly room for wondering whether it ever again could be said that the policies of the government and of the Progressive party are similar and synonymous except, of course, when the local Liberal orator is on the western platform. Can it really again be said? I had an idea that the gentlemen from the west called for free trade in coal, claiming that it was an essential of life, that it had to come in. There is some room for moralization there. There is, however, some room for hope even for this government.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The hon. member is optimistic.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree with my hon. friend, there is very little, but I want to be fair. After all, for the first time since its

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
inception, this government has listened to the cry of labour. I wonder, however, if the awful conditions which prevail in Nova Scotia must prevail elsewhere before this government will do what its bounden duty is to do, to provide work for Canadian workmen. Is it to be necessary that the pain, suffering and turmoil of weeks and months must be gone through in order that that which ought to have been done long ago shall be done? If so, it is a melancholy outlook for labour in this country. The great difference between the coal worker, who is to-day to some extent recognized, and industrial workers who have already gone out of the country, is that while the latter had the money to pay for their fares and get out, the coal worker did not. That is the real difference, and if the industrial workers had not had that bit of money to get out with, we would have had to-day in the industrial towns, a repetition of what we see to-day in Nova Scotia.
Turning from the workers, I ask: Is it to be necessary that companies must have strikes of this character; should have to treat their employees in the way in which these miners have been treated in order that they may get some share of their own markets? Now that a little opening has been made, perhaps some of the light of reason may filter through, and the government, before it is entirely too late, will try to do something for Canada. In connection with the coal duty, my hon. friend does not do his act with justification. He seems to be ashamed of it. He does not submit this as a protective duty, as an increase in duty-this is just something that is going to make customs collections easier! That is all that is in the budget. I admit at once it is much easier to multiply a given sum by fifty than by fourteen, and this is easier just to that extent. What does it mean?-I think my hon. friend's figures are a little out. In 1924 our imports of slack coal from the United Kingdom were 200.427 tons. The duty on that was $20,047. Under the new tax the duty of $20,047 will become $60,165. We imported from the United States 3,823,753 odd tons, and the duty on that amounted to $535,325. That duty under the new tax becomes $1,911,876. In other words, there is an increase in the duty on American slack coal of 275 per cent, and in British slack coal of 250 per cent. The trouble with my hon. friend is that when he starts looking after somebody he does not apply any principle generally; he makes a little dab here or there in the name of suffering humanity. We imported in bituminous coal from the United Kingdom in 1924 69,399 tons on which there was a tax payment of $24,-
365.07, and from the United States we imported 11,544,184 tons on which there was a tax payment of $6,118,417. In the English rate of duty there is no reduction at all; it is the same now. But in the American rate, that payment of $6,118,417 will become $5,772,092 odd. In other words, there will be a reduction as regards bituminous coal of $346,325.52. as a result an increase in taxation of $1,416,668, with reductions noted making a net increase of $1,070,344.
There is another point to which I wish to refer for a moment, and that is the export of power. In my opinion the action of the government in this connection is ill-considered, and we have no statement of reasons which would enable one to come to any conclusion as to what actuated the government. I am rather afraid that the government has been moved by two things both of which I consider entirely wrong. Let me say in the first place that I am utterly and unalterably opposed to the further export of any electrical power from Canada, for it will not be so many years before we shall need it, and we know that we cannot get it back once it goes. Now, the tax in this regard appears fairly heavy, but that depends on the way you look at it. In most of the consuming centres of the United States, I think I am safe in saying, $36 a year per horse-power is considered fairly'- cheap, while the charge here is a mere fraction of that amount. Our rate could be doubled, trebled and quardrupled, and it would still pay the Americans in most instances to take power on that basis. But I am afraid that the government is preparing the way for an excuse which will enable it to consent to the export of power in large quantities. I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) if the government has not to-day applications for the export of power? I take it that his silence implies that I am right. It is common knowledge indeed that application has been made for an immense amount of power export, and I submit that it would be a crime against the country, under the shadow of this tupenny-ha'penny tax, having regard to present values, to allow one horse-power to leave the country. At any rate, it is something to which I am absolutely opposed. There is another angle from which we may look at the matter. Frankly, I ajm of the view that we should never have had any export allowed at all. But it was allowed under legislation, and rightly or wrongly the people who do business under an act that was law at one time have some right to consideration. And I submit that if anyone in this country is entitled to consideration in connection with the develop-
1568	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
ment of electrical energy it is those who have developed it for themselves and given service. The Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario were obliged to enter into a contract with the American corporation that owned and controlled the development of the Niagara river on the Canadian side and which controlled the distribution of the system on the other side of the river, whereby they agreed to supply power at a very low rate. The rates in those days were absurdly low as compared with those that are now charged, and the mere fact that the hydro commission to-day has to supply power at those rates means a tremendous loss to it, a loss ranging probably from $120,000 to $180,000 a year, handling the power wholesale, and much more than that at retail. Now, the tax cannot be passed on under the contract, and this impost will simply mean an additional cost to every municipality in the province of Ontario which makes use of the Hydro Electric system. Why is this done? Is it done to injure public ownership on the one hand, or is it done, on the other hand, to facilitate the export of a whole lot of power which Canada in the comparatively near future will urgently require? I hope that the minister on giving the matter further consideration will withdraw that provision.
The minister has an interesting provision this year in connection with the dumping clause. I believe in protection, but 1 believe in a protection which everybody will enjoy alike; I believe in a protection which is passed upon by this House. I certainly am opposed to any measure of protection which will ask this House to abdicate its functions as a taxing power. I do not believe in a department deciding what the value shall be according to its own yardstick, and I want the minister to understand thoroughly that so far as we are concerned we want to-day to see some return to the principle of parliamentary responsibility rather than talking about it.
We ought not to have any dumping in this country; we ought not to have distress goods thrown on the public without benefit to the people. That only means that we are going to put out of business so many more Canadian workers without bringing down the general level of prices. My hon. friend is right in trying to do everything he can to prevent dumping, but I submit that the dump should be covered by some clearly expressed principle whereby this House will know what it is doing. There should not be a dumping clause enabling the valuation to be fixed by the department under regulations to be passed by the minister.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for taking up the time of the House at such length, but my task is pretty well finished. I have already spoken on the question of our debt, and I have pointed out the additions to it, as I see them. Again I point out that the addition of $100,000,000 is the only thing which can be deduced from my hon. friend's own figures and from the return of endorsements, if we are to be honest, unless we say, "We are not responsible for the railways, we are not responsible for our endorsations."
There is one other point I desire to refer to. We have debt on the one hand and taxation on the other-war taxation still going on without any reduction of our debt. We find that there is still a multiple of the sales tax which these hon. gentlemen found when they took office, and we also find that ever since their accession to power there have been heavy increases in the national debt. We find picayune taxes here, there and everywhere, nuisance taxes and the like, so that the House-


James Alexander Robb: But I would remind my hon. friend that we reduced taxes last year and took $52,000,000 less from the people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
did make some reduction, but, as I pointed out to him two days ago, the rest we got was by a slow process of strangulation; it was not got by any reductions made in taxation, it was got os a result of government policies stifling Canadian production and Canadian activities. The tax still stands. It is reductions in taxes that we want, and so that this question may be considered, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Baxter:
That all the words after the word " that " be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
" Conditions in Canada urgently demand reductions of taxation, especially of the sales tax and other levies which have been increased by the present government; and the House regrets that the financial statements now presented show no evidence of the economy necessary to make such reductions possible, but rather disclose an alarming increase in the public debt. "


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I believe it to be my duty to take part in this debate and to remove, so far as I can, some misconceptions and misunderstandings that seem to prevail in some quarters in regard to the trade conditions of the country as a whole and particularly in regard to trade conditions in the Maritime provinces. But before going further, I wish to make a very brief reference to the speech delivered by the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) who has just taken his seat. The budget naturally contains a great

The Budget-Mr. Hughes
many official figures, and the hon. gentleman, while not questioning the accuracy of those figures, tried to draw from them different conclusions from those arrived at by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). It has been said that figures will not lie, but everybody knows that in the hands of a skilful manipulator they can be made to prove almost anything desired. The exMinister of Finance being a master mathematician plays very skilfully with figures and brings out some wonderful results. Still, with all his skill he did not seriously question any of the figures except those relating to the railway accounts. It must be borne in mind that two of the most prominent chartered accountants in Canada have declared over their signatures that the railway accounts as kept between the government and the railways are kept now exactly as they were kept when the hon. gentleman himself was Minister of Finance.


Arthur Meighen: What difference does
that make?


James Joseph Hughes: It makes a great deal of
difference to the criticism of the ex-Minister of Finance.


Arthur Meighen: It does not touch upon
his criticism at all.


James Joseph Hughes: He had to meet that difficulty somehow, and he met it by saying he supposed he had been wrong. Well, I think I can leave that phase of the question there. The hon. gentleman seemed worried-perhaps that is too strong a word-he was concerned with the huge railway debt and with the large annual railway deficit. But is there a thinking man in Canada who is not concerned with the railway problem? If it were not for that problem we would be in a pretty good condition; we would be able to reduce considerably both the national debt and taxation. We cannot get clear of the railways. We are all demanding an up-to-date service, and we are getting it. What is the railway problem? When the hon. ex-Minister of Finance was speaking on that subject I asked him what he would suggest that the people of Canada could do to remedy the railway situation. He answered that he did not know, but that when he had the figures for the past calender year he perhaps would be able to answer the question. But surely there must be some answer to the question, and I think the government, as announced by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) some days ago, has a policy that may perhaps bring results, if the heads of the two great railway
systems can be brought together with the Minister of Railways and with perhaps leading business men and men of railway knowledge. Then surely some policy could be evolved that would cut out railway duplication to a very large extent, reduce railway operating costs, and at the same time give the people a sufficient railway service.


Mr. LADNER:: Would the hon. member favour the Shaughnessy plat ?
Mr. HUGHES. I would favour any plan that would bring results. In the early part of the session Tie right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) put a resolution on the order paper which he was very anxious to discuss before the budget would be introduced, because, I suppose, it embodies the platform upon which the Conservative party intends to go to the country at the next general election. I presume, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman would not object to having that resolution or the principles of it considered during the discussion of the budget.


Arthur Meighen: Cannot give it enough consideration.


James Joseph Hughes: Because it cannot be
reached in any other way during the present session. The Montreal Star stated that the ideas in the resolution were stolen or otherwise obtained from the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Marler).


Arthur Meighen: I hope that will induce the hon. member to support it.


James Joseph Hughes: No, that makes no difference. If that statement on the part of the Star is correct, or even partly correct, and if this resolution is the joint production of these two hon. gentlemen, then all I have to say is that there are at least two hon. members of this House who are woefully lacking in knowledge respecting the trade conditions of the provinces on the Atlantic seaboard. As that resolution may be supposed to contain the principles of the platform upon which the Conservative party intends to go to the country at the next general election, I presume the subject matter was submitted at all events to the leaders of the party before it was adopted and published. I presume also that the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) saw it and approved of it, and if that is correct then there is a trinity of innocents abroad, as regards trade conditions in the provinces where confederation was bom.
The Budget-Mr. Hughes


Mr. MARLER:: The hon. member has made some very startling statements to this House. He has even intimated there was certain collusion in the matter to which he refers. Let me tell my hon. friend that if he made any such assertion it is wholly untrue.


Mr. JACOBS:: He intimated there was theft.


James Joseph Hughes: I simply quoted a statement which appeared in the Montreal Star, a very well known newspaper in Canada. I am not sure I quoted the exact words, but I know I gave the sense of them. The Star simply stated that the ideas in the resolution which stands in the name of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) on the order paper were contributed in some way or another, by collusion or co-operation-I think co-operation would be the better word -with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. It may be altogether untrue, but if so the Star is to blame.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I assure my hon. friend that there is no co-operation at all.


James Joseph Hughes: Then the Star is a very unreliable newspaper. I already had some idea along that line, but now I am confirmed in it.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Perhaps they were communicated by telepathy.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. member does not understand what humour means.


James Joseph Hughes: Was the Star really making fun of my hon. friend when it made that statement?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think so, yes.


James Joseph Hughes: Or my two hon. friends? Then I am not acquainted with the humour of the Montreal Star.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will take the case of Prince Edward Island, not because it is the smallest province in the Dominion, and the smallest in the Maritime provinces, but because it is the province with which naturally, I am best acquainted. All the producers in that province are farmers and fishermen. We have some professional men, some business men, and I suppose we have a few politicians. We have to sell the products of the land and the sea in the markets of the world wherever there is a demand for them; we have to take the money we get for these products and purchase in central Canada, at a price enhanced by the protective tariff, the things that we have to buy. We sell our pork products, such as bacon, ham and shoulders;

also, very largely, our cheese, butter and eggs in Great Britain. We sell our fish and potatoes in the, United States, in the West Indies and in Cuba. Potatoes are to us very largely what wheat is to the farmers of the prairie provinces. Our soil and climate are admirably adapted to the production of potatoes. We sell hay, grain and potatoes in Nova Scotia; we sell hay, grain, potatoes and live stock in Newfoundland. We sell our potatoes largely in the Cuban market, particularly since the Fordney tariff came into operation. That tariff being so high, half a cent a pound, it practically shut out our export to that market of low priced potatoes. Our farmers did not whine or did not come to Ottawa to look for any favours; they simply adapted themselves to the changed circumstances. The United States tariff, being a specific tariff, does not bear so heavily on the high priced article, and as there was a large demand in the United States for seed potatoes our farmers changed their method of production and produced potatoes for the markets of the southern states, where the farmers have to change their seed every year. They must change it every two years in order to get any results at all, and they must change it every year in order to get satisfactory results. It is to these .markets that I have enumerated, the open markets of the world, that we have to go with our products, and as I have already said, we have to buy what we need in the markets of central Canada at an enhanced price. We cannot sell in central Canada anything that we produce, with few exceptions -perhaps a few dozen eggs occasionally in Montreal, or a few cars of potatoes in central Canada; that is all. The farmers of this part of Canada are our competitors in the small markets in St. John, New Brunswick, Halifax, the Sydneys, and particularly in St. Johns, Newfoundland. A few years ago steamers leaving Montreal for St. Johns, Newfoundland, carried hay, cattle, grain and other farm products at the same price they charged for carrying them from Charlottetown, which is about half the distance. At the present time there is a little difference in price but very little. Now we can never hope to get into this market in central Canada because the farmers in this part of Canada can supply, and more than supply, the cities and towns here, and that condition of things will remain for many, many years to come, because as the hinterlands of Ontario and Quebec are opened up for cultivation the production here will more than take care of the demand in this part of the

The Budget-Mr. Hughes
country. That being the case, we in the Maritime provinces having to compete with the farmers in this part of Canada, what advantage would it be to have the railway rates reduced? If the railway rates are reduced on products coming west, they must naturally be reduced on similar products going east, and the competition would be all the greater unless the local railway rates were correspondingly reduced. For these reasons protection never was, never will be, and never can be, of any advantage to the farmers and fishermen of Prince Edward Island.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not see Why you
should base your policy for Canada on the policy for Prince Edward Island.


James Joseph Hughes: We should not treat any
part unjustly.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Treat them all fairly.
Mr. HUGHE'S:	My hon. friend from St.
Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) has a policy that he calls a balanced policy, and I will have a few words to say in regard to that later on.


Herbert Meredith Marler: You are not paying it a
terrific amount of attention.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, I am very pleased
at the attention my hon. friend is paying to me.
Now let me refer to Nova Scotia. The industries of that province are farming, fishing, mining, and lumbering. I do not know that I have mentioned them in the order of their importance, but that really makes no difference. Nova Scotia has, in addition, some small manufacturing industries some of which at all events I know are doing well, but which I need not mention. I do not think Nova Scotia raises enough farm products for her own use, because she buys grain, potatoes, hay and some dairy products from Prince Edward Island. I think she also buys similar products from New Brunswick, and possibly some from Quebec. Fishing is a very important industry in Nova Scotia, and Nova Scotia has a market for her fish in the United States of America, in the West Indies, in Cuba, in Porto Rico and in South America. Her fish is marketed on the open markets of the world.
A few dlays ago I read in the Montreal Gazette, a very respectable paper, an editorial to the effect that a market must be found in central Canada for the fruit and fish of Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, it is discouraging, it is distressing to read in a newspaper of the standing and respectability and supposed
knowledge of the Montreal Gazette such arrant nonsense. The only fruit that Nova Scotia produces in any quantity is apples, and they are the best apples in the world probably; they are at alll events excellent. She sells all her apples in Great Britain. As a matter of fact, we in the Maritime provinces import applies from Ontario. You will find applies in the markets of Nova Scotia and of the other Maritime provinces from Ontario and even from British Columbia. Yet we are told there must be a market found in central Canada for Nova Scotia apples.
We are also told that a market must be found in central Canada for Nova Scotia fish. Nova Scotia is supplying that market now. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, how much it takes of the catch of the Maritime provinces to supply the central .markets of Canada? Not more than 4i per cent. In other words, we can caitch fish enough in the Maritime provinces in two weeks to supply the central Canadian market for fifty-two weeks. And yet the sapient editors of Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto papers tell us we must find a market in central Canada for fish from the Maritime provinces.
There is another commodity in Nova Sootia that is produced in large quantities, and that is coal. A few years ago the people of the Maritime provinces, and I think the people of Canada thought the ooail mines of 'that province were an, asset to that province, and perhaps to the whole of Canada, a provincial and a national asset. But a great many people are changing their minds on that subject. Coal for domestic consumption has become so dear in the Maritime provinces that it is beyond the purchasing power of many of the people in sufficient quantities to beep their houses reasonably warm in winter. It was not always so. Before the war, coal was sold on the cars aA the mines in Nova Sootia at $2.90 per gross ton, which is equal to $2.60 per net ton. If has now more than doubled in price. A few days ago a representative of the mines in Nova Scotia was here, and he told us that since 1913 the rate of wages in the coal mines had increased by 92 per cent. The rate of wages and the actual wages may be two different things, butt so far as the coal operators are concerned, perhaps they may be the same thing. But the salaries and other overhead expenses did not increase, or at least should not have increased in the same ratio. Therefore the increase in the cost should be less than 100 per cent; I do not know how much less but
The Budget-Mr. Hughes

it should be less. But, as I have already stated, coal has more than doubled in price. Coal from Nova Scotia was sold dn Montreal last summer at $6 per ton. It would take between seventy and eighty cents to bring that coal to Montreal from Nova Scotia by water, we will say seventy cents a ton. Therefore the price in Nova Scotia would be $5.30. But the trade in Nova Scotia was charged $8.87 per ton on the average for the same quality of coal. Now assuming there was a fair profit on the coal sold in Montreal there would be an excess profit over the coal sold in the Maritime provinces of $1.57 or we will say $1.50. There are over one million people in the Maritime provinces, and the consumption of coal per year per head of the population there is about one ton. Therefore the people of the Maritime provinces are paying over a million and a half of dollars a year in excess profits for the support of the coal miners, and of that amount the people of Prince Edward Island are contributing about $140,000.


William Charles Good: May I ask my hon. friend
if he has noticed the claim made by the miners in the Maritime Labour Herald that coall can be produced now at the pit mouth for a little over $3 per ton?


James Joseph Hughes: No, I have not seen the
Maritime Labour Herald and I am not aware of any statement which it has made. I am giving facts here of which I have personal knowledge.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The Llouse resumed at eight o'clock.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was referring to the very high price of coal to the consumer in the Maritime provinces. I had mentioned the fact that it was costing the consumer in the provinces by the sea at least $1.50 a ton more than it was costing the consumer in Montreal and vicinity, and that this would amount to $1,500,000 to the people of the Maritimes. In other words, those engaged in the other industries of these provinces, the farmers, the fishermen and the lumbermen, -who are getting no benefits whatever from the state, are paying about $1,500,000 a year for the support of the coal mines. The remedy that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) or the hon. member for St. John and Albert would suggest would be to

increase the duty, to increase the price of coal, to add to the burdens of the other industries of these provinces. I know-and I may, perhaps, be reminded of it-that the present government a few days ago increased the duty on slack coal from fourteen cents to fifty cents a ton. There was an anomalous situation in regard to the duty on coal. There was no justifiable reason why there should be such a difference between the duty on slack coal and that on round or screened coal. I myself, as a free trader, would have preferred to see the duties reduced more on the round and screened coal, but most of us cannot get all we wish to have in this world. Slack coal is largely consumed in the St. Lawrence market. Many people in this part of Canada are continually crying out for more protection, and so if they get a dose of their own medicine, it will, perhaps, serve them right. They will then realize how it tastes. That is the situation in regard to duties on coal, but it is not the whole case in regard to the management. A few days ago I read in the Halifax Herald a letter from Colonel Cantley which was published in several papers in the Maritime provinces. Colonel Cantley is a well known citizen of Canada, a director of the British Empire Steel Corporation, a former director of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company. He stated that the coal mines of Nova Scotia were being ruined by bad management. He stated that when the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company joined the British Empire Steel Corporation, they had surplus liquid assets amounting to $9,O0O,OGO, and that large surplus had disappeared in a few years. He stated further that those connected with the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, who were instrumental in promoting the merger, had obtained lucrative positions in the merger, and he made other statements which I will not mention because I wish to let the officials of the British Empire Steel Corporation wash their own linen. He further stated that transportation and tariff conditions existing at the time the letter was written would be sufficient to enable the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, if it could obtain a separate existence again, to take its place as a prosperous and a dividend paying enterprise. The fact of the matter, if we look at the whole situation, is that the coal mines of Nova Scotia under the present management, instead of being a provincial and national asset, have become a provincial and national liability. Moreover, they have become a festering sore on the body politic and the body commercial, and this sore must

The Budget-Mr. Hughes
be lanced to the bone and the bone scraped if necessary. If by reason of the physical formation of the coal mines of Nova Scotia, or if for any other natural reason they are not able to produce coal at a profit without state subvention, then it would be better, in my opinion, to forget that we have coal mines in Nova Scotia. If as Colonel Cantley suggests, a good part of the trouble is due to incapable management or worse, the remedy is obvious, but the state should not be called upon to make good the losses. The sooner all the industries of this country are given to understand that they must begin to stand and walk on their own feet, the better it will be for the Dominion of Canada.
Let me say a word or two about New Brunswick, and I speak with modesty in the presence of members from that province, and from Nova Scotia. I speak also subject to correction by those hon. members. The industries of New Brunswick, and all the conditions in that province, are similar to those in the two sister provinces. Farming I suppose is the chief industry in New Brunswick, I presume that lumbering comes next and then fishing. The people of New Brunswick have to sell their products just where the two sister provinces must sell theirs, and the same market and the same conditions largely prevail throughout these three eastern sections of the Dominion. The people of New Brunswick must sell the products of their lumbering industry, which is a very large business, either in Great Britain or in the United States in competition with the rest of the world. They sell a little in Prince Edward Island and perhaps a small quantity in the province of Quebec. But although all the industries of that province must meet the competition of the world, the people are obliged, as we are obliged, to go to the central provinces and buy what they need in the way of boots, shoes, clothing, farm implements, furniture, shelf hardware and numerous other necessities at prices enhanced by the protective tariff. And in the face of all this we heard this afternoon from the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) a speech in which he moved a resolution in accordance with a motion now on the order paper standing in the name of the leader of the opposition to the effect that what the country needs is more protection. He advises us to increase the price of everything that the people must buy and so increase their burden; in other words, he wants us to tax the whole of the people for the benefit of some of the people.
Now what are the wrongs of the Maritime provinces about which we have heard so much lately? I have read everything I could find on the subject but I have not yet seen a list of those wrongs nor any definite concrete proposal for their cure. The Conservative papers that feature these wrongs generally wind up with a statement something like this-"Everybody knows what our wrongs are, or they are well known at Ottawa, and a remedy must be found". It is generally supposed that, if more imports came in through Maritime province ports and if more exports went through them, the provinces on the Atlantic would be benefited in consequence. Well, there is no doubt about the fact that the cities of St. John and Halifax would be benefited by such through traffic, but such through traffic would not bring any great advantage to the Maritime provinces as a whole. I do not want for a moment to minimize the advantages of such trade, but I do not want our people to be disappointed at the result nor do I want anyone to think that this particular proposal will remove , all our troubles. As a matter of fact the government more than two years ago introduced a resolution the adoption of which resulted in over 99 per cent of the imports under the British preference coming through Canadian ports. The delegation that came here from the Maritimes a few weeks ago requesting such legislation were surprised to find that the government more than two years previously had anticipated their wishes. Their want of knowledge is not to be wondered at when we remember that the hon. member for St. John and Albert, the Conservative leader from the Maritimes, when speaking on the Address called upon the government in tones of thunder to wake up and do something for the Maritime provinces. The hon. gentleman seemed to be oblivious of the fact that it was he who had been asleep in the cave with Rip Van Winkle, because the legislation he was asking for and so vehemently demanding had been passed two years previously. The delegation while it was here passed a resolution asking the governments to equip the ports east and west to take care of Canadian exports and imports. Well, the present government has certainly done a good deal in that direction; in fact, it is sometimes criticized for doing so much for the large places as to be unable to take care of the smaller ones.	I want
to point out the significant fact that the resolution which the delegation presented to the government was almost a copy of a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne which had been read to parliament some time before and
The Budget-Mr. Hughes

which was an outline of the policy the government intended to follow. Yet the leader of the opposition in criticizing the Speech from the Throne declared it to be nearly all water, the rest of it being indigestible, while the Conservative leader from the Maritime provinces was of the opinion that it contained only a few scrappy sentences which nobody could understand:	he thought it should have
contained a policy suitable to all Canada. But the Maritime delegation thought so much of the Speech that they copied it when preparing a resolution which in their opinion would be a policy suitable for the whole country. That was a cruel reply to the national leader and the Maritime leader of the Conservative party.
Let us for a moment consider the wrongs of the Maritime provinces which are now receiving so much attention, and! let us see if we can what they are, and when and how they originated, and how they can be cured. If we can diagnose the case correctly the cure will almost suggest itself; and I will venture this assertion that there is not an intelligent, thoughtful honest man in the Maritime provinces-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph Hughes: Wait a moment. There is not an intelligent, thoughtful, honest man in the Dominion of Canada who will now say that, if the people of the Maritime provinces had been told in 1864, in 1865 or in 1886 that within a few years after their entry into the confederation pact the customs duties would be doubled and trebled, confederation would have taken place. Therefore the introduction of the so-called and the miscalled National Policy was the beginning of the wrongs of the Maritime provinces.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman
complaining about the trebling of the coal duties?


James Joseph Hughes: I have stated what I
thought of the coal duties.


Arthur Meighen: I did not catch that.


James Joseph Hughes: Had the hon. gentleman
been paying attention he would have heard what I said in that regard, and I do not intend to repeat myself.


Mr. LOGAN:: Coal is only on revenue tariff basis now.


James Joseph Hughes: The question may be asked, if my statement is correct, why did your people not show greater opposition to the introduction * of the National Policy? And that question is

a fair one, My reply is that we were cajoled, we were deceived, we believed the statements that were made to us. We were told that the intention was to support the infant industries, the idea being that when the infants grew to manhood, which would be only in a few years' time, they would more than pay us for all that they had cost us. W e were told also that the introduction of this policy would develop the central provinces and that we in the east would fin^l a market in those provinces for all that we produced. That idea has been held up so often. The golden fleece was just behind the western horizon, it was almost within our reach; but we were finally fold that 'the National Policy would be only a weapon, and) a strong weapon, to obtain within a few years reciprocity with the United States. Our people knew how they bad prospered under that agreement between 1854 and 1866. and they were willing to undergo almost any temporary loss and disadvantage if thereby they might obtain that great 'boon. We know now to our sorrow that there was 'not .a /particle of honesty or sincerity in those promises, and I fear the "old party" is pursuing a similar course to-day.
You may ask me, Mr. Speaker, why it is that it is only within recent years that we have come to emphasize our wrongs so much. I will try to tell you. Before the war Europe was in a position to buy 'many of our products and pay good prices for them, and a high tariff had not made it so difficult for us to trade with the United States. The war changed everything. Europe could no longer buy in anything like the same quantity or pay the same prices for our products, and the Fordney tariff had made it more difficult for us to trade with the United States. In addition to that, the war had left us a colossal debt and a terrible load of taxation. All these burdens were thrown upon us at once, we could not carry 'them all, and we cried out in our agony. Before the war we oould carry the burden of protection and live; after the war we cannot carry all these burdens and live. That is the condition in the Maritime provinces. Will anybody say that a cure or a remedy for this condition of things is more- protection-higher taxation-an increased burden? Well, yes, there are some men who would say that-and they are credited with sanity and good intentions!
Now, what can the government do to help us? Not very much. I am one of those who do not believe itihat governments can help the people very much in trade matters.

The Budget-Mr. Hughes
I think the greatest help the government could give to ithe people of Canada would be to leave them alone largely and1 let them trade as and how it appears to themselves proper. The government can do very little to restore the markets -of Europe. I think perhaps they are trying to do something in that direction now, and I hope they will succeed. Perhaps the government can dio something, perhaps they can do nothing, to bring about better trading arrangements with the United States. I know the government would be willing to do anything and everything in their power to that end. The government can possibly do something to bring about better trading arrangements with the British West Indies and Cuba. They have that matter under consideration, I believe they wdLl do everything in their power to effect that betterment, and I think that already they have made some progress.
There is one thing more the government can do: they can remove or reduce the protective tariff. It should be brought back to something like what it was iwhen we entered confederation. But there are lions in the path, there are many difficulties that will be hard to overcome. The selfish and protected interests will not give up their special privileges without 'a struggle; and they are a power in this country. In this part of Canada the population is dense compared with other parts, capital is concentrated, organization is easy, and the wells of information can be poisoned at their source. I think it was Lincoln who said that his country could not continue to exist half slave and half free. In my opinion our country cannot continue to exist half slave and half free, and economic and commercial slavery is as bad as, and sometimes worse than, physical slavery. But, we are told protection has greatly benefited central Canada. Perhaps it has, although I have my own opinion about that. I sincerely believe that protection is the fruitful mother of inflation and deflation. It attracts capital and labour to some industries that could not exist on their own merits. This artificial stimulation makes for overproduction, glutting of markets, deflation of prices, stoppage of work and unemployment. Then comes a demand for more protection -larger doses of the medicine that produced the trouble! But let us admit for argument's sake that protection actually benefits Ontario and western Quebec. If it does, then I say in the name of all reason and fair play why should not the communities that receive the benefit pay the price? There are many ways in which this could be done. The municipali-101
ties that wish could remit local taxation and bonus industry. The provinces could do the same thing. This in my judgment would be fair and equitable.
Now I want to refer once more, and in a friendly way I hope, to my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). He has what he calls a balanced policy; and the Montreal Gazette and the Montreal Star praise it highly. To me it appears to be largely in accordance with the resolution on the order paper standing in the name of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen).


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not entirely.
_ Mr. HUGHES:	Then perhaps it is a
better policy?


Herbert Meredith Marler: A much better policy.


James Joseph Hughes: All right. I think it corresponds to some extent with the speech made by the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) this afternoon.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend has not
read my address on the subject.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is called a " scientific tariff ". I suppose it would be a sort of jack-pot by which everybody would get out exactly what he put in. Such a tariff can be conceived as a picture in the mind, but I venture the statement that it would be beyond the power and wit of man to devise and operate any such tariff policy; I go further, I think it would be beyond the power of angels. But supposing such a tariff were devised and operated, what good would it do? When everybody was through would he not be just where he started? Well, he would not be exactly where he started; he would be out at least the cost of devising and operating the thing. I read a few days ago in Le Soleil an article which brings out the idea that I have been trying to present to the House, very much better than I am able to do it. The article reads, in part, as follows:
To be worthy of <the name, protection as a policy ought to be applied to the interests and well-being of society as a whole and not to the interests of the few. It ought to embrace all the professions, and all who fall wiitihin the categories of commerce, wholesale and retail; of all workers, whether they are engaged in stores or offices; of all women and children for whom the necessities of life are procured-provisions and clothing. In a word, protection ought to be for all classes of society. This provides a problem which cannot be solved in modifications of the tariffs of one kind and another, however important they may be.
In other words, protection to be fair, is an impossibility. We have heard it stated



The Budget-Mr. Hughes
on the other side of the House, particularly by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) and several other hon. members, that Canadians cannot compete with the pauper labour and the inflated currencies of Europe, nor can they compete with the mass production of the United States.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I just correct my hon. friend slightly? We say-at least I say- that Canadian labour should not be asked to compete with the low standard of living and the depreciated currency of Europe.


James Joseph Hughes: Canadian labour-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Should not be asked to compete. I do not say that Canadian labour has not the ability, but I say they should not be asked to compete with the low standard of living in Europe.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, "Canadian labour" is a very wide term. Most of us are labourers. If we cannot compete with the pauper labour of Europe or with the mass production of the United States, who in the world are we going to compete with?


Robert James Manion: Compete with each other; compete with our own producers, as is done in Germany, the United States and other protected countries of the world.


James Joseph Hughes: There is a people to the north of us called the Eskimos. I think we could compete with those fellows.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend could,
anyway.


James Joseph Hughes: We could stand up to that bunch and tell them to do their worst.


Mr. CARROLL:: Not in the winter time.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, I will venture to
say that the statement is not true. The people of the Maritime and prairie provinces are competing with the world in what they produce, and the people of the central provinces or of this part of Canada are not so helpless and so useless as their hopeless friends in this House would make us believe. Why, it was only last session that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) in eloquent and classical language, told us that the manufactured products of that city were to be found in every country of the civilized world. He told us they were to be found on the sunny slopes and the waving grain fields of the Argentine; on the fertile veldts of South Africa; in the intensively cultivated countries

of Europe. They were even to be found in the republic to the south of us. Only a few days ago I saw it stated in an authoritative publication-I think it was the prospectus of a company-that in every country of the world where the saw milling industry was carried on the machinery of the Waterous Engine Works of Brantford was to be found. Now, what the people of Brantford can do surely other cities and towns in Canada can do.


Robert James Manion: Would my hon. friend
permit me just a remark? I would like him, if he would, to ask the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) at the first opportunity what the conditions are now in that city. I am told they are worse in Brantford than in any other city in Canada.


James Joseph Hughes: That was not the condition last year.


Robert James Manion: But there has been another year of this government since.


James Joseph Hughes: 
William Charles Good: Is secession the remedy?


James Joseph Hughes: I think I will pass that
over. I want to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this statement of Mayor Murphy was tumultuously applauded by the whole delegation, and it means that if protection is to be the policy of Canada, the Maritime provinces will insist on being allowed to buy where they are obliged to sell without being penalized by 'high customs duties when they do>
so. Another delegate mentioned the word secession, and the Prime Minister sternly rebuked the idea. Perhaps it was his duty to do so, but the Prime Minister is too intelligent a man, and too good a sociologist, not to know that rebuking an effect will not 'likely either remove or cure the cause; as a matter of fact, perhaps open discussion would be a good safety valve; the remoyal- of the cause would, of course, be better.
I will give you, Mr. Speaker, and the House my opinion of the situation, and it is this: If the Conservative party should be victorious in the next general election, which is not likely, but if the selfish interests and trade restrictionists of central Canada should organize and use the devices that are sometimes employed in elections, and if the major portion of the press should be so shortsighted or so selfish, or so approachable, as to lend its aid, and if when elected the party
The Budget-Mr. Forke

should carry out its promises and give the tariff screw a few turns upwards, in my opinion the end of confederation would be in sight. The prairie provinces would not, in my opinion, stand for it, and the Mari-times could not.
The emigration that is now taking place from the provinces fronting on the Atlantic, which is all too large, would then become an exodus. The stream that is now a rivulet would then become a river, because all hope would be abandoned. I will therefore appeal to my fellow-countrymen in this part of Canada to consider the situation carefully before deciding to make permanent a policy of injustice upon other parts of Canada.
The men who introduced the so-called National Policy may have been sincere and honest in their day, but we know now that they were mistaken, and if confederation ever comes to an end the introduction of the National Policy was the first step in that direction. The second step, and a very long step, was the rejection of the reciprocity agreement in 1911. That was a crime against the people of the North American continent; it was a greater crime against the people of Canada, and a still greater crime against the people of the Maritime provinces. It was an utter denial and repudiation of all the Tory promises, pledges and professions of the previous thirty odd years, and the means employed to win that election were as vicious as the end was bad, and should therefore never be forgiven by the people of Canada.
To be condemned to wander in the wilderness for forty times forty years would not be sufficient punishment for the great betrayal of 1911.


Robert Forke: Mr
Speaker, in commencing the few remarks that I propose to make, I would like first of all to express my regret at the absence of the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr Fielding). I am sure we are all sorry that he is not able to be back with us and take his accustomed place beside the Prime Minister on the other side of the House.
I have listened with a great deal of attention and pleasure to the speech that has been made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Hughes), and I think perhaps he has relieved me of some of the remarks I would have made along the lines of protection and low tariffs or free trade.
I also want to call attention to some remarks that were made this afternoon by the exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), who I am sorry is not in his place, in con-
nection with France and the condition that country finds herself in to-day. It struck me while he was speaking that if he thought seriously and just realized what the world conditions have been during the last few years he might perhaps see some relation between those conditions and the policy which he advocates-the policy of high protection, of one country building up high barriers against trade with another country. Everyone, I think, who has studied the causes of war and what leads to war, will1 acknowledge that it has a great deal to do with what may be called trade influences; and just as long as we have economic warfare between the nations of the world just so long will there be danger of actual warfare. But once people begin to trade with each other, once there is an exchange of commerce between one nation and another, an atmosphere of good will is created and the chances of war are very much diminished. That is about all I have to say in connection with the remarks that were made by the ex-Minister of Finance. Those remarks were a repetition of the arguments that we listen to here, day by day, month by month, as to what we should do to remedy existing conditions-just a little more protection, we are told, and everything will be lovely-everything will be all right. I am surprised at the barrenness of the suggestions that are being made from that part of the House.
Now, I want to say a few words in regard to the budget that was brought down by the hon Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) the other day. I think, perhaps, that budget reflected to some extent' the conditions that exist in the country at the present time. Things are not very satisfactory. We have not progressed just as rapidly as we would have liked during the past year. The budget, upon the face of it, bears the impress that things are hod very satisfactory; and I think in commencing that I might characterize the budget as I have seen it characterized in the press-as a stand-pat budget, adopting the position "just as you were" and really leaving us in exactly the same position in which we found ourselves at the commencement of the year-no progress, nothing changed, we are e t in the exact position we have been in during the last twelve months. I am sure that the position of the country has been emphasized quite sufficiently by hon. members to my right. Sometimes I am surprised that they have so little faith in the capabilities of the people of Canada and in the country itself. I for one am not prepared to say that things are satisfactory-far from it-but I

The Budget-Mr. Forke
do not for a moment suppose that they are quite as bad as we are continually hearing; unemployment everywhere and nothing but destitution and want in this great Dominion of Canada. I am quite prepared to admit that things might be better, but conditions are certainly not as bad as they are depicted by some of the members sitting to my right who have spoken this session. I agree with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) that even in Brantford to-day conditions are not so deplorable as they are represented to be. I think the Prime Minister in his speech on the Address, at the beginning of the session, made the statement that things were better in Brantford than they had been for a number ,of years, and he also pointed out that the duties upon farm implements had been reduced. When we take that into consideration, and when we find that industries have been benefited by a reduction in the duties upon the implements which they produce, I am sure there should be no hesitation in travelling further along that line.
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the financial statement given to the House does not reflect exactly and faithfully the conditions of the country at the present time, nor our financial standing either. First, I wish to say a few words in regard to the different methods of book-keeping that are practised by successive governments. Let me explain that in discussing this matter I speak as a plain man who has no knowledge of accounting; but it does seem to me that there should be no difficulty in the government making up the accounts in such a way that at the end of the year, the ordinary man, the man in the street, who after all represents the great majority of the people of this country, should be able to form some idea, a correct idea, as to the national finances. We had the spectacle here the other day of the Acting Minister of Finance presenting a statement purporting to show what the finances of the country actually were, and almost immediately afterward the ex-Minister of Finance getting up in his place and stating conclusions directly the' opposite. If we have that conflict in the House of Commons what will the situation be out in the country? How are the ordinary people of Canada going to know whether we have a surplus or a deficit as a result of last year's administration of the country? I think, Mr. Speaker, that these positions are intentionally assumed. It is done for a purpose; one side wants to make things look just a little better than they are, and the other side wishes to represent them as just a little worse than they appear to be.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will at least
give us credit for having taken less money from the people, fifty-two millions less money.


Robert Forke: I am not going to do any
injustice to the Acting Minister of Finance, or even to his critic, in saying that the statements they made were not true.
9 p.m. I have no doubt that what both gentlemen said was true; but they have such a way of manipulating figures and presenting them, putting them in different places and under different headings, that the result is to confuse the ordinary man; and when these gentlemen make their statements the ordinary man on the street, as I have already said, is no wiser than he was before.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the hon. gentleman
tell us what the right figures are?


Robert Forke: Well, I am going to try and give you a few of the conclusions I have come to. I have already said that I have not much knowledge of accounting, but I have endeavoured to draw what inferences I could from the statements that were made in the House the other day.
Before going any further let me say that I noticed that the only thing which had brought an increase to the revenue of the country was the income tax, and we are told there has been an increase in the revenue from that source of $2,350,000. I wonder what that means; I am rather surprised at it. We are told that the country has not been prosperous, that we have not been travelling along the lines of progress just as rapidly as we would have liked to go, and on the other hand we are informed that the revenue from income tax is increasing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: Hon. members may applaud but I should like to know the reason for this. We had no explanation from the Acting Minister of Finance when he brought the budget down; perhaps we will get it at some time in the future.


William F. Carroll: The country is more prosperous.


Robert Forke: Is it more prosperous?
I hope it is true but I "hae ma doote" as they say in Scotland. There are several possible explanations. It may be that the wealth of the country is getting into fewer hands, that there is more wealth and also more poverty in Canada-that may be the explanation of the increased revenue from income tax. If that is true the fact is to be deplored; we do not want that condition
15S0
The Budget-Mr. Forke

in Canada. I have often made the statement in this House that I believe the policy that we have adopted is leading towards that condition-that we will have wealthy people and that we will also have poverty. What we want in Canada is moderate wealth widely distributed and a large population fairly well-to-do; that is the condition that I would like to see prevail in this country. However, I should like at some time to get an explanation from the Acting Minister of Finance as to what he thinks is the reason that more income tax is being paid in Canada under present conditions than was paid in previous years. It is undoubtedly true that the people of Canada to-day are very much concerned about the magnitude of our national indebtedness. There is no denying that fact. On the street, on railway trains, everywhere you go, you will find people expressing anxiety about our indebtedness and inquiring where this is going to lead us. There must be a stop put to excessive public expenditure some da}-; we cannot go on year by year adding to our national debt. There must be a turning around, or it does not require a prophet to see that some day in the future this will be disastrous. We are continually hearing about economy. I am almost afraid to mention the word in this House 'because it is so often mentioned, but I sometimes think that governments, very much like individuals, acquire the spending habit and they cannot get out of it. Consequently we go on year after year very much as we have been doing in the past.
As regards the financial statement, the minister claims a surplus of $5,823,162 for the year ending March 31 next. Included in this is $4,000,162 of accrued interest on Greek and Roumanian loans that have now been transferred from an unsecured to a secured footing. Does the minister claim that we have any more money now than we had before, that anything has come into the treasury7 by transferring this amount from one account to another? That is all it amounts to. The security may, perhaps, be a little better, but it is a stretch of the imagination to put down $4,000,162 as an increase in the revenues of the cpuntry during the ye<ar that is past and gone. I cannot understand that system of financing; but, as I said before, I am a plain man who does not know much about accounting, and perhaps there may be some other explanation. If we subtract this amount from the $5,823,162, it will still leave a surplus of $1,820,000. After all, this is ratheT a creditable showing. I know it was anticipated throughout the country that there
fMr. Forke.]
was going to be a deficit. Everyone was looking for a deficit. I heard it on the street; I saw it in the newspapers, and now the Acting Minister of Finance comes down with a statement that we have a surplus7 of $1.820,000. That was, indeed, a very pleasing surprise, and I was delighted to hear members on the other side applaud when that statement was made. I wonder if this is true, and this is where I get into trouble again in trying to understand something of the finances of the country. I noticed, after the Acting Minister of Finance had spoken for some time and read a few more items, it came out something like this that we almost had a deficit of $13,000,000. I am unable just to understand this. The ex-Minister of Finance, after making a careful survey, had it this way, that our expenditure was $360,000,000 and the receipts for the year were $344,000,000, and he figured out a deficit of $16,204,000 on the year's proceedings. How is an ordinary man to understand exactly where we stand when we find the two financial authorities in this House so completely disagreeing in regard to conditions as they are?
There is another item to which I would like to call the attention of the House. The estimates for the year 1924-25 were given as $329,086,305.97. The minister states that the expenditures, when the year closes on March 31, will amount to $319,000,000. There is a difference of $10,000,000 between what the expenditures will 'be and what the estimated expenditure was at the beginning of the year. This is very interesting-a saving of $10,000,000. The government estimated that our expenditure in round figures would be $329,000,000, and now we find they are going to get through with $319,000,000. I hope the minister will give us some explanation how this $10,000,000 has been saved because, if he does, we shall get some lessons in economy. The government must have been practising economy when they got through with so much less than they expected to spend after a careful estimate of expenditures at the beginning of the year. If it should turn out that our expenditure at the end of the year was anything like as large as the estimated expenditure at the beginning of the year, we would have a deficit of about $7,000,000 instead of a surplus of $5,000,000. These are some of the difficulties that I have met in trying to understand the budget statement that was brought down the other day.
There were expenditures in connection with the Canadian National Railways. During the year the government guaranteed bonds of the Canadian National to the amount of $81,-

The Budget-Mr. Forke
000,000 and the total obligations for the year amounted to apparently something like 8118,000,000. These may be called contingent liabilities-that is the term used by the minister-not a direct liability of the country. But who owns the Canadian National Railways? The people own them and the debt of the Canadian National Railways is a debt that the people of Canada must pay some day. That is a fact that I feel no great pleasure in stating, but I do not see any use in trying to blind ourselves as to the facts. We may as well face them and see what our present financial condition is and try to remedy this state of affairs. That is about all I have to say at the present time in connection with the finances of the country. In commencing, I said that I was a plain man, not very well posted in regard to finances or accounting, but these are some of the deductions that I have drawn from the statement made by the Acting Minister of Finance. I hope they may be more favourable but these are what I believe to be the facts of the case.
In connection with the Canadian National Railways, there is a suggestion which I would like to make at this time. It is not original; it has been stated in this House before. I believe it would be in the interest of all concerned if the capitalization of these rail-waj^s were written down to their actual physical value. I see no good purpose being served by carrying them on at a fictitious capitalization. It is discouraging to the management; it gives a false impression, and if the capitalization were written down, we would be in a position to know exactly the capabilities of our National railways. If the amount was reduced, it is quite possible that in a few years the fixed charges of $40000,000 may be met by these railways. We all look with hope to the future, and expect the day will not be far distant when these railways, instead of being a liability, will be an asset to the Dominion of Canada. We have in this country two railways that, I think, we may be proud of in some respects. We have a good system in the Canadian National Railways. I hope all of us are proud of the Canadian Pacific. I would not for one moment have the idea go out that any of the members of this House had any hostility to the Canadian Pacific. Its progress, its prosperity, its welfare is as essential to the country as that of the Canadian National. It would be a catastrophe, a calamity, should anything happen to the Canadian Pacific Railway, but there are some suggestions that might be handed out to the managements of both these
railways. This also is not original, but it would be a good idea if someone could get the ear of President Beatty of the Canadian Pacific and the ear of Sir Henry Thornton of the Canadian National Railways and intimate to them that it is time they were getting together and cutting down some of the extra expenses that are incurred through duplication of services on these two railways. This idea that these two railways have to continue cutting each other's throats, tiying the one to beat the other in getting traffic and all that sort of thing, will not get us out of the dilemma in which we are to-day. I am certain that a great deal of saving, of economy, could be effected were the managements of these two railways to work together harmoniously to this end.
. I think the Canadian Pacific Railway would be quite agreeable. I am sure they are anxious to make as profitable a showing as possible and I think that both railways as well as the country would be benefited by some arrangement of this kind. If this could not be done then I should be inclined to pay some attention to the suggestion offered by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) that there should be an amalgamation of the two railways. This may look like a dream to-day but I want to tell the House that there have been suggestions made by the hon. member for South York in days gone by which, however visionary they appeared then, later became realities. It is therefore not without the bounds of possibility that the suggestion he makes ia this regard may be an accomplished fact some day. One thing is certain, and that is that we cmnot go on as we are doing at present. It has been suggested sometimes that the remedy lies in an increased population which would provide greater traffic for the railways. That is one solution. But it seems to me that the railways could be more economically operated than they are at the present time. At any rate the condition is serious and drastic remedies are needed; and the opponents of government ownership can get no satisfaction out of things as they stand now. Even if we sold the Canadian National railways, does anyone think for a moment that anybody would buy them at their present capitalization? They would be sold at their physical value and the country would still have to bear the burden in connection with that overcapitalization; it would have to pay the interest that accrues on the bonds that were sold to build them. So that private ownership will not relieve us from any of our difficulties in that respect.

The Budget-Mr. Forke
I want to say a few words now in regard to the tariff. I think that the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) has possibly voiced a great many of the sentiments that I might express myself, and I question whether any of us could say very much on the matter that is new. This question has been debated so often from every angle that perhaps my own views have already been well expressed. However,
I shall offer a few remarks in this regard. I have in my hand some correspondence between the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) and Mr. H. G. Nickerson, of Prince Rupert, British Columbia. This correspondence relates to the purchasing of cement. There is apparently a regulation in the Department of Trade and Commerce which provides that where a firm tenders to sell cement and an opposing company outside . Canada also tenders, even under more favourable conditions, the final decision of the matter shall rest in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has the last say as to what the specification shall be and what kind of cement shall be used in the erection of any buildings or dry docks, as I suppose it was in this case. I do not intend to read the correspondence, which possibly will be referred to during the debate, but it goes to show that a very large saving could have been effected in the purchase of this cement had it been obtained from either England or Belgium, and it would have been of the very same quality as the Canada Cement Company was supplying. But these other tenders were not allowed; they were ruled out of the specifications. This kind of thing cannot continue. When a cement company in this country gets a duty of 8 cents per sack on its product it should at least be content with that degree of protection and should then be prepared to take its chance without other interference from the department or from any other source. I have mentioned this matter only in passing; the facts of the case are before us and I have all the correspondence between the minister and the company who seem to think they have some reason for complaint.
It was hoped, at least in this quarter of the House, that the present budget would show reductions on the necessities of life for the masses of the people. That I think was emphasized several times in this House last year. It was pointed out that while we were thankful for a reduction on implements of production we were even more anxious to see some reduction on the necessities of life for the great masses of the people, and we had expected that something
TMr. Forke.]
would be done along that line during the present session. With the permission of the House I am going to quote a few extracts from some of the speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1921. Some of -these extracts I have taken from Hansard. For example, the Prime Minister declared that the guiding principle of his party would be to increase production and thus decrease the cost of living, keeping in view not only producers but consumers. On October 7, speaking at Halifax, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle, he said:
On the implements of production, and on the necessaries of life the tariff should bear lightly. The home and its needs will be our first consideration in revising the tariff.
On March 13 at Moncton, as reported in the Daily Times, he said:
Reduction of the duty on implements of production was vitally important, as was also reduction as far as possible of the taxes on necessities of life and the needs of the home.
At St. John as reported in the St, John Times he said:
The tax on necessities of life should be light. Along those lines the Liberals proposed to revise the tariff.
I come now to Ontario. Speaking at Sarnia he said, according to the Times of November 2:
The implements of production should be taxed as lightly as possible. The same applies to certain classes of necessities of life, food, clothing, etcetera, and the masses of the people should not be overtaxed on cost of food, clothing and other necessities.
At Sudbury he spoke along the same line. He advocated the removal of taxation as far as possible from implements of production, and he said that the necessaries of life must also be freed of taxation to the greatest possible extent. At Port Arthur he declared that the Liberal party stood for downward revision of the tariff, to bear lightly on necessities of life and implements of production.
At Pembroke, Gananoque, Calgary, Edmonton and numerous other places the Prime Minister stressed the fact that it was necessary to reduce taxation on the necessities of life. Now the cost of living has not been reduced. Will any hon. member say to-day that the cost of living in Canada is lower than it has been all along? It is not. And as I have frequently stated, Canada is one of the dearest countries in the world to live in. That is one of the sources of our trouble; it is the cause of depression in trade and business so prevalent now. I have declared time and time again that the cost of living is so high that the high wages that must be paid are reflected in an increased cost of production, so that the products of the factories cannot be sold

The Budget-Mr. Forke
in competition with those of other countries where the cost of living is cheaper. Hon. members to my right talk about low standards of living in the Old Country. I would not put it that way; I should say that what is low in the Old Country is the cost of living. I question very much if the working people of the Old Land live at a very much lower standard than the working people of Canada to-day. It is a glib phrase to use "The low standard of living over in England," and I think we are inclined to exaggerate conditions there. Personally I challenge the statement, and I question very much if our operatives in Brantford, Toronto, Hamilton or any other manufacturing, centre of Canada are living any better than the great mass of the working people in great Britain.


William F. Carroll: Will the hon. gentleman say that the cost of living to-day is as high as it was in 1921 when the right hon. Prime Minister was making those statements?


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I think there is very little difference. Some things have come down in price, but the great mass of commodities used in the home are not very much cheaper at the present time.
Now, I want to allude to some of our western conditions, because I believe that prosperity in the west is reflected all over this Dominion. The products of that part of Canada must find a market outside. The arguments we heard in connection with the Maritime provinces apply directly to the provinces of the west. No system of protection under the sun can help the prairie provinces, and I would be inclined to say that a good many of the farmers in the central provinces are not very much benefited by protection. There are two factors to be considered in the prosperity of the western provinces-the tariff and transportation. I admit that perhaps at this moment the most important question we have before the House is transportation. Our transportation difficulties must be settled at this session of parliament. The government cannot evade the problem, and consequently its right settlement is one of prime importance. As regards the tariff, we are anxious for proper conditions. But the tariff will probably be up next year,-I think it will from what I can understand of the opinion of the House at present. One section is not content with the tariff in one direction, another section is just as much discontented in another direction. We have to fight the issue elsewhere and come back to this House and settle it perhaps in a more conclusive manner than it has been settled for a great many years past.
It has been mentioned already this evening that our factories cannot compete owing to the underpaid labour in Europe and the high paid labour in the United States-two entirely different points of view. The fact is that until we get rid of the idea that our factories cannot compete I do not think they are ever likely to attain any degree of prosperity. I think they might succeed if they got a proper understanding of their position. They have repeated it so often that our industrialists have almost convinced themselves that they cannot compete with their rivals in other countries. But the battle is already half lost when you make up your mind that you cannot compete with the other fellow. Just as long as we find the manufacturers coming to Ottawa seeking for more protection for their industries, just so long will we find their factories not so well equipped as they might be, and not conducted as efficiently as they ought to be; in a word, they are looking for help in the wrong direction.
The burden of taxation to-day is pressing heavily on the shoulders of the people. Dominion, provincial and municipal taxation together make a very heavy load. That I think has probably held us back more than any other factor. Of course the tariff, as the Prime Minister has told us time and again is part of our taxation, and a big part. If we are going to succeed in this Dominion we must engage in industries where we can successfully compete, where our energies will give us the greatest economic returns. We might commence growing oranges if we had adequate protection and proper conditions. But would not that be the height of foolishness? We might apply that thought to some lines of manufacture in which we find other countries can produce so much more cheaply than we can. Why do we not devote our energies to those lines of industry in which we can compete with other countries and which will give us the greatest economic returns? Interchange of goods can be beneficial to both parties. Too often it seems to be the idea that in trade one must get the better of the other. That is not necessarily so in business or in commerce. The interchange of goods-and sometimes the interchange of ideas, Mr. Speaker,-is all right and can be of benefit to both parties. I am quite ready to admit that it is just as foolish to import goods that we can produce as satisfactorily as any other country as it is to continue making goods that it is not economically sound for us to manufacture.

The Budget-Mr. Forke


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Will the hon. leader of the Progressive party allow me a question? He says that if we can produce anything as well as other countries we will succeed. I want to direct his attention to an industry in my constituency and to base a question upon it. I refer to market gardening. Those engaged in it can grow their products as cheaply as they can be grown in the United States, but by reason of the earlier season south of the border their home market goes to their competitors in the States, and consequently our market gardeners are large losers every year through this discrimination. I think they are entitled to some protection, and they think so too. What accounts for their disadvantage is the difference in climate, not what my hon. friend says.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend has referred
to the climate. I think perhaps there he has struck the nail on the head. If our climate is not so well suited to the production of early vegetables as is the United States Climate, then perhaps we had better let the people there produce them.


William Findlay Maclean: No. It is the question of season rather than climate and the hon. gentleman would put a burden on those who have this disadvantage.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Is that good Canadian
policy?


Robert Forke: I do not see why. Mr. Speaker, I am sometimes surprised at the line of argument followed by my hon. friends. Our working people who produce the goods that are protected very rarely use the expensive luxuries that are imported from the United States. I should like to know if it is our working people who are using radishes and strawberries out of season?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Robert Forke: Then why such a tremendous outcry on behalf of the working people? If some of those who want protection for our working people would quit using these luxuries the difficulty would be remedied in i very short time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is a cabbage a luxury?


Robert Forke: If you lived out west you
would find it so sometimes. We have listened jo quite an eloquent speech on some of ihe difficulties of the Maritime provinces. I have heard complaints made very frequently in the House about the Jack of business in the maritime ports of Halifax and St. John. When a ship comes into one of those ports

with $100,000 worth of goods she is penalized $20,000 in taxes, customs tariff. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are ever going to get very much trade through our maritime ports while that taxation continues, for the tariff imposts on cargo amount to taxation.
I do not think tihlat a great many of our difficulties to-day are due to trade depression or the lack of protection, but to the lack of purchasing power on the part of the consumers of this country; they cannot buy the goods that we produce. That I think is the main trouble. I wonder what benefit would accrue to any manufacturing concern if they were unable to find a market for thedr output? I think I made the statement in the House the other afternoon that the trouble in Canada was not the question of production; our factories can produce in six months, I think it is safe to say, sufficient to meet the needs of the people of Canada for a year. The trouble is the lack of a market in which to sell our goods as they are produced. I know my hon. friends to my right will say, why buy goods from the United States? Well, I will present to you another picture. Imagine a mother with five or six children and a very limited income, trying to figure out how much she can buy with the means at her disposal in order to provide for their needs. I tell you that the "made in Canada" principle will not go vftry far with her if she can purchase goods cheaper somewhere else. It is all very well to put forward lofty sentiments, but when you come to the actual necessities of life, when it is a matter of providing the things that are essential to one's existence, the "made in Canada" doctrine will not stand unless it has something more to back it up than patriotism.
I would like to point out to some of our industrial friends what the agricultural people are doing in the west to-day. I have made the plain statement that protection cannot help the west. The member for Kings P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes) said that if this thing continued, ii the protective tariff was made higher, the people of the Maritime provinces could not continue and succeed; and he said of the west that they would not continue. I do not know if we are any better able to stand it than the Maritime provinces, but I do know there will be dissatisfaction. But the farmers in the west to-day are studying agricultural conditions. They are trying to find out what crops they can best raise, to find out what the land is best suited for. They are studying co-operative methods of marketing; they are employing every means of eliminating

The Budget-Mr. Forke
needless expense and of raising and marketing their crops under the best economic conditions. They are not simply sitting down and whining; in the meantime they are doing the very best they can for themselves, and I would hand that advice out to some of our manufacturers. I suggest that instead of continually looking for help they try to do what the farmers of the west are doing-try to find some solution for their troubles in the meantime and keep up an agitation for the removal of the difficulties which prevent them from doing all they might do for themselves.
I notice in the speech of the Acting Minister of Finance that a tariff board is to be appointed. I do not know exactly what that board will be. I can only express my own ideas on the subject, but I hope it will not be a permanent board that will make a scientific tariff for all time that the government can get behind. It may be all right to have an investigation in order to get some further knowledge on the subject, but in the final analysis the government must always be held responsible for tariff conditions. I say that only as my personal opinion; I do not know what the opinion of my people would be on that matter.
I wish in conclusion to endorse some of the sentiments expressed by the Acting Minister of Finance. We live in a country which lends itself to sectionalism. To repeat words that have been used in the House to-night, no country is less able to stand protection than is Canada, from the veiy fact that her interests are so diversified, her area is divided into so many sections which differ in their character, and the possibilities of the growth of sectionalism are so great. There is just one way of removing that difficulty, one way of preventing the growth of sectionalism, and that is to have the public policies of the country founded on the broad basis of equity and justice to all sections of our people.
I regret very much that the government in the present budget have not seen fit tc further implement their promises. I wonder if they have not the courage to live up to their promises. What is the matter? Why do they not nail their colours to the mast and stand or fall by that policy? If they do that they will get enough of the people of Canada behind them; they will be secure where they are if they only have the courage to take that forward step. To my right we have a party whose principle is higher protection. They have no other doctrine; they say that high protection will solve all our problems. The people of Canada will never accept that doctrine, and my hon. friends will stay forever in
the shades of opposition if they continue to preach it. I say that in no spirit of hostility, but I think I know something about the temper of the people of this Dominion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a fatherly
observation.


Robert Forke: I would remind my hon
friend that Vancouver Centre does not cover all of Canada.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Neither does the province
of Manitoba.	.


Robert Forke: Well, for myself at least
I am going to nail my colours to the mast and stand or fall by, the policy that I believe to be the right one. Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to the amendment, as follows:
That all the words after the words "resolved that" in the amendment be struck out and the following be
substituted therefor;
The House regrets that the budget presented by the Acting Minister of Finance contains evidence of the application of unsound principles of public finance, affords no relief from the excessive burdens of indirect taxation and constitutes a failure to carry into effect substantial economies in public expenditure and the fiscal policy of the Liberal party as from time to time enunciated.
And that the policy of protection maintained in the present budget, has greatly increased the cost of living and production and has failed to provide adequate revenues or to prevent serious depression in trade and industry,
And be it further resolved that a revision of the tariff schedules, based on the needs for revenue instead of on the principle of protection is long overdue and should be immediately undertaken in order to bring down the costs of living and to place our industries on a permanently sound basis.


Hewitt Bostock: In connection with this motion I wish to remind the House that two years ago I ruled that on the motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of Ways and Means" only one amendment was allowed. I will quote Bourinot on this point -page 420:
Only one amendment can be moved to the question, " hat Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair", (g) If that amendment is negatived, a discussion on other questions may be raised but no other motion can be preposed. If the amendment is withdrawn, however, another amendment can be at once submitted to the House.
Then in the footnote (g) hon. gentlemen will find the following:
This limitation is peculiar to the Canadian Commons.
In my ruling of two years ago I quoted the decisions given by Mr. Speaker Smith and Mr. Speaker Wallforidge before confederation. by Mr. Speaker Cockburn, by Mr. Speaker Anglin, by Mr. Speaker Rhodes, my immediate predecessor, and also the opinions
1586	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Speaker-Ruling
given by Sir John Macdonald, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, the Hon. Edward Blake and Mr. Holton, who in his day and generation was considered the foremost authority on parliamentary procedure. All agreed that on the motion as now put to the House by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) only one amendment can be moved. I realize, however, as I did two yea-rs ago that the complexion of the House has changed since that time. In those days there were only two regular parties, the ministerial party and the opposition, the Conservative party and the Liberal party. I pointed out also that the same question had arisen in the British parliament over the Irish party, which was very prominent, and that there the Speaker had recognized only two parties, the ministerial party and the opposition. To-day a similar condition exists in England. There you have three groups, the Conservative or Unionist party, the old Liberal party, and the Labour party, which -of late years has risen to great prominence in British polities. Yet the Speaker will not recognize groups outside of the government party and the opposition party.'
I may add that this year the House has thought it proper,-and I say this because it is against my grain to reject an amendment moved by a group so important as is that represented by the mover of the subamendment, to appoint a select committee with a view to revise its rules. All questions affecting the rules are coming before that committee. We have had two or three sittings already, and will hold two more next week, and will probably sit every week during the session. Questions of procedure will come before us, and possibly amendments may be made. If questions such as this should arise at another session perhaps the Speaker may then be at liberty to give a group in the House the right to move an amendment which would represent its views on the capital issues of the day.
I therefore rule once more that the amendment to the amendment is out of order. Of course, an appeal may be taken against the decision of the Chair, and I hasten to say that the Speaker will always accept the' judgment of the House, and will not be affronted if that appeal is taken.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, in respect to the
ruling that you have just given to the House, may I say that I have the greatest respect for your knowledge of parliamentary procedure and customs, and also for the authorities which you have quoted in this regard. Your
IMr. Speaker.]
ruling, and rulings of a similar nature which have been made in previous sessions, I am led to understand have been based not so much on any particular rule of our House, as on precedents and practices which have grown up in the years gone by, and have established themselves as recognized) traditions and customs which we should follow. But may I point out what you have already observed, Sir, that a condition now exists and has existed in this House for the last five or six years which did not exist at the time those customs were becoming established. For that reason, and also for one other, that the subject matter of the amendment offered by my hon. leader (Mr. Forke), as compared with what was offered by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), or by the eix-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), challenges my supreme confidence and respect, I could wish that after taking this subamendment into your consideration you had allowed it to stand. However, I appreciate the hope you have held out to us that at some future time subamendments of this kind may be permitted to be moved. If I may do so without seeming discourteous to yourself, Sir, I should like to appeal to the judgment of the House from the ruling you have just given.


Robert Alexander Hoey: There is little doubt in my
mind but that technically speaking-


Hewitt Bostock: I wish to point out to
the hon. gentleman that on an appeal there can be no debate.
The question having been put as follows:
The Speaker having decided that the amendment to the amendment moved by Mr. Forke and seconded by Mr. Hoey was out of order, Mr. Kennedy (Glengarry and Stormont) appeals from this ruling.


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, when we consider the vast spaces
in Canada which are at present unsettled and remember the conflict of interests which from time to time reveals itself in this country we are led to consider what would happen if the whole Dominion were peopled, including the great district of Mackenzie, the far northern territory of Franklin and the regions surrounding Hudson bay.
During the speech of the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) to-night the question was raised as to whether the unrestricted importation from the United States of strawberries and other fruits, as well as vegetables, should be permitted. Personally I believe in patronizing home products and in protecting home industries. We can grow everbearing strawberries, and the potatoes that are dug in October will last until the next crop is grown; therefore what is the use of importing these commodities from the south aDd paying fabulous prices for them?
The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) endeavoured to oast doubt upon the presentation of the country's financial standing by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). Personally, I prefer to accept the statement made by the latter whose conclusions have been verified by two of the best chartered accountants in this country.
The railway situation has been blamed for weakening Canada's financial position, but who is responsible for that situation? If we have the railway problem on our hands whose child is it? I think it is the child of the Conservative party, and if I remember rightly we fought the proposals of the late government for weeks and months. I think my hon. friend the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) will recall the part he played in that struggle. I repeat that the present government were not to blame for the railway incubus but having been saddled with this responsibility the present Prime Minister searched the wide world for a man able enough to bring order out of the chaos which existed in respect to the railway situation, and in securing Sir Henry Thornton he secured the best railway man obtainable. I believe that Sir Henry Thornton's optimism, business ability and skilful administration will have the happiest results in connection with the Canadian National Railways. His great personal magnetism and his stirring appeals to the employees of that great system to be loyal to the National Railways and to render the most courteous and efficient service have already borne fruit, with the result that those employees, in my opinion, are even more loyal than are the staff of the Canadian Pacific to that system.
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin


An hon. MEMBER:: Whisky.


Willis Keith Baldwin: The government might put $10 more on whisky. So long as the money goes into the treasury of our country. If the British Empire, consisting of over
500.000,000 people, could arrange for a tariff with a 50 or 60 per cent preference within the empire, we would bring Uncle Sam to his knees. If we could have such an arrangement as that, within ten years empire free trade might be practicable. How would Uncle Sam cope with over 500,000,000 people raising every product known in the world? We could raise all our cotton-we raise our rubber now-and we do not needl to buy their com or their coal. We have white coal in this country, and if I had the money I would not go south, I would go north and find the big timber limits and the water powers, and these I would develop. We can do this ourselves instead of paying $100,000,000 a year to the United States for coal.
I believe the British West Indies should be tied with us politically. We should also have Newfoundland as a province of this Dominion. In the days of iSir Mackenzie Bowell, Newfoundland _ could have been brought into confederation for $8,000,000. Would not every dollar of that money have been spent in the Dominion, and would not it have given us better coal mines and better iron mines than any we have now? We want millions of dollars worth of the products of the West Indies; they want our manufactured goods. When I put this suggestion to a well posted man on one occasion he said, "What do we want of fifteen million niggers?" Well, that showed his ignorance, as well 'as mine, as I did not contradict him. It all goes to show that we do not know as much as we ought to know about the British Empire. Subsequently I went to the library to find out just what the population of the British West Indies was, and I found that there are less than three million people down there, and that the language of the people

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin

is about evenly divided between English, French and Spanish. When Stanley Baldwin was delegated to come and settle the matter of the indebtedness of Great Britain to the United States he may have acted too quickly ; in fact it may be a characteristic of the Baldwin family 'to discharge obligations quickly. If Great Britain ceded to the United States these islands in the Caribbean sea, without a doulbt tihe United States would discharge the debt Great Britain owes her and Great Britain would save S180,000,000 annually. But to do that would be against Britain's ideas and Britain's rule, because so long as her people are loyal to her she would not throw them into a republic against their will. The people down there are against trading with the Americans. Look at the United Fruit Company; they handle that country as the potter handles clay. The best bananas are grown in British Honduras; they raised shiploads of them. When they started to do this the United Fruit Company asked them, "Who told you to raise bananas?" The United States have included within their domain a tropical and semi-tropical country, and ithej' are the richest nation on earth. Canada also needs a tropical and semitropical country to round her out and make her one of the greatest nations on earth. Patriotism -and love of country should dominate the sentiment of every true Canadian citizen, Tory or Grit, Progressive or any other persuasion; the desire should be to make Canada a great country. Within the days of the rising generation-yes, even in our own days, this country should have a population of thirty millions. As to the representation of the West Indies in parliament, I do not know how that 'could be best carried out. They might have seats in the House of Commons or they might even have representation in the Senate, but that could be easily arranged. The people down there are British born and British bred and they want to remain within the British Empire. England has acquired vast areas of country and she should be willing to create that triple alliance, England, the West Indies and Canada, and to cede to us, by mutual agreement and after friendly conference, these islands. I hope the day will come when we can send our children to the stores and get fruit of every kind we want and of Canadian growth. That is the hope and the desire of a growing number of people in Canada.
Let us take as our motto Canada first, last and all the time. Let us aim to build up
[ Mr. Baldwin]	[DOT]
a great country by frugal living, by energy and industry, by good government, and by the fear of God-for there comes a time in the life of every human being when he needs more than human aid. This fighting and squabbling and scrapping over tariff policies could pass into oblivion, and much of it could be obviated by our having a tariff board of scientific men to act as watchmen of the night. I heard the member for Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) say he bad sold a fine lot of furniture down in New York and that 'the transaction meant hundreds of thousands of dollars to him. Well, a tariff commission would solve all these problems. If we see a chance to promote trade with another country all we have to do is to write to the tariff commission and the thing is looked after. That is what we need; let us stop this fighting, stop this nonsense which has been going now since 1878.
On motion of Mr. Carroll the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Boland the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Friday, March 27, 1925