AUSTRALIAN TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Is there any truth in the report that the treaty between Canada and Australia has been ratified by the Australian government?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As I understand the socalled treaty between Australia and Canada, there was an understanding reached that the tariff in Australia would be changed in certain particulars and that the tariff in Canada would also be changed in some particulars. I believe the Australian government have taken action in the matter of altering their tariff. We are still negotiating with Australia with respect to such changes as are to be made in the Canadian tariff. Until we have completed these negotiations, it cannot be said that the matter has been finally determined.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 15, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb, (Acting Minister of Finance) that
Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Sir Henry Drayton.
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: Mr. Speaker, the facts which I gave to the House in my address and the country regarding the policies that are being pursued throughout the whole world have shown to me very clearly that this one country stands alone, a law unto itself, with regard to what policy it should pursue. Like the proverbial Irishman, we are people who find ourselves alone out of step and tell the rest of the civilized world that they are the people who are out of step rather than we.
But industry, facts, figures, dollars, cents, commodities and all those features which go to make up ,our present civilization are, as I said before, not the most important features. The most important feature is the generation that is going to succeed this one. I have, in front of me in that connection, to emphasize by another means the points that I have already made. The report of the Department of Labour. What does the department say with regard to vocational instruction which is being given to the youth of Canada to-day? We find that vocational instruction affords opportunities to the following groups:
Young folks and adults who have left school too early and who find that they need more education to succeed in their occupations.
Persons who are ambitious for promotions in their vocations and who find it necessary to become adept in the more difficult processes of their trades, or to become acquainted with the increasingly important volume of technical knowledge related to their trades. Effort must be made to keep pace with the developments of industry. In spite of the tendency towards large volume methods of production, the place of skilled and informed workmen is still secure.
In order to give the people this vocational instruction so that they can take their place in the industries of Canada, we find that not only the cost of vocational education to the people of Canada is of a tremendous magnitude and increasing by leaps and bounds, but the number of people who are attending our technical and vocational schools is growing at a very fast pace as the following table will show:
Attendance in Vocational Schools of Ontario
1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24Number of full-time teachers	.. .. 191	212	288.0	379Number of part-time teachers	60	49.0	82Number of full-time pupils on roll	.. .. 2.600	5,344	6,958.0	9,153Average attendance of full-time pupils	.. .. 2,123	4,260	5.454.3	Number of part-time pupils on roll	.... 907	574	988.0	1,319Aggregate student-hours of part-time pupils	.. .. 40.997	37,776	60,972.5	176.673Number of special pupils on roll	.. .. 1,019	1,604	1,456.0	2,347Aggregate student-hours of special pupils	.. .. 223,570	351,214	247,439.5	314,427
The Budget-Mr. Harris

You will note from this that the aggregate student-hours have been increased over four times in three years. In a like manner, the number of pupils on the roll have increased.
This vocational education of the youth of Canada is costing us considerable sums of
money, which everyone in public life is very glad to vote from year to year. The expenditure for vocational training by municipalities is growing at a tremendous rate, as is shown by the latest summary on expenditures as given by Department of Labour report at page 104:
Summary of Expenditures by Municipalities
1919	1920	1921	1922Total expenditures	
$659,072 82	$1,347,903 04	$1,585,086 36	$1,871,614 21Legislative grants	
140,294 14	511,021 04	670,758 56	638,217 28
This expenditure is an index of the amount of time, effort and money which is being placed at the disposal of the young people of Canada, to train them in the vocation of the industrial life of the country. The passing of estimates in this connection by public men of all stripes is an endorsation of the policy that it is the intention of all parties in Canada to see that we build up, along with other activities, an industrial life in the manufacturing of our raw materials into finished products, in order that we may have a balanced Canadian life. I emphasize this again because, across from my door in my constituency of East York, there is a million-dollar institution known as the Riverdale Technical School, which was opened in September 1923. With regard to this school the report of the Department of Labour states:
The new Riverdale Branch Technical School, Toronto, opened its doors for the first time in September, 1923. The opportunities for vocational education here offered, with adequate accommodation and equipment, received a most satisfactory response. The number of pupils enrolled during the year was 626 in the day school and 1,890 in the evening school. Any anticipation that the opening of the Riverdale branch would reduce the total enrolment in the Central Technical School was not realized. The enrolment in the Central school remained at approximately the same figures as last year.
The total number of pupils enrolled in the three vocational schools of Toronto-the Central Technical School, the Riverdale Branch Technical School, and the High School of Commence-for the autumn term of 1923 was 4,755 day pupils and 10,074 evening pupils. I
I graduated from a technical school not many years ago and I knew practically every graduate in the Toronto technical school at that time. They could be counted on your fingers then, whereas to-day there are 'fifteen thousand students in and around the city of Toronto who are being educated to take their place in industry. Now, in view of the facts which I submitted to this honourable assembly yesterday afternoon, I say that in the policy which this government is at present persisting in we are not putting into practice our ideas as to what should be done to educate

the youth of the country. Every party, Liberal, Progressive or Conservative, will readily pass estimates for educational purposes. Let us then be honest with ourselves; if we are going to educate the youth of the country to take their place in Canadian industry, we should see to it that industry is maintained in the country in order that when these students graduate from the technical schools they may be able to obtain employment and so remain at home. Around the comer from where I live there are three or four different families, members of which have graduated from this same technical school since 1923. Where are they to-day? I wonder whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) saw any of them when he was down south before the Easter recess. That is where they are. Honestly, it breaks my heart to see the 'best of our youth going over to the United States!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: This may be my last chance to make a budget speech on behalf of my constituency of East York, and I take the opportunity of expressing the hope that the government will appeal to the country and get a mandate from the people, or let someone else who has got a mandate take charge of affairs. In that riding of 100,000 we are about seventy per cent industrialists; and seventy per cent of that seventy per cent are owners of their own homes; they own their own humble little cottages ranging in value anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000. I wish hon. members would try to form some idea of the amount of money that is involved in any one particular riding such as this, not only in the capital of one industry but also in the capital that is invested in the homes of the employees. If hon. gentlemen would take those facts into consideration they would see what even one industry means to any particular community. It is therefore a matter of great magnitude to the people of a manufacturing centre to see their industries are maintained unimpaired, and it can easily be imagined what concern it must occasion these people when they see one manufacturing industry after another close down.
Every day when in Toronto I have occasion to pass down Carlaw avenue on which are situated the Jefferson Glass Works, which have been there since 1913. That establishment used to employ anywhere from three hundred to as high at one time as six hundred men who were engaged in the making of glassware of all kinds. That plant to-day is shut down and it will probably never start again; the industry is demoralized, is out of business altogether, and this simply because the products it manufactured now come from Belgium and to a large degree from the United States. The tariff has been the means of shutting down this particular plant and it means a loss of $500,000 in wages to numbers of people in my constituency. I think just now of one case of hardship that exists not very far from where I live. An employee of Jefferson's with an invalid wife and one daughter Who earns $10 a week has been out of work since July last, having been able to obtain only about two weeks' employment in the interval. At my home on Saturday night he said to me, "What can I do, Mr. Harris? I missed the last payment on my house and the next payment falls due on April 15; if I miss that one I am going to lose the home which I have been trying to pay for during the last five or six years." This man could not buy a home earlier in life, having reared a large family 
of nine children whom he tried to give a fair education. And as I have said, his wife is an invalid. The man is discouraged, he does not know what to do, and he cannot find any other vocation suitable to his abilities in Toronto. He is waiting patiently for another general election in the hope that confidence will be restored in the people of the Dominion. I hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to bring these stories to the attention of the House, because, as the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Humphrey) said, they are liable to shake confidence in the country-if they would shake confidence in the government it would be all right. I repeat, Sir, what I have said a score of times already, I have the utmost confidence in Canada. But with this preface, allow me to state the case of a man who came to my office on "Hogan's alley" this morning. He walked in and said, "You are Mr. Harris?" I answered, "Yes, what can I do for you, my dear fellow?" He replied, "I am one of your constituents and live at 36 Edgewood avenue, not far from where you live. I have walked to Ottawa from tne ony of Toronto." I exclaimed, "What!" He repeated, "I have walked here from the city of Toronto." He turned up the soles of his shoes, and his socks were showing through. I said, "Heavens! man, you must get another pair of boots." We got together enough money in "Hogan's alley" to give him the price of a pair of boots and a good square meal. I gave him the addresses of half a dozen local firms to whom he might apply on the chance of getting a job. He is an exservice man with three children. I took down the particulars which he gave me when he called: He has a boy twelve years old, a girl ten years and another boy five years; he went overseas on January 11, 1916, and was discharged January 26, 1919; previous to going overseas he worked in the purchasing department of the Canada Metal Company; that company is very slack and he was unable to get started there again; his wife got a position here-not in the government-at $12 a week; her father-in-law got this position for her last December, and suggested that if things were so dull in Toronto her husband might come here and try to find something to do; rather than borrow the train fare the man walked here. This afternoon while we are sitting in this chamber he is out in West Ottawa calling on different manufacturing institutions in the hope of getting something to do to support his three children. He told me that he made application to the Soldiers'

Aid hostel in Toronto to take his children in until he could find something to do for their support. They replied, "We cannot take in the children temporarily, but if you will turn them over to us permanently we will take them and farm them out to somebody else." Rather than do that he has held on to them and they are at present in a friend's home in Toronto. That man has been walking the streets since last October trying to get work, and except for a few days' snow shovelling he has been unable to get anything to do.
Now, I want to tell my farmer friends something. What benefit to you are all these "industrialists," if you want to call them that? I rather think they are of some benefit to you! The voters' list for East York contains some 47,000 names, it is a pretty big riding, and those voters with their families number about 100,000 people. I have made a rough estimate of what these people consume, and with permission of the House I wiii place the particuiars on Hansard. This is the statement:
Consumption of farm products in Bast York
Commodity
Cereals, flour and breadstuffs.
Meats of all kinds	
Butter and cheese	
Eggs	
Milk	
Potato and other vegetables.
Other farm produce	
Canadian fruits	
Quantity	Value
20,000,000 lbs.	$1,200,000
8,000,000 lbs.	1.920,000
3,400,000 lbs.	1,360,000
1,360,000 doz.	680,000
5,000,000 qts.	550,000
5,000,000 bus.	450,000
	200,000
	40,000

There you have about six and a half million dollars' worth of farm products. Is not that money of some use to the farmers of the county of York?-or even to our western farmers? I say it is, and I say further that industry should be maintained so that we will have diversified employment for the youth of this country as fast as they are able to take up homes and consume your products.
In my riding, Sir, is a very large township which is producing farm products, and the population of that -township is somewhere around 13,000. I want to say one or two words on their behalf, because it may be the last opportunity I shall have in this parliament if the government is honest and goes to the country this fall, and inasmuch as East York is not in the new redistribution. In 1924 we imported vegetables in the following quantities:
Potatoes	
24,867,896	lbs.Onions	
393,578	lbs.Cabbage	
273,933	lbs.Tomatoes	
313,591	bus.
The Budget-Mr. Harris
And then again, why should it be necessary to import canned vegetables such as bdans, corn and tomatoes to the quantity of 9,270,176 pounds, worth $965,449? If my constituents in East York could get a little of that business added on to what they have already they would be prosperous. Let us face the situation and protect our market gardeners by curtailing as much as possible importations from other countries. In like maner we find large quantities of fresh and prepared fruits being imported which we might just as well produce ourselves. I have prepared a statement of these importations, and with the permission of the House I will place it on Hansard:
Imports of fruits, 1924
Apples	
195,693	bbls.	$ 878,415Strawberries	
5,014,267	lbs.	740,699Plums	
140,208	bus.	374,250Pears	
17,804,789	lbs.	782,464Peaches	
13,405,896	lbs.	510,710Grapes	
11,202,740	lbs.	874,941Cherries	
625,313	lbs.	105,978
Add to these the tremendous importation of prepared and dried fruits which run into about 20,000,000 pounds per year, and it will be readily seen that any move towards preserving the Oanadi'an -market for Canadian farm products is of the utmost importance to our people.
The main argument which I am sure every member has in -his mind in this connection is, that due to our position being a little farther north we find our market for these commodities supplied by the products of the United States before our domestic products are ready for the market. Let us therefore face the issue fairly, and not penalize the Canadian producer, because he happens to be in a climate which matures his crop a little later than -his United States competitor, by allowing the goods of that competitor to come into this country and take the market away from him. Give him sufficient protection for all the goods which he can produce so that he will have the Canadian market to himself.
Regarding the railway problem, there are several other features, Mr. Speaker, which have to do with conditions in Canada at the present time. I had the honour, in -my humble way, to bring these facts out before the National Railway and Shipping committee last session. I feel the time has come when we should no longer have Europe covered by soliciting freight agents on behalf of the Canadian National Railways, gathering freight, consisting largely of merchandise, to ship to Canada. We have our trade commissioners in Europe, why cannot some of these men take care of any work which the -Canadian National Railways may find it necessary to

The Budget-Mr. Harris


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am glad some hon. members approve of that. A reduction in the indemnity has also been suggested. On this point let me say just a word, to clear my own skirts, as it were. You can take my indemnity right away if you like. I happen to have a position that keeps me going and I would be glad to serve the people of Canada free of indemnity. But on behalf of some of the hon. members who have no other particular vocation I would say, leave the indemnity where it is and give them twice as much to do. Give them a hundred thousand people to look after, which is the number I am
mi
looking after right now in my riding, and reduce the membership of this House by one half and the cost by one-half.
I would suggest also that in revising the rules of the House it should be provided that each hon. member be allowed about twenty pages in Hansard and that every page he uses after the twenty he be obliged to pay for out of his indemnity.
I have started at headquarters to reduce the public expenditure. Let us start next with what some people refer to as a white elephant, the Canadian National Railways- I will not call it that-let us there reduce a few expenditures. In the first place, curtail the expenditure on radio, and eliminate such expenditures as we had within the last year and a half of a quarter of a million dollars on golf courses. As I said before, withdraw our soliciting trade agents from Europe, and if work has to be done on behalf of the Canadian National Railways let it be done by our trade commissioners who are already there; let us not have two organizations throughout Europe. Do everything possible to increase our traffic east and west. Do everything possible to increase the traffip in merchandise and in products that will bear heavy freight charges, and eliminate as much as possible the shipping out of this country of our raw material.
Preserve the Canadian market for Canadian farm products.
Develop Canadian resources and manufacture them into finished products if at all possible; and conserve our hydro-electric power resources for the use of our industries.
Establish preference wherever possible, provided it does not interfere with Canadian workmen.
When it comes to appointing the tariff commission, let me humbly suggest that it be composed of three men, one who has the interests of agriculture at heart, one who has the interests of labour at heart, and one who has the interests of the manufacturing and commercial institutions at heart. Let this body of three get together and work out something for the good of the Canadian people. In other words, take the plank out of the Conservative platform, holus-bolus; do not put little frills here and there, as the government are doing to-day, and attempt to make the people believe that what they are giving them is a little different from what the Conservative party advocates.
With the adoption of a policy of this kind, Mr. Speaker, I feel satisfied that the Canadian people will realize even more than ever that Canada is really worth while.
The Budget-Mr. Harris

Let me express a feeling which I experience as I go from one part of the country to another. I was down in the Maritimes not long ago, and down that way we see a 'lot of people who are known as the McDonalds, the McKinnons, the McLairens, the McLeans, the McCreas and the Camerons, some of whose ancestors I suppose came over on the Hector, some of them no doubt descendants of Wolfe's Highlanders who fought on the plains of Abraham. Very good for their lineage and Where they came from, but let me implore these people in the Maritimes to remember that first and foremost to-day they are Canadians 1
Coming just a little farther west we find in the province of Quebec the Archambaults, the Belands, the Bouchers, the Bourassas, the Denis', the Lauriers, the Marcils, and the Lemieuxs-Frenoh-Canadians they like to call themselves when they are in the province of Quebec, Canadians they were perhaps long before some of the rest of us. But to-day let them forget they are French-Canadians and remember that they too are Canadians!
Going out over the western plains and beyond, we find in British Columbia the descendants of those ex-soldiers of 'the British Empire who settled in the Okanagan valley, those rugged men in the mines that the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Humphrey) was speaking about. Let these people remember that they too are Canadians!
To my friends from the western provinces let me also say:	You have not been Canadians as long perhaps as some of the rest of us, but get in line with us as quick as you can. Do not forget that you have not been very long in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Who.


Joseph Henry Harris: I could name them. One
of them is smiling at me mow as I look them over. You have not been very long in this country, and you have done mighty well since you have been here. It is a pretty good country for you, and we welcome you and are glad to have you. But do not try to tell some of the older inhabitants what we ought to do. Get ini line with us and help us to bring this country to the place where she belongs! Line up!


Mr. FORKE:: May I ask how long the
hon. member has been a Canadian?


Joseph Henry Harris: I do not know anything
different. I was bom within a few yards of where I now live, in the centre of an eighty-six-acre farm, which to-day is peopled within every thirty-foot lot by home-loving people,

with paved streets through the whole of it, I have Stuck right to the place where I was bom, and I hope I shall still remain there. But I know what is running through my hon. friend's mind. He thinks " what were your progenitors?" Like a good many more people in the old province of Ontario, I happen to be a descendant of an Englishman., from Bedfordshire, a man who came over here on a cattle boat and earned his first Canadian dollar right on the same street Where he lives now. He has worked hard and has done reasonably well for a man who never went to school. He raised a family of nine children. I would hesitate to say how many grandchildren he has, but it is quite a number. Not only that, when I think of the rest of his lineage, I recall one brother with ten children near my own riding-that is why I get such a large 'majority. I think of another uncle in Australia, with seventeen children, inhere is only one other member of the family, and he is out west, amid has eleven children. Yes, and when I think of my own immediate family, I can find a lead for me to follow, for the one next to me has seven children, and is still going strong. I have four myself, and I am the youngest man in this house.
Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted I had said something on behalf of Canada with regard to every province perhaps except that keystone to the whole arch of our Canadian civilization, the province of Ontario-Ontario with the descendants of English, Irish and Scotch stock, with her people who have in their makeup British ideals and traditions- Ontario is ready and always has been ready to march in line with all the other provinces of this Dominion to bring Canada to her destiny. Ontario always has been ready to move forward for the sake of Canada, and if we in Canada can get into our minds that we to-day are a Canadian people, a Canadian race, having in our makeup that ideal which is absolutely necessary, that through the history of civilization for the last eight hundred years or more we have found one dominating factor which has been the greatest agency for good to civilization, and that factor is that the British commonwealth of nations has been able to maintain itself and deal justly with every one she has come in contact with -so long as we remember that we are the Canadian race of people, and if we determine to remain firmly within the ambit of the Britannic commonwealth, realizing that in order to carry forward our ideals, we must maintain our place within the empire, then in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we shall fulfil our destiny.

The Budget-Mr. Hammell


Mr. W. J. HAMMELL (Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate, my purpose is not to dwell on any particular phase forming the subject matter of the financial statement or of the budget resolutions so ably presented to this chamber by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). I propose to again leave the beaten trail, as I did in similar circumstances last year, and crave the indulgence of hon. members for a short discussion of one of the most important branches of our national trade, and one which, unfortunately, has been far too long neglected. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to that great source of actual and potential revenue, the tourist trade. The purpose of my remarks is primarily to bring to the attention of the government and more particularly to the attention of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) the urgent necessity and the beneficent effects to be derived from a government policy which would make for the proper exploitation of one of thp greatest of our natural resources. In fact, the great value of the invisible exports to be credited to our tourist trade can be classed at the head of the list when we consider our national business from the viewpoint of desirability. Yet this important factor has grown in spite of nearly absolute neglect. I propose to show some of the important reasons why it is most desirable that our federal government should take immediate steps to sec in motion the necessary machinery to systematize and develop this great national asset.
On the 7th of May last year, during the budget debate, I endeavoured to show with reliable figures and carefully prepared estimates the undoubted value to the nation of the tourist traffic. I may be permitted to quote one or two passages from those remarks. In giving a comparative table of amounts derived from wealth-producing industries I said, as reported at page 1857 of Hansard for 1924:
Taking only those industries which are absolutely basic we get this amazing comparison. The figures are for the year 1923, and are as follows:
Agriculture and agricultural products.. $407,760,000
Wood and wood products	 228,756,200
Tourist travel, estimated	 136,000,000
Animals and animal products	 135.000,000
Minerals and mineral products	 123,142,653
Is it not amazing to find this item of production to which we have paid so little attention with a value higher than that of our animal and animal products or than the wealth produced by our mines?
And again on page 1859 of Hansard, 1924, I read:
Turning for a minute to the automobile traffic over our borders, we find still more amazing results. In the year 1923 the Customs department recorded entries of 1,936,598 cars. A large number of this total of
cars stayed in Canada for a period of twenty-four hours or less; on the other hand, more than 200,000 stayed for a period ranging from two days to one month, and some 3,000 cars stayed from one to six months. Even taking a most conservative estimate of three passengers per car, and an average expenditure of only $20 per car, we obtain a total expenditure from this source alone of $40,000,000. And when we consider the cost of maintenance and upkeep, gasoline, oil, and so forth, for the car and the food and lodgings for the passengers, without even including the large sums spent for souvenirs, entertainments and so forth, we readily realize that this is a most conservative total.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is pleasant to realize that greater interest in the tourist trade is being taken throughout the country, and since the publicity given to my speech of last session I have received hundreds of letters and newspaper clippings from all parts of Canada. The press have taken up the battle cry and are spreading the good news. Automobile clubs, good roads associations, and many other organizations are lending their efforts to the development of the tourist traffic and interest is constantly increasing. Letters have come to me from all points in Canada and many parts of the United States on this subject. I have here one letter from Halifax and another from Vancouver which I desire to read. The first is from Mr. E. G. Stairs, of Halifax, and reads as follows:
My Dear Sir,-As one who has made a personal study of the tourist trade and its possibilities by my own travels and investigations across Canada from Halifax, my home here, may I ask you for a copy of Hansard with your May 7, tourist speech.
Many thanks,
E. G. Stairs,
Halifax.
The other is from Mr. J. R. Davison, Manager of the Vancouver Publicity Bureau, and reads as follows:
Dear Sir,-In a Toronto paper of last summer I note a report of a speech made by you in the House of Commons last year in regard to the value of the tourist traffic.
This has a very great deal of excellent information in it and all your points are, I think, well taken. Among other things I note that you pointed out that the tourist travel is of value to the farmers. I am afraid as yet many of them do not realize this but it is a fact that the products of the farm form a great part of what tourists buy when with us. To make this point clearer out here we stressed it at our annual meeting in 1923.	1 am sending you a copy of
the menu which will explain itself.
You may be interested in looking over a plan we have suggested for the Dominion government. This has already been endorsed by the chief publicity organizations west of Quebec, and has received very general editorial support also. We are hopeful that the government will follow our suggestion, and put in operation some comprehensive plan for increasing the revenue from this very valuable traffic.
This year has been the most profitable we have ever had, and we believe that a campaign such as we suggest will bring a great deal of business to all parts of the country.
20M
The Budget-Mr. Hammell

I would like to hear from you on receipt of this, and trusting that you may be able again to put forward the need of aggressive action by Ottawa.
Yours very truly,
J. It. Davison.
Now, the menu card enclosed with this letter deserves special commendation. On one side the heading reads: "This is what we eat," and the dinner menu is given. On the other side appear the words. "This is what the tourists eat."
This page is certainly wTorth quoting and here are the figures given:
It is estimated that the tourists visiting British Columbia last year consumed foodstuffs to the following amounts:
Cereals, 1,323 bags or 132,300 pounds; bacon and ham, 394,800 pounds; bread at one pound a loaf,
2.100.000	loaves-2,100,000 pounds; jam, 315,000 pounds; coffee, 78,750 pounds; tea, 78,750 pounds; sugar, 279,300 pounds; butter, 180,000 pounds; vegetables.
2.100.000	pounds; potatoes, 42,000 bags or 4,200,000 pounds; fish, 2,100,000 pounds; flour, 630,000 pounds; salt, 31,500 pounds; fat for cooking, 210,000 pounds. Meat: cattle, 3,500 head; hogs, 8,400; sheep, 25,200. Fruit-420,000 pounds: apples, 21,000 boxes; cream, 73,500 gallons; milk, 262,500 gallons; syrup, 4,200 gallons; eggs, 8,400,000.
In reference to the number of sheep consumed this remark is appended:
Hon. E. D. Barlow said there were 50,000 sheep in British Columbia. Tourists ate over half our flock. He will have to count them again.
And I could keep on quoting for hours along the same lines, showing the great economic value of the tourist traffic. Suffice it to say that we are not in any way depleting our reserves when we deliver our goods through the eyes of our tourist friends. When we feed them our fanners profit; when we transport them our railway and steamship companies benefit; in fact every time a tourist moves some part of our economic structure is called into function, and the collective mass of this travel provides a real impetus to trade generally.
Another very important factor that is too easily forgotten is that tourist travel has a secondary influence, often far-reaching in its benefits. It builds up good-will and understanding and it opens the eyes of the visitor to the possibilities of the country. Many a holiday has culminated in an investment or in permanent settlement. It is said that the wonderful industrial development of Shawini-gan Falls is traceable to a summer holiday spent in lower Quebec by one of our great capitalists. And if the truth were known it would perhaps be amazing to realize the prominent part played in the development of our country by those who first came here seeking pleasure and rest and who could not fail to realize the immense possibilities of our vast

Dominion with its great wealth of natural resources.
That Canada has the required scenic beauties to attract and please the tourists is beyond discussion. There is not a single province that does not possess scenic marvels and points of beauty such as the tourist craves. Right at the door of this capital city lies th wonderful valley of the Gatineau capable of attracting and sustaining the interest of thousands and thousands of tourists. We have from east to west a chain of holiday paradises which are veritable fairylands for the tourists. The Bras d'Or lakes, the Garden of the Gulf, the Land of Evangeline, the magnificent Laureatides, the far-famed Murray bay, the Thousand Islands, the National parks, all are assets beyond value, ready to be exploited for the national benefit. I need no excuse to advertise the beauties of my own district of Muskoka; its myriads of lakes, streams and waterfalls, its countless attractive islands, its beautiful and ever-charming scenery, its healthful and invigorating climate, are yearly the pleasure grounds of increasing thousands. Here, if anywhere, the value of the tourist business is realized and every effort is courageously being made for its development. All in our district take a personal interest and have at heart the conservation of the scenic wonders of this fairlyland on the Georgian bay, and we feel, that the efforts we are making will result in benefits that will be nationally felt. The development has been marked in recent years and the number of visitors is continually increasing. Not only this, but scores and scores are added annually to the number who have already become permanently settled summer residents in the various localities.
The investment in property beautification and conservation has already reached a very large sum and costly additions are made every year. I again refer to my remarks of last year, at page 1858 of Hansard, to show what the tourist traffic means in this locality alone. I said last year:
Taking as a survey, that each of the 155 places referred to, with their accommodation for 10,000 guests, only filled their rooms five times each during the entire season, we have a total of 50,000 guests, which at an average expenditure of only $100 each would mean a total expenditure of $5,000,000. From ' a very conservative estimate of the value of the investment in that region we find that in cottages, resorts and launches, the total investment in the three sections of Muskoka, Lake of Bays, the Georgian bay, and Muskoka lakes, is well in excess of $20,000,000. And the investment is rapidly increasing from year to year.
On the Muskoka lakes alone we find this remarkable summary of investment, and my authority is

The Budget-Mr. Hammell
no less a person than the manager of the Muskoka Lakes Navigation Company:
Summer
cottages
Lake Joseph	 175
Lake Rosseau	 230
Lake Muskoka	 490
Total	 895
At an estimated average value of only $5,000 this alone represents an investment of $4,500,000.
Resort
cottages
Lake Joseph	 12
Lake Rosseau	 32
Lake Muskoka	 26
Total	 70
The estimated total investment of these resorts is conservatively placed at $2,000,000. There are besides a fleet of 22 steamers valued at $367,000 and 390 gasoline launches estimated to be worth $1,000,000. The total investment represented is $7,867,000. In this district alone the numbers of visitors during 1923 is placed at over 30,000, which at the average expenditure of only $100 each would mean a total of $3,000,000.
To handle this traffic, the help engaged on steamers, in the resort houses and in the cottages would represent
3,000	at an average of $7,500 per day for wages alone. The average daily population would be about 7,000 visitors and 3,000 emploj'ees, a continuous population of 10,000 per day during the summer months. So that, at an average of $1 per day per person, you would have a total of $10,000 per day for food alone. One could go on endlessly quoting statistics of the importance. from the tourist standpoint, of this locality; and what applies in one part of our country would be more or less general to all those wonderful sections that our country possesses.
That the estimates and' statistics just referred to are the most conservative can be better realized from the following passages which I will read from a letter addressed to me a few days ago by Mr. W. J. Moore, general manager of the Huntsville, Lake of Bays and Lake Simcoe Navigation Company Limited. Mr. Moore says, in part:
The owners of the different hotels and resorts in Lake of Bays district catering to the tourist traffic, must have an investment of from one to one and a quarter million dollars in buildings, furnishings, etc. You will understand that it is difficult to give accurate figures of investment in hotel and resort properties, in the absence of figures from the owners, which are difficult to obtain.
My estimate is that at least 10,000 people, including summer cottagers, hotel and boarding house guests, and motorists visited the Lake of Bays territory in the season of 1924. Within such territory there is at least 350 summer cottages, 200 gasoline and small steam launches, also hotel and boarding house accommodation for summer guests to the number of about 2,800. Each year is showing a decided increase in the number of vacationists from the United States.
Concerning tourist traffic during summer season to this section of Ontario and Muskoka, I should certainly like to have been in a position to give you something definite as to the number who visited this territory in the season of 1924, but regret that I can only form an approximate idea, because of the very large number who travel by motor car. A large percentage of the
latter traffic do not even patronize the hotels and resorts or boarding houses, but prefer to pitch their tents on camping grounds and then attend to their own cooking, etc. The season 1924 showed a decidedly large increase in the travel by motor car, to Huntsville and points beyond here.
To appreciate properly the remarks which I have just quoted from Mr. Moore's letter, it is necessary to keep in mind that the data which he gives apply only to the Lake of Bays district, which is by far the smallest of the three main sections of Muskoka. The Muskoka lakes and Georgian bay sections are not only greater in extent, but the development there has made greater strides.
Perhaps I may be accused of partiality to Muskoka. In explanation let me say that being in closer touch I have been enabled to obtain more detailed information from my own district. However, the general information which I have and the mass of statistical data in my possession enable me to say that what is true of Muskoka is no less true of scores of other districts. We are truly the inhabitants of a real everyday wonderland, and the apathy which we have shown by our inertia in the development of this vast possible trade is far from creditable to our spirit of advance. That this condition should so long have existed is very difficult of explanation, more so when one considers that in no less than forty different constituencies the problem awaits development for the pleasure of the tourists and to the great benefit of Canada generally.
I now desire to read a few passages from newspaper editorials, and other writings, to show the wakening of interest which is taking place and the demands from the press for the development of this very important natural resource. In these passages hon. members will also note the large value placed on the tourist traffic by independent observers. First I have a quotation from Mr. Frank Waterhouse, President of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which shows the tremendous benefits derived from advertisment. Mr. Waterhouse says in the Victoria Times of October 31, 1923:
Three years ago Tacoma's tourist population was 100,000. The expenditure of $65,000 in advocating this traffic brought the total of transient visitors to
350,000	in .1922 and to 500,000 in 1923.
From the Natural Resources Bulletin of the Department of the Interior, I find this passage, which I also read reprinted in an editorial of the Toronto Gldbe under date of December 20, 1924. The paragraph reads:
There is at least one direction in which Canada appears to enjoy a golden opportunity-the attraction of profitable tourist traffic from abroad. Already the Dominion's income annually from such business
The Budget-Mr. Hammell

runs into a large item, but there is every sign that we have merely scratched its revenue possibilities.
Under the heading "The value of the Tourist Trade" the London. Free Press says-August 29, 1923:
However, there is another aspect of the tourist trade which is even more vital and more important. This is the fact that thousands of Americans from the interior states to whom Canada is a foreign nation and who imagine it is largely trackless forest peopled by bears, moose, Indians and gay voyageurs are having their eyes opened. The constant streams of Americans to Canada will do more than any treaties or acts of congress or parliament to make for good-will between the two countries.
I find the following appreciation, well merited indeed, in the British Columbian of New Westminster, August 13:
In contrast to the failure of the British Columbia government to estimate the wealth that will flow to the province by the capitalizing of its scenery, is the work of the Dominion Parks Service in developing great national park areas, opening them to tourists, and making known their scenic attractiveness throughout the continent. The Dominion, in other words, went into the business of selling scenery for the benefit of all of Canada, and while the commercial side is not alone the mainspring of national park development, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been caused to flow through Canadian channels and especially British Columbia channels of trade by the National Park development.
The following paragraph from the Victoria Times has its own significance:
One of the advantages of the tourist traffic is that while the province of British Columbia has $90,000,000 worth of lumber less than in 1921 it still has the same scenic attractions it had in 1921, although $20,000,000 has been paid for enjoying these by visitors from every part of the world and the province has not been depleted.
The figures given are for the year 1921. A more recent survey of the value of the tourist traffic in British Columbia placed the revenues derived at over $60,000,000 for the year 1924. And let me again say that this large sum was reaped without sacrificing a single stick of timber.
The Financial Post, after completing a survey and review of the tourist traffic, has this to say:
There is perhaps no more profitable industry in Canada than the tourist industry. Like any other industry it shows returns for good sound business backing. It pays for investment in good roads, it pays dividends on capital invested in hotels which give satisfactory service, and it pays in -profits to dealers and to merchants, who sell wanted goods at fair prices. And over all, like any other well conducted business, it shows satisfactory returns for money well expended in advertising when the governments, the hotel-keepers and the merchants are prepared to live up to the advertising and send back to their homes satisfied tourists who will multiply the benefits of the benefits of the original expenditure.
The Vancouver Sun adds its approval in the following words-June 19, 1924:
[Mr. Hammell.l
From motor traffic alone on a conservative basis the city of Vancouver benefited to the extent of $12,160,000. When it is remembered that an equal number of tourists came by rail and water, and that according to calculations of the companies which brought them here they spent as great a sum, it means that virtually 25 millions was reaped.
Is this not a business worthy of the greatest encouragement, one that with practical neglect brings in a single year business to the value of twenty-five millions of dollars to a single city? The Border Cities Star published on January 12, 1925, an editorial dealing with the tourist traffic under the very well chosen heading of "Tell the World." They reprinted this editorial and gave it very wide circulation. The heading of the reprint is worthy of note; it says:
By way of explanation:
The attached editorial appeared in the Border Cities Star, Windsor, Ont., on January 12, 1925. It is sent to you in the hope of stimulating a move that is admittedly of great importance to Canada. Bringing the Dominion and its advantages to the notice of other peoples, and particularly in the United States, through the medium of the radio, advertisements in foreign newspapers and magazines, etc., as well as individual effort by Canadians in general, should mean much to our country.
The Border Cities Star.
The editorial itself starts as follows:
As The Star pointed out in these columns a few days ago, one of the most important sources of revenue upon which Canada can draw is that of the tourist industry. As noted at that time, an unofficial estimate places the return from this agency last year at approximately $150,000,000, or $25,000,000 more than American investors are said to reap annually from their holdings in this country. Nothing then could be more obvious than the desirability of building up and adding to the size of this extremely valuable avenue of income.
And among other suggestions, all very good indeed, I find in the last paragraph this very good idea for the use of the radio:
The further suggestion has been made that the radio offers one of the most advantageous means of attracting tourists and immigrants. A great government broadcasting station could reach every corner of America. High class musical programmes interspersed with attractive national salemanship in the form of lectures, talks and invitations would undoubtedly bring results. The " stunt " would be more or less original and undoubtedly would attract great attention across the line. " Canadian Nights " on the radio would be looked forward to in millions of American homes and no one would be more interested than the several million former Canadians now residing all the way from Maine to California. For them these " Canadian Nights " would constitute a breath from home and in more than one instance might be the means of bringing repatriation. The Canadian National Railways is doing some excellent broadcasting work, Why not build up this idea and cash in on it?
In a lengthy editorial, condemning the inactivity of the federal government in this field, the Winnipeg Free Press of January 12, 1924, has these two telling paragraphs:
One of the worst cultivated natural resources of this country is its tourist industry. The number who annu'

The Budget-Mr. Hammett
ally tour part of the land is wildly enumerated in millions, and their aggregated expenditures within the country are supposed to run into hundreds of millions of dollars. Neither estimate can be verified without more specific information, which will not be available till Canada has, like New Zealand a government tourist bureau.
After a general review of the situation and after pointing out what is being done in New Zealand, France, Italy and Switzerland, and after making a number of suggestions, the Winnipeg Free Press editorial referred- to ends with this paragraph:
With infinitely more to offer, and with a tremendously rich and willing source from which to draw, Canada, governmentally, ignores its tourist harvest.
It will be seen that interest has become aroused in this new industrial field throughout the confines of our Dominion. In choosing a few quotations from newspaper editorials it has been impossible to give fair play as the time available precludes the possibility of doing justice to the mass of excellent editorial references made on the tourist traffic, its benefits and the methods suggested for its development.
From a business viewpoint one might quote the following as the principal reasons for the development and marketing of our scenic resources:
1.	The financial benefit to farmers by the requirement of foodstuffs for the tourists.
2.	The impetus to trade, hotels, resorts and business generally through the necessary catering for this large transient population.
3.	The large volume of increased business for our various transportation companies.
What can be sounder economically than the development of a natural resource which increases in value by its marketing and in no way suffers the depletion of its original wealth? W'e empty our mines of their valuable deposits and then hunt for new ground to despoil. The exploitation of our forests has gone on at such a pace that our remaining reserves are yearly becoming more remote. Our commercial fisheries have required stringent control to prevent their disappearance. In a word, is it not true that, perhaps with the exception of agriculture, in every line of industry we destroy to produce? It is not so with our scenic reserves; their development means their conservation, their beautification and their amelioration. The returns which they provide never deplete the shelves of our reserves and we can sell indefinitely without ever replenishing our stock in trade.
The parity of our dollar is attributable to a very large degree, if not entirely, to the revenues derived from our tourist traffic. Hon.
members may ask how. The explanation is that we pay with one hand dividends and interest on stock and bond holdings to foreign investors, and we balance our ledger by receiving with the other their contribution in payment of our scenic beauties and amusement facilities.
At a time when we require additional business to provide additional employment we cannot pass up the development of this so desirable business. I am firmly convinced that we can no longer delay the exploitation of this national asset and would humbly suggest that the best means to attain success should follow along these lines:
1.	The establishment of a separate government branch specially organized for the development of the tourist traffic, and
2.	The expenditure of required moneys to properly expand and cultivate the tourist traffic.
The branch which I suggest should have full powers to co-operate with all other government departments and be prepared to collect and systematize reliable statistics for advertisement and other purposes. It should also, among other things:
(a)	Co-operate with all existing tourist bureaus and similar organizations with a view to welding the whole into a formidable advertising and co-operative agency, eliminating duplication of effort, providing required assistance, etc;
(b)	Publish timely and well directed advertisements, together with stories, articles and pictures to make our scenic and natural beauties better known;
(c)	Undertake the preparation, publication and distribution of pamphlets and other literature for the information of intending tourists;
(d)	Organize and maintain an up-to-date, accurate and adequate information bureau for the benefit of all intending tourists;
(e)	Work for the betterment of hotel accommodation, scenic roads, camping sites and generally for the provision of all possible facilities for the tourists.
In addition to the work I have just briefly outlined, the government should endeavour by conference and inquiry to bring about an absolute uniformity in all the laws of the different provinces in so far as they affect the tourist. I am sure that the co-operation of the provinces would be willingly forthcoming. Particular attention should be given to motor car regulations, fish and game permits and such general laws and regulations as are likely to meet the tourist in the various
2098	[DOT] COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Hammell
provinces. Customs regulations also should be made as easy and elastic as possible with a view to preventing delays and displeasure. In this connection the utmost care should be taken in the selection of customs officers, so that whilst performing their duties they can also very greatly facilitate and expedite the transaction of needed customs business by the tourist.
I cannot close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, without saying a word of appreciation of the yeoman sendee rendered to the tourist industry by both the Canadian National Parks branch and the Natural Resources branch of the Department of the Interior. The publicity carried on has been most timely and most instructive and has served to waken the dormant spirit in a number of our people. Let us hope that they will not only carry on but also increase their sphere of action.
I hope I have not bored horn members and I trust the policy which I advocate will find favour in every comer of this chamber. I cannot think of a single interest which would not be represented in the benefits to be derived from the tourist traffic. We have at our door one hundred and ten millions of people comprising the richest nation in the world, a nation that loves travel and pleasures. Why should we remain inactive when reasonable effort on our part would attract them in scores of thousands? The question of the tourist, industry is non-controversial and is of national importance. The farmer, the merchant, the manufacturer-all are interested in its development. Hundreds of reasons can be advanced in support of its exploitation, and I have yet to find a single argument against it. I have devoted a great deal of time, more so in recent years, to the study of this vast national resource, and I have consistently advocated the urgent need for federal action.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I know of no better way of developing this country and of increasing our national prosperity than by taking advantage of this golden opportunity of capitalizing our natural scenic beauties and recreational facilities and selling them to the many millions of our American friends to the south of us, who are continually hunting new grounds for their enjoyment.


Mr. WILLIAM BLACK (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, in my few criticisms of the budget I intend to be very brief. I am inclined to think that in this House there is too much criticism of a destructive kind and not enough constructive. Sometimes I fear that members have lost the great visions of

our statesmen of the past, the faith that our forefathers had fifty years ago in the destiny of C'anada, when I hear certain hon. gentlemen in one breath disparaging their country and in the next breath wondering what is going to happen. The great problems that we have to face to-day are debt, taxation, unemployment, railways, immigration, and probably labour. I feel that we in this corner of the House are in a very happy position in that regard. Speaking for myself, I have supported the government in every measure they have brought down that I thought was in the interests of the Dominion, and when my judgment told me otherwise I voted against the government.
We all realize the tremendous national debt, that we have to carry to-day, a debt of two and a half billion dollars, which almost staggers the people. But, Mr. Speaker, when we read in the press of certain politicians all over the country saying, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) said at Stratford last October:
Working men banished-homes boarded up-factories closed-stagnation in business-despair in the hearts of artisans-these are the fruits of the present government-the tariff had closed two thousand factories and had driven 300,000 Canadians across the line.
When we read such doleful statements, we wonder when hon. gentlemen to our right tell us that the reduction in the tariff last year did not reduce the price of farm implements. H that be the case, I should like to ask them, what was all the hulabaloo about from them, or from the manufacturers themselves? Why, Mr. Speaker, hon. members to our right say in one breath that the country is going to pieces on account of the reduction in the tariff, and in the next breath that the farmers will get no benefit on account of that reduction. I may say that at one time I was a free trader. In the late eighties and early nineties I was as strong a free trader as there was in the land. But things have changed in the last forty years, and to-day, although I am a very low tariff man, I do not think I could at this time support free trade.
The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has been telling us about the hard times that prevail. Now it seems to me that instead of calling the country down we should do something to build it up.	I had to examine the Parliamentary
Guide to see when the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River came to this country, and I found that he was bom here in the early eighties. He would be a young man in the nineties, and if he had lived and worked on a farm at that time as I did, he would have little to say about hard times to

The Budget-Mr. Black {Huron)
day. I heard the hon. member for DufTerin (Mr. Woods) speak about selling pork and fat cattle at $3.50 or $3.60 a hundred. I well remember those days when times were so hard that one scarcely knew where the next dollar was coming from. But conditions are difficult enough to-day on the farms. I come from one of the best counties in Ontario, where last year the harvest was the best we had had in fifty years, probably the best we ever had. But with the high taxes, with heavy overhead expenses and with everything we have to buy commanding top prices, even one good crop will not set the average farmer on his feet. I do think, however, that we are having better times now than we had in the late eighties or early nineties.
In 1911 the farmers of this country had the greatest opportunity that ever presented itself to them when the reciprocity pact was thrown into the political pot. But the pot boiled over and burned sixty-six per cent of the people of this country. And who was to blame? I say it was this ignoramus bunch of eighteen in Toronto-"the noble eighteen" as some people called them-they are the men who are largely to blame for Canada's position to-day. They spread over the country cartoons playing upon race and religion to such an extent that it was a shame and disgrace to this fair Canada of ours.
Hon. members to our right talk about stagnation of business and indulge in other kinds of political propaganda. But I ask them, why have three hundred thousand of our people crossed the border? Why are factories closed, if any are closed? Why is the labourer out of work? Why are the boys leaving the farms? Why have we, in this the most glorious country under the sun, such a tremendous debt? Perhaps I should not go back to the time of the Union government, but I do submit that, in the first place, daylight saving was the greatest curse this country ever saw; the resolution that was put through the House on that subject did more harm and made more lazy men than any other enactment that has ever been put on the statute book. The high financing of the war period was another curse to this country. While the young men of the land were called to the colours, our statesmen heaped one victory loan upon another and saddled the country with a staggering debt. Why did they not tax the men who stayed at home? In 1917 a man came to me and wanted me to go out collecting subscriptions for victory bonds. I refused point blank, and was asked the reason why. I said that if the finance minister of the day did
not raise part of the money as he went along instead of heaping one loan upon another, somebody else would have to get the subscriptions. Not only that; look at the amount of money that was raised at that time in tax-free bonds. If I had my way I would call in every dollar of those tax-free bonds to-morrow. Why did they not tax those firms that piled up fortunes while the men at the front were shedding their life blood; at a time, in fact, when we were taxing the men on service to the extent of one hundred per cent?
I have a criticism to offer against the present government for not tackling the civil service problem as I think they should have done. I am sure that if they took the proper steps in this matter they would be backed up to the hilt by the people. If the Civil Service Commission are not carrying out their duty, I would dismiss them. If the fault in any case is with the deputy and not with the commission, then I would dismiss the deputy. Think of the army of men and women in the civil service, nearly thirty-eight thousand, between twelve and thirteen thousand of them in the city of Ottawa, according to the figures for 1922. I think their numbers ought to be cut in two.
One hon. member stated this afternoon that he was in favour of there being fewer members in this House, and I support him in that view. I myself last year was in favour of cutting the number of members down by at least one-third so that we should have not more than one hundred and sixty members after the next election. I would also cut the number of senators down to the extent of two-thirds, if they cannot be cut out altogether-either one or the other. I do not see any use in increasing the number of members in this House. If I might make a suggestion, outside of the leaders of the government and their first two or three lieutenants, thirty minutes is all I would allow any member on the floor of the House.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Make it twenty minutes.


William Anderson Black: I would be satisfied to make it twenty. I think in that way we could save this country hundreds of thousands of dollars.
With regard to immigration, I think this is probably one of the biggest problems this government has to deal with to-day. I am not one of those who believes that we should not have immigration. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that immigrants will flow into this country by the thousands and tens of thousands every year. If we had twenty-five million people in Canada to-day, which we should have had

The Budget-Mr. Black (Huron)
if this land had been governed aright, a great many of our present day problems would be solved. The problem of our debt, for instance, would be solved without any trouble, also the National Railways debt. In my own province we could settle thousands of families. There are farms there where houses and bams have been built in years gone by which would cost more to build to-day than you could buy the house, barn and land for; there are thousands of such cases. On some of these farms there is no person living except the father and the mother. The others have left in years gone by for the west, or have gone into something else, and the old people are left there alone. Therefore, I would favour a very strong immigration policy indeed, only let us be careful in picking the immigrants that come to this country.
I am sorry the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is not in his seat, for I have a few suggestions to make to him. I have been an advocate of an export duty on wheat. That is the first thing I would suggest to the minister. I do not know what our western members will think of it, but I do not think an export duty would reduce the price of wheat in Canada one cent. I would put an export duty on our wheat going to the United States of 42 cents a -bushel. I advocated that a year ago, as soon as the duty was put on across the line. Some people say they will hit us back in some other line if we do that. Well, that is -their business. If they choose to do that, all right; I have nothing against it. But I think such a tax would be the greatest boon to this country at the -present time. We farmers in Ontario could double our output in five years if we could get as cheap bran and shorts 'as we got fifteen years ago. Then they cost ten and twelve dollars a -ton, while the average for the past five years has been twenty dollars and twenty-five. I am not speaking of last fall, when I paid thirty dollars for bran, -and I do not think you could buy it an}' cheaper to-day. The great need of Ontario to-day is cheap feed.
I would1 -also put an excise tax on automobiles, or raise the luxury tax by five or ten per cent on all cars costing over $800 or $1,000. I think the man who can buy an automobile that is worth $3,000 could easily pay double or treble the tax he is now paying.
I would also put an excise tax of ten per cent on leather, or else reduce the present tariff -by that amount.
I would put a three per cent tax on all watered stock in this country. I have not
[Mr. William Black.)
been able to get any exact figures as to the -amount of watered stock, but I will guarantee that such a tax would bring us in the ordinary revenue required in this country.


Mr. BENOIT:: Why not ten per cent?


William Anderson Black: That is perhaps
more than, the man is receiving on his stock. I think it should really be five per cent, but one or two with whom I have talked the matter over think that would be too high. I think we would easily derive between fifty and a hundred millions from such a tax.
I would also favour putting a small direct tax on the people of Canada, -and lay that money by for a sinking fund to meet our obligations as they come due. Suppose it was a tax of one -mill oni the dollar. We had such a -tax in the co-unty of Huron during the war, and i't did not cost the government of this country one dollar to collect it. It is the cost of collection that is the -trouble with the income tax and the tariff tax to-day. Some men say it only costs so much to raise the revenue of this country by means of the -tariff, but I will guarantee that for every dollar of tariff tax that goes into the treasury of this country, three dollars comes ou-t of the pockets of 'the people.


Aldéric-Joseph Benoit: Would this direct tax be a tax on capital?


William Anderson Black: No, on -the assessed value, one mill o-n the dollar. I forget what we raised in the county of Huron in those few years that we had the tax. The collector of taxes in the different municipalities could collect that tax, along with the other taxes of the township. It would not cost more than a few dollars to collect. The tax could be collected in the same way in the cities at practically no expense, and could be handed over to the government.


Aldéric-Joseph Benoit: 
Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr
Speaker, I have listened with close attention to expressions of opinion from hon. gentlemen in different quarters of this House, some of which have been extremely long and some remarkably fluent. The ablest of them, perhaps, have been the utterances of hon. members who have the happy knack of saying just exactly what they mean without any redundant words.
I listened specially to the speeches from the government side in the hope that I might at least be able to get a clear understanding of what the fiscal policy of the administration really is. Hitherto I have been unable to grasp it. We hear it frequently described as a tariff for revenue. That appears to me to be exactly the same thing as the fiscal arrangement known as free trade in Great Britain; and yet supporters of the government not infrequently state their objections to being called free traders. When the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) some days ago extracted a promise from the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) to explain a certain famous phrase which he had used I pricked up my ears for I thought that at last I should have the opportunity of listening to a solemn pronouncement of the fiscal policy of at any rate one member of the government, possibly even the policy of the government itself. Again I was doomed to disappointment for when that hon. minister spoke the 5 p.m. following day he announced that free trade would not do for Canada, that if he had ever been a free trader the war had altered that. I am not quite sure that I follow him in that sentence. He went on to say that he did not believe "that adequate protection or high protection that our hon. friends are so fond of demanding."- I must say that I have not yet heard high protection demanded in this House-"is either necessary or in the best interests of the country." He was then asked if he believed in protection at all, and he replied:
Not if you define protection as "adequate protection.'' I believe in a tariff for revenue because I conceive that we cannot change conditions in this country.	.
I must presume that the hon. gentleman knew what he meant when he spoke those words, 'but his statement conveys absolutely nothing to me and I do not think it conveys anything to anybody else in this House. The minister was then asked if he believed in "inadequate protection," and his reply then was that there was not such an animal.
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

for Canada, the government has not seen fit as yet to do it. We know that the Canadian Fruit Trade Commissioner has not been in this country for two or three years and he is not right up to date in the latest progress which the fruit industry has made, especially the boxed fruit industry of western Canada;
I know that he feels himself that he would very much like the assistance of an unofficial adviser or two, men who are right up to date in recent fruit history, with whom he could consult in order to form his opinions and place them before the committee.
The most prominent difficulty the fruit grower faces is that of marketing his products, and it is very interesting in this connection to take up the interim report of the commissioner appointed by the government to investigate the alleged combine in the distribution of fruit and vegetables. There are one or two other short extracts .that I should like to read in this regard. The question for investigation was-
Whether by reason of the operations of any combine '-of middlemen the interests of the public, whether producer, consumer or others, are prejudicially affected.
That was the object of the investigation. Let me read further:
Of all classes of the population the producer, whether growing wheat, or eking out an existence in raising fruit and vegetables, or otherwise striving to wrest a living from the soil has had a bitter struggle. But among all producers it is doubtful whether any class has had a more grim and discouraging battle for existence than those engaged in fruit farming. Dependent on weather and season, toiling himself with wife and family early and late, compelled at times to employ additional help, obliged to purchase containers for a perishable product, dependent on agents to dispose of his product usually for an unnamed consideration on distant markets, and faced in a northern climate with American competition before his season arrives, the Canadian fruit grower has had to struggle desperately for a bare living. The wonder is that he survived.
I am not aware that the Commissioner who was appointed by the government for this investigation was a fruit man. It is therefore the more interesting to note the view which he took after his investigation of the difficulty facing the fruit growers. A page or two further on there is another short extract:
The producers of British Columbia may be classified as organized and unorganized; and are known as co-operatives and independents. The co-operative associations, which represent an achievement in organization, have made possible what slight amelioration there has been in the condition of the growers. The independents are enabled in some cases to avoid certain of the overhead to which the co-operatives are subject, but in so doing, they take the benefits created by their fellow growers without contributing to the cost; and in many cases by their unregulated marketing seriously disorganize the market for both parties. Like some

fungus they sap the strength of the tree which shelters them.
Another most interesting comment by this independent commissioner is the following:
The British Columbia producers' goods come into the market after the various crops of the different southern producers have successively appeared. By that time the "cream" has been taken off the market, and consequently the British Columbia producer needs all the assistance he can get. His market moreover is what has been called a "pocket" market. It is limited to the three western provinces, for he is not in the position of being able to dispose of his goods north and south as can the producer on the American Pacific slope.
That view rather comes into conflict with the view I have heard more than once expressed 'by hon. members to my left, and something of the sort was mentioned not many days ago by the leader of the larger portion of that party (Mr. Forke). He rather gave it as his opinion, though not in so many words, that if British Columbia could not produce fruit and vegetables and market them in competition with the American producer Britisn Columbia had better quit. I am glad to notice that that expression of opinion, and other expressions of opinion that I have heard as I have moved about amongst hon. members to myj left, are not quite so destructive and caustic as they used to be, and I welcome the drawing together between British Columbia and the interests of the two provinces to the east.


Robert Forke: Three provinces.


Grote Stirling: Three provinces. There
are many matters in which the interests of British Columbia and the interests of these three prairie provinces are close.y intermingled, and certainly there is nothing that the fruit grower in British Columbia desires more than prosperity in these three provinces, as well as an increase in population. Supposing, through unfair action on the part of some government, protection were removed or so reduced as to cause- the fruit growing industry in British Columbia to die out-what would be the effect on Canada? Certainly there would be a depletion in that district; the taxes already borne on a certain number of shoulders in Canada would after that have to be borne by fewer shoulders; the wholesalers' trade in the interior of British Columbia would diminish considerably. And I can assure you that in the poor trade years we have recently passed through the wholesalers of Calgary and the coast cities have looked upon that trade of the interior as their most valuable asset. What would be the result? Consumers in western Canada would pay more for their apples. There would be no more dumping of American

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
fruit in the prairie provinces; there would be no competition to hold down the price that the Americans chose to ask for their fruit, they would ask just exactly what they liked, and the prairie consumer could just take it or leave it.
The report proceeds to explain these wonderful Nash interests which the commissioner was instructed to investigate, how they consist of 45 incorporated companies in Canada, in close affiliation with 84 incorporated companies south of the line. They were by way of being jobbers, and such a combination of jobbers would be a pretty substantial economic unit for any other trade interests to compete against; but it becomes a far more venomous creature to deal with when within that combine of jobbers there is set up a combine of brokers, because those brokers are then able to receive produce, peddle it out to their own friends, their own houses, charge their commissions and, as is shown, in many instances in the report, make unfair merchandising profits en ron \ There was one instance Where one manager told another manager that December had been a good month-they had cleared 830,000 in one district office. Imagine that,-$30,000! Supposing that were made up fa' broker's commissions, what an enormous quantity of fruit that would mean if it was handled in the one month of December!
I do not want to go further into the report at this stage. I commend its persual to every hon. member. In it he will find light and entertaining reading, he will find once more that fact is a good deal stranger than fiction; and if he takes any interest in the sports page of American newspapers he will be interested in the slang which these brigands use among themselves. But before leaving the report I want to draw attention to the final remark of the commissioner in part one, where he says:
There is evidence to the effect that the remedy for many of the undoubted evils of the present situation is the formation of a growers' selling agency for sale direct to the various jobbers.
I refer to that because I have heard it stated on more than one occasion that the formation of a Canadian fruit distributors' agency only means doing away with one combine and the substitution of another. That view, I think, is based on misinformation. What the fruit growers propose is that the co-operative associations all over Canada should come together and place their own brokers in the field. I need hardly explain that that does not constitute a combine injurious to the consumer, because between those brokers and the consumer stands the jobber. The desire of the fruit grower is rot to make commissions, it is 135
to effect the largest possible distribution of his fruit at such a price as the trade will stand. It is no good his boosting the price, because it will reduce the amount of fruit distributed to the consumer. And I would remind hon. members that the domestic market is of far more value to the British Columbia fruit grower than any of the export markets of the world.
The situation now is, I think that some time ago the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) went fishing; he has just landed his first fish; it is called a combine; now that it is wriggling on the bank; it is seen to be an injurious combine; it is of no use to the producer, it is harmful to the retailer, it is unfit for human consumption. But he has seated himself on the ground beside it and he believes that according to the terms of his license it is necessary for him to wait three months to see whether someone will come along and scotch his fish. In the meantime the fruit grower is desperately anxious lest this fish should flop back mto the water, and recommence -its depredations up and down the creek.


Mr. MURDOCK:: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman, is he in a position to give me his opinion, or the opinion of any legal gentleman of his party, that the federal government has, as a result of the passage of the Combines Investigation Act, any authority whatever to take the action that I am sure my hon. friend would' like to have taken and that he has a right to expect will be taken- can he give me the opinion of any hon. legal gentleman on his side of the House that we can go and do the thing th^t he wants done and that should be done?


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have not the Combines Investigation Act before me. I am strongly of the opinion that there is nothing whatever to prevent the federal government from proceeding along this line. But I would suggest that the hon. minister obtain the opinion of two of the legal lights of the ministry. I say the fruit grower is desperately afraid lest this evil thing should again get in his way. It is the more important that action be taken without delay because within the last three days I hear that the Associated Growers of British Columbia have taken the very strong step of forming their own brokerage offices in the three prairie provinces. Now, it is always a strong step to start out in a territory that has been hitherto served by a well established chain of offices. In this case it is a doubly strong step to take because this combine has not yet

The Budget-Mr. Stirling

been scotched. Whatever action the hon. minister may be considering taking, I appeal to him as strongly as I can in the name of the fruit growers to leave absolutely no stone unturned in stopping any further possibility of nefarious action on the part of these brigands.


James Murdock: You may be sure of
that so far as this department is concerned- within our rights and authority.


Grote Stirling: In this connection I want to read just one of the many resolutions which reach me in the mail daily, because opinion in the west is very much stirred up on the subject of this combine. I am quoting from the Penticton Herald of April 2:
The Penticton Co-operative Growers at their annual meeting passed the following resolution:
Whereas the fruit industry in the province is at the present time in a precarious condition to the extent that it is almost impossible for the grower to recover a living over the cost of production, and
Whereas the cause of this condition has been shown by the Duncan commission to be the result of vicious and unprincipled methods used by the Nash-Mutual interests in selling British Columbia products, and
Whereas Commissioner Duncan in his findings recommended among other things that in future jobber-owned brokerage houses be made illegal,
Therefore be it resolved that the Penticton Cooperative Growers, in annual meeting assembled, request the Dominion government to prosecute the Nash-Mutual interests with the purpose of securing restitution of moneys unlawfully deducted, and that the necessary steps be taken by the government to have the Dominion parliament at its present session enact legislation declaring jobber-brokerage houses to be illegal, and bringing into effect other recommendations made by Commissioner Duncan in the interests of producers.
I want to pass from that to a consideration of the dumping situation. The principle of protecting a country's products from the dumping into it of similar products from another country has been adopted in many parts of the world. Australia has it; New Zealand has it; South Africa has it; the United States has it, in a very violent form. Under the 1922 tariff act of the United States, if it can be shown to the president that importations are being made which may injure an American industry, the president may declare a duty; he may even forbid entry until an investigation has been made. The United States use that dumping clause. We read in the Ottawa Journal of March 28, the following despatch from Washington:
Anti-dumping provisions of the Tariff act were applied to-day by the treasury against the importation of pig iron from the province of Ontario.
They have no compunction about using it. Eighteen years ago-under the 1907 act- Canada adopted the well known anti-dumping clause. That clause has never been repealed nor amended. I want to touch
[Mr. Stirling. 1
on this matter shortly, because I am quite sure that there is a great deal of misunderstanding throughout the country, and even possibly in the minds of some hon. members of this House, with regard to the anti-dumiping situation. The one and only dumping clause in the act respecting the Customs Tariff provided that a duty could be charged amounting to the difference between the actual selling price and the fair market value with this proviso:
Provided that the said special duty shall not exceed fifteen per cent ad valorem in any case.
As the years went on and the western Canada boxed fruit crop increased in size it became quite evident that that clause was being evaded. Furthermore, there were several years when on account of a glut in the American market, their fruit was being sold at slashed prices and when it entered Canada at those same prices, with the fifteen per cent restriction still on the statute book, the antidumping provision was perfectly useless. So as a result of representations made 'by the fruit growers in 1921 the previous administration amended the valuation clause in the Customs act-they did not touch the anti-dumping clause in the Customs Tariff 1907-so as to enable the Minister of Customs to pay attention to the cost of production as well as to the fair market value. That clause was a good one and was made use of in that fruit and vegetable season. A change of administration took place, and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his budget speech of 1922 declared the government's intention to repeal the amendment to that clause in the Customs act. It was repealed, but owing to the consternation which that action caused among the fruit growers and the representations they made to the government, a couple of months later, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) proposed an amendment to the Customs act which introduced clause 47A. The gist of 47A is that if dumping is taking place the Minister of Customs may, if he chooses, report the matter to the Governor in Council and the Governor in Council may, if he chooses, authorize the Minister of Customs to value such goods for duty notwithstanding any other provision of the act. That did not entirely satisfy the fruit growers, but it was certainly looked upon as better than nothing. Two years ago the Minister of Customs took a trip through western Canada and I had the pleasure of accompanying him part of the time through the valleys'of the interior of British Columbia. He saw the conditions for himself; he appeared to appreciate the situation, and the fruit growers felt

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
satisfied when he left that he would do what he could to apply a remedy. However, toward the end of last year it began to be whispered about that all was not well with the dumping provision. When I reached Ottawa I placed six questions on the order paper. The first three referred to the amount of money which had been collected in duty, and the second three asked what claims, if any, had been made for rebate, the reasons for those claims, and the amounts. The only answer vouchsafed to me was a partial answer to questions one, two and three; I received no information with respect to the latter part of the question regarding rebate. I do not think that is to be wondered at, now that the Duncan report has come out because there are several paragraphs in that report which show that a rebate of the duty was granted if it was claimed. I want to read a few extracts from it, if I may. To begin with, I give the commissioner's opinion of the situation with regard to the dumping duty. He says:
It is a common trade practice for those whose home market is well organized to "dump" supplies abroad at prices below those obtaining on the home market. The Canadian fruit and vegetable growers, whose crop is later in maturing than that of southern growers, have long suffered from American fruit and vegetables being thrown on the Canadian market in this way. To the American exporter who has already taken a profit before the Canadian supply comes in, every additional dollar received means an addition to profits. The Canadian grower on the other hand, without government protection in the nature of a dumping duty, would be unable to exist in the face of organized American competition.
That is the view of the fruit commissioner after investigating the market conditions. Then he quotes the famous anti-dumping clause from the Customs Tariff 1902 and regulations relating thereto. I notice, however, that he makes no reference whatever to this government's valuation clause in the Customs act, clause 47A. He then proceeds to give instances of evasion of the dumping provisions, and we find that in some cases dumping was actually followed by rebate. Here is a telegram from the Mutual manager at Vancouver to the Nash supervisor:
Customs dumped us on car Walla Walla barb-
That means rhubafb grown in the state of Washington.
-which cost seventy-five cents. Are you paying dump duty? We protested wildly but had to pay.
The reply to that telegram, sent by the Nash supervisor, was as follows:
Bought barb seventy-five here but not hooked to date. Suggest send particulars your claim to A. E. Burns, secretary, Western Canada Fruit Jobbers, Winnipeg, for him to fight.
135i
Then follows a letter from the same gentleman to the Canadian manager of the Nash interests:
Dear Sirs:
__Regarding the dumping duty on barb, I am
suggesting to Snow that he forward all particulars of his claim to A. E. Burns, our secretary, Winnipeg, and I am satisfied if there is any chance Burns will be able to get Snow a refund. I wish you would just call Burns up on the phone and mention the fact that Vancouver got hooked on a car and that Snow is forwarding the papers,-
And so on.
Then the commissioner points out that on that date rhubarb was being dumped into Canada at 75 cents, while the Walla Walla market price was SI. The cost of production of the British Columbia rhubarb was 90 cents. He goes on:
It appears from the above that the price of the imported rhubarb was both below the Canadian cost of production and the fair market value as sold for American consumption. In such a case it is considered that it was the duty of the local customs officer at the port of entry to apply the dumping provisions of the Customs Act both at Vancouver and Calgary. It is not known whether the duty was imposed on Carruthers' car at Calgary or remitted on Snow's at Vancouver.
Then follows some correspondence between the Nash supervisor and the Mutual manager in Vancouver, as follows:
Dear Sir,-Mr. Simington advised that Mr. A. E. Burns, our secretary at Winnipeg, will be very pleased to handle your claim for dumping duties imposed on that car of barb, and when you forward him particulars, George, I suggest that you outline that you are exclusive selling agents for the Rhubarb Association, and at the time American barb was purchased there was none available in B.C.
Mr. Burns is a very competent secretary, and I hope that you will write him giving full particulars and asking him to handle your case.
So much for rhubarb. Now let us take a look at apples.
The Nash supervisor for Alberta and British Columbia sent a circular to all the Alberta houses, as follows:
I am advised that in nearly every instance where wholesalers have been compelled to pay dumping duty on apiples that Mr. A. E. Burns has applied for refund and obtained it. I do not know of a case in Alberta where it has been applied, but seems to me some houses during last season had it applied on peaches or some other commodities, and I am satisfied if you have not obtained a refund, if you will be good enough to use our secretary, Mr. Bums, sending all particulars to him, requesting him to fight the claim for you, I am sure that he will be successful.
We contribute yearly to our Association, and I believe we have a very competent secretary, and I hope that any house having a claim will give it immediate attention by following instructions suggested above.
Then we have an instance of the dumping having been withdrawn. This is from the
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

Nash Canadian manager to the Nash supervisor:
Dear Sir,-I think some of our houses are importing American apples, and we are compelled to pay a dumping duty.
I learn from Bums to-day that he has secured a refund of the dumping duty paid by P. Bums & Company and the Macdonald-Crawford.
If there are any sales in your district with our interests, you had better have them submit claims for refund to Bums to handle.
The reply to that was:
Dear Sir,-Any of the Saskatchewan houses who paid dumping duty on American apples placed claim for refund. They have been notified by the local customs appraiser that their claims will be paid.
The commissioner proceeds:
On April 30, 1924, Mr. A. E. Burns of the Western Canada Fruit Jobbers Association, wrote the Customs and Excise Department at Ottawa, demanding remission of Dumping Duty on certain apples bought from the Yakima Fruit Growers' Association, Washington, at 80 cents f.o.b. It will be noted that Mr. Burns states in his letter that "at the time the dumping duty was applied there were no apples in stock." It is not known what is meant by this statement, for the official published figures of the Fruit Branch, Ottawa, show the following quantities of apples in storage at the points and on the dates mentioned:
Then follow the amounts: Added together, 240,000 boxes in Regina and1 British Columbia at the end of January, 1924; 141,000 boxes at the middle of February, 1924; and 99,000 boxes at the end of February. The commissioner proceeds:
The letter from Mr. Burns is as follows:
The Customs and Excise Department,
Ottawa, Ont.
Attention Mr. Watson
Dear Sirs,-I was in Regina and Moosejaw last week and found that dumping duty had been applied on cars of apples coming into that district on February 13 and 14, some to P. Burns' Co., Ltd., others to Macdonald-Consolidated.
At the time the dumping duty was applied there were no apples in stock. Macdonald-Consolidated stated they were out of this commodity for 12 days. P. Burns & Co. had only one variety and they were splitting them up with the other four jobbers.
The application of dumping duty on shipments in such times is only unadulterated gall on the part of some official who	evidently	must	have	known	theexisting conditions	m these	two points,	and if he
had made any inquiries, he would have known that the dump was unjustified.
The above jobbers are asking for a rebate and I would be glad to hear from you at once if you are going to grant same. Otherwise we will have to circularize every member of parliament and bring this unjust application of the dumping duty to a show-down.
I attach a memo	from P.	Burns	& Co.	which	youmight read and let	me know	if, in	your opinion,	this
assessment was justified.
The commissioner proceeds:
This somewhat hectoring letter of Mr. Burns was replied to by Mr. J. A. Watson, of the Customs department, on May 7, to the effect that the col-

lector of customs at Moosejaw was instructed that he might certify to refund claims of dumping duty paid on importations of apples if entered since the first of February last, and that the collector of customs at Regina would receive like instructions. It is evident that if the customs authorities acted on the assumption that there had been no British Columbia apples available since February 1, 1924, they did so without consultation with the Department of Agriculture, which had accurate information on the situation.
It appears further that early in 1924, Mr. Burns reached an understanding with Mr. T. W. Mouat, special officer, Customs department, Nelson, B.C., that the dumping duty would not be applied after March 1,	1924. What wras the information in the
possession of Mr. Mouat as to the apple situation at the time does not appear. It is evident that Mr. Mouat's information was not of the best, for on February 29, 1924, Mr. A. E. Burns circularized all members of the Western Canada Fruit Jobbers' Association as follows:
Winnipeg, February 29, 1924.
Re Dumping Duty:
The understanding with Mr. Mouat was that after March 1, the Dumping Act would not be applied The dump has not been applied to Winnipeg cars but from Regina west. Mr. Mouat intimated he was convinced B.C. apples would not stand the haul to Winnipeg, but this is wrong as a few more days transit would not count.
I am not surprised that the questions I have put on the order paper were not answered, because I can see in every case investigated where the dumping duty was applied a rebate was granted. I cannot help wondering why the duty was rebated. There must have been some reason. After the visit of the Minister of Customs to the fruit growers in British Columbia, it was understood that the government would make use of that clause, a clause they considered better than the clause of the previous administration, and yet something must have been wrong with the clause. I began to wonder whether it was possible that no action under that clause had ever been taken at all, and I made some inquiries, and I found that no order in council relating to Clause 47A had ever been issued. So the situation may perhaps have been this: Certain officials of the Customs department perfectly rightly, collected the dumping duty, but when it became evident that shippers had claimed a rebate of this dumping duty, the government must surely have considered they were not on very safe ground, for if the matter was taken into court, not having the clause in the act behind them, they would be caught napping and would get into very considerable trouble. I cannot help thinking that may have been the reason for the wholesale rebates granted of the dumping duty. It is quite incredible to me that the blame can be laid on the permanent officials of the department; they could not have taken such action as that which I have read from the

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
report without the instructions of somebody superior to them. When the budget proposals were brought down this session it was proposed by the Acting Minister of Finance to amend the old anti-dumping clause in the Customs Tariff 1907 which has never been touched yet. We do not know the reasons of the Acting Minister of Finance for that suggestion, and I myself was unable to find out what the new wording meant. It came as rather a shock to the House, and a shock to the fruit growers in the west, when six days later the minister announced the withdrawal of the proposed amendment. His explanation for taking that step was rather a curious one. He said:
In the presentation of the budget I gave notice of a certain resolution to amend the dumping clauses. Since that time I have had further consultation with the officers of the department and have reached the conclusion that the dumping clauses as now incorporated in our act are considered sufficient to properly determine the value for duty purposes. Consequently I take this opportunity of advising hon. members that when we reach the committee stage I shall withdraw that resolution.
Does that really mean that the reason for withdrawing the proposed amendment was that the officials of the Customs department had not previously given their opinion on it, and consequently it was withdrawn? I can hardly believe that was the only reason. I am inclined to think th'at certain pressure must have been brought to bear upon the government just about that time and. having rather flouted certain interests in the west with regard to the budget proposals, it now thought it advisable to just concede something, and the proposed amendment was therefore dropped.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, when the
House rose at six o'clock I had very nearly completed the remarks which I wish to make respecting the fruit industry. There are, however, two things to which I wish to refer. I spoke of the small protection under which the fruit industry had been organized and had carried on to the considerable success which it has attained in British Columbia. I said "small" advisedly, for if you will examine the return which the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau) recently brought down, you will find that the average percentage of duty on all exports, both dutiable and free, which came into Canada, in the
last five years amounted to 16.03 per cent. The similar figure for the last five years on apples, which constitute the largest bulk of the fruit produced in British Columbia, is but 12.4 per cent, 20 per cent less than the average duty protecting the industries of Canada when compared with the quantity which is brought in both dutiable and free. That, I consider, at the present time is adequate protection, and I do not think anybody could call it a high protection. I wish also to reiterate what I referred to before, and that is the satisfaction which I feel in recognizing a less harsh view adopted by hon. members on my left towards the fruit industry of British Columbia. They have been proceeding along co-operative lines. So have we. What we desire now is to see a greater measure of co-operation between British Columbia and the three neighbouring provinces. Why do I not hear hon. members on my left requesting the government to take action to clean up these filthy trade habits in the handling of fruit in our domestic market? The interests of the producer and the consumer in this matter are one. Why should I want to receive forty cents a box for my apples and the consumer in the prairie provinces pay three or four dollars a box? That is not to my interest, and I appeal to hon. members to my left to assist in this matter, to help us to clean up this disgraceful state of affairs in the three prairie provinces. I take it that they desire, as all true Canadians do, a movement towards the development of Canada for Canada's sake. That applies to the Canadian-born as it also applies to people like myself who are endeavouring, in however small a way, to do something for the country of their adoption. What we wish is that Canadian industries which are planted in this country should develop and continue and supply the needs of Canada.
I am glad to notice the removal of an anomaly under the sales tax. F'or several years past nursery stock has been on the exempted list under the sales tax; but by a curious decision by some official of the Department of Customs and Excise, tomato plants were considered to be something on which sales tax should be charged. A tomato plant has no value of itself, it has only a potential value. It is not until it is planted out in the same way that a rose-cutting is planted out that it has any value whatever. I see- by the proposals of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that this anomaly has been removed. But there is another piece of discrimination under the sales tax to which my predecessor drew attention in this House in
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

his speech on the Address, and that is the discrimination which exists in the printing trade. A printing office which does a business amounting to $10,000 and over has to pay sales tax; those doing a business under $10,000 are exempted. Possibly following upon those remarks, the Acting Minister of Finance last year spoke thus in his speech upon the budget:
For the better protection of the revenue the sections referring to manufacturers doing business under $10,000 per year will be repealed. Removal of the $10,000 limit in connection with small manufacturing concerns will do away with difficulties in administering the act.
That sounded very good to the printer; but I was asked to look into the matter as there seemed to be some hitch, and on making inquiries in the Department of Customs and Excise, I found that although that regulation came into force on the first July, it appeared to apply to perhaps every industry except printing, for under the authority of section 19 BBB, subsection 6 of the Special War Revenue Act, publishers or job printers, who manufacture or produce job printed matter to the value of less than $10,009 per annum, and who sell the job printing exclusively to users, are exempt from the consumption or sales tax on their sales as from the 1st July, 1924. I do not know why the Acting Minister of Finance spoke as he did and then acted as he did. I do not know what difficulty arose which made it necessary to reinstate this discrimination. But I would suggest to him that he consider the possibility of exempting the larger printing offices up to an amount of business of $10,000. That would remove the discrimination, and in any town where there was a large business and a small business, it would not be possible for the small man to advertise: Come to So-and-So and save sales tax, for both would be on equal footing.
I suppose, if you were to ask pretty nearly every person in Canada what this country needs most to-day, the answer would be:	A reduction in taxation.
Such reduction can only be brought about by public economy. What does the ordinary sane private man do when he strikes a bad patch? He jots down the necessary expenditures he must meet and then graduates up the scale towards the luxuries, cutting them harshly. Perhaps he allows himself a certain amount of recreation, perhaps he allows himself a car; but he carries out as drastic a cut as he is able to do and yet maintain himself and his family. Why should not a similar state of things exist in national life? I do not think that anybody can suggest that real economies have been effected by this
[Mr Stirling.!
government. For instance, a year ago it was brought to their attention that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment bad finished its day of usefulness; and how much more is that the case to-day? I want to draw the attention of the House- to a few figures I have taken from the Auditor General's report. The expenditures in the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment department during the following years were:
Year	Amount
1920		$47,198,718
1921		 36,272,216
1922		 17,818,646
1923		 13,375,134
1924		 10,230,149
To show my point I shall divide these amounts into -the payments to and on behalf of the soldiers in one category and all the other expenditures, including salaries and administrative charges, in the other. I shall leave out the decimals.
To the	Cost o>f
returned soldiers administration
Year	percent	percent1920	
56	441921	
45	551922	
39	611923	
32	681924	
29	71
I do not suggest for one moment that any single expenditure for the benefit of the returned soldiers or on their behalf should be stopped, but I do suggest that there is no warrant in -that for maintaining a department for the benefit of -a minister, however debonair he may be, and for the officials under his charge. Nor do I consider that it should be necessary for anyone outside the government to draw attention to so obvious a saving which could be effected by the closing-up of that department and the carrying-on of the work that is left by another department of government.
Before I resume my seat I want to place on record an incident which happened in the by-election campaign in Yale. The incident to which I refer took place in Penticton. We had welcomed in our midst the genial Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay); he is always welcome. I presume he was enjoying a well-earned vacation, for I cannot imagine that the duties of his department could have kept him in one portion of one district of -one province for so long a time. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his retinue had passed down through the constituency of Yale, and one of the ministers with him had spoken on every occasion -of the beautiful eyes of the ladies, while the Prime Minister himself delighted several enthusiastic audiences

The Budget-Mr. Kyte
by this eloquence. He had appealed to the electors in the name of chivalry and decency and fair play to return a government supporter, explaining to them how much easier it would be for such an one to obtain the ear of his ministers. I may say in passing that with one exception I have had no difficulty whatever in obtaining the ear of the right hon. gentleman's ministers, and in that one case it was probably that the particular minister was so extremely busy that I was unable at the times I tried to get in- contact with him. My opponent's agent had made his headquarters in the hotel in Penticton and had displayed a very considerable amount of hospitality, which I think had been appreciated. Three or four days before polling, the Liberal organizer in the west-that I think is his title-Mr. Turgeon, called on the president of the Penticton Board of Trade and said something like this: "Mr. Boyle, I want to obtain the support of the Board of Trade of Penticton and I assure you that if Penticton will give a majority for the government candidate I will pledge myself, on behalf of the Liberal party, to the building of a post office in Penticton," Mr. Boyle, who is a Conservative, asked what he could do and Mr. Turgeon replied, "I am not appealing to you as an individual but as President of the Board of Trade. Call your executive together and put my proposition before them." Mr. Boyle called together his executive, who also were all Conservatives, and he solemnly placed this suggestion before them. Penticton was good enough to give me a majority; Penticton did not get a post office. I place this incident on record in duty to the electors of Yale, because messy dirtinesses of this description are repugnant to a very great majority of those electors. Their desire is that the decencies of private life should enter into and dominate the public life of this country.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Cape Breton South and Richmond):: In discussing the subjects suggested by the budget and the speeches made in this debate, I desire to touch briefly upon a reference made to me by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Harris) in his address yesterday afternoon. In speaking of the proposal of the government to form a tariff board the hon. gentleman pointed out that in 1912 the government then in office also had a proposition before parliament to create a tariff board and he added that certain members now in the House of Commons supporting the present government and who were then in opposition had voted against that resolution. He proceeded to charge those members, including myself, with inconsistency if we dared support the proposal of this government. Mr. Speaker,
I desire to say that his statement as to my having opposed the proposition of the government in 1912 to establish a tariff board is perfectly correct. I opposed it on the ground that the high protectionist government then in office ought not to be entrusted with the creation of a tariff board. The hon. member for East York could have found the reasons why I and other members sitting on this side of the House voted against that proposition. He would also find that the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) -who now sits with him-spoke and voted against it for the same reason.
And why did I not have confidence in a tariff board established by the government then in office? Because, only three weeks after that government came into power, by a new interpretation which they arbitrarily placed upon a certain clause in the customs tariff they removed from the free list an article that had been in use by the fishermen of the Maritime provinces for some twelve years and put it in the class of dutiable articles subject to a duty of 25 per cent. I refer to barked marline. In 1898, after the Liberal party came into office, in the course of revising the tariff they placed certain articles upon the free list, included among them being nets, twines, ropes and barked marline. Our fishermen enjoyed that privilege, as I say, from 1898 to 1912 when the new Minister of Customs under the Conservative government, owing to influences being brought to bear by the manufactures of cordage, made this arbitrary ruling a few weeks after he came into office, thus depriving our fishermen of the privilege of buying at a cheaper rate this article which they required in the carrying on of their business.
But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the only case. Rough lumber was also admitted under the free list from 1898 onwards, being enumerated as sawn lumber, while manufactured lumber was in the class of lumber having one side planed or "edged" as it is called. The lumber dealers in western Canada came to Ottawa at about the same time as the manufacturers of cordage came, and they pointed out to the new Minister of Customs that this rough lumber ought not to be admitted free any longer, that while the edges of the boards were not planed they were sawn with so fine a saw as to amount almost to being planed, and therefore should be subjected to a duty of $2 per thousand feet; whereupon that duty was imposed. The purchasers of that class of lumber, I think it was in the province of
The Budget-Mr. Kyte

Manitoba, took the matter into court. What the decision was I do not know as I was not any longer interested. That, Mr. Speaker, is the reason why I did not feel that I ought to vote for any legislation entrusting the government of that day with the appointment of a tariff board whose interest it would be to see that the tariff was kept up rather than down. Mr. Ames, then the member for St. Antoine, in a speech he delivered at the time, very frankly admitted that the result of the appointment of a tariff board might be that the consumers would be compelled to pay more for certain articles than they were then paying.
Now, the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) rather ironically referred to the condition of the Liberal party in respect of unanimity. He pointed out that there were grave divisions of opinion in the ranks of the members sitting on this side of the House, that some are free traders, some are high protectionists, and others are moderate tariff men, and that taking them all in all they represented a great medley of opinion. Well, we always find the maximum of unanimity in the minimum of numbers; and inasmuch as the hon. gentleman places so much value upon the virtue of unanimity, he has the consolation of knowing that just in the proportion that the Conservative group in this House continues to decrease in numbers so it will increase in unanimity.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: It is the only group that has increased since the last election.


George William Kyte: They have increased by retrogression.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The percentage was high, too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They did not increase in West Hastings.


Mr. MARTELL:: It takes an Irishman to answer an Irishman.


Arthur Meighen: It was not very well
done, though.


George William Kyte: I think it is very fortunate for the consumers of this country that the proposition for the establishment of a tariff board' comes from a Liberal government whose ideal is protection-for we know that some burdens from the shoulders of the taxpayers. Supposing our Conservative friends were in office, and supposing such a proposal were submitted to a caucus of the party whose ideal is protection-for we know that sometime ago the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighem) issued a manifesto in

which he set forth the desirability of more protection-and supposing further that in his party there was that unanimity of opinion which the member for Fort William and Rainy River boasted of, what chance would there be of any low tariff men being appointed upon the tariff board? The.government would be unanimously of the view that protection was the only thing for Canada, the more protection the 'better, and therefore they would see to it that those in favour of lower tariffs were not appointed. But under present conditions, if it be true, as the hon. gentleman said, that we have free traders in our party, high tariff men, and low tariff men, when the proposition is submitted to a caucus all1 those views will be expressed and represented, and that caucus will more nearly arrive at a proper conclusion as to what is best for Canada than would a caucus of our hon. friends opposite.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Might I ask my hon. friend if he is arguing that his government are going to be a party to a low tariff commission rather than a commission that will judge tariff questions on their merits?


George William Kyte: I thought I was speaking loud enough for the hon. gentleman to hear me, but apparently my command of language is inadequate to enable him to understand me.


Donald Sutherland: Am I to infer that it is the intention of the government to appoint a free trade tariff commission to deal with tariff questions?


George William Kyte: I am not accountable for what the hon. gentleman understands.


Donald Sutherland: That is what I understand.


George William Kyte: If I were I would have a very much greater job on my hands than I have at the present moment. I did not suggest that the appointments to the tariff board would be dictated by the free traders in the party any more than that it would be dictated by the high protectionists-if there be any. It would be appointed1 with a view to promoting the best interests of all the people of Canada.
The presentation of the budget, Mr. Speaker, is always a milestone in the financial and business history of this country. The present budget also represents a milestone in the distance that we are getting away from the sad period of 1914 to 1918. The presentation of the budget by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has been received with great favour all over Canada. A year ago

The Budget-Mr. Kyte
a great deal of pessimism was expressed by hon. gentlemen immediately opposite, as well as by their press, with regard to the dire fate that was to overtake various manufacturing interests in this country as a result of the fiscal proposals of the government. I do not propose, however, to discuss the budget in its application to the whole of- Canada; my observations will be confined more particularly to the condition existing in Nova Scotia, a province of which I am one of the representatives. Things have not been going well in Nova Scotia, I regret to say, for some time.


Donald Sutherland: Or anywhere else.


George William Kyte: Oh, yes; there are places in Ontario where factories are working overtime and on double shifts.


Donald Sutherland: Where are they?


George William Kyte: Unfortunately, however, it is not so in Nova Scotia.


Mr. SPENCE:: You ought to live in Ontario and find out.


George William Kyte: Thank heaven I am living
where I am.


David Spence: Well, we are glad you are.


George William Kyte: The grievances of Nova Scotia extend as far back as confederation. It is well known to students of the political history of this country that Nova Scotia did not take kindly to the confederation idea. After the leaders of political opinion in the great central provinces of Ontario and Quebec had come to the conclusion that stable government could not be continued under the conditions then existing, it was decided to bring about the union of those two provinces, and subsequently the idea was enlarged to include all the Maritime provinces. Following the conferences at Charlottetown and Quebec, called for the purpose of discussing the union of these provinces, it was decided that the Maritime provinces would be included. A campaign was carried on in Nova Scotia and great promises were made as to the advantages that would accrue to the province if it came into the union. The people of Nova Scotia, however, were not friendly to the idea. In the general election of 1867, which was known as confederation election, only one member was returned from Nova Scotia who was a supporter of confederation, namely, Sir Charles Tupper; every other representative from that province was opposed to it. And confederation has not worked out any better than was anticipated by the people of Nova Scotia at that time.
The second grievance that they have in Nova Scotia is the grievance in respect of the protectionist policy of the Conservative government from 1878 to 1896. The National Policy, which was expected to do great things in the development of manufacturing industries in Canada, had no place in Nova Scotia as regards the fulfilment of the promises that were made. Nova Scotia had its natural market in the United States, a market which has never been supplanted in any of the provinces of the confederation. The products of Nova Scotia are not purchased by the central provinces of Canada, but the people of Nova Scotia are compelled to purchase the manufactured products of Ontario and Quebec. The trade appears to be all going one way; the people of central Canada are sending their manufactured goods to Nova Scotia and are taking nothing but money in return.
Now, let us see how the National Policy worked out during the first ten years that it was in existence. In 1878 the Conservative party came into office on that policy, and .the first census that was taken after that, embracing a ten-year period, was in 1891. If protection had worked out so advantageously to the people of Canada; if it had established a large number of factories and increased the amount of employment in those provinces, that would have been shown in the census returns. Rut so well was it known by the government of the day that the National Policy was a failure in these respects that instructions were sent out to the census enumerators and census commissioners in the various parts of Canada to make every effort to swell the number of manufacturing industries throughout the country. It is known that down in Nova Scotia an aged grandmother, knitting with feeble fingers by the family fireside, was set down in the census returns as a knitting factory. The woman who endeavoured to increase the family budget by taking in sewing was included in the list of proprietors of industrial establishments. A man who burned one kiln of lime for the purposes of fertilizing his own farm was set down as a manufacturer. If the National-Policy has been a success, would it have been necessary to resort to this expedient of bringing about an apparent increase in the number of manufacturing establishments?
Down in Nova Scotia before the National Policy came into effect we had a considerable number of industries. In the town of New Glasgow, in the county of Pictou, there was a very prosperous glass factory which had operated for some years. The.result of the
The Budget

Mr. Kyte

National Policy was to bring about the creation of a combine in respect of the manufacture of glass in Canada; this combine purchased the factory in New Glasgow and closed it down, and the doors have never been opened since. Before 1878 there was a large and prosperous business in the county of Pictou known as the Logan Cannery, which had carried on very successfully. It had paid dividends to its shareholders, for whom it proved to be a very profitable investment. But in 1885, five years after the National Folicy got into full swing, it had to close its doors. It went into bankruptcy and took down with it in the crash the Pictou Bank, which had been a most useful and valuable financial institution in that part of Nova Scotia. There were, prior to the date which I mention, very prosperous industrial establishments of different kinds throughout Nova Scotia. In nearly every village and hamlet there was a thriving tannery, employing a few men, manufacturing leather which was sold in the markets at a profitable price. Within five or six years, or ten years at most, every one of these tanneries had closed down and no tannery is to be found in the province of Nova Scotia to-day from one end of it to the other. That is how the National Policy operated in the province of Nova Scotia, and it is not to be wondered at that the feeling in favour of protection in that province is not very strong.


Donald Sutherland: Will my hon. friend explain how the National Policy affected the tanneries? Hides are on the free list; there is no tariff against them.


George William Kyte: It created a combine, which
squeezed the life blood out of every small tannery in Nova Scotia. Of course the hon. gentleman knows that, but he wants to hear me tell it to the House.


Donald Sutherland: How could there
be a combine under the free trade which the tanneries had in regard to hides?


George William Kyte: We did not have free trade;
we had high protection at that time. As I stated a few moments ago, they squeezed the life blood out of every tannery and no others have arisen out of the ashes since.


Donald Sutherland: There is no tariff
on hides.


George William Kyte: No tariff on hides, but the
capital that was invested in the tanneries in those days was lost and no one has since had courage enough to invest his money in another enterprise of that kind, lest the blighting in-

fluence of protection should once more overtake them.


Donald Sutherland: Was it not the need of a tariff that was the cause of all those conditions?


George Perry Graham: But what about leather?


George William Kyte: There is only one kind of
leather the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is interested in, and that is pigskin.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman
opposing the protection of coal brought down in this budget?


George William Kyte: My right 'hon. friend will hear from me on coal if he waits for a few moments. That is what I am here for.


George Perry Graham: They are getting nervous, George.


George William Kyte: It contributes to the gaiety of the evening. Mr. Speaker, during the time the late government was in office, from 1911 to 1921, they appear to have put the soft pedal on .protection. From time to time there were statements made by responsible members of that government to the effect that the time had1 come for a revision of the tariff, and the suggestion wsas never made that the revision was to be upwards; it was aJlways to be downwards. Well, in 1920, when the present member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was Finance Minister, in the debate upon the budget the right hon. leader of the opposition spoke these words:
So I aay we cannot have any immoderate or high tariff for the reason, first, that it tends to exclude that healthy element of fair conditions, namely, foreign competition.
I think it was the hon. member for West York, speaking on the budget the other day, who deplored the fact that we were getting goods from foreign countries. He said there were $700,000,000 of goods being brought in here from foreign countries that ought to be excluded; but his leader in 1920 says, "You cannot have a high tariff because it tends to exclude that healthy element of fair conditions, namely foreign competition."


Arthur Meighen: Who asks now for a prohibitory tariff?


George William Kyte: The hon. member for West York did in his speech on the budget.


Mr. McMASTER:: Mr. Speaker, we are
losing in this corner of the chamber the benefit of these gems of interjection. If the hon. gentleman would kindly speak louder-

The Budget-Mr. Kyte


Arthur Meighen: I apologize, for if the
hon. member is losing those, he is getting nothing else.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask that there
be no interruptions without the consent of the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


George William Kyte: I shall have to begin this
paragraph all over again:
So I say we cannot have any immoderate or high tariff for the reason, first, that it tends to exclude that healthy element of fair conditions, namely, foreign competition. Secondly, we have in Canada a territory of wide extent. We have a portion of Canada newer than the other portion, a more predominatingly agricultural country, newer to manufacturers and agricultural development, and consequently the advantages of tariff do not accrue as yet.
The right hon. gentleman having regard to the election that was coming on kept his eye upon the prairie west. He went on:
Upon account of these two reasons we must always have in this country nothing more than a moderate tariff under any conditions whatsoever. That will be the purpose of the revision under the principles clearly set out and enumerated by the Minister of Finance to which we adhere. On that policy I appeal to hon. gentlemen who have something great or small at stake in this Dominion, yes, I appeal to citizens, men and women, who have nothing of this world's goods at stake, whose only concern is the well being of their native land.
Not a word about high protection there, but just a moderate tariff. The hon. member for West York, then Minister of Finance, spoke as follows:
Our policy calls for a thorough revision of the tariff with a view to the adoption of such reasonable measures as are necessary to assist in providing adequate revenue, to stabilize legitimate industries and to encourage the establishment of new industries essential to the proper economic development of the nation, to develop to the fullest extent our natural resources, to specially promote and increase trade with the Mother Country and sister dominions, to prevent the abuse of the tariff for the exploitation of the consumer. As a means of raising revenue the tariff should be so adjusted as to place the chief burden on those best able to bear it. Articles of luxury should be heavily taxed through the imposition of customs and excise rates.
Real Liberal doctrine, which he forgot after.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Oh no.


George William Kyte: He went on:
Food commodities and other necessaries of life, not produced or manufactured in Canada, should, if taxed at all, bear, only such imposts as are necessary for revenue purposes.
Tariff for revenue, you will observe:
Those produced in Canada should be subjected to such customs duties only as may be necessary in the general national interest to be determined after strict investigation from time to time.
Well, on the 5th of June, 1919, Sir Thomas White, then Minister of Finance, speaking on
the budget, made a promise of a general revision of the tariff, and a statement citing this promise was issued by the government on December 15, and quoted with approval by the member for West York in the speech just referred to. Then in the speech placed in the hands of His Excellency at the opening of parliament on the 14th of February, 1921, this paragraph is to be found:
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the customs tariff. In order to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry, and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province. The hearings necessary for this purpose have now been completed, and the conclusions founded thereon will be submitted to you in due course.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I looked very carefully for the changes in the tariff which were brought down, by tlhe hon. gentleman at the same session in whidh that speech was read by His Excellency the Governor General, and these are the changes that I find:
Changes implementing the trade pact with the West India islands, which had been ratified by both Houses and assented to.
Changes with a view to securing a more efficient carrying out of the provisions of the dumping provisions.
A further change having) regard to, the valuation of goods imported frond .foreign countries whose currencies have greatly depreciated.
Mr. Speaker, after their boasted intention to revise the tariff, and after the expense of a tariff commission going throughout this country, the hon. member for West York, like another valiant general of whom we read in history, simply marched his army up the hill and marched them down again. The Tariff Commission of the late government in 1920 was an experiment in what is known as belling the tariff cat. The up-to-date version of a well-known household fable would run somewhat as follows: The race of hard working, industrious mice had suffered much from the depredations of the tariff cat. The cat would move secretly. It would pounce upon them and carry off their sustenance unawares. It wasn't fair. The mice resolved to consider their case. They called a meeting of the cabinet, they complained of their lot, and they abused the cat. Something had to be done; but what? Then a young mouse thought of a plan, "Let us reduce the tariff, or in other words, tie a bell on the cat. The bell will ring. It will give warning of the cat's approach. This will enable us to escape." All the mice squeaked "Hurrah!" But one mouse that had grown old during many years of nesting and dozing in the
2116	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Kyte
various departments of the government objected. He asked this question, "Which of us will tie the bell on the cat?" That was a poser. The council meeting broke up. They all ran away, and nothing was done.
We hear a good deal about the business failures that resulted from the Robb tariff of 1924-that is, we hear a good deal from our Conservative friends. We do not hear very much from any person else. We do not hear anything from the financial magnates of this country charging the Robb budget with having resulted in any such disaster. I have a particular knowledge of one manufacturing concern in eastern Nova Scotia and it might be well, perhaps, for me to give a little of it to this House. There is a fertilizer plant situated in the province of Nova Scotia which enjoyed, up to a year ago, a duty of 5 per cent. When the Robb budget was before parliament in 1924, the general manager of that plant came to me and said "If this tariff goes into force and the 5 per cent protection which we have enjoyed is to be taken away, we will be obliged to close our plant." "But," I said "your plant was closed two years ago. Surely you do not claim that the closing of your plant two years ago is the result of the Robb budget which is only now before the House of Commons." He said, "It is true we closed our plant two years ago in order to get rid of our surplus products." I asked him why it was they had such a large quantity of surplus products on hand. He said "We had to compete with fertilizer manufactured in Belgium and shipped to this country." I asked him if it were possible that fertilizer could be manufactured in Belgium, shipped across the Atlantic ocean, put upon cars and distributed in eastern Canada at a rate cheaper than they could manufacture it in the province of Nova Scotia. "Well," he said, "you know it is this way. When we decided to establish our plant in Nova Scotia the British Empire Steel Corporation were manufacturing their steel by the open hearth process, the dlag which is produced by that process being higher in phosphoric content than the other. After we had established our plant a few years the British Empire Steel Corporation changed their mode of manufacture from the open hearth to the Bessemer process. The result was that their slag did not have the necessary quantity of phosphoric acid in it, and it was necessary to import that element from the United States to supply the deficiency." I said "Quite possibly you failed to supply enough of the deficiency, and your fertilizer has not been as successful as it otherwise might be." I 
then asked him "If you had known that the British Empire Steel Corporation intended to change its method of manufacturing from the open hearth furnace to the Bessemer would you have established your plant there?" He said "No, we would not have established our plant there because it would not have paid us to do so." Then I said "You have made a mistake, you have made a wrong guess, and you want the farmers of the Maritime provinces to pay for your mistake by an increased tariff to supply the profits in respect to the investment which you have made." As a general principle I am not opposed to a reasonable duty but when the tariff is employed-


Lewis Herbert Martell: I ask my hon. friend
this question, not for the purpose of interrupting but in order to get information: When the duty was taken off fertilizer was it not also removed from certain materials that enter into the manufacture of fertilizer? In my constituency there is one of the biggest fertilizer plants in Nova Scotia, and at the time of the proposed tariff change they feared all sorts of dire effects; but these effects have not come to pass. My hon. friend is right, the Robb budget of 1924 was in the interest of the farmers and consumers and that cannot be denied.


George William Kyte: That is perfectly true and I
wish to add this statement: In addition to the fertilizer plant which that concern has in Nova Scotia it established a plant in the town of Welland, in the province of Ontario, a few years ago and within the last three weeks I was told that they have already booked more orders for the sale of their fertilizer in the present year than they booked in the whole of last year, showing that the Robb budget has not in any way affected their undertaking except, if anything, to increase the sales.
As I said a moment ago I do not object to a tariff which-


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman give the name of the concern he spoke of?


George William Kyte: I have no objection in the
world. The Cross Fertilizer Company is the name it goes by in Nova Scotia, and I presume it is known by that name in Ontario. I have the statement of a gentleman who told me that they had already placed more orders this year than were placed in 1924. I was proceeding to say that on general principles I am not opposed to a certain amount of protection-

The Budget-Mr. Kyte


Donald Sutherland: On coal.


George William Kyte: If the gentleman is getting
cold I will warm him up before long. I was proceeding to say when the interruption of my hon. friend from South Oxford caime across the floor, that I am in favour of a moderate tariff; that I believe in free trade as a beautiful and picturesque theory but that in point of realization I have it bracketed with the millennium. I stated a moment ago that our friends opposite always endeavour to make it appear that any dulness in trade, or what they call hard times, is due entirely to the tariff. I have here a statement which was issued by the Royal Bank of Canada on January 8, 1925, and from it I read the following:
While the year 1924 was in general one of poor business for Canada it cannot be regarded as an entirely unsatisfactory period in our business history since the foundation for a real and substantial improvement in Canadian trade was laid during the twelve months in question. The development referred to took place in the wheat market. This is the commodity which has been responsible for business depression in Canada for years past.
Our friends opposite say that the business depression is due to the Robb tariff but the Royal Bank says it is due to the price of wheat. The statement also declares:
Most of our other leading natural industries have not been in at all a bad position. While the demand for lumber fell off during 1924, it could not be said that the lumber trade wa3 in a state of acute depression.
I Wonder, Mr. Speaker, which authority the people of Canada will be more likely to accept; the authority of great financial institutions like the Royal Bank of Canada which says our depression was due entirely to the price of wheat, or the authority of hon. friends opposite who are out of office and trying to get in.


Joseph Henry Harris: Give the people a chance.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me?


George William Kyte: I will with pleasure.


Arthur Meighen: No part of the report the hon. gentleman read said anything of the kind.


George William Kyte: Said anything of what?


Arthur Meighen: That the depression was entirely due to the price of wheat. Let the hon. gentleman read the report through.


George William Kyte: I will read it again:
'Ibis is the commodity which has been responsible for business depression in Canada for years past.
What does my right hon. friend object to?


Arthur Meighen: What I say is that the Royal Bank report made no such statement as that the depression in Canada was wholly due to the price of wheat; it said quite the contrary.


Mr. JACOBS:: The hon. gentleman read the report.


Arthur Meighen: I have read the report and I know what it says.


George William Kyte: My right hon. friend is at his old tricks, and I am not unaccustomed to them either. Wherever we take up financial papers, wherever we read interviews by men who are authorities in finance we get from them the same impression: that 9 p.m. times are getting better, that money is easier, that prosperity is again coming back to Canada-that prosperity which fled from Canada during the time the right hon. gentleman and his friends were in office. The right hon. gentleman's proclamation in favour of more protection is a very courageous action on his part in view of the fact that high protection never yet won a victory in the Dominion of Canada. In 1878 Sir John A. Macdonald was very careful to say that his policy was not to increase but merely to readjust the tariff. He made that statement in the House of Commons and he repeated it during the election of 1878. In 1882, they had so little confidence in the value of the National Policy as a winner in an election that they resorted to a gerrymander of seats throughout Canada, anid this contributed more than anything else to the success of their party in that election. In 1887, they still had the National Policy doing business; but it was not developing as a vote getter, so they passed the Revising Barristers' Act in 1885 which placed the revision of the electoral lists throughout Canada in the hands of their own political!1 friends, and this gave them a tremendous advantage over the opposition party throughout the whole of this Dominion. In the election of 1891 there was no issue of protection. The issue was whether we should1 have reciprocity or commercial union, backed up by waving the flag with the motto " A British subject I was born and a British subject I will die." There was not much protection there, and notwithstanding that the majorities which the. Conservatives won in the general elections of 1878 and 1886 dwindled with every succeeding election, so that in 1891 they were reduced to a paltry majority of twenty and in 1896 they went out of office. Therefore, I say that my right hon. friend is very courageous if he thinks that a policy of protection is going to
The Budget-Mr. Kyte

carry in Canada to-day when it never succeeded in winning an election before. Our friends opposed reciprocity which was the only salvation for eastern Canada and for western Canada. They stated that it was most unpatriotic to have our freight going north and south instead of east and west. We must ship our goods through Canadian ports to England! We must not sell! to the Yankees! But what did they do themselves? They were not in power very long when, by order in council, they put into operation piecemeal the leading provisions of the reciprocity pact. On the 16th April, 1917, by an order in council, they put wheat, wheat flour and semolina upon the free list.


David Spence: That was in war time.


George William Kyte: Yes, and they remained upon the free list until the Republican party wiped out their end of the reciprocity, and then it failed.
Wheat, wheat flour, potatoes, when imported from a country which does not impose a customs duty on like products grown or manufactured in Canada, were made free by act of parliament on the 6th June, 1919. They were very anxious that there should be no shipping of our products to the United States in 1911; but in 1917, 1918 and 1919, as the election approached, with an eye to the western farmer and the Progressive movement in the west, they thought it would not be a bad thing after all to do a 'little in the way of reciprocity for them.
I come to the question of the coal duties, and it might be well, by way of preliminary, to give a short summary of the history of coal duties in this country. In 1879, an act was passed imposing a duty of fifty cents per ton on coal of all kinds, regardless of price or quality. A year later the duty on bituminous coal was raised to sixty cents per ton. In 1887 anthracite coal was made free, the duty on bituminous coal remaining as before at sixty cents per ton. In 1894 the customs tariff was consolidated and it contained the following items:
Coal, bituminous, 60 cents per ton; coal dust n-e.s., 20 per cent ad valorem; coal, anthracite anc anthracite dust, free.
In 1897 the tariff was revised and the schedule relating to coal was as follows:
Coal, bituminous, such as yill pass through a halfinch screen, 20 per cent ad valorem but not tc exceed 13 cents per ton; coal, bituminous, round and run of mine and coal, n.e.s., 53 cents per ton; coal, anthracite and anthracite dust, free.
In the session of 1906-07 the tariff was again revised giving effect to the following rates:
[Mr. Kyte.)
Coal, anthracite and anthracite dust and coke, free; coal, bituminous, such as will pass through a three-quarter inch screen, 10 cents preferential, 12 cents intermediate, 14 cents general; coal, bituminous, round and run of mine and coal n.e.s., 35 cents preferential, 45 cents intermediate, 53 cents general.
In 1923 lignite was included in item 586 and made free of duty. That is the history of the changes in the tariff on coal prior to the present time. Hon. members will observe that the duty upon slack coal was made fourteen cents per ton whereas the duty upon round coal was reduced from sixty to fifty-three cents per ton.
The duties have remained in that position up to the present time. I was a member of and I accompanied a delegation from Nova Scotia which appeared before the government in the month of December last asking for an increase in the duty on slack coal. I have been assailed on many sides on account of this, and even my gallant and genial friend the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) shied a pebble at my emaciated person during the debate on the Address. I have nothing to apologize for with respect to my attitude upon that question. When the duty upon round coal was fixed at fifty-three cents and the duty upon slack coal was fixed at fourteen cents a ton, there was no demand for slack coal. It was a waste product for the coal operators. In recent years, owing to changes in the system of using coal, in the manufacture of boilers and in the grates, slack coal is now used more largely in some instances than run-of-mine coal. Is there, therefore, any justification for maintaining a duty of fifty-three cents per ton upon round coal and having a duty of fourteen cents per ton upon another class of coal which is equally valuable for industrial purposes? You might as well, with respect to the tariff on boots and shoes, have a tariff of twenty-five per cent upon boots and a tariff of five per cent upon shoes. Any hon. gentleman would appreciate how absurd that would be, but it is no more absurd than the idea of maintaining different duties upon these two classes of coal. I desire also to point out to the House that slack coal is not used for domestic purposes. It is used entirely for industrial purposes. The present tariff changes reduce the duty upon round coal to the domestic consumer at the same time that they increase the duty upon slack coal for the person who requires it for indusrial purposes. When the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was speaking upon the budget, he referred to his adherence to a policy of free trade, but he said that he was willing to run a coach and four through his economic theories if by so doing he was relieving distress and unemployment in the coal districts of

The Budget-Mr. Kyte
Nova Scotia. That is a very commendable utterance for the hon. gentleman to make, because I know how dear to his heart is the theory of free trade which he has espoused in season and out of season in this House. But let me assure him that the increase in the duty on slack coal from fourteen to fifty cents a ton will do the very thing that he feels ought to be done in the interest of the coal miners of Nova Scotia. It will mean an additional sale of 500,000 tons of coal by the coal operators of Nova Scotia, and it would provide employment for the miners of the province to that extent.
There is another consideration to which I desire to call attention. In the past the coal miners were paid the same price for taking out a ton of slack coal as for a ton of round coal, and it costs as much to carry on the operations in connection with the slack coal as it does in the case of round coal. If a ton of slack coal is to be moved on the railways the freight is just as much as it is for the carriage of round coal. Should this tariff go into effect and the coal companies of Nova Scotia have an additional market of 500,000 tons for their soft coal, it will mean in all probability that the price of round coal to the domestic consumer will be reduced. Up to the present time the cost of mining the slack coal, for which there is no market, is charged up against the round coal, so that the profits on the sale of round coal are very much less than they would be if the slack coal were sold at the rate which it is hoped will prevail.
Before leaving this subject I want to say something with reference to the actual amount in the way of ad valorem duty which is represented by this increase on slack coal from 14 cents to 50 cents a ton. The average value for duty of slack coal imported into Canada in the year 1923 was $3.63 a ton, and a duty of 50 cents a ton on that in that year would have been at the rate of 13.77 per cent ad valorem. While the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) was speaking on the budget a couple of weeks ago the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) interjected a remark to the effect that the proposed duty was equal to 50 per cent on slack coal. The hon. member had in mind of course the selling price of coal at the mine, which is about $1 a ton, and in that view of the matter his statement would be correct. But that is not the price on which the tariff is calculated; it is calculated on the average value of slack coal consumed in the United States. And in the year 1923 that value was, as I have said, $3.63 a ton, so that a duty of 50 cents a ton
would have been at the rate of 13.77 per cent ad valorem.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the hon. member give the House the source of those figures; the figures I have show a different result as to the cost of slack coal in the United States?


George William Kyte: I got them from the Department of Trade and Commerce and made the calculation myself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind giving them to Hansard.


George William Kyte: I am giving them to Hansard now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member is giving just the results.


George William Kyte: That is all I have; I do not propose to carry around with me the whole contents of the statistical branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I got the figures and made my own calculation, and that is what I presume the hon. member would do himself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend would give us at least the bases of his calculation; that is all'.


George William Kyte: I am giving the figures I have worked out and if the hon. member can controvert them he is at liberty to do so. In the year 1924 the average value for duty was $2.34 and a duty of 50 cents a ton would have worked out at the rate of 21.36 per cent. But as against this it should be noted that in the same years if the duty on run of mine had been only 50 cents a ton the relative ad valorem rates would have been 12.75 per cent and 16.77 per cent respectively. The whole trend of argument in favour of the adjustment of the duty on slack coal is to show that slack coal is now practically taking the place of run of mine for many purposes, and for that reason it should not be admitted at a lower duty, either specific or ad valorem than run of mine. From this point of view the protective effect of a 50 cent duty would be about from 12 to 15 per cent ad valorem. Another point that should not be lost sight of is this, that it costs just as much to produce and transport to market slack coal as it does the other kind. The Nova Scotia miner gets exactly the same amount, whether his output consists of slack coal or of mixed coal. In some places this is not the case and the miner does not get anything for the slack coal he produces. For the protection of the miner in Canada the advance in the duty on slack coal is imperative.
The Budget-Mr. Kyte

In the course of an excellent speech on the budget the other evening the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) asked whether it would not be better for the coal industry of Nova Scotia to have reciprocity in coal with the United States and seek in the New England1 states a market for our coal. Of course, in order to have reciprocity in coal with the United States all we have to do is to take off the duty on the United States coal. These are the reasons I would suggest as making it quite impossible for the Nova Scotia coal operator to sell his coal in the New England market at the present time: The coal trade of Boston and New England has in recent years been revolutionized by important developments in the mining and transportation of coal. The conditions which formerly existed have entirely changed and the ability of the Nova Scotia collieries to find a market there has steadily decreased. Developments have been general but are most marked in the West Virginia coal-fields whose products reach the seaboard at about the same distance from Boston as Louisburg. By the construction and equipment of railways, steamers, loading and discharging plants and other transportation facilities of the most modem and economical type, at an enormous cost, the West Virginia mines have gained a strong hold on the New England market. These developments still continue and the cost of production and transportation may be further lessened. The consolidation of the New England railways has also affected the situation. Their enormous trade of 5,000,000 tons a year all goes into American channels, and so far as the supply of coal by rail is concerned, their influence cannot but be entirely in favour of American coal. There can be no assurance of permanence in any arrangements for reciprocity which would be dependent on the attitude of congress and might change at every presidential election. Lack of permanence would affect the installation of facilities for handling coal, without which the Nova Scotia collieries could not hope to enter the New England market. Wharves, discharging plants and railway connections would involve a heavy investment of capital, which would be imprudent under a terminable arrangement, even if other conditions justified it. It must be expected that American competitors would join with the railways and others to hold the home market: such an alliance would be more effective now than at any time in the history of the trade. The mere removal of the duty would not place us on equal terms with the United States. Our product would have to

compete in a foreign market, with everyone who could be moved by patriotic local or interested motives against us. The cost of mining in the United States as compared with that in Nova Scotia is much lower; their standard of living in Nova Scotia is higher and the provisions for their safety and comfort are far beyond what is customary in the United States. The mining laws of Nova Scotia are as advanced in this respect as those of any country in the world, and it costs the coal companies of the province veiy much more money to operate their mines owing to this higher cost than it does in the United States. These are the reasons why it is not possible for us to put our coal in the New England market at the present time. As I pointed out a moment ago, * any reciprocity arrangement would be only temporary because it might be abrogated at any presidential election, and if the coal companies were to establish proper landing facilities for their coal in the New England cities it would involve an enormous expenditure for that development, which expenditure would be lost as soon as the reciprocity arrangement was terminated.
Now, Sir, I have no desire to say anything further upon that subject. I intended to point out that high protection does not suit Nova Scotia; as a matter of fact there is a very decided and unanimous revolt in the province against any high tariff. In the days of Sir John A. Macdonald, his policy and the policy for which the Conservative party stood all over Canada was epitomized in the magical letters, N.P.; they were the symbol, crest and slogan of the predecessors of hon. gentlemen opposite. But in one important province at least at the present time N.P. stands for "No party." Down in Nova Scotia, in preparation for the provincial election which is now imminent, the local Conservatives have disassociated themselves entirely from the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), they have thrown the traditional policies of the Conservative party overboard into the swirling current as so much useless and dangerous dunnage in their frantic effort to reach the snug harbour of office. Their battle cry is "The no party forever!"
Having disposed of the tariff in so far as I have had time to deal with it, I purpose discussing one other subject before I resume my seat. A few days ago when the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) spoke on the budget he went out of his way to make an attack on the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) on his appointment as a commissioner

The Budget-Mr. Kyte
to the Wembley exhibition. The hon. member denounced this expenditure of money as being "most disgraceful." He said that the member for Last Mountain had profited by the vote, and that he had no doubt whatever that that gentleman had engineered the whole'thing. Now, I desire to say that the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River was absolutely unfair; there was not the slightest justification for his insinuation. As a matter of fact I was the first of the party whips who knew anything about the proposal of the government to send a commission to Wembley. I knew of it for about three weeks before I communicated the information, and at the same time as I communicated it to the hon. member for Last Mountain, the Progressive whip, I also communicated it to the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys), the Conservative whip. The hon. member for Last Mountain, as of course everyone knows, had nothing whatever to do with the "engineering" of the vote, and it only shows how reckless the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River was when he made the statement. As to the hon. member for Last Mountain being influenced by his appointment as a commissioner to the Wembley exhibition, if an hon. member of this House deserts the political party which he has supported all his life when he finds it in opposition and joins the party in power, it is perfectly proper to inquire what motives may have operated in bringing about the change. But that is not the case of the hon. member for Last Mountain, however it may be of others. He was nominated and elected in 1917 as a supporter of the Union government, and he gave loyal support to that government until the war was over. Then what did he do? He deserted the patronage and the fleshpots of the Union government and took his seat with the opposition, and there he has remained ever since. In 1921 he was nominated and elected as a member of the very large and influential political group from western Canada, and he has maintained a position of independence towards the government, in that respect being in the same position with his leader and with the whole group of Progressive members. I repeat, there is no justification for insinuating that the member for Last Mountain was influenced by his appointment. But the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River, speaking in the debate on the Address, used similar language, he said, "I regard that vote as the most disgraceful expenditure that was ever made .in the history of Canada, and I have said 136
so upon the stump." It is apparent that the hon. member is making that an issue in the country. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no person who knows as well as the hon. member himself the size of the issue that best befits him. In former years I knew several well-intentioned and highly respected members of the House, since passed away, who for some reason or other could never rise above the consideration of the number of saucers that were broken and replaced at Rideau Hall. We seem destined to have that class of politician with us always. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River is making this expenditure an issue, it is to be the piece de resistance of the Conservative party in the next election campaign. Well, that is different from the issues that we had a few years ago with regard to wasteful expenditure of money. Is it not an astonishing fact that while we are now in the fourth session of this parliament our friends opposite, including the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River, although they actually believe this is the last session and that we are going to have an election, yet they have never called the Public Accounts committee onice to investigate any expenditure of this government? Did such a thing ever happen before? Never. Just after a new government had got well seated in office, when the first report of the Auditor General showing the expenditure of money under it was submitted to parliament, a meeting of the Public Accounts committee was had, members of the opposition called for papers, these were presented to the committee, and day after day investigations were held for the purpose or in the hope of establishing some wrongful payment on the part of the government. Our friends opposite have abdicated that function as members of the opposition. And they are justified in doing so, because they very well know that there has been no wrongful expenditure by this government. This being so, they are seizing upon the expenditure of $4,200, paid to the commissioners to the Wembley exhibition, as the great scandal of the administration! In other words, the hon. gentleman from Fort William and Rainy River finds fault because the three whips, being members of parliament, were given, as he says, a free trip to England. Is that the first time that members of parliament were given a free trip across? Why, between 1912 and 1921 members of the government and members of parliament supporting the government crossed and recrossed the ocean at the public expense with the continuous rapidity of a shuttle through a loom.

The Budget-Mr. Kyte

There can be only two grounds for criticizing this expenditure: first that the expenditure was out of proportion to the value of the services rendered, and second, that there is no precedent in our political history for appointing members to go on a mission of that kind. Well, let us examine into both of these.
In 1911, when the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in office, it was decided to send a parliamentary delegation over to England. That delegation consisted of eighteen members, five Conservative members from the House of Commons, and. I believe, two Conservative senators, making seven, and the remainder consisting of Liberal members and Liberal senators. No official invitation came from England for a delegation to go over, such as came to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with regard to the sending of a delegation to Wembley last year. There was merely an invitation of a committee of the members of the British House of Commons suggesting that it would be desirable that a delegation be sent over to England'. Both political leaders agreed that it was the proper thing to do. A vote was passed through the House of Commons to defray the expenses. Each member was allowed the sum of $1,000, and as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Frederick Borden and Mr. Brodeur, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, had been invited to attend the Imperial conference, they also accompanied the delegation, and an amount of $2,000 to defray the expenses of each was also voted on that occasion. We all know that the valine of the dollar in 1911 was very much greater than the value of the dollar in 1924, and I say that $1,000 voted to each member of the delegation to which I refer in 1911 was greater in value than the $1,400 voted to pay the expenses of the delegates to Wembley last year.
But, Mr. Speaker, there were other members of parliament who went over to England. Let us come down to a later period in our history. There have been, as I stated a moment ago, various excursions over to England and Europe on the part of our Conservative friends within recent years. I have here a list of some of the excursions and the amount of money which they cost to the people of Canada. In 1920 the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) took a trip to England, and his expenses charged uip to the government amounted to $9,400. Think of it; three commissioners appointed by this government to go to Wembley last year were given the paltry allowance of $1,400 each; the member for South Wellington goes to Eng-
land in 1920, and the cost to the country is over $9,000. What does the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) think of that expenditure of $9,400 on the part of his former colleague in the government?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman would not mind telling us what business the member for South Wellington went over on, how long he wa? there, and by how many people he was accompanied?


George William Kyte: I do not think anybody knows what business he was on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure-


George William Kyte: I do not care what business he was on, he could not eat up $9,400 properly on any such trip.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sure the entire absence in this case of my hon. friend's usual fairness does not alter the facts. It is well known what the business was.


George William Kyte: Assuming he was on public business, I may point out that Sir Wilfrid Laurier went over there on public business in 1911-to attend the Imperial conference, in fact-and his trip cost the country $2,000 Even if we recognize the greater value of money in 1911 by doubling that amount and calling it $4,000, the member for South Wellington is still $5,400 ahead of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the matter of expenses.
But while the member for South Wellington was the master spendthrift, there appear to have been other prodigals who were a good second. The Hon. P. E. Blondin, a member of the Senate, went over in 1920, to attend, I understand, a postal convention in Madrid. I may say in passing that it is rather unusual for the Postmaster General to attend a convention of that kind; it is generally left to his officials. There was a postal convention in Stockholm last year, but the present Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) did not attend; he sent his officials there and they alone charged their expenses to the country. Well, when Mr. Blondin went over in 1920 he took with him Mr. Lelievre, not as secretary but as "special attache"; also one departmental officer. Their business kept them there five weeks, and the cost to the country was $9.319.09, of which Mr. Blondin "blew in" $5,800 himself. I stated a moment ago that there was a postal convention in Berne last year. The Postmaster General himself did not go, but four departmental officers went. They were there three months and a half, and alto-

The Budget-Mr. Kyte
gether they spent 510,092, just about the same as Senator Blondin paid for his own expenses and those of his attache and one departmental officer for five weeks.
I have a list of others who travelled over to England at the expense of the country, but I refrain from giving them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Give us the list.


George William Kyte: No, I refrain from giving
them; there may be reasons why these gentlemen incurred the expenses which they did. But I wish to call attention to another item I find here with respect to the member for South Wellington. He went to England in 1920 and he spent $9,400; he stayed home in 1921 and it cost the country $4,000 besides his salary.
I have discussed the matter from the point of view of comparisons. How does the expenditure of $4,200 for three members of this parliament to go to England and back compare with the expenditure of $9,400 for the member for South Wellington, and $5,800 by Senator Blondin? I think I have established the case on the ground of comparison. But I have another defence to make, on the ground of precedent. It is not the first time a government has appointed representatives of the House of Commons as honorary commissioners to attend an exhibition. Perhaps the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River thought there was no precedent and that is why he felt the expenditure was unjustified; I have no doubt that had he known what he will know before I sit down he would never have made the charges that he did in this connection.
In 1893 there was an exhibition in the city of Chicago, known as the Chicago World's Fair. In the session of 1893 a proposal was made by the then government to appoint two honorary commissioners, one from the House of Commons and one from the Senate, to be sent to Chicago, in addition, of course, to the other officials and representatives of Canada and of the government who were there. The question came up as to what would be a reasonable amount to pay these commissioners, and Sir Richard Cartwright, that sturdy champion of economy in public expenditure said, "In a matter of this kind we will not carp at any reasonable expenditure." How different from the attitude of hon. gentlemen to-day who are not notorious for their own economy in respect of public expenditure. Well, Sir, there was one gentleman appointed from the House of Commons, Mr. George R. R. Cockburn M.P. representing one of the Toronto constituencies. He was appointed as an honorary commissioner.
136i


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Was he a friend
of the government?


George William Kyte: The Budget-Mr. Kyte

Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.,
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
28th October, 1893.
To Telegram	 $ 1 62
Shoes blacked	 60
C.O.D	 30

	$ 2 52
Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.,
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
28th October, 1893.
To Board	for	1	week	 $112	00
Extra meals, wines and liquors ((including
$5.80	for	lunches for Pavilion)	
33	20Laundry	
5	91Livery	
13	00

Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
23rd September, 1893.
To Shoes blackened.
Express	
C.O.D

I suppose if the hoa. member for Fort William and; Rainy River (Mr. Manion) were in my place, with that kindly humour of his he would probably suggest that the drugs were required for the morning after. To continue;
Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
21st October, 1893.
To Board from 10-14 to 10-21, 7 days at
$16	 $112 00
Extra meals, wines and liquors	
5	80Laundry	
5	50Livery	
16	50
$139 80
Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
14thOctober, 1893.
To Express charges, 25c.; drugs, 40c. and 35c.	$1	00Paid cabman, 50c. and 75c., 50c. and $1.50..	3	25Order for salmon, 75c.; messenger, 25c	
1	00Theatre tickets, $9.75; shoes blacked, 50c..	10	25Telegram, 40c., C.O.D., Fields, $1.20..	..	1	60
17 10 10 50



Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
14th October, 1893.
To Beard from 9-30 to	10-14,	2	weeks	
$224	00Extra meals, wines	and	liquors	
61	10
Laundry, including borrowed table linen and
washing it	
18	10Livery	
25	50News-stand account	
0	23
Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
16th September, 1893.
To Cash paid C.O.D., $4.90 and 40c	 $ 5 30
" advanced	 5 00
" paid on shoes blackened	 1 00

Returned	 5 00

Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
23rd September, 1893.
To Board from 9-16	to	9-23,	1	week	
$112	00Extra wines, meals	and	liquors	
23	00Laundry	
6Livery	
11	25

Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
16 September, 1893.
To Board	from 9-8 to	9-16,	1	week	
$112	00Extra meals, wines and	liquors	
14	90Laundry	
1	^5Livery	
17	25



APRIL	. 16, 1925 The Budget-Mr. Kyte			2125
Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.			Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.			
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.			The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.			
9th September,	1893.	29th July,	1893.To Shoes blackened	$ 1 00	To paid porter for shoe blacking.. ..	$1 100 45	Cash returned	25 00	Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	$26 45	29th	July,	1893.To Board from 7-22 to 7-29, 1 week	at $20..	$140 00Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	Extra meals, wines and liquors..	13 25The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	Laundry	2 052nd September,	1893.	Livery	10 00To Board from 8-26 to 9-27 days (2) at $16..	$112 00	Extra meals, wines and liquors	5 70	$16o 300 90	Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	1 00	The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	News-stand	0 60	22nd	July,	1893.To Porter's charges on shoes.. ..	$1 50$120 20	Cash paid for cabman	1 50" C.O.D	0 45Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	0 4526th August,	1893.	Cash paid for shoe blacking	$1 20	-	$3 00Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	22nd	July,	1893.The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	To Board from 7-15 to 7-22. 7 days at $20..	$140 0026th	August,	1893.	Extra meals, wines and liquors.. ..	14 50To Board from 8-10 to 8-26, 1 week at $16..	$112 00	Laundry	3 75Extra wines, liquors and meals.. ..	15 30	Livery	3 501 55	Livery	12 25	$161 75$141 10	Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	15th	July,	1893.The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	To Porter's charges on shoes	$0 9019th	August,	1893	To cash paid for blacking shoes	$2 80	Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	15th	July,	1893.The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	To Board from 7-8 to 7-15, 1 week	at $20..	$140 0019th	August,	1893.	Extra meals, wines and liquors..	33 20To Board from 8-5 to 8-11, 6 days at	$20..	$120 00	Laundry	1 65" 8-11 to 8-19, 8 days at $16.. ..	128 00	Livery	5 00Extra wines, meals and liquors.. ..	29 20	Cash to have hat pressed	1 25Laundry	2 60	" paid for flowers	3 80Liverv	12 50	0 50Telegram and postage	0 64	" " cabman	1 25$292 94	$186 65Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	8th	July,	1893.5th	August,	1893.	Porter's charges on shoes	$0 90To cash paid for shoe blacking	$0 40	" " C.O.D., M. Field.. ..	0 60	Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	8th	July,	1893.To Board from 7-1 to 7-8, 7 days	at $20..	$140 00Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.	Extra meals, wines and liquors..	46 35The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.	Laundry	2 205th	August,	1893.	Livery	3 50To Board from 7-29 to 8-5, 1 week..	$140 00	Drug bill	0 75Extra meals, wines and liquors.. ..	10 75	Cash paid for cab and flowers.. ..	2 75Laundry	2 20	Livery	14 00	$195 550 75$166 95	$194 80
The Budget-Mr. Kyte

Less	 0

	$326 85
Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn, Dr.
The Virginia Hotel, Chicago.
27th May 1893.
To Board from 5-22 to 5-27, 4J days	 $27 00
Wines and liquors	
Order for milk crackers	 0 25
Shoes blackened	 0 20

Luncheon	 1 00
Luggage	 075

	$30 70
This makes in aill a total of $4,425. Now, as I said a moment ago, having regard to the difference in the value of money to-day as compared with 1893, that expenditure would represent to-day a cost to the country of $9,000, and I have not yet learned of the Conservative senator who aocom.pa.nied Mr. Cockburn as joint-commissioner to Chicago. In looking up Hansard I discovered that, in 1894 an hon. member of the House asked a question of the government as to the number of persons sent by the government to Chicago in connection with the World's Fair, their wages, and the total expenditure of each. The minister of the day asked to have the question changed into an order for return, which suggests that the list must have been a particularly tidy one. So in 1894 an order for this return was passed by the House early in the session. It was not brought down, and the (Mr, Kyte.]
request was repeated at least ten times during the session. Each time the minister in charge said "We are having it attended! to, it will be brought down shortly". It was not brought down in 1894. In the session of 1895 the member renewed his request for the return, and the minister made the same reply "We will have it attended to at once and it will be brought down." It was not 'brought down, and although the same member asked for it a dozen times in that session his request was not complied with. In 1896 the request was renewed. The minister said "I am having it attended to, it will be brought down in a few days." It was not brought down. The request was renewed a dozen times, but the government went out of office, and the return has not been brought down yet. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, it would be a very interesting document if it is along the lines of Mr. Cockbum's expense account. However, I am going to get that return if I have to employ the services of a Pinkerton detective. I want to have it for the next time the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) turns handsprings and somersaults in anger over the disgraceful expenditure, as he calls it, of $1,400 each for three Canadian commissioners at the Wembley exhibition.


Mr. A. B. HUNT (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to offer a few remarks on the budget, I congratulate the government upon the fine showing if. has made in presenting a financial statement disclosing a surplus of about $2,000,000 instead of a deficit. I also wish to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance upon the able manner in which he delivered the budget.
I would not have spoken in this debate had it not been for the Petersen contract which the government has brought before the House for consideration. I feel that it is the duty of every member to assist the government in every way to break the steamship combine which now exists. There is no question but that a combine does exist; it is admitted by both sides of the House. This combine is asking exorbitant prices for shipping cattle and various commodities from Montreal to Liverpool. It is killing the trade of our country, ruining our farmers in every section of Canada, and discriminating against us by giving better freight rates to the United States, to the great detriment of the Canadian people. The combine at one time carried flour from the port of New York at three cents per hundredweight less than from the port of Montreal, although the latter port is 500 miles nearer the overseas market. I

The Budget-Mr. Hunt
understand however, that since an investigation was commenced by the government they have changed their rate and are now carrying flour from Montreal at the same price.
It is not a new question, The subject has been before every government for the last fifteen years but no administration had the courage to undertake to break this combine, until the present government took the matter in hand. Now that it has done so every assistance should be given it in the great work it has undertaken. There
10 p.m. is no doubt it will be a great fight, and for that reason, I want to offer my undivided support to the government. The government has to choose between two alternatives. Either it must give the combine full control over Canada and thus ruin the farmers who represent 65 per cent of the population of Canada, or force the combine to carry freight at a reasonable price. When reciprocity was defeated, it proved disastrous to Canada and brought about the ruin of many farmers in the province of Quebec, because congress promptly enacted the Fordney tariff which prohibited1 the export of our cattle into the United States, our natural market. Previous to that all the cattle along the border could be driven across the line thus saving the payment of railway freight rates. Only a few of the farmers, however, were ab'e to continue after the Fordney tariff came into effect. They were forced to abandon farming and take up lumbering, many having a little pulpwood on the rear of their farms which enabled them to live. But even the few who survived would be placed in peril if the recommendation to place an embargo on pulpwood were carried out. The effect would be to compel the farmer to sell his wood at a lower price thus repeating the situation created when the reciprocity arrangement was defeated. The farmers were then obliged to take a smaller price for their cattle, an amount hardly sufficient to pay for the shipment of the stock fo Montreal, the only market they had. At. the same time that market, which could not even consume the available eastern supply was flooded with cattle from the west.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) in his speech on the Petersen contract gave a comparative statement of the price paid for cattle in the United State? markets and that paid in Canada, and revealing the exorbitant amount asked by the combine for overseas shipment. This statement has already been placed on Hansard, but feeling that those prices are of vital importance
[Mr. Kyte.l
in connection with this controversy and that they cannot be quoted too often I will quote the hon. member's remarks on that particular point. He said:
I ihave secured some figures from the Bureau of Statistics relating to the cost of shipment of our cattle to the United States markets. The cost of transporting a one-thousand pound steer from Calgary to St. Paul is $7.05, and to Chicago $9.20, as against a cost of $45 per head to Liverpool; from Winnipeg to St. Paul the cost of transporting a thousand pound steer is $4.20, and to Chicago $5.85, as against. $42 per head to Liverpool; or a saving in favour of the American markets of approximately $36 per steer.
The following quotations	from the	Chicago ;	and theWinnipeg markets, taken	from the	agricultural papers	of February 5 will no	doubt be	interesting	to thecommittee:	Comparative prices on	Feb. 5.	1924, also	of thedifferent markets:	Winnipeg Chicago Difference	Choice steers 	.. $ 6 75	$12 50	1 5 75Prime butcher's steer ..	.. 6 00	10 50	4 50Common butcher's steers	.. 4 00	9 00	5 00Winnipeg Chicago Difference	Choice feeder steers.. ..	. $ 4 75	$ 8 00	t 3 25Choice Stockers	.. 3 75	7 25	3 50Butcher cows	.. 4 00	7 50	3 50Butcher heifers	.. 5 00	10 50	5 50Choice calves	.. 8 00	14 75	6 75
The Montreal market would be about the same as Winnipeg, but it would cost about $5 extra for transportation to the above market and from Montreal to Liverpool about $20 to $25. If the combine is broken, they are bound to carry them for $10 to $15 each.
I also quote this from the statements of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey):
About three weeks ago I was present at the annual convention of the Illinois Agricultural Association held at Champaign-Urbans where there were present about 800 delegates and 400 visitors. I was there for two days and I embraced the opportunity extenchxl to me to interview as many of the delegates as possible, all of whom are representative farmers from that state, in an attempt to find out from them their attitude as regards the entry of Canadian cattle, that is feeder cattle to the middle west. I did not meet a single delegate who was not in favour of reducing or abolishing the duty. You may say that these men were not frank with me in view of the fact that I had gone down there on their invitation as a Canadian visitor. But in my judgment they were frank with me, because the same delegates who told me that they were in favour of the abolition of the duty on cattle also informed me that they were in favour of an immediate increase in the duty on Canadian butter. If I mistake not, that convention appointed a delegation to go from there to Washington with a demand that the duty on Canadian butter entering the United States be immediately increased. I make this statement in the hope that the minister and officials of his department are fully aware of the sentiment existing in the middle west at present with regard to the entry of our cattle into the United States. There is nothing at all selfish in the attitude of those people towards us; they are demanding our cattle to-day because
The Budget-Mr. Hunt

they believe they can make money on the finishing. If the agriculturists are in favour of allowing our cattle in free, surely the consumers in the United States cannot possibly be opposed to their entry. I think we might in this way obtain reciprocity piecemeal. There is a demand in western Canada, as the minister knows-
That is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell).
-for the entry of Wisconsin dairy cattle free, and I have often wondered whether he could not with some hope of success enter into negotiations with the powers that be at Washington and come to some agreement whereby they would allow our cattle to enter the United States free if we gave them some concession in return.
Now if the government can do anything towards getting reciprocity with the United States, I am sure the farmers will not vote against it as they did before. It was on account of the misrepresentations that were placed before the country at that time, the cry of annexation, waving the old flag, the navy, and other foolish statements, disseminated by the press and the moneyed interests among the manufacturers and the combines, that they were able to defeat reciprocity. If there is any talk of annexation at the present time, the Conservative party are to blame for it by defeating reciprocity, as that was the starting point of that cry.
The farmers in my section of the country are the best farmers in Canada They are not begging or asking for something for nothing; but they are asking for a square deal, and that they are determined to have in some way. They are not going to be held up by the great combines of this country. As I said before, if they cannot get justice, there will be no farmers, and every one will have to raise his own potatoes. Why should a farmer work fifteen hours a day, and many of them for their board? I venture to say that our farmers are not as well off as they were in 1911, the year that reciprocity was defeated The combines worked it well; the farmers listened to the high tariff cry at that time, and it has placed them in the unfortunate position in which they find themselves to-day. You will not catch them in the same trap again. The Montreal Star has been looked upon as a guide for the farmers of our country; but since the "whisper of death" and other similar statements appeared in that paper, they have lost interest in the paper, and it is high time they should because that paper is not the friend of the farmer, as he knows to-day. We in Quebec have a good farming country and the best governed province in the Dominion of Canada, and I think the other provinces are doing well by falling in line and copying our laws.

Now just a word about the tariff. We cannot get along without a tariff, but a tariff for revenue only. We have such a debt placed on this country that it is the only way we can pay off that debt. High tariff brings no results. It was said that if we reduced the tariff on the manufacture of farm machinery in 1924 it would ruin the manufacturers; but it has proven just the reverse and the year 1924 under the new tariff was the best year they have had for years. Machinery has been reduced and the manufacturers are now selling it in all parts of the world. It was selling at far too high a price in the past and that was the reason for their not selling more. Take for instance, a mowing machine that costs about $30 to make, selling for $150, a manure spreader, costing about $65 or $75 and selling for $245, and this machine used only about two weeks in the year; a sowing machine that every farmer has to have, costing about $18, selling for $85 on time and $79.20 for cash. I know of some young men starting on farms on the above prices, as that was what they had' to pay, and it cost them about $1,000 to start, when $500 should have been sufficient. That is the kind of thing that is keeping our fanners back-too much difference between.' the cost price and the selling price. I know whereof I speak as I manufactured wagons, sleighs and other farm machinery for over twenty years, and a wagon which I sold for $50 and $60, and making a profit at that, is now selling at $125 to $160. There is no reason for such a difference in price. If it costs more to sell an article than it costs to make it, there is no common sense in selling. There are too many middlemen in the way.
I would strongly recommend that the government appoint a commission of experts on the tariff question, as there are many changes that, I think, could take place without hurting the manufacturers in any way. It is far from my intention to injure them, rather would I help them and help the country at the same time.
There is a large veneering plant in my section of the country, situated at the town of Scotstown. They are shipping their products to all parts of the world. They are asking no favours from the government; all they want is a fair deal and they are not getting it at the present time. They are shipping now to the United States, paying a duty of 20 per cent, while similar manufacturers on the other side of the line can ship into Canada without paying any duty. This is not fair to our manufacturers. What our people want is to have the discrimination removed

The Budget-Mr. McTaggart
so as to give them a chance to ship under the same conditions as the United States, or, in other words, to have the duty raised on our side so as to make the fight a fair one. I have already taken this matter up with the Customs department with no results up to the present time. They are investigating in order to ascertain the objections before acting. I find the furniture factories and piano manufacturers are objecting to the duty being put on, and I venture to say that there are many cases of this kind. The tariff is one of the most vital questions with which we have to deal and it cannot be studied too carefully. For that reason, I would have a commission of experts appointed to study that. question and to do nothing else. The tariff must not be made a political football as it is too serious a question. There is much talk now in the opposition ranks about the old National Policy. That policy would be just as far out of date now as the old stores of fifty years ago, selling the same goods as they had in their stores at that date, and I do not think there is any more chance of its restoration than there is of the old stores selling to-day the goods they had half a century ago.


Mr. N. H. McTAGGART (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should not desire to prolong this debate were it not for the fact that I find myself very much out of accord with the budget proposals of the government which are before us at the present time. To my mind, the present budget constitutes a definite challenge to the low tariff forces in the country that the protective principle has been definitely adopted by this government as the keynote of its tariff policy. The budget which is before us is the fourth which this government have brought down since they have come into office, and it is interesting to note what changes have been made during the last three years along the line of reductions in the tariff. In the first session of this parliament we were told that, this government being new in office, no changes in the tariff could be contemplated until after a thorough study of the schedules should be made. In the second session, beyond a few minor reductions in the tariff, we were informed that uncertainty with regard to the tariff was not good for business and that henceforth the policy of the government was to be along the line of tariff stability.
The third session there were fairly substantial reductions in the tariff, chiefly on agricultural implements, but the most notable feature of the third budget was the pronouncement accompanying it that the government policy contemplated a general reduction of
tariffs all along the line. The budget which we have 'before us, and the fourth of this parliament, would seem to indicate a change of policy on the part of the government; for instead of further reductions in the tariff the present budget proposes a number of increases. The net result of three years of a tariff for revenue government is that the tariff is considerably higher at the present time than it was in 1921. I have a statement before me of the average ad valorem rate of duty on dutiable and total imports for the fiscal years 1920 to 1924 inclusive which shows that the average tariff for the last five years was as follows:
Average ad valorem rate of duty on Dutiable Total
Fiscal	imports	importsyeara	per cent	per cent1920	
22.5	14.71921	
20.6	14.11922	
24.5	16.21923	
24.9	16.71924	
22.9	15.1
It may be said that those figures do not accurately reflect the true situation as regards the tariff, as the figures are compiled on the basis of averages, but at any rate these figures undoubtedly indicate the general trend of the tariff has been upward during the last three years. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the tariff schedules do not reveal the actual protection afforded by the tariff because of the operation of the special or Anti-dumping Duty Act. To my mind the special or Anti-dumping Duty Act may properly be regarded as the most wicked piece of legislation on the statute books to-day, and it is significant that this government have made no attempt to restrict its power, but have sought rather to enlarge its operation. This special act has been invoked 4,888 times during the past two years, according to a return tabled in this House a few days ago; so it is quite evident the large part it plays in the protection game as played in this country.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, if the facts are as I have stated and the amount of protection afforded foy the tariff is really greater to-day than it was in 1921, we are confronted by a most remarkable situation. In the first place, there is the fact that approximately 115 members supporting the government were elected on a platform the chief planks of which emphasized the desirability of reduced tariffs. But that is not all; for in addition to the 115 there were another sixty members elected to this House who were more or less pledged to work for a reduction of tariff. This makes a total of perhaps 160 or

The Budget-Mr. McTaggart
170 members who comprise what we should call the low tariff forces in this House, out of a total membership of 235; and notwithstanding this preponderance of low tariff views the tariff continues to grow higher amd higher in every way. This very extraordinary situation has been the subject of considerable thought on my part, Mr. Speaker, and prompted me to an analysis of my own vote on previous budgets. I find that on two occasions in the life of this parliament I voted confidence in the government's promise to reduce tariffs; but if appearances be not too deceiving I am prepared to admit that perhaps I may have been flimflammed.
In all seriousness, I should like to ask: if this parliament, made up as it is of a membership three quarters of which may be expected to favour lower tariffs, can make no more progress along this line than we have done during the last three years, what is the future? Not very bright, I should say, and not very encouraging to those who seek to remove part at least of the burden resting on the exploited classes as a result of the protective tariff. This year a crown sheet is being placed in the protectionist armour of the tariff in the shape of a tariff commission, so it is abundantly apparent that this government is definitely wedded to the principle of protection. Members to the right have been making a lot of noise over the fact that a number of industries have closed their doors, and seem wholly unconscious of the fact that with increased protection there must follow decreased purchasing power and consequently more closed factories.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, members on the right tefll us we should have more consideration for our own workmen than those -abroad, and the way they ask us to show that -consideration is by bringing the workmen from abroad to our shores. After all, what interest has the beneficiary from protection in unemployment except a desire perhaps to have reserves to draw upon to meet his needs? But the question of unemployment and closed factories in t.heir relation to the tariff is a subject which ha-s been worn almost threadbare during this debate, so I do not propose to dwell upon it except to say that all the wordy bickeri-ng in the world will not alter the basic fact that in Canada, when agriculture is not prosperous Canada -cannot be prosperous.
Reverting to the Wtays and Means resolutions of the budget, Mr. Speaker, allow me to voice very strong objection to the amendment to the Special War Revenue Act 1915 defining the meaning of the word cheque:
That " cheque " shall be further defined to include any document or writing, not drawn upon or addressed

to a bank, in exchange for which a bank makes payment of a sum of money, except a coupon and a document used solely for the purpose of settling or clearing any account between banks, and that such a cheque shall be liable to the stamp tax imposed on cheques by the said act.
If this amendment be accepted by parliament it will mean that all coupons including cream checks and grain -checks will be liable to the fax. In the case of grain checks the abjection may not be as great, taking into account the need for revenue and the further fact that grain checks, or -tickets as they are sometimes called, are usually for considerable amounts. But in the case of cream tickets, which are usuallly for small amounts, I feel that the government would be well advised to provide for their exemption on amounts under ten doJlars. If the tax be allowed to stand it is bound to have the effect of checking and discouraging the system of mixed farming which has been making fairly satisfactory progress in the prairie provinces during the last few years.
I come now bo the financial statement presented by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) -and1 I want to admit at the start that I did not understand it on the day of its presentation and I am in grave doubt -as to whether I understand it to-day although I have studied1 it some and have listened to many able reviews by the financial experts in this House.
It would seem to my simple mind that the national book-keeping should be done in such form that it might be readily understood at least by the members of this House, but the impression which I have gathered from this debate is that many of those who hav-e spoken find themselves in the same position as I am in with regard to the national finance. To put it shortly, Mr. Speaker, we don't know where we're at. In order to show the difference of opinion among the members of this House on this question, might I read just a few excerpts from speeches delivered during this debate. I find, in the speech of the Acting Minister of Finance, at page 1470 of Hansard, the following:
This amount is available to be applied on account of our loans to the Canadian National Railways of $18,027,000; to Canadian Government Merchant Marine of $900,000; and to the Quebec Harbour Commission of $600,000, adl of which, while being assets, but for the present considered as non-active, are to be added, thereby making an increase of debt during the year of about $13,703,838.
Later on, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) who is himself an expert on questions of finance, made the following statement on page 1479 of Hansard:
Is it necessary for a reasonable man to go further than to point out that this company itself admitf

The Budget-Mr. McTaggart
an increase in the current year of $118,000,000, when we affirm that that debt is our debt? Who owns the company? Surely, the country. Who is responsible for it? The country. Who has to finance it? The country. Who pay's the money? Again, the country.
Again on page 1568 we find! the hon. member making the following statement:
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 spokeu 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 endorsa-tions."
And the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) at page 1656 of Hansard has this to say:
To the extent of over $600,000,000 the National Railway loans should be shown a3 part of the net debt of this country. They are not so shown, and we are not treating them as a part of our national obligations.	'
Again we find the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) making the following
statement at page 1676:
I do not make that claim. What I say is that in order to pay the total indebtedness of the railways, we require to raise annually $62,000,000 odd of interest. That must be raised either by the railways or by the country.
It will be noted from these more or less conflicting statements that no two of them are in agreement as to the state of the country's finances. So despairing of securing the information desired inside this House, I turned to the columns of the financial press and this, in part, is what I find in the Financial Times of March 27th:
Mr. Robb himself, after demonstrating that there was a surplus of something like two million dollars, went on to admit that, taking into account oiher special outlays, the public debt had been increased by thirteen million dollars.	Un fortunately, -it is
much worse than that. It is, in truth, at least seven times worse than that.
And further on in the same article appears the following:
The true position, therefore, is that Canada's liabilities for the year have been heightened by the $13,000,000 that Mr. Robb admits, plus $81,000,000 guaranteed for the railways, plus what the railways borrowed on their own account. In other words, Canada owes far more than 100 millions above what she did one year ago.
Now I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the financial journals of this country should be able to interpret the financial statement if anyone in the country could, but it is very evident that the Times has been unable to do so with any degree of accuracy. I think the fact has been established, however, that the
nation's obligations are heavier to-day than a year ago by an amount anywhere between sixty and one hundred and thirty millions of dollars, but no hint of this somewhat alarming situation is revealed in the budget. The significance of this situation should be of deep interest to the general public, but it may be that the general public will be too busy rejoicing over the 52 millions saved in taxes, as announced in the screaming head-lines in the party press, to get down to sober reflection on the unsatisfactory state of the nation's balance-sheet. It may be that the government are not wholly to blame for the unsatisfactory state of the country's finances, but at any rate it would seem to me that they are to blame for their failure to reveal what the true situation is at the present time.
But what of the future Mr. Speaker? How much longer may we expect that even the most capable of finance ministers shall be able to cope successfully with the problem of an unbalanced budget? And I wonder how many cunning new tax schemes may be added to the already overburdened consumer ere the breaking point is reached? We are all familiar with the tax on imports with its resultant restriction of trade; but this year another method of restricting trade is being thrust forward as a panacea for some of our economic ills:	Not satisfied with a tax on
imports to make the cost of goods higher to the consumer, we now propose to place a tax on exports so that the goods which the producer has to sell may be placed under a further handicap in the markets of the world. The present budget contemplates an export tax on power, and this I do not propose to criticize as I am not familiar with the question, but I am interested in the suggested tax on wheat. To my mind such a tax would have the effect of seriously restricting the market for Canadian wheat, with a consequent depression of prices, and would not accomplish the prevention of mixing in transit as carried on at the present time.
The trouble with nearly all of the tax schemes which are so popular with the government of the day is that in the final analysis they are carried almost wholly by the farmers and working classes, and those classes of our people are now carrying almost the maximum load which they are able to bear. But however unpopular with the masses of the people the imposition of taxes may be we must have a large annual revenue to take care of the expenses of government as well as our obligations to the bond-holding classes who grew fat during the war period. Why close our eyes

The Budget-Mr. McTaggart
to the fact that during the war period the government's failure to adequately tax the profits derived as a result of the war had the effect of transferring to the bond-holding classes almost complete ownership and control of the implements of production? Might it not be appropriate at this time to ask how much longer the Minister of Finance can afford to ignore our billion dollars of tax-free bonds as a possible avenue of taxation? Is it not about time that we in Canada woke up to the fact that the bond-holding classes are not paying their proportionate share of the tax burden of the country? I think I recognize the difficulty which is sure to be encountered if an attempt were made to institute a levy on the tax-free bonds, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in these days of B.N.A. uncertainties it is doubtful if the government possessed the right to make those bonds tax-free.
At any rate Mr. Speaker, for my part, I feel quite convinced that our finance minister, or his successor, whoever he may be, must of necessity adopt one of three alternatives in his search for the necessary revenue to conduct the affairs of the country: he must increase the load on the consumer and take chances; impose some form of capital levy and take no chances; or failing this, he may be forced to the historic expedient of despairing finance ministers and inflate the currency. Now I hope, Mr. Speaker, no one will rise to accuse me of belonging to that antiquated school of thought which sees in inflation of the currency the solution of all our economic ills. I am in favour of a stabilized currency and the uniform price-level, but at the same time I am not unconscious of the fact that under present arrangements the control of the currency reposes mainly in the hands of the Minister of Finance, and I am just a bit frightened that some day he may be reduced to that attitude of despair of meeting the country's obligations, which may prompt him to resort to methods which he would be the first to decry to-day. I appreciate the ridicule which such a suggestion is sure to meet in this House at this time, but I should like to point out that inflation of the currency is becoming quite a popular topic among many of our people to-day.
We have heard not a little in this House during the last two years in regard to the control of credit, and I have noted with satisfaction that the minister has consistently refused to be impressed, but it would indeed be a cold and cheerless irony if the minister were at last compelled to adopt the ex-

pedient which he has frowned upon so diligently.
We all recognize the fact that inflation is simply a tax on the creditor or bondholding classes in any country, but surely such an alternative would not need to be resorted to in Canada, with all its unfortunate consequences, if the bondholders could be made to see the fairness and justice of a modified form of capital levy.
We have heard something in this House about the prosperity at present enjoyed by France, and this so-called prosperity has been ascribed to the system of protection in vogue there. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if France has protection it can hardly be on a very extensive scale, for she has not protected her currency and she does not propose to protect- her bondholders. The Bank of P'rance, with the approval of the government, recently inflated the currency to the extent of two billion francs, and only a few days ago the government of France met with defeat in their attempt to impose the capital levy.
I hold in my hand a copy of a dsspatch from a Paris newspaper to the Toronto Globe, part of which reads as follows:
We must know if henceforth the bank note of the Bank of France is worthy of public confidence, it declares. If we can no longer believe in the loyalty, sincerity and honesty of the statements of the Bank of France, how can we trust its bank note? This is the first time in our history that the government has put into circulation illegal money, and the first time the Bank of France hid this crime by fraudulent statements. If such acts remain unpunished the credit of the Bank of France is finished.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my point is this: The situation in France is somewhat similar to the situation in Canada, in that both countries are enveloped in debt; and the Finance Minister in France was driven to the expedient of inflating the currency in a heroic effort to present a balanced budget. In Canada we have not yet reached the point where such drastic expedients may be necessary, but let us hope that our Finance Minister may scrutinize closely the urgency and wisdom of a moderate tax on capital. I should like to leave these thoughts with the Finance Minister and to express the hope that he may not discard them as being the meaningless mouth-ings of a calamity howler. I am not afraid of the future so far as Canada is concerned, if we can only cut out the political clap-trap and get down to the business of placing the country on its feet. But to stand complacently aboard a sinking ship and shout ''calamity howler!" at the forces who are manning the pumps is not the kind of philosophy W'hich should be popular at this time.

The Budget

Mr. McTaggart
I realize that members to my right may not sympathize with the suggestions I have made, for they have a standard medicine for all our economic ills. With them it is protection and still more protection, regardless of the fact that protection decreases the purchasing power and that a decreased purchasing power puts an effectual brake on national development.
I should now like to turn to some of those things which are of intimate concern to the farmers in my own province. I do not propose to talk about crops or freight rates, for they have been ably dealt with by others, but I would like to suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that he speed up the amendments to: the Bankruptcy lAct placing farmers on an equal basis with others in relation to the act. About a year ago we heard the minister say that he saw no reason why farmers should not have the benefit of the Bankruptcy Act on an equality with other classes of business, but at the present time it is next to impossible for a farmer to have his affairs adjusted in bankruptcy unless he has very substantial assets.
In this connection I might point out that there are many thousands of farmers on the prairies who can never be reached by any scheme of rural credits until they have an opportunity of cleaning up the slate of past misfortunes and mistakes. I hope therefore that the Minister of Justice will bestir himself in the bringing down of legislation at an early day whiqh will place farmers on an equal basis with others in regard to the Bankruptcy Act.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a question which should be of particular interest to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart)-I am sorry he is not in his seat. It is the question of administration of Dominion lands within the pre-emption area in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The situation with regard to those lands is becoming more and more unsatisfactory as time passes, and in saying this I do not desire to create the impression that the departmental officials are not doing their utmost (to cope with the situation. But what I do say is this:	During the last
few years there have arisen a number of difficult problems concerning unproved Dominion lands which cannot be properly studied except at close range. Take, for instance, the question of cancellation of the outstanding obligations on pre-emptions and purchased homesteads, a proceeding, by the way, which I have recommended many times
to the respectful consideration of this House. This important question, although vital to large areas in Saskatchewan and Alberta, has awakened but little interest in the department other than perhaps a mild curiosity. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that almost every municipal council in the area blacklisted by the department several years ago finds itself at its wit's end from time to time in trying to cope with the pre-emption and abandoned land question.
There are many other questions just as important as the one I have just mentioned, but I do not desire to detain the House longer now. I want to make a suggestion to the Minister of the Interior, however; that a board of survey be delegated to study at close range the lands in question in the pre-emption area. This board should include officials of the minister's own department as well as a resident of the district affected. In this way the expense attached to the investigation could be kept within reasonable limits. If this suggestion does not meet with the approval of the minister, perhaps he may find some other way to meet the situation. I hope he will keep in mind, however, that it is a long way from Ottawa to the third meridian-so far, indeed, that folks out there find it less irksome, sometimes, to throw up the sponge than register repeated appeals for a better understanding of their situation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, allow me to suggest to the minister that the next time he visits the prairies he devote a few days to the study of the lands question in the pre-emption area and its relation to the exodus of many of our people to another clime.
On motion of Mr. McKay the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Friday, April 17, 1925