QUESTIONS

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

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Did the Solicitor General of Canada, or any other person representing the Dominion government, retain the services of F. R. Anderson, lawyer, Vancouver, British Columbia, to prosecute the Standard Junk Company in regard to sales tax claim for the sale of empty beer bottles?
2.	On whose recommendation was the said F. R. Anderson retained ?
3. Is the government aware that the said F. R. Anderson is under indictment in the United States for violation of the 18th United States Amendment in connection with the notorious Quadra rum running
case?
4. Is the government aware that the said F. R. Anderson w'as released on a bail of $10,000, which bail was officially and formally forfeited in the United States courts, San Francisco, on March 10th?
5.	Was the engagement of the said F. R. Anderson entered into by the government as an evidence of good faith with the United States government under the recent treaty with that country for the suppression of rum running?
6.	In the opinion of the government, is it conducive to respect for law, order and good government in Canada, for the government to retain as prosecuting attorney of minor offences, one who is charged with a serious offence in a friendly neighbouring country, and who has forfeited his bail of $10,000?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1 and 2. The firm of Russell Hancox and Anderson was retained in this matter upon the recommendation of the Minister of Justice.
3.	Information has been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington that F. R. Anderson was indicted in the United States on the charge of having committed a felony, namely a conspiracy to violate the prohibition and tariff laws of the United States in connection with the seizure of the Quadra.
4.	The ambassador also reported that Mr. Anderson was released on a bail of $10,000 and that owing to his departure for Vancouver such bail had been ordered by the court to be forfeited.
5 and 6. Answered by 1 and 2.


BLACKFOOT INDIAN RESERVE-WHEAT
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What quantity of each grade of wheat made up the total of 136,114 bushels marketed by the Black-foot Indian Reserve in 1923?
2.	What quantity of each grade of wheat made up the total of 60,756 bushels marketed by the Black-foot Indian Reserve in 1924?

Questions


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	1923-
Grade No.	1	
71,217Grade No.	2	
12,918Grade No.	3	
20,890Grade No.	4	
3,875Held for seed or sold by Indians on permit, no record of grades kept	
27,2142.	1924-Grade No.	1	
15,154Grade No.	2	
15,773Grade No.	3	
12,900Grade No.	4	
3,055Held for seed or sold by Indians on permit, no record of grades kept	
13,874


THOMAS R. MAYBERRY
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What was the date of the appointment of Thomas R. Mayberry, of Ingersoll, Ontario, as a commissioner to investigate charges of alleged political partisanship against employees in the civil service or other government employees?
2.	What investigations have been made by said commissioner since his appointment and what has been the result in each case investigated ?
3.	Is he still acting in the capacity of a commissioner as above?
4.	What amount has been paid or is to be paid to the said commissioner in connection with each charge investigated ?
5.	What are Mr. Mayberry's qualifications for the discharge of the duties as commissioner aforesaid?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Mr. Mayberry was appointed a commissioner to investigate charges of alleged political partisanship against government employees in the province of Ontario by O.C., P.C. No. 128 dated January 26, 1923.
2.	Dept, of Railways & Canals-
(a)	Jas. F. Shields, Dickinson's Landing, Cornwall Canal, pleaded not guilty, evidence insufficient to establish charges.
(b)	Augustus Blackburn, Dickinson's Landing, Cornwall Canal, admitted charges; services dispensed with.
(c)	John Waldroff, Dickinson's Landing, Cornwall Canal, pleaded not guilty; evidence insufficient to establish charges.
Post Office Dept.-
'Charges of political partisanship preferred against (a) W. L. Trotter, postmaster at Sheguindah, (b) S. Brickman, postmaster at Sebringville, (c) Wm. Boyd, Postmaster at Kagawong. Postmasters found guilty.
3.	Yes.
4.	Railways & Canals department.
The amount paid above commissioner in connection with the investigation referred to was 8188.75.	..
[Mr. E. J. Garland!
Post Office Dept.
Amount paid in connection with each charge investigated-(a)	S141.70	(b)	$68.95, (c)


S225.50.
[Stage Direction]
5.	No information.

Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Is Dr. M. A. McAulay employed at Camp Hill hospital as a full-time physician?
2.	If so, what is his salary?
3.	Is Dr. O. G. Donovan employed at Camp Hill hospital as a full-time physician?
4.	If so, what is his salary?
5.	Is the department aware that Dr. Donovan also holds another public position in Halifax?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Yes: in charge of medical services in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
2.	$4,800 per annum.	[DOT]
3.	Yes: as Medical Superintendent.
4.	$3,600 per annum.
5.	Yes. His work at the provincial health clinic is performed after regular office- hours and does not interfere with his duties at the Camp Hill hospital to which he gives fulltime service.


BANK NOTE CIRCULATION
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the average amount of bank notes in circulation in January, 1925?
2.	What was the average amount of gold held by the banks for redemption of such notes during January, 1925?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: Average for January, 1925
1.	$153,962397.
2.	Gold and subsidiary coin held
by banks	 $58,791,322
Gold in central gold reserves. 9,276.727
In addition, there were in the central gold reserves, and in the hands of banks, $205,405,-3S1 of Dominion notes.
It cannot be said that gold in hand, any more than other cash resources, is held for redemption of notes in circulation.


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	What was the amount of the net public debt of Canada at the close of each of the fiscal years 1920-21, 1921-22, 1922-23, 1923-24?
2.	What is the estimated amount of the public debt of Canada at the close of the fiscal year 1924-25?
3.	What amounts have been advanced to the Canadian National Railways by way of loan or guarantee and not included in the public debt of Canada in each of the four fiscal years mentioned in question number one and including refunding loans?
4.	What is the amount of such refunding loans in each of the said fiscal years?
Questions


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.
1920-	21	$2,340,787,983	691921-	22	
2,422.135,801	731922-	23	
2,453,776,868	741923-	24	
2,417,783,274	882.	1924-25 (Est) $2,431,487,112.00.3.	All loans from government cash are included in the net debt. Guaranteed bond issues not included in the debt:1920-	21	
$50,000,0001921-	22	
61,000,0001922- 23	
Nil11923-	24	
50,000,000
Equipment issues: In 1920-21 $27,000,000 of
equipment trust notes, not guaranteed by the government, were issued. In 1923-24, $22,-
500,000	of equipment trust notes were issued, and in addition to being secured by the equipment as in 1920-21, were guaranteed by the government.
4.	The proceeds of guaranteed bonds and government loans in cash utilized by the railways for the redemption of debt due the public were as follows:
1920-	21	
$56,382,626	171921-	22	
48,871,443	411922-	23	
25,275,902	041923-	24	
11,469,369	69


RURAL DELIVERY ROUTES
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many new rural delivery routes were established during 1924?
2.	In what provinces were these organized?
3.	How many in each province?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: The answers to these questions are contained in a return to an order of the House which was laid on the table on the 2nd instant.


GOVERNMENT ENDORSED LOANS
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What sums of money raised by loans endorsed by the government remained in the hands of the Department of Finance at the end of the fiscal years 1923-24 and 1924-25?


James Alexander Robb: 1923-24, $18,424,837.67; 1924-25, $21,110,096.19.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MORIN:: 1.	What have been during the fiscal year 1923-24, month by month and in each province separately, the imports of each of the following articles: apples, onions, potatoes, tomatoes, butter and eggs?
2.	What is the United States duty on each of these articles?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MEIGHEN:: For a copy of all papers, reports, writings, telegrams, and other documents, in connection with the recent investigation into the fruit combine in the west and particularly all communications with provincial governments in relation thereto.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this is rather a large order. I gather from a memo before me that it would take six employees four months to complete the return. I might add that within the last two or three weeks Mr. A. McLeod Sinclair, K.C., of Lougheed, Mc-Laws, Sinclair and Redman, Calgary, who is counsel for the Nash and Mutual Brokers' interests, has undertaken to secure from the department practically what this motion calls for, and has been refused in accordance with what appeared to be the right of the minister under sections 15 and 22 of the Combines Investigation Act. It is feared that if this information were placed in the hands of the Nash and Mutual Brokers' interests there would be discrimination against many growers in British Columbia and distributors of green fruits in the prairie provinces. Therefore we could not comply with his request.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about the solicitors for Nash Brothers-


James Murdock: Nash and Mutual
Brokers. Their solicitors are Lougheed, Me-Laws, Sinclair and Redman.


Arthur Meighen: I rise only to say that I know nothing about Nash and Mutual Brokers' interests, I never heard from them, and I did not know they had asked for the information. I do not, however, want to impose any unnecessary expense on the department. I had no intention of getting communications from the different grocers or fruit dealers. What I wanted was a copy of the report and of the official documents in connection with it-not the correspondence with individuals throughout the country-and the correspondence between the government and the provincial governments; that is all.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend will appreciate that less than three months have elapsed since the report was placed in the hands of the attorneys general of the four western provinces. Our understanding is that they are now deciding what further action, if any, should be taken. If they decide not to proceed, then it would devolve upon this government to determine, under

Privilege-Mr. Meighen
section 22, what further action, if any, shoull be taken. Therefore it would not appear advisable at the present time to disclose the correspondence that has passed between the attorneys general of the provinces and this government.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see the force of the objection, but I know the motion is not debatable now. There is a section under which the government has a right to wait three months-it does not have to, though- before entering prosecution itself. That I do not dispute, but it has nothing at all to do with the point. What this House is surely entitled to is a copy of the report and of the official correspondence. What harm in the world can it do to bring down the correspondence, say, between this government and Manitoba? That will have nothing to do with determining either Manitoba's attitude, or this government's attitude after Manitoba's is determined.


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to give that information-certain information. Let it stand in that way.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: What is to be done with the motion?


Arthur Meighen: Let the motion be
carried, subject to the restriction which I have placed upon it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Carried, subject to the arrangement entered into between the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. HOCKEN (for Sir Henry Drayton):: For a return giving a list of the 200 odd industries referred to by the Minister of the Interior in his speech at page 1748 of Hansard, 1925, as having been established along the line of the Canadian National railway from Fort William eastward, and the location of each.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: I am perfectly willing to file the order, but the information will have to be obtained through the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). With that understanding the motion may pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I wish at this juncture
to rise to a question both of privilege and of order. Rule 37 of this House covers the procedure which must be followed both in the case of questions and in the case of answers. That rule reads:
Questions may be put to ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and to members, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same. And in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
In the light of this rule I beg to make reference to a question put and an answer given in this House on April 2. The question is put by the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Doucet) and, with the answer, appears at page 1780 of Hansard as follows:
Mr. Doucet:
1.	What was the amount paid by the government in connection with the investigation and report made by Sir Henry Drayton in regard to the North Atlantic Steamship Conference and ocean rates?
It is to that question I refer, but I may as well read the second question although it is irrelevant:
2.	What is the amount already paid and payable to Mr. W. T. R. Preston in connection with his investigation and report with the said matters?
I shall repeat the first question upon which I base my objection, together with the answer as given by the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp). They are:
1. What was the amount paid by the government In connection with the investigation and report made by Sir Henry Drayton in regard to the North Atlantic Steamship Conference and ocean rates?
Hon. Mr. Copp:
1. Sir Henry Drayton was carried on the paylist of the Board of Railway Commissioners for the period from July 31, 1913, to September 21, 1913, when he was employed on the ocean rates inquiry, and he was paid during the inquiry his regular salary rate as chief commissioner, namely $12,500 per annum, and $1,074 expenses.
I again, desire to read the rule relating to this matter:
(1) Questions may be put to ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and to other members, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the sacpe. And in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
First of all, I would observe that no answer is given to the question as asked. The government, of course, may refuse to answer the question; I do not contend that it is bound to answer it. But if it does answer it is
Privilege-Mr. Meighen

bound to state the facts, and the government, under the rule I have just read, had no right to make a statement which is entirely aside from the answer and not explanatory thereof. In the first place, there is no answer in the present instance of which anything could be explanatory; consequently, this alleged answer is beyond the rule. I submit therefore that it should be expunged. The government was bound, in reply to the question asked, if it answered at all, to state the fact, which is that Sir Henry Drayton got nothing whatever for his services in connection with that inquiry; nor did any other payment made to him in connection with his regular work as chief of the Board of Railway Commissioners have the slightest relation to, much less was it explanatory of, the fact that he got nothing for this particular work. The attempted answer, the gratuitous reference to his being on the paylist, is all the more ungracious when we remember that not only was this work done by him in his holiday time on the railway board and free to the country, but that later his entire work in connection with the Drayton-Aeworth report, which was the basis of the railway policy followed by the administration and which was a prodigious achievement, was also done entirely free of charge. Indeed, a cheque for $15,000 having been sent to him was returned. The same is true in regard to the work done by him as power, light and electricity controller for a long period in 1917-18 and, as well, as controller of food transports. These services . were all given without remuneration, and in the face of that I think that the government, apart from what its legal right may have been, was most ungracious and unfair in this reply. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as having supervision over both questions and answers, to see that they come within the rule; that supervision is given you, Sir, under the rule of this House which I have cited. I appeal to you to ordler that this supposed answer be stricken out and that question No. 1 be restored.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does any other hon. member desire to speak to the point of order?


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: I quite agree with my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that the habit of putting questions asking for opinions of all kinds, including opinions on matters of law, has become altogether too frequent of late. But I cannot follow the hon. member in his argument as to the irrelevancy of the answer given to the question:

What was the amount paid by the government in connection with the investigation and report made by Sir Henry Drayton in regard to the North Atlantic Steamship Conference and ocean rates?
This question was only one means by which the House and the country could ascertain what amount of money had been paid the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) in a certain capacity, and the answer as given in Hansard is merely a statement of actual facts. Questions are put to the government in order that information may be searched for; and that is the only way that information can be got. The mere statement of the fact that the hon. member was at that time a member of the Board of Railway Commissioners in receipt of a salary of $12,000 or so a year-which I assume would indicate that he must have been available for the government of the day for any special work of the kind referred to-does not constitute any assertion of opinion on the part of the government, nor is it any violation of the particular rule applicable to this case. As to the information in regard to the question relating to expenses paid, that I think is perfectly proper. And the answer is given to it. It seems to me that my right hon. friend is unnecessarily worrying over this matter. No answer given by the government is intended in any way to reflect upon the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), nor does it in my opinion constitute any argument or expression of opinion; it is merely a statement of fact. The answer in this instance is simply the statement that the hon. member received a certain salary and certain expenses in his capacity as Chief Commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Arthur Meighen: The only statement made by my hon. friend which is pertinent to the argument I sought to advance is this, that the hon. member for West York having been at the time a railway commissioner in receipt of a certain salary, he was available-as the hon. member "assumed"-for any other services the government wished him to perform. The hon. member could not assume any such thing. Sir Henry Drayton was employed as railway commissioner by this country. Those were his duties, and those alone, within the compass of his salary. Consequently that assertion was not correct. He was not to be available at all. His services were given gratuitously.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He became available.


Arthur Meighen: He made himself available, but the fact that he was railway com-

Privilege-Mr. Meighen
missioner had nothing whatever to do with his claim for remuneration. My point is this: The correct answer to the question was, "Nothing." What is stated here can only be justified as an explanation of an answer. There is no answer given to explain. If it had been given, it is no explanation. It has nothing at all to do with the fact.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is a
question of opinion.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a question
of opinion at all. A man is employed to do certain work. When he does that work he earns the salary assigned. I think the government would have been better advised to admit the hasty reply, agree to expunge this from the record, and give the right answer.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I for one fail to follow my right hon. friend in the trend of his argument on this point. Nobody will deny that the hon. member in whose behalf he spoke is very deserving of consideration for the services he rendered, but the question being put as it was "What was the amount paid by the government in connection with the investigation and report made by Sir Henry Drayton?-I do not believe that a clearer answer and one more to the point could have been given than the one that was given, which says in effect that from the 31st of July to the 21st of September, 1913, Sir Henry Drayton was carried on the pay sheet of the railway commissioners of Canada, and as such received his ordinary salary of $12,500. I think the question being put as it was, the country was entitled to know what was the remuneration paid to Sir Henry Drayton, and the answer is to the effect that he was employed from the 31st of July to the 21st of September, 1913, and that while he was employed on the Ocean Rates inquiry he was paid during that inquiry his regular salary as chief commissioner, which was $12,500. I do not think there is any room for dispute in respect to that. The answer was directly to the point, and I do not think it gives occasion to raise either a point of order or a question of privilege. I for one am fully satisfied that the answer covers the question, and that it is an answer in fact to a question of fact.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I think perhaps the answer covers the question, but more is given than is actually necessary in answering the question. It was not necessary in making that reply to state the salary Sir Henry Drayton was receiving as railway commissioner. A proper answer, if I may venture to suggest it, would, have been to state
simply that he was commissioner of railways at that time, and that he received no further remuneration for his services on this inquiry, except his travelling and other expenses here set out. It is framed a little awkwardly, perhaps not intentionally; I think it could have been framed in better words than are used. It is quite easily understood in reading the answer what the faets were, but there is more said in the reply, I think, than was really necessary.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon.
friend suggests as an objection to the answer that it states What the salary of Sir Henry Drayton was, surely he will not think there was anything wrong in that, because the way questions are being put in the House, the very next question might have been: " What was the salary of Sir Henry Drayton at that time?"


Robert Forke: That is not pertinent to the question. No one was asking what his salary was.


Thomas Vien: The question was, what was the amount paid?


Mr. JOHN MORRISON (Weyburn):: I hold no brief whatever for the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), but I do not think that justice has been done him in the way the answer has been given to this question. Sir Henry Drayton, it appears, gave his services in connection with this inquiry at a time when he was on his holidays. He is now back in political life, and that has a bearing on the matter. If a man did that much gratis, for his country, I think he has the right to get the credit for it, or at least it is only fair that the public should know on what conditions he gave this service. But by making the statement that he was drawing his salary as a railway commissioner, as the answer does, it implies that during this inquiry he was serving his time as railway commissioner and getting paid for it. Technically, perhaps, the government has answered aright, but I think there is a further explanation coming to Sir Henry Drayton. I think there is more in what has not been said in the reply, than in what was said. I think the explanation should have been fully and impartially given. The answer that was given was a biased answer, in my opinion. I do not think justice was done to the hon. member.


George Newcombe Gordon: If there is no objection, I would like to let this matter stand until I have given it further study. I did not know the point was to be raised.

The Budget-Mr. McMaster



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):: On the 23rd of February two questions appeared on the order paper in my name. Subsequently they were passed as orders for returns. They relate to the transfer of certain natural resources in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and also to the cost of administration in the North West Territories. I would like to ask the government when I may expect these returns.


Charles A. Stewart: The officials of my department had this question of the transfer of natural resources up with me on Saturday, and I intended to speak to the hon. gentleman about it to-day. They informed me that it would take a very great deal of time to prepare the returns in the way the order reads, and if the officials could have a little conference with my hon. friend, I think we would be able to arrange so that he could get the information he requires. I am sure he does not want the information in the form one would infer from his question, and a little conference would settle the matter.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 3, 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. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: 

REVISED

[Stage Direction]
lei. Four thousand five hundred lei per metric ton is the export duty which is imposed upon wheat. That works out to about four English pounds per ton, say $20 per metric ton; and a metric ton is three hundred and sixty bushels. The other duties are found also in this table. And these duties from this country with a population almost twice as large as our own- for Roumania now has a population of 17,000,000 and over-amount in my computation to $26,000,000. We have a first claim upon this revenue. I do not say we have got a sole claim; but our debt is secured upon this revenue. Roumania is one of the great food producing countries of central Europe, and it would look to me in view of the financial operations of this government and of our representative at London, that we have really good security for a debt which was at least doubtful before. I think that the government and its representative at London are to be congratulated, not criticized, for this operation; and I trust that after this explanation some member of the Conservative party will have the grace given him to get up in this House and withdraw these assertions which have been so recklessly advanced against the transactions of the government in this regard.
Now what about Greece?
Mr. HANSON:: Does the hon. member think that the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was justified in taking these bonds into account, as part of a surplus for the fiscal year concerning which he was giving the House information, regarding them as actual receipts for the current year? Bonds, no matter how well secured, are simply promises to pay.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Bonds, no matter how well secured, are simply promises to pay; that is quite true. But while a bond which is well secured is not cash it is the next thing to it. The minister was most fair in the statement which he made, and unless it be to a mind searching out for evil that is looking into this situation there is nothing to mislead, nothing to deceive. The .minister made it perfectly clear that this was something of an extraordinary nature, that it was not in the ordinary purview of the year's transactions. In one sense it is not part of the surplus; but in another sense it is an accurate statement that the financial position of this country, as disclosed by the books of the government, has been bettered to the extent of $4,000,000.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The Acting Minister of
Finance, speaking of this matter, on page 1531 of Hansard, said:
This amount is available to be applied on account of our loan to the Canadian National Railways.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. McMaster
Will the hon. member kindly explain that?
Mr. MeMASTER: I presume we cannot run the Canadian National Railway on Roumanian bonds. I agree with that. But you may pick out this portion of the speech, you miay pick out that portion of the speech, and you may snyf, "Is this right?" or, "Is that right?" But I say that if the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) who is a business man of experience, wall sit down and read this budget carefully, he will not have the slightest misapprehension as to exactly the transactions which are set out there.
James Dew Chaplin: I would not expect to
pay any debts with something that had not come in.
Mr. MeMASTER: Perhaps not; I presume that perhaps my hon. friend's business is so prosperous that he does not have to do so, but I know many a merchant who takes to the bank debts due to him by his customers, endorses them to the bank, raises the money on the securities and does pay his debts in that way.


Arthur Meighen: Will my hon. friend explain this point? He claims the debt is a good debt now, but was a bad debt before. I understand his reason is the fact that they have agreed that the debts would be charged against certain revenues. Suppose that Roumania does not do as she said she would do-and it would not be the first time-and does not pay it out of the revenue, what recourse has this country? Would we go into possession with our trawlers, or what would we do?
Mr. MeMASTER:	No. I see the line of
humour which was on the bench behind has moved forward to the front bench. If Roumania "goes broke," this debt would not be a good debt any more.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point.
We had the word of Roumania, the promise to pay, and we have that yet. Will the hon. member explain what else we have that we can enforce and how we can enforce it?
Mr. MeMASTER:	As a matter of fact,
if war broke out, or if Roumania refused to pay, I suppose it would be extremely difficult for us to collect the debt.


Arthur Meighen: We would have "Hie
credit of Roumania."
Mr. .MeMASTER: We have the credit of Roumania, but we have certain revenues of Roumania specially earmarked for the payment of our debt. It is not a new thing at
I Mr. Chaplin.]
all. Before the war certain revenues of Turkey were placed in the hands of certain commissioners under earmark for certain advances given by European countries to Turkey. It is not an unknown method.


Arthur Meighen: In both cases the countries in whose favour the charge was given were represented and had themselves power to enforce payment. We have none at all. We have just their word.
Mr. MeMASTER:	Of course the credit
of Roumania is what we have to look to.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.
Mr. MeMASTER:	But it would seem to
me an extraordinary thing that the hon. gentleman should endeavour to depreciate the security which we now have.


Arthur Meighen: I do not.
Mr. MeMASTER: That is the whole tenoi and substance of the remark of the hon. member.


Arthur Meighen: It is not of that, nature
whatever. What I say is that our security is now what it was before any action was taken. Therefore, the security should be treated the same.
Mr. MeMASTER:	I say the security has
been improved by the earmarking of certain revenues, and by no means small revenues. I calculate that these export duties in the last year on wheat, oats, barley and Indian corn amounted to over $26,000,000. Those have been earmarked for the special payment of this as well as other debts, and that is an improvement, and especially is it worth something when we remember that Roumania has been paying since 1922 interest on the debt.
The next point to which I wish to advert is the question of the duty on coal. Certain coal duties on run of mine coal have beer reduced from 53 cents to 50 cents per ton The duties on bituminous slack coal have beel increased from 14 cents to 50 cents a ton. i approve of the reduction, but I disapprove oi the increase, and I propose to place before the House my reasons for my attitude in that regard, but before I enter upon a discussion of this question may I be allowed to offer a very respectful tribute to the member of this House who took upon herself the duty of going into the coal fields of Cape Breton and examining the situation there for herself? I say that nothing that concerns the welfare of the Canadian people can be an improper matter for attention by the members of this House. The condition of workers in any part of this coun-

The Budget-Mr. McMcistei
try is a matter which concerns this House. If it does not concern this House, why have we a Minister of Labour, and why do we have appropriations every year for the carrying on of the Labour department? Now she brought to her study humanitarian feelings, for which her sex is pre-eminent, and I am sure that all those who listened to her would better appreciate how the situation appeals to a woman who went down there to look into it for herself. First of all, we have the reduction in coal duties. I do not want to minimize the reductions set out in this .budget, I want to give them their full value; and the saving to the Canadian people by this budget in respect of bituminous coal will amount to about $315,000 in the next fiscal year, provided that the consumption be merely equal to the consumption of last year. If it should be increased- and of course a decrease of duty would make us expect an increase in consumption-then the saving to the Canadian people would be considerably more.
I wish to deal with the question of the increased duty on slack coal. But before I deal with it may I say a word as to how the coal areas of this continent are distributed? We have in the extreme east of Canada, in the island of Cape Breton, valuable beds of bitu-minuous coal which have now been worked for many years. In mid and western Alberta we have beds of bituminous and anthracite coal. Within, a hundred miles south of lake Erie we have the great coal fields of Pennsylvania and further south those of West Virginia. This is, roughly speaking, how the coal beds of the North American continent which affect us economically are situated. Now, what will be the effect of raising the duty on bituminous slack coal? That class of coal is used generally for industries. First of all, let me make the point that freight rates are a determining factor in many eases, a more determining factor in the price to the consumer of coal than is the expense of mining the coal. That is something, which should never be forgotten in a discussion of the coal question. The raising of the duty on slack coal by thirty-six cents may enable the coal mines of Nova Scotia to sell to a greater extent than they do now in what is their natural area of supply. I take it that under present conditions their natural area of supply will extend up the St. Lawrence river about as far as Montreal, and the increased duty may enable them to meet American competition and to go as far west as Ottawa. From the best information which I have been able to obtain, I take it that that may mean an increase of some 400,000 tons in the sale of slack coal, and if you give 120|
them a profit on this of fifteen cents a ton, that would give them an advantage of $60,000. The question I wish to put to the House is this: Is there any assurance that that $60,000. which after all is not a very large sum, will enure to the benefit of the working miner in Nova Scotia? What is the other consequence? If one drew a line from, a point say, Windsor in Ontario, as far down as Montreal, then drew a line up to somewhere near Owen Sound, and finished up the triangle, there would be enclosed in that triangle most if not all, of industrial Canada. The city of Quebec has great industries; the flourishing and beautiful little city of Sherbrooke in the eastern townships has industries, but eighty-five or ninety per cent of the industries of Canada are inclosed in that triangle. How will the raising of the coal duties affect the industries in that part of the country? Let us suppose that the prices of bituminous coal remain as they are in West Virginia and in Pennsylvania-and I think the chances are that they will, because I am told that they are now on a low competitive basis. A man told me the other day that he paid for slack coal f.o.b mine head something like 90 cents a ton, and of course a tariff of 50 cents a ton is a tariff of over 50 per cent, as regards the price of the coal, not as regards the price of the coal plus the carriage of it. Let us suppose also that the railways of the United States maintain the rates which they have now. If both those conditions remain constant, this will mean that the price of American slack coal will be raised by 36 cents a ton to the Canadian manufacturer who uses it as a prime article entering into his cost of production. That, I take it, is not a good thing for the Canadian manufacturer.


Mr. MALCOLM:: How many Ontario
manufacturers in that district use slack coal?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not know.


James Malcolm: Very few.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There will be some.
My hon. friend, who is a manufacturer, says there are very few. If there are few, those few are entitled, for reasons which I believe will commend themselves to the judgment of the House, to be treated with consideration and not to have a 50 per cent duty placed on something that enters into their cost of production.


Mr. LOGAN:: Does the hon. gentleman
not think the starving miners of Cape Breton also deserve some consideration?

The Budget-Mr. McMaster


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do, and if this government or any other government in power in this country had come forward with an appropriation for the starving miners of Nova Scotia, I would have voted for it with a great deal more enthusiasm than for a Hector celebration.


Hance James Logan: That might relieve an acute situation to-day, but what about the months and years to come?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Quite so. I am going
to deal with that in a moment. It will raise the price of slack coal to those manufacturers who use it throughout that industrial area of Canada. That is a bad thing for the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian consumers. It is bad for the Canadian manufacturer, not only when he is supplying the Canadian consumer, but when he is going out into the markets of the world, when he is taking, for instance, a shipload of goods down to South Africa, where I understand the government has made a contract for the purchase of coal, for the creation of electricity, at something under fifty cents a ton. This is the competition which our friends, the manufacturers, will have to meet and which, I believe, they should be given the best possible opportunities of meeting.
But there is another question. What is the result of this increase in price to the Canadian manufacturer? He will not be buying Nova Scotia coal because it will not pay him to buy it even when the duty is raised thirty-five cents a ton. He will buy the American slack coal and he will pay the increased price. That increased price will enter into this cost of production, and in the long run it will be borne by the Canadian people. Therefore, in that connection the Nova Scotia miner, whether employer or employee, will not benefit.


Hance James Logan: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the legislature of Alberta, which is supposed to be almost as near free trade as the hon. gentleman himself, passed a unanimous resolution in favour of increasing the duty on slack coal?


Andrew Ross McMaster: If that is a matter of
fact, I am sorry they did, and they will be sorry they did.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: With all
due respect to the speaker, I would suggest that the interrupter produce evidence that the Alberta legislature did pass such a resolution.
(Mr. McMaster.]


Hance James Logan: It has already been produced.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not understand
that the legislature of Alberta had passed a resolution. I understood that the Premier of Alberta approved this raising of the duty. But the responsibility for the regulation of trade and commerce of the Dominion of Canada rests in this House and not in the hands of the Premier of Alberta, nor indeed in the legislature of Alberta. I would say this to the Premier of Alberta:	There is hardly
a part of this country which is not more affected by the protective principle, and I know nothing which will do more to destroy the tendency towards free trade in this country than for the protectionists to be able to point to how the leaders of the movement for lower duties have asked for raising of duties on things in which they are specially concerned. That applies as well to the Premier of Nova Scotia as the Premier of Alberta.
Another point I wish to make is this, and it was brought very graphically home to me by a gentleman who visited this city the otheT day. He said: "I am responsible 4 p.m. for the management of a large office building in Montreal, and as soon as this proposed duty was brought down on bituminous coal, I changed over the grates of my furnaces so that I could burn low grade anthracite coal on which there is no duty." What may be the result- and this is a fact which will operate towards the result-is not to give more work to the miner in Nova Scotia, but to take work awaj from him, to force the use of a substitute article, the use of anthracite rather than that of bituminous.


Hance James Logan: Why not put a duty on
anthracite?


Andrew Ross McMaster: My learned and hon.
friend from Cumberland says:	"Why not
put a duty on anthracite? That would be a revenue tariff." The hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet) also proposes a duty on anthracite. I say this to these gentlemen: If there is one prime necessity in Canada after the clothes we put on our backs and the food we put into our stomachs, it is the warmth we put in our houses. I say that raising the price on fuel is a tax on, not only the comfort, but the health of the Canadian people. I believe those who advocate raising the duty on coal, especially the duty on coal which is burned in our houses, are making a grave mistake and they are following a policy which is modelled on madness.

The Budget-Mr. McMaster


Hance James Logan: Mr. Speaker, does the hon.
gentleman contend that the householders of Canada burn slack coal, either bituminous or anthracite?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I do not. But I
was answering not only the interjection of the member for Cumberland, (Mr. Logan) but also the argument of the member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) in the course of his speech on Friday. After all, the principle is exactly the same, and I will say this to the House, if this principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, and you raised the duties high enough to force us all to bum our own coal, hauling it to central Canada from the two extremes east and west, it would cost us for our warmth and power twice as much as it does to-day, and that burden in the long run would have to be borne by the consumers of Canada. What does that mean? You know, it was the last straw that broke the camel's back and if you raise the cost of living too much in this country you defeat your own object- the people do not stay; they go somewhere else.
Now I wish to address myself to what I consider to be the real remedy for the coal situation, and that is to take off all duties on coal. You ask me, why. I have endeavoured to point out where the great coal areas of this continent are found. They are found in the extreme east of Canada, in the extreme west of our middle west, and south of the Great Lakes in the United States. There is where we get our supplies. Now, theie is no duty on coal going into the United States except against countries which impose a duty on American coal. Let me read paragraph 1548 of the American tariff, Which will be found in the free list running from page 72 to page 85 in the Tariff Act of 1892. The United States is a high-tariff country in some regards, but it is also a country with a large and extensive free list. Now I read paragraph 1548:
Coal anthracite, bituminous, culm, slack and shale; coke; compositions used for fuel in which coke or coal dust is the component material of chief value, whether in briquets or other form; provided, that if any country, dependency, province orjother subdivision of government imposes a duty on any article specified in this paragraph, when imported from the United States, an equal duty shall be imposed upon such article coming into the United States from such country, dependency, province or other subdivision of government.
The natural markets for the mines of Nova Scotia are those parts of this continent which can be served by water carriage. It is quite true that many of the mines of Nova Scotia have been worked for a long time. I was told the other day by a gentleman who was
formerly a member of this House that in one mine they have to pump out seven tons of water for every ton of coal mined.


Hance James Logan: In many cases it is more; in one it is thirty-five tons of water for every ton of coal.


Andrew Ross McMaster: One would think that
mine belonged to Besco and that some of the water from the stock had got into the mine. But the point is this, it may be very expensive to mine ooaj in certain mines of Nova Scotia, it may be that in certain of those mines, notwithstanding the expense of mining the coal, the cheapness of carriage from the mines to the consumer may offset that cost. If it does not, if the operation is uneconomic, we are too poor a country to be able to carry on the uneconomic exploitation of coal mines or of anything else. But granted there is a great field for coal mined in Nova Scotia, that great field which under free trade conditions in coal, they can supply by water carriage in the summer as far west as Montreal, perhaps a little further-it is about a thousand miles from Cape Breton to Montreal by water-and within that distance to the south you will find Boston and the great manufacturing towns of the New England states, which do consume soft coal. There is the potential market for the coal of Nova Scotia, and I believe that in the long run there would be more money made in Nova Scotia if this policy I advocate were adopted than by trying to tax the Canadian people into burning coal from Nova Scotia when cheaper coal is near at hand. Now, let me turn to Alberta-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the hon. member
leaves that point, does he suggest that it would be possible for any coal mine in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick to meet the competition of the West Virginia bituminous mines where apparently they axe able to raise their coal and put it on board ship at Newport News'at 12 a ton run of mine?


Andrew Ross McMaster: It will depend entirely
on where the customer is located. If they have a long haul by land to their customer, I would say that they might not be able to compete. I do not know. But for the purposes of my argument, I repeat, Canada is too poor a country to carry on coal mining operations in order that certain people who could get employment elsewhere may be employed in mining coal. And .apparently from what, we hear it is not just the richest blessing in God's world to be engaged in the coal mines of Nova Scotia. But that, I believe, is their potential market.

The Budget-Mr. McMaster
Now, what about Alberta? The potential market of Alberta is in Canada as far east as Winnipeg. I am told that under ordinary circumstances it is profitable and economic to ship Alberta coal into Winnipeg, and that at one time it was being shipped there, but that the Alberta mines lost a certain amount of the business through industrial disputes- through strikes, perhaps lock-outs. For the purpose of my argument I am not concerned whether it was the employers' fault or the employees'; it possibly was the fault of both; but what I say is, men in the coal mining industry or in any other industry cannot have a merry war between themselves and then ask the Canadian consuming public to foot the bill. If they are going to fight about the hours of work, if they are going to fight about wages, then I would urge them not to fight, but I would add, "If you do fight you will have to pay the piper yourselves, you cannot ask the Canadian public to do so."


Mr. DUFF:: But you are willing that
the government should vote money to encourage strikes?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am not willing that this government should encourage strikes; but there is an occasion when even economic theory and practice that perhaps are as dear to me as to any man in this House give way, and that is when women and children are starving. I will drive a coach and four through all my ideas about free trade, non-interference of government and anything of that sort in order to keep women and children from starving-and I believe that 99 per cent of the Canadian people agree with me. Now I wish to turn to another phase-


Mr. GOOD:: Before the hon. member proceeds, what about the possibilities of Alberta coal going south? That was not mentioned by him.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I want to mention that. I am told that even to-day Alberta coal is sold in North Dakota and Montana-in those northern states which fringe our southern boundary. If they go in there now they have to surmount a duty equivalent to the duty which American coal has to surmount coming into Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: More than
the mere duty. [DOT]


Andrew Ross McMaster: They will of course
have to surmount the expense of carriage, but the duty will be the same. '
[M^. McMaster.]


William Duff: If there is a duty on coal going into the United States, how do you expect Nova Scotia coal to go into New England?


Andrew Ross McMaster: My hon. friend probably was not in the House when I made my statement.


William Duff: Yes, I was here.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The point is this. As
soon as we take the duty off American coal coming into Canada the duty will automatically go off Canadian coal entering the United States. There is free trade in the United States, so far as coal is concerned, except with such countries as refuse to let American coal in duty free.


Mr. LADNER:: If the hon. member's view is sound, how does he account for the fact that Premier Armstrong and the people who know the actual conditions in Nova Scotia advocate the very reverse proposition?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The government of Nova Scotia is the unfortunate landlord of Besco and it is to the advantage of that government, which collects a large amount of its revenue from the Nova Scotia coal mines, to keep those mines going. They think that the mines will be kept going through the imposition of this duty. But I think that if they took a long view of the matter they would be of the same opinion as myself. After all, I do not believe there can be any more dangerous doctrine for this House to accept than the doctrine that the trade policy of Canada must be governed by pulls and pushes from different parts of the country.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. gentleman know of any responsible person in either labour or business circles in Nova Scotia who advocates the policy he is bringing forward in this regard? Does he know of anyone who is in any responsible position there who does not advocate a protective tariff in the matter of coal?	*


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have not the acquaintance of all the responsible people of Nova Scotia but I will give the hon. gentleman one striking instance. Some years ago a gentleman named Carmichael was appointed a senator from the province of Nova Scotia. As far as I remember he never took his seat in the Senate, or if he did it w'as only for a short time. Before that he was a member of the House of Commons; and the question of coal duties coming up, although he represented a count}' in which there were coal mines, he took the view that a duty on coal wTas not in the interests of the Canadian

The Budget-Mr. McMaster
people and he voted against such a duty. I do not know whether he ever presented himself for re-election; perhaps he never got the nomination; if he did stand for election he was probably beaten. But I say that Senator Carmichael is a much sounder example for me in my humble capacity to follow than those who would be governed in their conduct here by interested advice that comes from different parts of the country.
Let me now deal with the question of the export of electrical power, upon which the government has placed a small duty. I have no objection to this duty so long as it is very small, but I would point out that any high duty will defeat the very object which I think we should have in view in connection with the development of our electrical power. We/need in Canada every possible means for paying our way; let me put it in that homely fashion. And if we can, either through the use of our owrn capital or by means of capital that comes from abroad, develop the manufacture of electrical power which is more than sufficient for our own needs and have a surplus for export we are doing a wise thing in Canada to export that surplus; we are making money of the water which otherwise would flow away to waste. What are the objections to the export of this power? They are objections with which I have little patience; they are founded upon fear of the United States, fear that in some way or other wrhieh is not explained there will be difficulty when we need the power for our own use. Electric companies would rather supply industries close at hand than industries at a distance; that stands to reason. There is a certain wastage in electricity as it passes over the wire-not much wastage, it is true, thanks to recent scientific improvement. But the longer the line of electric wire you have to maintain the more the upkeep will be. So that any company that develops electrical power will always be glad to supply the home customer before it begins to export.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the hon. gentleman tell me what the power rates are in Montreal and just across the river here, the electricity in each case generated by Canadian water?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I cannot tell my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the hon. member like me to give him the information?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I shall be glad to have
it. But the point I want to make is that the fears in this regard are idle; they are
imaginary. How silly it is for us to talk that way, when we own a railway line running from Detroit to Chicago, our property. And we know that half if not more than half of our line from Portland to Montreal is in American territory. Why, the Americans have invested in this country, I think I am safe in saying, 12,500,000,000. We have both of us given hostages for our good behaviour, the one to the other. We cannot therefore afford to play the dog in the manger with the United States. The best thing for us to do if we want to be friends is to show ourselves friendly; that is the proper attitude, the only attitude which can make us a successful people on this continent. I have heard the argument advanced that if we ship electrical power to the United States we shall increase the prosperity of that country. Granted. But I want to see the United States prosperous. The farmers of my county send a lot of their cream down to Boston, and the richer the Boston people are the more will they be inclined to use cream rather than milk with their cereal-I understand they call porridge "cereal" in the United States. And the same thing applies to the county of Richmond; the people there are sending their cream to New York. I was in conversation the other day with a gentleman who is a large Jersey breeder in Richmond county and he told me that the farmers co-operating with him had sent to the American states during the past year $187,000 worth of cream and he hoped that during the coming season they would send a quarter of a million dollars' worth. We have real advantages in this regard over the United States. I may observe here that today milk is being taken to New York from incredible distances; my informant of the other day told me that milk was being shipped to New York from states as far west as Missouri. It seems almost incredible, but we can understand how it is done when we know that the product is sent in great glass tank cars which are constructed on the principle of thermos bottles. Now, the milk which is got from cows feeding in the hotter parts of the United States has not the flavour of the milk that comes from cows that browse on the hills of our beautiful eastern townships and that drink our spring water. In New York a premium is given on what is known as state of Maine milk, and the milk that comes from our eastern townships is very much of the same nature and is able to command the same premium. It seems to me therefore that the policy of allowing the export of electrical power, if we have it to sell, is a sound one. We are not dissipating our re-

The Budget-Mr. McMaster
thing for the country. But let us suppose that the ship on her next voyage, loaded with the same kind of goods, is lost off the coasts of Newfoundland, is a total wreck. Exports $100,000; imports nil; favourable balance of trade, $100,000. And that is the policy which is preached by sensible people in this country to-day and on which we are asked to base the fiscal policy of Canada. It is almost as absurd as the fallacy which says we should aim to be a self-contained country. That theory was also raised by Sir John A. Macdonald in the days gone by. "Shall we not say Canada is for the Canadians, and protect our markets for ourselves?" quoth he at Stanstead, in the next country to my own, in 1877. "Shall we not say if we haVe a short crop, our own people shall consume it and pay a fair price for it?" As a matter of interest and curiosity I took the export of wheat to all countries from Canada for the years 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923, and then I calculated what population we would have to have in this country in order to eat all that wheat, and I found if we counted flour also in our calculations-I think that would be fair-we would have had to have in 1920, fifty-three millions more people; in
1921,	eighty-three millions more people; in
1922,	fifty-two millions more people; and in
1923,	seventy-three millions more people. I will ask for leave to put this statement on Hansard.
Exports of wheat to all countries:
With Flour
1920, 185.000,000, 46 millions extra, 53 millions extra
1021, 311.000,000, 77 millions extra, 83 millions extra
1922,	180.000,000, 45 millions extra, 52 millions extra
1923,	252,000,000, 63 millions extra. 73 millions extra
The attack has been made upon the government that it has not raised the duties- not that it has not sufficiently lowered them. The attacks by the Conservative party are based on the charge that the government has not raised the duties although they say it should have done so, and a good deal of argument has been addressed to the farmers of this country in that connection. They are told that they are being betrayed and badly treated by this government because it has refused to put up the duties on agricultural products. Well, I am not going to emulate the fashion in which the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has addressed the House; I am not going to talk of gold bricks, or of shell games, or anything of that sort; but I say this: that any attempt to pretend that the farmers, as a whole, can be benefited by the imposition of duties upon what they produce and of which they have a large exportable surplus i3 a cruel deception, it is something which

cannot be done. The House will forgive me if I deal with this at some little length because it is a matter of real importance to this country.
The farmers should not be allowed to believe that they can be helped by the imposition of a protective duty on what they have to produce, because as long as this country has a vast exportable surplus of agricultural products to send to the markets of the world the price which we get in those markets for that surplus is what determines the price of the entire production. There may be cases here and there where the contrary obtains, there may be a few market gardeners near some large city who by means of the duties are able to get a little higher price at certain times of the year for what they have got to supply to their neighbours who live in the adjacent city. That may be true, but we are not here to look after special interests, we are here to look after the general interests; and so I say that the farmer cannot be benefited by a protective tariff. Now I am going to quote evidence not from Canada first but from the United States, because I take it I am in the sense of this House when I say that if that has proven to be impossible in the United States, if responsible people in the United States say it cannot be done in that country-which has in comparison to its production a far smaller exportable surplus than we have-then a fortiori it cannot be done in Canada. The first witness I will call in this regard is the man who was Democratic candidate for the position of president at the last election, and he spoke on September 7th, 1924, as follows:
In order to delude the farmer with a false pretense of imaginary benefits and with utter disregard of economic law, those in control of the Republican party announced, in the Spring of 1921, that all his ills would be promptly cured by the enactment of a protective tariff for his benefit. They declared that high tariff rates on wheat, corn, livestock, meat products and so forth, would immediately raise the domestic price. Such a law as accordingly placed upon the statute books in May, 1921, but when wheat fell from $1.47 in May to $1 in December, and corn from 62 cents in May to 47 cents in October, the promised relief was seen to be a pure political fiction.
Under cover of this pretense, however, the oppressive Fordney-McCumber bill was enacted in September, 1922. Lobbies representing greedy manufacturers stormed the nation's capital and wrote their own excessive and extortionate rates in utter disregard of every theory, even of protective tariff taxation. No consideration was given to the new and changed financial business and economic conditions.
Then further referring to the Fordney-McCumber law he said:
This law is both a fence and an offense. It was a fence against reciprocal trade, no matter how profitable or desirable and shattered our trade structure

'The Budget-Mr. McMaster
throughout the world. It was an offense to every consumer in the United States, and not least of all to the farmers who were left outside the scope of its pretended benefits. It might have been appropriate^ entitled "An act to obstruct our foreign commerce, to increase the prices of what the farmer buys and to reduce the prices of what he sells."
Thereafter, as an additional sop to the farmer, under the so-called flexible provision the duty on wheat was increased by Executive order and that ungrateful commodity promptly responded by a further fall in value. Surely the day when the farmer can be lulled to rest by a nominal tariff on the commodities of which he has a surplus to sell abroad has passed forever.
That is the argument made by the gentleman who presented himself as the presidential candidate of the great Democratic party, a gentleman distinguished at the bar of New York, a gentleman who represented his country at the Court of 'St. James in England, and possibly as attractive a candidate as appeared in the last election before the American people. But those were not only the views of the Democratic party but also the views of the Republican party, or at least of that section of the party who agreed with their vice-presidential candidate Colonel Dawes. He says:
It is an admitted fact that in the case of any agricultural commodity of which we raise a substantial surplus, the price obtainable for this surplus in the world's markets establishes in a general way the price level of the entire crop.
This is from the address delivered by Colonel Dawes, the Republican nominee for the office of vice-president' at Lincoln, Nebraska, in August or September, 1924. But let me quote what I might term a collective witness. In the United States within the last few months a national association of commissioners, secretaries and departments of agriculture gathered together and they held a meeting on the 2nd December, 1924, and I quote the following:
The protective principle affects only those farm crops of which we produce less than we consume, examples of which are wool, flax and sugar. In the case of those crops of which there is an exportable surplus the case is quite different. The price of the exportable surplus is fixed by world-wide competition and is unaffected by a so-called protective tariff. The price level of exportable surplus in turn determines the price level of all that portion of the commodity required for domestic consumption. It is apparent, therefore, that the producer of these farm crops having a surplus available for export, sells at price levels determined by world-wide competition, buys in a market restricted by the operation of the protective principles. Examples are: wheat, corn, pork, and to some extent dairy products.
I also quote figures which appear in the Congressional Record, January 21, 1925, as follows:
Net loss to farmers of United States due to tariff:
Gross cost to farmers	 $426,000,000
Gains to farmers as producers	 125,000,000
Net cost to agriculture	 301,000,000
Now if that is true in the United States it is a great deal truer in Canada.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Will my hon. friend state who asked for protection for the farmers in the United States?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think the farmers of the United States have been thoroughly fooled by the Republican party ever since the Civil war. They have been asking for protection and they have been getting it, and it has not done them on the whole the slightest bit of good, and it has enabled the protected manufacturers of the country to gouge the people of the United States.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the exportable surplus determines the price of the home market, how does the hon. member account for the fact that the United States had a surplus production in fruit that they dumped into Canada at a much lower price than the home market? That is why we have an antidumping law.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They are able in that case, I presume by some sort of combination, to maintain their home prices. But I say this: that you might in certain parts of the country find markets which might be rarely helped by the protective principle; but I vas laying down the general principle which is true. It may suffer exceptions in the case of spring strawberries and other things at other times in different parts of the country. But I say as a general rule,-and in our fiscal policy we must be governed by general rules-it is true as a general principle. I appeal to my hon. friend who wishes to be fair to examine these things carefully, and I ask him to open any newspaper which quotes the prices of wheat in Liverpool and the price in Winnipeg, and he will find that the price in Liverpool will be the price at the head of the lakes, plus the cost of transportation. There have been fluctuations in the price of wheat which may have disturbed market conditions, but I say that at almost all times-and I appeal to those hon. members in this House who know more about marketing wheat than I do-you will find the cost of wheat in Great Britain is the cost of wheat at the head of the lakes, plus the cost of transportation to Liverpool.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is not the fallacy of the
free trade argument the fact that there are so many barriers in the country that they are artificial interferences continually with trade and exportable surpluses and everything else, and you have to deal with it in a practical way in each particular case?

The Budget-Mr. McMnster


Andrew Ross McMaster: This is not a new argument. It was answered by Sir Robert Peel in the forties in the House of Commons, England. He said the best thing Great Britain could do in the face of tariff walls against her was to have a policy of free imports. The fact that you are interfered with when you go to sell is no reason why you should interfere with yourself when you come to buy. It is quite true that the protectionist tariff wall hurts us when we go into other countries to sell. It increases the cost to the consumer in the country to which we are taking our goods, and therefore decreases the demand. It is a hurtful thing to us, but let me give this specific illustration. I know that we free traders are often called theorists, but it is the protectionist who is the theorist. The free trader wants to consider things as they really are. A great many people in my county sell cream in Boston. It is true they have to pay a duty on the cream that goes in. It is paid by the American consumer of that cream. But if there were not a duty there would be a bigger demand for that cream, and therefore the duty hurts the farmer who exports cream from Brome. But is the fact that he is hurt when he is an exporter of cream any reason why he should hurt himself by raising the duties against himself when he wants to buy things which come from the United States?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. member say the incidence of tariff taxation always falls upon the consumer in the country to which the article is exported.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, it depends on how
keen the demand is. If I am trying to place my goods in a protected market, have got to get the goods in there, and it is the only available market, and the demand is not keen, I may in some cases pay the whole duty, or pay part of the duty, in order to get into the market. But I will always be looking for another market, and I think it will be found generally that the incidence of the tax usually falls upon the consumer. It would not be any use to be a protectionist unless that were true. If the exporter to a protected country paid the duty then there would be no protection for the home manufacturer. He would have to compete with the free trade price just the same as before.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend serious about that?


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is absolutely true, and if my hon. friend with the smiling countenance would consider for a moment, he would see that it was true. Take woollens coming into Canada purchased by Green-

shields, in a case where the British manufacturer so much desired to send the goods to Greenshields that he paid the 25 per cent duty, and that Greenshields was able to buy the British woollens just the same as if the duty was not on at all, what change would the Canadian manufacturer have? He would be compelled to put out a better line of goods to get Greenshields to buy from him, when Greenshields could buy from the British firm without paying any duty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am delighted
with my hon. friend's statement, and I am going to ask him another question. Does he think-and I followed him very closely- that the illustration that he is applying as to the reflex action in the domestic market of the outside cost of wheat would apply simi'larly as regards any other commodity in the would?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think so. Our Dairy
Commissioner, Mr. Ruddick, says that the price of dairy produce is, on the whole, governed by precisely the same rule. I say that wheat is the classic example of the theory which I am enunciating to this House. We examined that question with great care some two or three years ago in the agricultural committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it is
not the example, it is the one exception. But perhaps >my hon. friend will tell me as to the price of butter in New York as against the price of butter in any centre he desires to pick in Canada. I think he will find his principle does not work.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Of course, when you
come to retail prices-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Wholesale.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think you will find
wholesale prices will be much more on an equality than retail prices because retail prices may vary from store to store. But I say this-and I believe I am correct when I say it-that if you have a great surplus for export, the price you get for that exportable surplus will determine, both generally as regards volume and generally in point of time, the price you have to accept for your home production.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Supposing an exportable
surplus from the United States was dumped into Canada at a price below that at which the goods can be produced in either Canada or the United States, would that be in the interest generally of the people of this country ?

The Budget-Mr. McMaster
Mr. M'cMASTER:	That would depend
whether it was done continuously or not. If it was done continuously at a price lower than that at which we could produce the goods, I believe it would be greatly in our interest to get that and to devote our attention to producing something else.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It would be intermittent,
but enough to hurt business in this country.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I believe, in the long
run, less harm would be done to the vast majority of the people of Canada whose interest we have to think of first, namely, the consumers, by allowing them to get the advantage of even such intermittent dumping as my hon. friend suggests.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member in his very interesting discussion quoted figures, I think, to show that the net cost to agriculture in the United States of the tariff was $301,000,000. Does the hon. member mean that to be the net cost of the protective principle as applied in the United States or the net cost of simply the agricultural protection?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The figures which I
have before me purport to show that the gross cost to the farmers of the protective principle is $426,000,000; that, in other words, what they have to buy has been artificially increased in price to the extent of $426,000,000; that the price of what they have to sell has been artificially increased to the extent of $125,000,000, and that, therefore, the net cost to agriculture is $301,000,000. That is dealing only with the matter in the large. That does not take into account the fact, I think, that the wheat farmer in the United States is not helped much by protection. He may be occasionally, but as a rule he is not helpfrd by protection. Therefore, there is really no gain in protection for him at all. The United States exports, if I mistake not, about three bales of cotton for every four she produces, so that the price of cotton in the United States is unaffected by a tariff, and the cotton farmer, the farmer who grows only cotton, cannot be helped at all' by a protective tariff. Therefore, he has to bear his share of the loss. This purports to give agriculture, as a whole, and tends to show, if these estimates are correct, that even in the highly industrialized United States, where, I think, the proportion of urban population to rural population is much greater than with us, the protective principle is disadvantageous to the farming interests.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Whose estimates are these? Where can we get them and where are they made up?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The whole matter is
thoroughly discussed in the Congressional Record of the 21st January, 1925, just at the beginning.


Mr. SPENCER:: What number of years
would these figures cover?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am unable to state,
but it is a very recent compilation and a compilation which, I take it, was induced by the very disturbed condition of agriculture in the United States a year or two ago.


William Charles Good: That was the net loss per
annum, was it not?


Andrew Ross McMaster: That was supposed to be the net loss per annum. Of course it is a mere computation, a mere estimate; but the point I wish to emphasize to this House is that even in the United States where, if in any place on this continent, the protective principle should be able to help the farmer, according to this authority it does nothing of the sort.
The next point which I wish to bring up is the argument made by protectionists that importations from abroad of goods diminish the demand for labour in Canada. We heard a great deal about how much more prosperous we would be if we could only 5 p.m. shut goods out, and the inference was, in fact the assertion was made, that the Canadian wage earner would be more prosperous under a protective tariff than he would be if a protective tariff did not exist. That is a fallacy and I will endeavour to prove my statement. You may possibly help one special line of industry by protection; you may possibly help the men who are engaged in that particular line of industry by protection; but you cannot help industry or labour as a whole by protection and I will tell you why. What labour can get out of industry by way of either salary or wages is governed, first of all, by the wealth which is produced in the country. If a great deal of wealth is produced in a country, there is more to be divided between the capitalists and the workers. Of course protection cannot increase the wealth of the country. It can only direct labour and capital into certain channels rather than others. I think history shows and economics teach that it is more likely to misdirect than properly to direct labour and capital into channels away from those into which they would otherwise flow.

The Budget-Mr. McMaster
Let me place this before the House. Protection, as a whole and generally speaking, will raise prices. If a man can save a dollar or two dollars on a pair of shoes and a woman two or three dollars on a dress, what are they going to do with that money? They are going to buy other things with it. They are going to create other demands and these other demands will have to be met by labour. Therefore, the more natural you get the channel in which labour and capital flow the more you force labour and capital into channels which will produce the greatest economic return, the greater will be your wealth and the greater will be the return for labour. I need not stress the point. I believe it to be sound.
Now, I have talked a long time and I mingled praise with blame, and perhaps the House will say, "You have spoken for an hour and a half; what have you practical to suggest?" Well, with all respect to this House, I am going to make a few practical suggestions. Our tariff problem, our railway problem, our immigration problem are inextricably mingled together; they all form parts of a larger problem-'the condition-of-Canada problem. We want better conditions in Canada, and these problems, tariff, immigration, railway, are merely aspects of the one great problem. The government has proposed a tariff board. Well, a tariff board may be useful in getting certain information, but it will not determine, or it should not be allowed to determine, the policy of the country. This policy must be determined by the representatives of the people. It seems to me that what we must determine, before we can have a tariff board functioning usefully for us, is whether we are going to have a tariff which is primarily for the purpose of raising revenue, or primarily for the purpose of affording protection; because it cannot be properly designed to do both. Now, I hope that when the tariff board is chosen it will direct itself to the examination of the question:	How we can raise more
revenue through the tariff with the least dislocation of business and on the soundest principles of business and economics.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the hon.
member allow me a question on that point? Has he considered the figures collected by the American government under their advanced and present high rates as against the figures that were collected before the emergency tariff?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One is the
multiple of the other.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But I have read a
good deal as to the amount of dissatisfaction there is with the tariff board of the United States; how that tariff board has not prevented scandals, such as their woollen schedule K, which is a crime and a disgrace to any civilized country; how that tariff board is not recommending against the continuation of high duties in industries where by the application of automatic machinery and other labour saving devices the United States are able to compete on an equal footing with the' whole world. I would pray the government in this regard not to establish a highly organized board with chairman, vicechairman and commissioners and with a staff of stenographers and clerks; I implore them not to do that because when those gentlemen are appointed-if they are-their whole subconscious desire will be to maintain protection in order to retain their jobs and because no man when put in a position of that sort can refrain from trying to magnify his office. There are, however, men in the employ of the government whose fund of information and whose collection of data would be a great benefit to anyone who may be called1 upon to deal with the tariff question. I do not think I am going beyond the bounds of propriety when I say that a member of this tariff board should be our Dominion Statistician who, I think, knows more about the condition of trade and industry in this country than possibly any other man within the confines of the Dominion.
Now I am going to speak for a moment about immigration. The needs of the Canadian people in this regard demand such arrangements or rearrangements within the cabinet as will permit one member, and as able a man as can be got, to have charge of immigration, to devote his whole time and attention to it. I think it is a job for one man, and I do not believe that any man, I do not care how able, how devoted and how self-sacrificing he is, can ever cany on another department with the Department of Immigration. The work imposed on cabinet ministers by our system is onerous. They have a great deal of departmental work to attend to, a great deal of routine to look after, both in session and out of session, and for four or five months they have to spend a large portion of their time in this House. What we want to do is to set a man apart with the responsibilities of a minister who will think this question out. In this regard I

The Budget-Mr. McMaster
should like to make a few suggestions. I should like the man who is charged with immigration to realize that an immigrant is not only a potential producer, a competitor in the market of producers, he is also a potential consumer, and the fact that there is danger of him becoming unemployed should not have too much weight. Let us get in people strong of brain and strong of body, and let us give them a chance. That is the way to work out the salvation of this nation, because we are going to have hard times in Canada unless we can at least within the next few years substantially increase our population. I want to see the development of a national spirit, and I believe that the more we develop a national spirit the better type of immigrant will we induce to some to this country. I should like to see the abolition of the technical rules which even yet to a certain extent obtain in the department, in order that men may come in more freely. I should like to see use made of our own citizens, no matter from what part of the world they come, in order that they may get into this country friends and relatives who will be useful citizens. I had the pleasure of an instructive trip through the west about fifteen months ago, and I shall never forget as long as I live what one of my hosts said to me when I was visiting in one of the prairie provinces. As he drove me down to the station; he said: "My land marches a mile that way, it goes a mile and a half the other way, and four men and four families could get as good a living off that land as I get now, and there would be four men to pay taxes and four women to help the church organizations and the social life in the country." I think there in a nutshell is our problem. To a large extent we are yet an empty land, and until we fill it up, the burden of the national equipment we possess will hang heavy upon us.
Concerning the railway problem, I am not going to trench upon the ground which has been covered by the member for South York (Mr. Maclean) and the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), namely, that there should be an amalgamation of some sort between the Canadian Pacific Railway, with their magnificent line of steamers, and the Canadian National Railway. That may be the proper thing to do; I should be glad to study it; but I say meanwhile something has to be done, and I make this suggestion: that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) should say to the heads of our two great railway companies:	"Gentlemen, cease
useless competition, cease duplication of train services; find out what trains are paying you
and then make arrangements to take off those that are not paying." I think we could save in the tens and twenties of millions of dollars if that policy were adopted. It will not be easy to put into effect, for people do not like to co-operate when they have been competing strongly against each other. But they have got to do it. We cannot allow things to go on as they are, we must elimate useless duplication.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Might I ask a question at that point? Would the hon. member go so far as to suggest that railway rates be reduced until the two companies are compelled to do what he suggests, if they will not do it otherwise?
Mr. MeMASTER: I should not like to hold out the big stick before I had allowed the estimable Minister of Railways and Canals to emulate Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his sunny ways, which I think on the whole would be more likely to bring about the desired result than a display of force. Bu. in all seriousness, the people of this country demand that economy' be the watchword. That does not mean economy merely in little things, it means economy in big things, ana I think the line which I have suggesteu should be followed. For instance, I am told that the competition for business between these two lines is leading at least one of them to altogether too extravagant modes of collecting express shipments. I was told when I went west that in one city in that part of the Dominion where, before the competition had begun, there had been some five engines placing cars in the yards there were now twenty-two. And we all know that throughout the country there are through trains between large cities that could be eliminated. I believe that the people of Canada would be prepared to support any government that showed that it had at heart the interests of the people in the matter of economies in the management of our railways. We must however practise economy ourselves. Two years ago I protested against the tower going up at the present juncture at a further cost of S600,000. But the work was proceeded with and the top has not yet been reached. I do not believe that a government will make any enemies in this country if it shows that it really intends to economize, although I know it is not easy practising economy. I once defined extravagance myself as expenditure on the part of other people of.which we do not approve. So that it is easy to talk economy. But what every member of this House has

The Budget-Mr. McMaster
got to do is to realize himself that he should not ask for his own constituency anything which he does not believe is justified by the financial condition of the country.
I will vote for the budget, not because I am particularly enthusiastic about it; there are features in it which I reserve to myself the right to vote against. But to vote against the budget might mean defeating the government.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Well, that "hear, hear" does not commend itself to me; I do not want to see this government defeated. In many ways it is a very good government; for one thing, there has never been any government in Canada in many years which has stood up for the principle of Canadian nationality as this government has done. And that is something that is dearer to me almost than anything else. Burns has said:
Then gently scan your brother man,
Still gentler sister woman;
Tho' thejr may gang a kennin wrang,
To step aside is human: ....
Then at the balance let's be mute,
We never can adjust it;
What's done we partly may compute,
But know not what's resisted.
Well, we know what has been resisted; the government has resisted appeals for all sorts of increases in the tariff coming even from constituencies which some of its members represent. And that should be counted to them for righteousness. I will support the government because there have been some reductions in duties. It is true that these reductions are not so many as to tire one in the counting of them; but there have been some reductions on things that should be reduced. My estimable friends in the far corner of the chamber will forgive me if I am candid. They are always so kind and courteous, so smiling and debonair, that it is difficult for one to speak harsh words about them, but at this time one must be outspoken, and must say what is true; our words must be words of truth and soberness. This debate has shown that those hon. gentlemen have no appreciation of the condition of the country. A year or two ago they complained that the Progressives were crape hangers and calamity howlers, but when they themselves got into their stride Alberta, was left nowhere. And with all their statements about the state of things in the country what is their proposal? They propose more taxation, more restrictions; that is the only proposal they have to bring forward. And that same proposal has been made for the last fifty years

and found erroneous. I want to see the government succeed and lead the country along the paths of freedom. We must depend in this country on one school of political thought or the other, and this government will never be really loved by the protectionists; never. Well, I say to the government, be off with the old love and be on with the new.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about coal?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have not dissembled my views about coal. Indeed, I have been so frank about coal that I shall be afraid to meet some of my friends from Nova Scotia in the lobby after this speech. I think I hear one of them saying "hear, hear." However, I ask the government-if the trumpet blow an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself for the battle? Personally, I do not want any more uncertain sounds. Restriction has been tried in this country and has failed. Let the government take its courage in both hands and march forward in the ways of reduced duties and it will find itself supported, I believe, by the representatives of the vast majority of the people of this country.


Mr. JAMES STEEDSMAN (Souris):: I am somewhat at a disadvantage coming after my eloquent and genial and extremely well informed friend (Mr. McMaster), but I am much indebted to him for some of the things he has dealt with in his speech. Some of them will save repetition on my part. I thank him particularly for what he had to say with regard to agriculture in Canada. What I have to say this afternoon will be largely in the interests of agriculture and particularly in the interests of western agriculture. While I could follow my hon. friend in most of his statements and while I agreed with him on a good deal of what he has advocated with regard to the tariff in particular, I am sorry to say that I cannot at this time see my way clear to go the whole way with him and support the budget. What I want to do particularly is to bring before the House the point of view of agriculture with regard not only to the budget but to some of the other more important questions that are agitating the minds of hon. gentlemen and of the people throughout this country to-day.
Perhaps nowhere in the world has a similar number of people been able to produce so much wealth in the same length of time as have the farmers of the prairie provinces, and with that been able to save so little of the proceeds of their labour. One reason for their great production is of course the ease with which the land is brought under cultiva-

The Bugdet-Mr. Steedsman
tion. That coupled with the fertility of the soil has made it possible to raise more grain per man in the prairies than anywhere else in the world. Yet we must realize that wheat, the greatest of all our exportable commodities to-day, is being produced in the prairies at a loss, one year taken with another. Some of the things that are responsible for that state of affairs I intend to deal with as I proceed. Distance from markets where our products are ultimately sold brings up, of course, the question of transportation both by rail and by water. Then again the expensive system of handling and marketing our crops must be considered, such as the many tolls that are charged from time to time for various services rendered. Then again there is the question of the high interest rates that the farmers have to pay, the question of the cost of production, and the high cost of living-these are all matters that enter into this proposition of the production of wheat at a loss.
The question of railway rates, we are told, will be very thoroughly gone into by the House this year. Hence, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter particularly into a discussion of that this afternoon. I just want to pomt out, however, in passing, that not only the agriculturists but all the people of western Canada stand solidly behind the Croivsnest pass agreement rates, and any attempt to interfere with those established rates on grain and grain products wrill be most strenuously opposed I think by all the people of the prairies.
With regard to the rates on the lakes, this was touched on the other day by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston). Perhaps there has been no other service for which we have had to pay more than the service on the lakes. At times the rates have been out of proportion, and I would just like to suggest to the government that if at any future time there is any apparent approach to discrimination against Canadian shippers, they should at once apply the remedy they have now in their hands, that of suspending the ;coastal laws:	We believe
that that would result in eliminating such a state of affairs as we had, for instance, two years ago, when the rates went away beyond everything that ivas reasonable.
The matter of the control of ocean rates is also before the House. In regard to that I just wish to say that I trust the committee that has this inquiry in charge, if it does not approve of the Petersen contract, will introduce some other means whereby ocean rates may be brought down. We realize that 121
the rates on beef cattle, for instance, to England are away out of proportion; they are much too high. We realize, too, that unless the rates are brought down, the beef cattle industry of Canada is doomed. In view of the fact that we are shut out of the American market, there is no other country our beef cattle can go to except Great Britain, and we cannot ship them there at a profit under the present rates. Any scheme that will result in the specific lowering of ocean rates not only on cattle but on other products will, if not at too great a cost to the people of Canada, meet at any rate with my approval.
Then as to the cost of .production and the cost of living-and here is where our disappointment, shall I say, with the present budget comes in-last year a reduction was made, a step forward, as it was called, was taken, and in view of the enthusiasm with which those reductions were accepted in this House and in the country as well, I think we were justified in expecting that at least another further step -would be taken this year, and not only in view of the enthusiasm with which that step was accepted by this House and the country, but also because of its enthusiastic reception by some members at least of the cabinet; in view of the fact also that we have the assurance of the Prime Minister himself, or if not his, we have the assurance of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that no harm was done to the industry the duties on whose products were reduced last year. In view of these circumstances I think we had reason to expect that the movement towards the lowering of the tariff on other articles might be continued.
Let me point out a few of the things on which we think the duties should be lowered -the food, the clothing and the footwear of the people, cooking utensils, heating appliances, and I was going to add coal, but my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) has handled the coal situation so well that I do not propose to touch on that. On these things I have mentioned the prices should be as low as possible to the people of this country. We believe that on these articles at least the duties should be substantially reduced, and should have been reduced in the budget this year.
I should also like to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, ;to the resolution that was debated in this House a few days ago, which had for its object a lowering of the duty on automobiles and motor trucks. There may



The Bugdet-Mr. Steedsman
be those who contend that automobiles are not a necessity to farmers. To those who hold that view, I would like to say that out on the prairie where I come from, where the distances are so great, and where the conditions prevail such as my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) spoke of, where the large towns are far apart, and settlers live at- a great distance from the railways, the post office, churches and so on, the automobile is not only a great convenience but an absolute necessity, and we had reason to hope that the government would accept the suggestion of my hon. friend and lower the duties there. The sale and distribution of automobiles and automobile service is the biggest thing in this city or in any other city in Canada to-day-unless possibly speculation in wheat in one or two cities. We have no fault to find with that, but we think that an industry that can make such a showing in the few short years in which it has been manufacturing automobiles does not require thirty-five per cent duty. I do not think that I would suggest any slashing reductions in the tariff-reductions that would probably demoralize certain industries and might have the effect of interfering with the revenues of the country. Rather I would think we should have a gradual reduction from year to year that would permit of industry adjusting itself to the changed conditions as we went along, a system that would bring us very shortly to that much to be desired condition where we would have a tariff for revenue only, if there is such a thing. I want to say that I am extremely doubtful if any tariff board can decide through inquiry just where or at what point the tariff would produce the greatest revenue. I am of the opinion that we can only find that out by experience; and unfortunately we have never had a government in this country that has been willing to make the experiment in order to discover where that, point is.
The next matter on which I wish to say a few words is that of rural credits. I have already spoken of the high interest rates. It has not been my privilege to read the report of Dr. Tory who has been working on this matter now, for, I think, practically two years, but I have a fair idea of some of the proposals, at least, that will be submitted to the House. I am firmly of the opinion that agriculture cannot carry the interest charges on long term and other loans that we are do not think it can be done. I trust that the called upon to pay at the present time, I government will come to the assistance of the

provinces in order that they may be placed in a position to extend such systems of rural credit as they have undertaken at the present time. - Some of these systems, at least, are very good. Lack of funds, I think, is the only reason for their not being able to carry on. However, I trust the government will seriously consider this question and do so this year.
In conclusion I must say that I am very sorry that customs and the rules of the House made it impossible for you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the sub-amendment proposed by my leader, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). That sub-amendment expresses my views on the budget more clearly than I have been able to give expression to them ms'self, and I am very sorry indeed that I will not have the privilege of voting for it. With regard to the amendment of my hon. friend the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) it contains little that would induce me to vote against it. On the other hand there is little in it that would induce me to vote for it. In fact, there is no declaration of principle or policy in it at all, other than perhaps a mild suggestion with regard to economy, and we are all in favour of that. With regard to the budget itself I cannot see my way clear to go to the length of the preceding speaker or to support, the budget and therefore I intend to vote against it.

At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation):: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, before discussing the budget, I would like to make a few remarks with reference to the speech the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet) delivered in the House, on April 2, last. The general impression conveyed to us by his speedh, is that the government is not fair to the French-Canadian element and that the latter are not given their rightful share in the administration of public affairs. I shall bring to bear a few facts to prove that the hon. member shows bad faith or that he is not well informed. To illustrate my point, I shall proceed by comparison: under the Tory government although such a designation does not seem to please my hon. friend for Kent- the French-Canadians had but one representative in the cabinet, Senator Blondin; to-day, under the Liberal government, we have five French-Canadian ministers: the hon. Messrs. Dandurand, Beland, Bureau, Lapointe

The Budget-Mr. Fontaine
and Cardin. At the Imperial conference held in London, in 1916 and 1917, under the Tory regime, the French-Canadians were not represented; at the Versailles conference, when the Peace treaty was signed, in 1918 and 1919, there were no French-Canadians; at the meeting of the League of Nations, held in Geneva, in 1920, there were no French-Canadians; at the Imperial conference held in London, in 1921, again there were no French-Canadians; at the meeting of the League of Nations held in Geneva, in 1921, there were no French-Canadians; at the International Conference on Limitation of Armaments, held in Washington, in 1921, again there were no French-Canadians. Now, Sir, we come to the Liberal administration: At the meeting of the League of Nations, held in Geneva in 1922, the French-Canadians were represented by the Hon. Ernest Lapointe; at the Economic conference, held in Geneva in 1923, the French-Canadians were represented by Mr. Edouard Montpetit; at the meeting of the League of Nations, held in Geneva in 1923, the French-Canadians were represented by Sir Lomer Gouin; at the Economic [DOT] conference, held in London in 1923, the French-Canadians were represented by Sir Lomer Gouin; at the Imperial conference, held in London in 1923, the French-Canadians were represented by Sir Lomer Gouin; at the Inter-Allies conference, held in London in 1924, the French-Canadians again were represented by the Hon. N. A. Belcourt; at the meeting of the League of Nations, held in Geneva in 1924, Canada was represented .by the Hon. Raoul Dandurand; at the International Labour conference, held in Geneva in 1924, our representative was Mr. Pierre Beaule, president of the Union Ouvriere Catholique de Quebec; at the International Opium conference held in Geneva in 1924, the French-Canadians were represented by the Hon. Dr. Belan.d; and'moreover, since 1921, the Hon. Ernest Lapointe has, on various occasions, gone to Washington, to sign four treaties between the United States and Canada.
On all the royal commissions which were appointed by the Liberal government; the French-Canadians were never left out: the Hon. Judge Turgeon acted as president of the grain commission; Mr. Picard, as president of the pulpwood commission; General Tremblay was appointed a member on the commission of the Grain and Transportation on the Great Lakes inquiry; Colonel O. E. Talbot and Mr. Ernest Decary are members of the National Railway Board; the Hon. A. Turgeon and Mr. Beaudry-Leman are also members of the commission appointed to inquire on the St. Lawrence waterway scheme, and Mr. Olivier Lefebvre figures on the staff of engineers of the latter commission.
I now come to the judges. In New Brunswick, precisely in the province of the hon. member who wished to lead us to believe by his speech that the government was ignoring the Acadians, I think that Judge Leblanc succeeded to Judge Chandler. In the province of Quebec, Judge Gonzalve Desaulniers succeeded Judge McDougall; in the province of Ontario a new judiciary district has been created and Mr. J. B. T. Caron received the appointment. In Saskatchewan, Judge Gravel succeeded to Judge Hutchison.
Now let us come to senators. In New Brunswick, the province, where the hon. member for Kent lives and which has just requested the appointment of a senator to represent the Acadians, the government, last year, appointed Mr. Turgeon to succeed Senator Thompson. So far as Prince Edward Island, I associate myself with the hon. member for Kent in his request and hope that the government will appoint an Acadian senator; however, what I regret, is that the hon. member for Kent, who is an old politician and has many claims owing to services to his party, did not make such a request to the Tories, his friends, When they held power; they would not have denied him that favour, perhaps, he was not as fond of his compatriots in those days as he is to-day; at all events, in 1912, Senator C. A. McDonald, from Prince Edward Island, died, and the Tories replaced him not by an Acadian, but by Mr. Murphy; and furthermore, in 1915, Senator D. V. Robertson died and again in this case the friends of the hon. member for Kent, did not appoint an Acadian but a gentleman by the name of McLean. I shall let you draw, Sir, your own conclusions from the. above facts. In the Civil Service, Mr. Gonthier replaced Mr. Sutherland as Auditor General, the most responsible post in Canada, being given a salary equal to the one of the Prime Minister; Mr. Gaboury replaced Mr. Coulter as Deputy Postmaster General; Mr. Beauchesne replaced Mr. Northrup as Clerk of the House of Commons; Mr. Lucien Pacaud replaced Mr. Griffith as Secretary of the High Commissariat, in London; Mr. Dubuc replaced Mr. Bowden as Chief Engineer of the Railways and Canals Department, and so on. All these appointments tend to show that the Liberal government strives to be fair to the French Canadians. I am not ready to admit that we have obtained everything to which we are entitled; however, we should not expect that in the brief interval of three years, the government should have found it possible to right

The Budget-Mr. Fontaine
all the wrongs perpetrated against our race under the Tory administrations, when our compatriots were entirely ignored.
If, instead of criticizing the present government, the hon. member for Kent, would only plead with his leader (Mr. Meighen) and his friends, Mr. Ferguson, Premier of Ontario, and the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), to disallow Article XVII, which forbids the teaching of French in the schools of Ontario, we could then -believe in his sincerity, but until that time, we have reason to believe that there is a great lack of sincerity in his claims and that he wishes to make political capital with this question of race. Before leaving the subject, I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the newspaper L'Avenir du Nord on March 20, last, and is signed by Jules Edouard Prevost, member for Terrebonne; this article sizes up well our political situation:
When it is a matter of governing, struggling and progressing, it is necessary to face facts and not to allow ourself to be deluded by dreams.
Many of our compatriots lose sight of these things when they become exacting to the extreme, immovable and uncompromising in their claims, requests and desires we must admit that, a few years ago, wre had to bear up with many a stonny day in the sphere of Dominion politics. The Tory and Orange parties let loose against us bigotry and insult.
The offsprings of the old Tory regime proved themselves worthy of their predecessors.
That belongs to the past. The French Canadian minority has again taken its place in the government of the country in the realm of public affairs and the various departments of the State.
We shall not pass in review the advantages realized within four years. This rehabilitation of our race is an acknowledged fact because it is evident.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at each session of Parliament the budget is anxiously expected, but especially this year, owing to the government, last year, having reduced and even entirely taken off the - duty and sale tax on a great number of items, among these were farm implements and machinery in connection with the development of our natural resources. It was a question whether the revenues of the country would be affected by such a change, and what would be the financial result. Well, the hon. Acting Minister of Finance has just reassured us by informing us that, although the government had levied $52,900,000 less in sale taxes and $13,000,000 less in excise taxes, in the course of the last twelve months the fiscal year ended with a favourable balance of $1,800,000. It is a most gratifying result and tends to prove that the government's policy is sound, moreover, economic and consistent with our needs. Notwithstanding this satisfactory result, all the Conservatives, who have taken part in this debate, have criticized the

government, and, the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has introduced an amendment, asserting that it is to be regretted that taxation, especially the sales and excise taxes have not been reduced, when, as I have just mentioned, they were reduced by $52,900,000 and $13,000,000 respectively, in the course of the past year; he reproaches the government, charging it with having increased the national debt, with not having practised economy, and finally he ends up by denouncing British preference. It is, Sir, nothing but insolence and one cannot be further remote from the truth. Allow me to quote from an article taken from La Presse of Montreal, notwithstanding it being an independent newspaper which, if I am not mistaken, supported Mr. Birks, the Conservative candidate in the by-election of St. Antoine.
This is how this newspaper expressed itself on March 25, last:
There is no doubt, after hearing the Budget speech, that the Canadian people have saved $52,900,000 in sales tax and $13,000,000 in excise duty, last year. Such a relief of taxation is too precious to the workman, upon whom principally falls the sales tax, for the public to ignore the efforts displayed by the government so as to relieve the labourer already overburdened with taxation.
Notwithstanding this enormous decrease of revenue assumed by the government, Mr. Kobb. however, shows us a favourable budget balance of $1,823,000 and a very significant step forward in our trade budget. Indeed, we notice that our exports overlap our imports by $165,000,000 and this new phase in our industrial life vouches for national prosperity and progress.
On the other hand, this is what the newspaper Le Devoir has to say in regard to the speech of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) 5n an article bearing the following head-line "Foolish ventures:"
Sir Henry Drayton, on behalf of the Tory party under Mr. Meighen's leadership, repudiates the "British preference". ... in words; however, he avoids in his motion of censure, to demand its repeal, not even in a modified form, as in Australia. As a set-off, he recommends in the same breath both a decrease of taxation and more "protection" (therefore, an increase in taxation).
So long as the Tory party will adopt these childishly crafty tactics, the high sounding creeds of its leaders, and their flag-waving, the consideration attached to them will amount to what Saint Simon termed in his picturesque language, foolish ventures, bubbles and toy pistols.
One cannot better describe -the 'lack of sincerity of our opponents. Were we to believe in them, Sir, we might conclude that the Liberals are responsible for the debt increase and the taxes with which we are burdened. When the Conservatives assumed power in 1911, the national debt only amounted to $340,000,000, the interest came to $12,000,000 per year, and the debt per

The Budget-Mr. Fontaine
capita, amounted to only $47; while in 1921, when they were driven out of power, our debt had increased by $2,000,000,000, the interest- amounted to $140,000,000 per year, and the debt per capita came to $266. They are the same gentlemen, Sir, who, after having squandered the public's money, after having been so extravagant during their ten years of tenure of office, wish to preach economy and talk of decreasing the taxes. Nonsense! These gentlemen are shamming, they must take the people of this country for imbeciles. I know their answer:	Tes, it is so, but it is due
to the war. I do not wish to recall again all the useless expenses, all the scandals attributed to our opponents during the war to favour political friends; let me only point-out that it is admitted to-day, that at least fifty per cent of the money spent during the war was squandered and used to enrich the friends of the government of that date; and, as a proof of -my assertion, let me recall the Statement made a short time ago by General Currie, who was in command of the Canadian troops: that there had been 100.000 Canadians who should never have been recruited.
What about the purchase of the Canadian National railway and the Grand Trunk railway, frightful and useless expenditure which had no other aim than to enrich Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann and the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway and which cost the country between $75,000,000 and $100,000,000? We must also mention the merchant marine, the work of the Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, which cost about $100,000,000 and is useless. In vain, Sir, do the Conservatives blame the present government, their scandals and bad administration will never be forgotten, and the people of this country are well aware that it is not in a period of three years that the Liberals were able to right all the wrongs perpetrated during the previous ten years. Let the government carry out its policy, let them continue to decrease the taxes, let them especially show a sense of fairplay to all classes, for protection must not only apply to the manufacturers and large interests, but also to farmers and workmen. Our opponents still contend that this unbounded protective policy would be the best remedy to cure all the present evils, yet, in 1921, at the general election, the people gave an unequivocal verdict on said policy, since hardly fifty Conservatives were returned, even their leader (Mr. Meighen) was carried away in the avalanche and defeated in his own county. Since the last session, we have had five byelections which allowed the .people an opportunity to give a verdict in favour of tariff
reduction. Our opponents counted upon carrying the division of St. Antoine, an essentially manufacturing division, whose representative in the House, Mr. Mitchell, had resigned as a protest against tariff reduction which had just been put into effect by the Liberals. Notwithstanding a very stubborn fight which the Conservatives put up, during which the government had to give battle to all the large interests, the Liberal candidate, Mr. Hushion, was elected by a large majority. What are we to think of West Hastings, a riding which had always been represented by a Conservative since confederation, and a riding Mr. Porter had held for twenty-five years? He withdrew from the House as a protest against the conduct of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) who, in his eyes, had committed the awful crime of having withdrawn from the Home Bank, before it closed1 its doors, the sum of four thousand dollars which he had previously deposited in that institution. The people of West Hastings did not share Mr. Porter's views, and there again, after a very hard fight, notwithstanding that the right hon. leader of the opposition personally went into the riding to preach his high protective tariff as a remedy to all evils, the Liberal candidate was elected by a large majority.
I wish to say a word with regard to the subamendment moved by the hon. leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke), and which, ,Mr. Speaker, you declared was out of order. By this subamendment the Progressives reproach the government in quite a different way from that of the Conservatives. They find that the tariff has not been reduced enough. On the other hand the Minister of Finance tells us that the duty on farming implements and a few other items had brought down the revenue by more than fifty million dollars. Consequently, if we go any further in that direction, where shall we take the money to meet the country's obligations? We shall have to fall back on direct taxation. I am aware that this would suit the west very we'll, because the latter would be based on the value of prosperity, and as the east is far more developed than the west, we, from the east, would still have to -pay for the west. I think that the government has gone far enough in that direction; it would be impossible to do more without sacrificing the east.
The subamendment of the hon. leader of the Progressives ends by stipulating that we should have a tariff for revenue only. I understand that it is just what we have now. I read in the newspapers that the Progressive

The Budget-Mr. Fontaine
member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) had stated at a public meeting that, if the western provinces did not obtain what they demanded, only one thing would remain for them to do: to drop confederation and annex themselves to the United States. Such language seems astonishing on the lips of a member, and the only excuse that can be found, is that this member, like a number of other Progressive members, has been in this country for but a few years and that he has not had time to attach himself to the Canadian soil.


Mr. BEAUBIEN (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member allow me to tell him what the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) actually stated at Brandon? He only asserted that, if confederation did not afford fair-play to certain parts of Canada, it was useless to try and keep it up. Those are the words of the hon. member for Springfield on that occasion; he did not mention annexation.


Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: I accept
the correction made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien).
I was saying that the hon. member for Springfield had not had time to become attached to the Canadian soil: in fact, if we look up the parliament,ary guide, we find that he was bom in Ireland, in 1883, from where he emigrated to Canada in 1909. He settled in Winnipeg, Manitoba, where he obtained his degree in theology in 1915, however, he gave up this calling in 1920, to take up the United Farmers' movement. They are free, Sir, to act as they please; for my part, I think the eastern provinces have done more than their share for the development of the west. What we now need in this country, is a policy of conciliation and compromise for which all the provinces will bear their share of sacrifice for the general welfare.
I also wish to congratulate the government for having undertaken to break up the monopoly which exacts too high rates for the transportation of our products to the European markets. For a number of years, this question of our railway transportation has been very much discussed. The Maritime provinces and especially the western provinces are incessantly urging freight rate reduction. I think this is only part of our needs, especially since the Americans have raised their tariff, and owing to that fact, have closed their doors to our products. We are actually forced, to-day, to ship our products to the European markets, and it is admitted that we are in the hands of trusts and we are paying too much on this freight. The government has decided to subsidize a company so as to control the rates.

They have done the right thing. This will allow the farmers of this country to realize more profits on the sale of their products, by paying less for transportation, and this also applies to the transportation of manufactured goods. In a word, Sir, this means more money in the pockets of our farmers and manufacturers.
The government looking to the welfare of Canada's industries and anxious to help them out of the depression which has settled on the country since the war, has increased the duty on American coal, thereby giving an impetus to the development of our vast coalfields in Alberta and Nova Scotia. This policy has been well received and messages of congratulation have been pouring into Ottawa by the hundreds. I intend to quote only the opinion of one of our foremost coal merchants in this district, Mr. Napoleon Belanger, president of the O'Reilly and Belanger Company of Ottawa and also of the firm of Belanger Freres of Hull. Here is what he stated in The Citizen of March 25th, the day following the budget speech:
I believe the increase in the duty on American coal is a very good thing: the mine-owners of Nova Scotia will now be able to sell more coal. The government deserves credit for having thus encouraged a Canadian industry.
This statement is all the more important to my mind as coming not from a friend of the government but from a follower of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen).
Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word on the question of immigration. First of all let me say that I am utterly opposed to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) which was debated in the House last week and which asks that the government assume the responsibility of looking after the welfare of every immigrant unable to find employment within two years after their arrival in this country. I believe that every immigrant who, after two whole years finds it impossible to earn a living out of the land the government gives him should be sent back to his own country, so as to prevent him from competing against our Canadian workmen in the cities. I state here and now, Mr. Speaker, that I stand ready to vote against this government if it fail to protect our workmen. You know that at the present time work is hard to find, a great many of our workers are unemployed and those who have work earn only 82 or $2.50 a day. Do you think a family of five children together with the father and mother can live on a salary of from $15 to

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
$18 a week? I say it can't be done, and that it is the duty of this government to see to it that fair wages are paid our workers as also to prevent immigrants from replacing our Canadian workmen in the large cities. I was pleased to learn that the government intends to appoint a special committee to consider the matter of Old Age Pensions and look into the suggestions which the provincial governments have been invited to submit. This humanitarian plan is one that is very close to my heart and I trust the present session will see a bill of this kind become law. I earnestly wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on having a truly Canadian policy. He never misses an opportunity of asserting our autonomy. And so to-day, Canada may sign treaties with foreign countries without necessarily going through the formality of having them witnessed by the British ambassador. What a contrast to the imperialist policy of the right hon. leader of the opposition who is ever ready to sacrifice our last man and our last dollar for the safety of the empire. Even had he nothing else to his credit, that would be sufficient, for the right hon. Prime Minister to feel assured of the support of my compatriots and my province.
I declare here and now that as long as the Liberal party follows that lead, as long as it is faithful to the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as long as it continues to govern in the interest of the masses and not of the classes, it will remain in power, for the greatest good of the Canadian people. Before resuming my seat. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I intend to vote against the amendment of the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) and for the budget brought down by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance. (Mr. Robb).
Mr. MURRAY MaoLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) made reference to the Roumanian and Greek loans, and he was of opinion that it was fair to add these loans to the budget surplus, an opinion which he founded largely on the presumption that the security for these loans had improved. But I would submit that the greater or lesser security of these loans does not enter into the principle involved. If there has been an improvement in the security, so much the better; but that is not the principle upon which payment of the debt should be treated. Surely it is a simple matter and may be put thus: When should the debt be regarded as
paid? The answer, I submit, is: When the debt has been paid.
Now, the member for Brome in his reference to free trade ran true to form. It seemed to me that he was pursuing a phantasmagoriaseeking for something that did not exist. He said that he would approve of the government voting assistance to the Cape Breton miners. At the same time he was unwilling to make such changes in the tariff as would relieve the local situation. Increases in the tariff on coal which would do away with the trade difficulties, and so relieve the distress of the miners, did not appeal to him as being the proper course to pursue. I notice that the hon. member did not regard these important factors which follow in the train of the encouragement of an industry: the increased use of our railway system by the augmented coal traffic; the national advantage to be gained by the increase in interprovincial trade; and the local advantage accruing by the increased employment of our coal miners and the spending of their wages in the district. I would submit that these and other advantages far outweigh any disadvantages that might arise from the increase in the price of coal.
During the debate we have been impressed with the large increase in our national liabilities, due mainly to railway deficits. The increase in the country's debt, estimated at about $100,000,000, is of particular importance in view of the high rate of income tax. As a consequence it will be noticed that many members in the course of their speeches made suggestions as to how the situation might be best dealt with. References have been made to extravagant expenditures by the government, and I think these were easily established. Undoubtedly there are many expenditures that might well have been postponed until a more favourable time. Then the export of raw materials and the benefits that might result to the Dominion from some export duty thereon were dealt with by several hon. members. Of course, protection as a policy to increase our manufactures and add to the prosperity of the country was fully discussed. On all these subjects suggestions have been offered to the government, and it would seem that all that was necessary to bring about national prosperity and reduce our heavy debt was for the government to avail themselves of these suggestions. Now, looking over the list that I have recited, it has occurred to me that certain words in the general confession would apply extremely well to the action of the government: It has done those things which it ought not to have done, it has left

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
undone those things which it ought to have done, and there is no health in it.
There is still another subject which I do not propose to discuss at present and that is the resolution which has been standing in my name on the order paper since the opening of the session, but so far there has been no opportunity of having it discussed, although I am optimistic enough to stall hope that such an opportunity will be given to me before the session closes, for I feel that in that resolution dealing with the National Railway policy of Canada is contained a matter of great national importance, and I submit, Sir, that it would be a misfortune if no opportunity is given for its discussion by the House.
But there is a subject which I do propose to say something about. I refer to the customs tariff as it concerns imports from the preferential standpoint. And I do not apply the word " preference " in any narrow sense. I do not necessarily suggest that it must mean what is called the British preference ; but by the words " preference" and " preferential customs tariff " I mean any tariff which gives an advantage or preference to a country sending its good,? direct to us. Under this heading I will not enter into the merits of any trade treaty: that is a somewhat differ-, ent subject, and there is, too, a great deal to criticize in some of the recent trade treaties that have been passed in this House. Nor have I any reference to the height of the tariff; that implies a discussion of free trade and protection. Apart from, trade treaties or preferences, or the merits of them per se, and apart from any question of the height of the tariff, what I have in mind is something-a preference or advantage-that encourages any country to trade direct with us and to send its products here. In connection with this matter there is an interesting article in the thirty-second annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year 1924. At page seventeen there appears the following:
What is Canada's greatest need to-day? No prolonged study is necessary to decide. It can be answered in one word: trade. Increase in trade distributes prosperity among those on the land, those engaged in transportation, in banking, in manufacturing and
in other directions	
Why should we continue to send our gold to a foreign country and depreciate our currency and buying power by paying outside for goods we could purchase at home or within the empire? And the extraordinary fact is true that frequently we pay, in and through a foreign country, for goods produced within the empire. We are thus building up foreign ports, contributing to the maintenance of foreign transportation companies, and paying commission to foreign commercial houses. We do not begrudge them prosperity and success, but such transactions are at the expense of our own people and our own country. 
The services and facilities of a foreign country are frequently sought perhaps because it is the line of least resistance, because of inertia or of a dulled sense of what is due to Canada.
In that report there is stated very well the criticism which one, and indeed the report itself, has of the action of the government, " a dulled sense of what is due to Canada." In the course of my remarks I hope to illustrate that one of our difficulties has been simply this, a dulled sense of what is due to Canada by reason of inaction on the part of the government; an increased activity and greater courage in meeting these conditions will go far I think to solve many of our difficulties. I agree with what is contained in these extracts I have read. While I am referring almost entirely to what is connected with imports, incidentally I should like to give to the House two or three figures relating to exports. The total exports from Canada to overseas countries last year via Canadian seaports amounted to $393,441,998 as compared with Canadian exports through the United States of $223,678,390; that is to say, of the total exports overseas of Canadian products over one-third were sent through United States ports instead of going through Canadian ports. In other words, 36.2 per cent of our total exports overseas went through United States ports as against 63.8 per cent that were shipped via Canadian ports.
As regards the imports, goods coming into Canada indirect through United States ports amounted to $13,890,483, or 4.7 per cent. It will be noticed that- this 4.7 per cent is much smaller in proportion in regard to imports than the figures I have given for the exports. But that does not convey an exact statement; the figures are no doubt right, but there is something more to be noted. All products that come to the United States, and are paid for in the United States irrespective of any ultimate designation to Canada, are placed to the credit of the United States, and we know as a matter of fact, nor is there any doubt, that a considerable amount of products coming from overseas into this country is credited to the United States and not to the country of origin.
I shall speak first of the British preference, which as we know applies to the United Kingdom, British India, North and South Rhodesia, Ceylon, New Zealand, South Africa, various British African possessions, Mauritius, Fiji, and other British countries. All of these British possessions may receive the preference if their products are sent to Canada whether through Canadian or United States ports. The

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
House will remember that two years ago a discount of 10 per cent was added to the British preference. It was found that a large amount of goods was coming through American ports, and to encourage the importation of these goods through our own ports east and west a discount of 10 per cent was added to the British preference, but that does not apply to spirits, sugar, tobacco, cigars and cigarettes. The 10 per cent also does not apply if the duty does not exceed 15 per cent, either ad valorem or specific, or ad valorem and specific combined. It will be noted then that the preference, even with the 10 per cent additional, does not cover a great deal of the goods that come to this country. It does not include, as I have stated, spirits, sugar, tobacco and cigars, nor does it include articles on which the duty does not exceed 15 per cent. Now we know that there is a large amount of products brought into this country which do not exceed the 15 per cent. For example, last year free imports amounted to 826,621,062. Then also under the general tariff last year we imported 822,374,078 of goods. Now if the products coming in under the general tariff and the products coming in free are added together it will 'be found that
849000,000	of imports may come into Canada through Canadian ports or through American ports on exactly the same basis; in other words, there is no advantage in bringing them to our own ports and to our own rails.
Let me now state very briefly what are the advantages in doing our own business. One of the great weaknesses of this country is its failure to do its own business. Now here is one way of doing it. We have our own ports, with all the employment they can afford, and all the disbursements from the steamers. We have our own railways, which at the present time are not doing sufficient business. I am trying to point out to' the House the advantages we would gain from a change in our customs tariff, which would help to bring about to a very large extent all these desirable objects. I have said that the British preference, even with the 10 per cent, does not include a very large amount of importations into this country.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is quoting
figures, I suppose, for the fiscal year ending March 31 last?
Mr. . MacLAREN:	Those are the figures
for 1924.


James Alexander Robb: From figures compiled for the year ending December 31, it appears that less than one per cent of the importations of goods
coming in under the British preference came by other than Canadian ports.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I have the figures up
to the end of February 1925, which I will give the House in a few minutes. I take it that what the Acting Minister of Finance is referring to is the 10 per cent discount to the preference, and I have not reached that yet. What I am pointing out now is this:	Take the British
preference as it is, without the 10 per cent. That is now in operation, and any of our British dominions that are within the. preference can import their products, with certain exceptions, into this country either through United States ports or Canadian ports on equal terms. Now I said that in addition to that, there is a large importation that is not affected or covered by the preference, that is goods that come in under the general tariff, and those that come in free. These can come in, even with the preference in operation, either through American ports or Canadian ports on equal conditions.
Now we come to the 10 per cent discount. That does not affect spirits, sugar or tobacco. In other words, as it stands now, with the 10 per cent discount in operation all sugar, all spirits, all tobacco, can come into this country through United States ports or through Canadian ports on equal terms. The Acting Minister of Finance has referred to what I presume are the results of the 10 per cent discount which has been added to the preference, and I am glad to say that there is substantial evidence that that is having a very beneficial effect. It is satisfactory for the country, and it is additionally satisfactory as furnishing all the argument I need to show that not only does this preference, even a small preference add greatly to our trade, but it is capable of very material: fexpansion. Last year the imports from the United Kingdom under the preferential tariff amounted to 8102,944,427. The imports from the United Kingdom, under the preferential tariff, through United States ports amounted to $811,749, while the imports from the United Kingdom, under the preferential tariff, through Canadian ports, amounted to $102,132,678.
The figures as regards the effect of the 10 per cent discount have already been quoted. The statistics have only been kept during the last year, but notwithstanding that, if you look back over the different years and compare the amounts that have come through Canadian and through United States ports under the preference, when you find that the amount through United States ports has greatly diminished, it is a fair inference, when

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
the drop was so great and so sudden within the last year or two, that it is due very largely to the 10 per cent discount which has been added. The result is that last year 99.2 per cent of the imports under British preference came through our own ports. I have here the return for eleven months up to February 28 of this year. I think the statement of the Acting Minister of Finance only covered the period up to December. I am now referring to the showing to the end of February of this year, and the total imports from the United Kingdom were $135,430,030; and from the United States $350,635 with the returns for another month of the fiscal year still to come. I take it as fairly clear that the results this year will be even better than those for last year, even although they were particularly satisfactory. I would think no member of this House would ask for it to be otherwise. Surely no hon. member here regrets the ten per cent discount that was given, judging from the results that accrued from it. Satisfactory as it is I think the preference should be carefully considered still further and made use of to the extent that seems reasonable and advantageous to this country. I do not think that every possible exigency is covered by the British preference as it is. I am not arguing at all as to whether the preference is too high or too low, that is not the point. This inducement was offered in order that trade might be done through our own country, but there are some instances that I have mentioned where really the ten per cent discount does not meet the case fairly. It permits of forty-nine millions of imports coming equally well through the United States as through our own ports. I do not mean to say that all such imports are coming to the United States, I know they are not, but there is a considerable amount coming; the least that can be done in the case of imports coming free from overseas into Canada is to insist upon their coming through our own territory.
In the same class I would put the West India agreement, which is a special arrangement between those colonies and Canada for the mutual advantage of each. In the West India agreement it is laid down that the tariff shall not at any time be more than fifty per cent of the duties in the case of importations under the general tariff, but tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and spirits, with the exception of rum, are excepted from the provisions of this agreement. I Would draw the attention of the House to the fact that under the West India agreement preference all or any West Indian products can be brought info this country just as

well through the United States as they can through Canada. There is not a ten per cent discount and, as it stands, there is no discrimination in favour of Canadian ports as compared with United States ports. Under the circumstances the fortunate thing is that we do get so much trade through Canada. The amount of the West India products that come through the United States may be put down as two millions as against something over twenty millions. Let me say here that there is another point to be considered: the figures of the imports through the United States while accurate as to the method of book-keeping do not represent the actual conditions. We will take the case of bananas that has been so well dealt with by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan). In the case of the importation of bananas into Canada, what country is it charged up against? Not the West Indies although the bananas may come from there; they are credited to the United States. Why? Because they are bought and paid for in the United States. Therefore I would warn hon. members in looking over these figures, and considering the features of the different preferential tariffs, to study the details carefully, otherwise they may get an entirely too favourable opinion of the existing facts. There are, I am informed, many articles imported into Canada as United States exports which are actually the products of other countries. I illustrated that by mentioning the case of bananas from the West Indies.


Mr. BROWN:: Then in estimating the balance of trade between Canada and the United States the difference would not be as great as it seems on the surface'-that is in considering simply the difference between the exports and the imports to and from the United States?


Murray MacLaren: I think that is no doubt correct, but I am a little doubtful as to whether the importation of bananas is a very important factor in the question of the balance of trade between Canada and the United States, the figures are so large. What I am pointing out is that looking at the statistics of the imports from the West Indies into Canada they do not actually represent what we are getting from that territory, and to that extent I think the present treaty is at fault. It is essentially a preferential treaty and it is capable of many improvements according to my judgment. I want to draw the attention of the House to article 8 in the Canadian and West India agreement which states:
The governments of any of the colonies aforesaid on giving six months' notice may provide that to be entitled to the concessions granted in articles 5 and 6 the products of Canada shall be conveyed by ship

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
direct without transhipment from' a Canadian port into the said colony or by way of one of the other colonies entitled to the advantages of this agreement.
The government of Canada on giving six months' notice may provide that to be entitled to the concessions granted in articles 2 and 3, the products of any of the colonies aforesaid shall be conveyed by ship direct without transhipment from the said colony or from one of the other colonies entitled to the advantages of this agreement into a Canadian port.
No doubt the government are aware of that, but I trust that the matter will receive consideration at its hands-the advantage of giving that six months' notice and having the preference restricted to direct business done with our own country.
I observe that there is a notice on the order paper regarding a change in the tariff on grapefruit. It is proposed that grapefruit shall come into this country free. It may be pleasant for one to be able to have grapefruit at a very low cost, but I should1 like to ask, under what condition could it be considered as a necessity of life. Surely it is a luxury, and I think anyone who wishes to enjoy grapefruit should be prepared to pay a reasonable amount for it, and we shall be interested later on in hearing from the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. -Robb) his grounds for putting grapefruit on the free list. At the present time bananas come in free, either through the United States or direct to Canada, and the principle that has been introduced seems to me absolutely correct, that there be a preference given; that is what we wish the minister to do, but that does not mean that these things are necessarily to come in free. Surely there can be sufficient preference given to the importation of grapefruit from the West Indies to encourage them to come here, and yet not require us to go to the extreme of a free entry. A few days ago we listened with much interest to the report of the commissioner the hon. member from Cumberland (Mr. Logan), which report was well delivered in this House. I thought it was an admirably prepared report. It showed much evidence of the enthusiasm, the assiduity and the energy, with which the hon. member carried out his work. It must be our wish that his efforts shall be successful in increasing the trade with the West Indies. From such experience as I have had, I have no doubt the recommendations in his report in reference to the increase of trade agencies are necessary and essential things to encourage trade. When these offices are opened up, I hope they will not fall into the error that was made in regard to the offices in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, where the offices are .properly equipped and furnished, but where
the decorations, including the pictures of our Prime Ministers, past and present, goodlooking men as they are, as well as the pictures of Ministers of Trade and Commerce do not add to the trade. That is not what the people want. It is not business. By all means, let them be placed there, but at the same time let us have something illustrating the actual production, the activities, the manufacturing and the natural products of this country. I suggest that when we establish these additional offices and agents in the West Indies a little more care be taken really to make the pictures of some advantage and something worth while.
I am sure from what I know of the West India service that there is need for improvement in the ships. We want more cold storage, better ships, better accommodation, more speed. These things are most desirable. We are not getting the trade which we otherwise would get, because there is a better service via New York. At the same time I know the West Indian trade has been carried on between Halifax, St. John and the West ' Indies for many years. I suppose it goes back to confederation or before, and I know that the people, while they are anxious to improve the service, are most anxious that nothing should be done to break into a well-established route. The hon. member for Cumberland has spoken of the various routes proposed from Montreal, Charlottetown, St. John and Halifax to the West Indies, and has suggested that six boats be employed. To me that sounds rather attractive, but I think one would be wiser not to express an opinion regarding the suitability or feasibility of this proposed service until it has been carefully considered and discussed by men actually in the trade. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the investigation held last year will be productive of results.
In addition to the British preference and the West Indian agreement, there are others which are somewhat different, but the principle I think is largely the same. For instance, the French treaty of 1922 applied not only to the French colonies but to many other countries, Norway, Switzerland, the Argentine, Denmark, Japan, Russia, Venezuela, and I believe that even Australia comes under that convention. I do not say anything in reference to the French treaty although I believe there are grounds for very grave criticism of the effects of that treaty. But that is not what I am dealing with. The principle introduced in the treaty that I venture to approve of is that which restricts the prefer-

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
ence to articles coming through our own ports and territory. Then there is the Italian treaty of the same year with a similar provision. Then there is the Belgian and the Netherland treaties which are really on the same basis. They are getting the intermediary tariff I believe, but they are getting an advantage. Imports under these treaties must come to our own ports and must use our own railways, and therefore I say we are on the right line. There may be points here and there which we could improve on. There may be too many imports that are escaping this provision, but in so far as it goes I think the principle is sound.
Then in addition to all these tariffs and these treaties there is what is called the general tariff, and that tariff is a free-for-all. It is free for every country to make use of. Let me mention the countries or most of the countries that come under the general tariff. We have Germany, China, Austria, Brazil, all of South American foreign countries-except Colombia, Venezuela and the Argentine-Mexico, Central America and Spam. These countries, and I think a few other countries, when they wish to import into Canada, pay the general tariff. It is optional whether the imports pass through Canadian or United States ports, or over American or Canadian railways. There are also certain imports from all countries, Great Britain and elsewhere, under the general tariff, and in those cases it is free to them to come by either country.
Neither the country nor the House has heard anything of a definite character from the government in reference to the Australian treaty. I hope that treaty will materialize. I had an opportunity of meeting Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans during the last year, and the report came out then to South Africa that the treaty had been signed and would come into operation. That is a good many months ago. Since then I have had opportunities of sneaking to those in authority, and those in trade in those countries. They were pleased at that information which has not yet been verified, and they are anxious to do business with Canada. The Australians, while most anxious to trade with us, are rather bitterly disappointed at the small amount that we buy from them. The figures are not conveniently at hand, but I think I am right in saying that the Australians buy about twenty times as much from us as we do from them. The New Zealanders buy much more from us, although not as much as the Australians, than we buy from them, and about the same is true of South Africa. I know many

of them feel that we might fairly try to bring such treaties into force so that we might do more business with them, and I urge the minister, if possible, to expedite the Australian treaty. It will be most favourably received in those countries, and I think, if it is a proper treaty, it will be well accepted in this country.
What do I suggest as a result of what I have said? In the first place, I suggest that the British preference do away with the 10 per cent and that, whatever the advantage is, it apply only to Canada. Let it be made what it was originally intended to be, as it was originally drafted. Have the British preference apply to British possessions in the way it does now, but let us require that it be limited to the using of Canadian ports and Canadian railways, and that it shall not apply to products coming through a foreign country.
The second suggestion that I would make is in connection with the West Indian agreement. At the present, moment, I am not aware of any real difficulty in giving six months notice and making the agreement with the West Indies apply in the same way as I propose for the British preference. The West Indies, as a matter of fact, may make use of the British preference if they ohoose, but it is their option to have that special agreement.
My third suggestion is that conditions governing importations from overseas under the general tariff and those in the free list which now can be made through either Canadian or United States ports be changed; that mot necessarily a large advantage, but sufficient advantage to attain the object be given, and that all importations coming from overseas under the general tariff or under the free list have some preference in coming to Canada direct. Of course, in the case of free entries, one could not make any preference unless a bonus were given, nor is it necessary as regards what I am speaking of to change our tariff. If it is put the other way, if there is a higher tariff for goods coming any other way, there is no material difference. The essential principle is that there be a preference and an advantage in dealing with our own country through our sea ports.
That completes all thait I have to say on this subject. In my opinion, a situation is never so bad that it cannot possibly be worse. I feel in this case there is a silver lining to the cloud and the silver lining is the disintegration that is now taking place in the left wing of the Liberal party. I feel that disintegration will spread to the other wing, and then when you have both wings involved

The Bugdet-Mr. Lapierre
and incapacitated, we know what the natural result will be.


Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) upon the budget he has brought down. The fact that the budget has been criticized by the Conservatives on the ground that the tariff is too low and by the Progressives because it is too high will satisfy the clear-thinking people of Canada that he has taken the only true course consistent with our economic conditions. Let us now examine the conditions which our Acting Minister of Finance had in front of him when he brought down this budget. Let us look at the European situation which has a tremendous influence on trade conditions in Canada. Nowhere in Europe have conditions become stabilized. Conditions are now as bad as they were immediately after the war. Our Conservative friends have attributed the Canadian situation to the tariff. Still, if we examine the European situation, we shall find that, notwithstandmg the fact that many of the industrial nations of Europe have raised their tariffs, no stability has been brought to them, and even at the present moment the Herriot government in France finds itself in danger of its political life on account of the imposition of a ten per cent levy upon the wealth of that nation.
Our Conservative friends have also attributed the conditions existing in this country to our immigration policy. During the session of 1923 they were crying out about the exodus to the United States. The Conservative press was also carrying on a propaganda which painted in dismal colours conditions in Canada and in glowing colours the prosperity of our neighbours to the south. As a result hundreds of prosperous families in northern Ontario were induced to migrate to the United States. In proof of what I am stating, I may say that hundreds of those families have since applied to the Repatriation Bureau in Montreal for assistance to return to their homes. What were the conditions which confronted them when they reached the United States? I may say that the population engaged in agriculture in my section of Ontario are largely French Canadians, and generally their families are large. When those people reached the industrial centres of New England the cotton and woollen mills were paying off their employees by the tens of thousands.
Now, are conditions in Canada as bad as our Conservative friends would have the people believe? I have before me the last report made to the shareholders of the Bank of
Montreal by the president, Sir Vincent Meredith, and the general manager, Sir Frederick	Wiliiams-Taylor.	Sir	Vincent
Meredith said, in part:
While hesitating to prophesy, I am satisfied that a gradual improvement in the trade situation is occurring. Statistical returns support this view and while there is irregularity in the movement, in the main the trend is upward. There has been a better demand for steel in various forms, specially from railroads; textile trades are gradually recovering from the slump, and dealings in hides and leather have broadened. Other indices may be cited: thus, carloadings showed an increase until affected recently by the smaller prairie crop, while building operations have kept pace with last year, which in turn showed a substantial increase. Figures of foreign trade are encouraging. In the twelve months period to October 31, the aggregate value of this commerce was $160,000,000 greater than in the preceding year, the total being $1,895,000,000. We have been able to reach this large amount chiefly because of the enormous western grain crop in 1923, and in a survey of economic conditions there is no more satisfactory feature than the improvement in agricultural returns. Last year there was greater volume; this year there is greater value. Farm products have always made the largest contribution to Canada's export trade, being greater than the combined export value of all commodities. A gratifying feature of the statistics of foreign trade is the growth of favourable balance. In the last seven months the excess of exports over imports amounted to $120,000,000, as compared with an excess of $15,000,000 in the corresponding period last year, and if the comparison is carried over a twelve months period the favourable balance is found to be still greater. I regard this increase in Canada's foreign trade credits as an augury of a not distant improvement in domestic business. Canada offers inducements to immigrants vastly superior to those of other countries which are at present endeavouring to attract citizens. It stands third amongst the countries of the world in natural resources. We possess half the forest area of the British Empire; our mines produced in 1923, $214,000,000 worth of metals, and the surface is scarcely scratched. Canada stands second in the world in coal deposits. Her water powers are estimated at 18,000,000 h.p., and she enjoys unexcelled transportation facilities. For those with some capital and a willingness to work, the cheap rich lands of western Canada offer a means of healthful subsistence and, in time, a better competence than can be obtained elsewhere. Yet cardinal virtues must be practised, and I would again stress the necessity for hard work and economy, so often preached and seldom put into practice, and the need for immigration. Given these three things, I look forward with the utmost confidence to Canada's future.
Sir Frederick Wiliiams-Taylor said:
Our favourable trade balance has been derived from the following exports; agricultural and animal products $619,000,000; wood and paper, including pulp, $256,000,000; minerals and their products, $158,000,000; other exports, $52,000,000.
Concluding, he said:
We in Canada have much to be thankful for. We have our riches in our forests, our fields, our fisheries and in our minerals, also in our mighty water powers and in the industry and ambition of our people. Where is there a country other than the United States where so high a standard of living prevails? A large portion of the community, notably farmers, who at an earlier day knew little of luxury, now have their electric light, telephones, motor cars and radio. We have no

The Bugdel-Mr. Lctpierre
doles, poorhouses are hard to find and, comparatively, there is little unemployment. The United States for the moment possesses a stronger attraction for emigrants from the Old World, but, taking a longer view, Canada still stands out as a land of opportunity. Nowhere else in the world can the desirable settler from Europe find such good land, such cheap land, under such stable conditions of government and so near to great purchasing markets for farm products.
I would call the attention of this House particularly to the figures quoted as to our favourable trade balance. We find that we exported agricultural and animal products to the value of $619,000,000. It will be seen that in order to have a balanced budget, in other words, a prosperous country, agriculture first of all must be made prosperous. It is Canada's basic industry and it is useless for the apostles of protection to think that Canada can be made prosperous unless the farmer is first given an opportunity of enjoying the same privileges and the same standard of living that obtain in the United States to-day. And how can that be obtained with the policy preached by hon. gentlemen opposite who demand an increase in the tariff? Will that benefit the farmer who has to find a market in Europe for the large surplus of his production? This is no complex question of economics; looked at from the point of view of the ordinary business man, it requires no deep study to realize that the manufacturer in the east depends wholly upon the prosperity of the western farmer. We often hear on this side of the House that the high protective tariff has made the United States prosperous. But, Mr. Speaker, there is now a new point of view; after one hundred and fifty years, of protection the United States to-day has reached the stage where the wheat grower and the cotton grower are told that they must cease production, that the time has come when the United States, owing to economic conditions in Europe, must become a self-contained country consuming its own production and producing for its own consumption. This is the view taken by leaders of the Republican party in the United States to-day. I have here a report of the Coolidge Agricultural Commission which is to be made public in the United States in a few days and from which I shall read a few extracts. I am now quoting .Mark Sullivan in his report to the New York Herald-Tribune:
Any one who follows closely the current developments in government and business in America must recognize the beginnings of this trend. An essential part of the trend is that government and business, including agriculture, agree upon it. This sympathetic cooperation is itself a definite condition of the era on which we are entering. The purpose of it, as yet, is partly instinctive and not fully defined even in the minds of all the leaders of it. But it is apparent that the

government and practically all lines of business in the United States are coming together in an impulse of mutual self-protection to meet the conditions of world-trade arising out of the economic rehabilitation of Europe and its increasing activity.
The policy which America is moving toward, as yet gropingly, is one of withdrawing to itself, making itself a self-contained country, and trying to maintain our high standard of living by avoiding the competition of Europe, in either the role of buyer or of seller. A fairly certain result of that policy should express itself in advocacy of a tariff that will be protective beyond the previous standards of protective tariffs.
The recommendations of the Agricultural Commission include this: "The American farmer can neither compete with imported agricultural products. . . nor can he compete in foreign markets for the sale of his products at world price-levels, created by foreign wrages and standards of living. This means that the American farmer is to get out of Europe, both as a buyer and as a seller. That policy runs counter to the former farm leadership which looked to the revival of Europe as a revival of the market for American farm products.
Running parallel to this, and implied in it, is the theory that the American farmer should at once have complete protection for his own products, and also be tolerant of complete protection for everybody else, the whole looking to a high standard of living for everybody in America.
It is inherent in the policy the Agricultural Commission recommended that the high standard of living in America, both for farmers and for everybody else, be kept secure by a tariff on manufactures sufficient to safeguard America against competition from abroad. This, too runs counter to what has been the teaching of some farm leaders for years past, that the tariff on manufactures should be revised downward so as to bring about lower prices for what the farmer buys.
This new policy proposed by the Agricultural Commission looks to two ends. One is that the American farmer should cease to raise more of any commodity than he can sell in America. To many farmers it will come as a startling suggestion that they should cease, for example, to raise wheat for export. The cotton-raising States will be surprized at any* advice to ignore the foreign market, but competent judges in Washington say the rest of the world is already tending to buy less and less of the American cotton crop, and to turn for its supply to countries where it can be raised by lower-priced labor.
This is the situation to-day in the United States. The leaders of political opinion in that country have come to the stage where they are admitting to the world that they can no longer compete against the low wages and standard of living that obtain in Europe. What effect will that have on Canada? Can the Canadian farmer in the west adopt such a policy, or does the Canadian farmer in the west fully realize what is implied in that policy which is now being advocated in the United States? Canada must for the next century be an agricultural country and must depend upon its natural resources and upon its farm products to develop along the lines which all Canadians look forward to. The Liberal party when it came into power four years ago realized the situation, and it would be just as well for us now to analyze the results of four years of administration in

The Bugdet-Mr. Lapierre
Canada by this government. When the Liberal party came into power it found the country going rapidly into bankruptcy. It is admitted by financiers who fully realize our position to-day that we were nearing the danger point, and the Liberal government that assumed office at that time did what any sound business man would have done under the circumstances. They found that in order to make the country prosperous our national debt must be consolidated; the administration of public affairs must be carried on economically; the railway deficits must be wiped out and a true balance found between the requirements of the east and the requirements of the west. And they put into effect the only policy which could restore prosperity to the country.
I find in the report of Sir Frederick Williams Taylor that the second item in our favourable' trade balance is wood and paper, including pulp. There has within the last few years been a propaganda in Canada in favour of putting an embargo on pulpwood, and to those who have but a superficial knowledge' of the conditions in northern Ontario this has appeared to be absolutely necessary in order to stop the complete depletion of our northern forests. There is no doubt that those who have had an opportunity of seeing northern Ontario transformed within the last few years from a sombre forest into bustling mining towns, prosperous villages, and large areas of fertile agricultural lands know that the depletion of our forests is going on very rapidly, and I was pleased to hear in the speech made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) that the government fully realizes the seriousness of the situation and are studying means of preventing a further depletion of our forests. But when I see in the press and hear some of our leading public men advocating an embargo, I feel that we should hesitate before putting through any drastic legislation, and that we should first make a thorough survey of the whole situation.
Let us now examine the present situation in Canada with reference to the pulp and paper industry. The capital invested directly in forest industry is about $600,000,000. The total production value, including the lumber and pulp stage, is $266,000,000, and if paper products are included, $323,000,000. As against the latter figure, our exports of these products total $210,000,000, or nearly two-thirds of the total production.
Emphasizing the situation from another standpoint, our imports of the same products amount to $19,000,000 of our favourable trade balance, which was $191,000,000. If we include in the exports and imports, figures for furniture, doors, sashes, cooperage and other highly manufactured articles, it would be necessary to deduct some $3,000,000 from the favourable trade balance. Canada's grand total imports of all commodities for the calendar year 1922 was over $850,000,000. Of this amount, wood products contributed $210000,000, or almost one-fourth of the total. Canada's exports of wood and wood products to the United States amounted to $175,000,000; that is to say five-sixths of all the wood products which we exported went to the United States. Finally, of Canada's total exports to the United States amounting to $340,000,000, wood products contributed one-half. In our trade with that country, therefore, the forest production plays an even greater part than agricultural products.
Let us now draw the trade balance as respects pulpwood in eastern Canada. We have on the debit side an annual cut of pulpwood for use in Canada of 4,700,000 cords; pulpwood exported, 1,000,000 cords; losses from fires, insects and diseases, 6,150,000 cords, making a total of 11,850,000 cords. On the credit side we have an annual increment in pulpwood forest of 4,615,000 cords. Net amount of depletion from forest capital 7.850,000 cords.
These figures will show that it will be absolutely necessary to devise some system of forest protection. There is no doubt in the minds of those who have watched the depletion of our forests that in the near future some system of controlling insect diseases and forest fires must be worked out in co-operation between the different provinces and the federal government, and that a large saving can thereby be effected. On the other hand, before considering any legislation that might endanger the American market, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that Canada has not and never did have a monopoly in pulpwood; Canada never had and never can have a monopoly in newspaper print. To illustrate this, I just wish to quote from the Manchester Guardian Commercial, which is not a Canadian paper biased by local conditions. It says:
The Swedish pulp industry has made remarkable headway during 1924, the total exports during the first ten months exceeding the experts for the corresponding period of 1923 by some 270,000 tons. But what probably will appear as the most notable feature is the increasing extent to -which America is drawing her supplies of wood pulp from Scandinavian countries. In the value of exports the United States ranks as Sweden's best customer, although Great Britain takes first place with regard to quantities, but this is mainly accounted for by a large proportion of Britain's purchases consisting of the less valuable but
OOiMMONS
The Bugdet-Mr. Lapierre
more bulky, wet mechanical pulp. Producers in Sweden, having sold one-third of their output for 1925 at the beginning of the year, have good reason for regarding the outlook with an added measure of optimism. And the reports that American paper-makers have already placed large orders for spring shipments of sulphite and kraft pulp are significant, not only because they suggest that American paper-makers are not anticipating cheaper pulp in the near future, but also as an indication of the increasing inadequacy of American home supplies of raw material for the paper industry.


Mr. DICKIE:: If At is a matter of such
small moment to the American, paper men, why are they spending so much money in sending delegations to; Washington and lawyers throughout this country, and employing counsel to try and block any restrictions on the export of our raw material?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: That is very easily
answered. For the simple reason that the United. States have now adapted themselves to the conditions that are existing at the present moment. They have found a market where pulpwood can be .purchased just a shade lower than it can be anywhere else. But the slightest increase in the price of pulpwood in Canada to-day would divert those buyers to other markets. There is only a very narrow margin at which pulp can be taken profitably cut of northern Ontario and Quebec; for my hon. friend's information I may say that the paper interests at the present moment are having the pulpwood limits of Newfoundland and Alaska cruised as possible sources of supply. I quoted a few moments ago an article from the Manchester Guardian Commercial. I have here also an article from the Financial Post of March 20. There has been some discussion as to the amount of sulphite and sulphate pulp and newsprint coming from Scandinavian countries, and in reply to a request made by people interested in this question the Financial Post on the date mentioned published the following details:
Swedish pulp and paper exports to all parts of the world.
Tons.
Mechanical sulphite	 240
Sulphite pulp	 84,200
Sulphate pulp	 266,000
Newspaper print	 184,000
Imports into United States
Sulphite pulp	 326,477
Sulphate pulp	 161,167
Newsprint	 61,722
Total imports
Sulphite pulp	 934,536
Sulphate pulp	 342,238
Newsprint	 1,357,449
It will be seen that Sweden supplied more than one-third of the total imports of sul-
phite pulp into the United States. last year. Canada's share was 367,753 tons or about
41.000	tons more than was supplied by Sweden. In sulphate pulp Sweden took a leading position supplying about fifty per cent of the total imports. Canada's contribution to the total under this heading was
140.000	tons or some 21,000 tons more than was supplied by Sweden. Newsprint was shipped from Sweden to the United States to the amount of 61,722 tons in 1924. In this respect, of course, Canada's position is well secured and Canadian mills supplied last year 1,107,008 tons. Sweden, however, held the leading position for newsprint among European countries, the total amount imported from Europe during the year being 156,600 tons so that approximately forty per cent of this entire amount came from Swedish mills. I am quoting these figures because there has been a tendency in Canada to believe that we had a monopoly in pulp and were gradually developing a control of the newspaper situation. The argument has been advanced that by putting an embargo or an export tax on pulpwood we would force the American paper manufacturer to transfer his plant to' Canada. Now anyone familiar with the newspaper situation knows that improvements are being made daily in the treatment of different substances for the manufacture of paper; that in the United States at the present moment there still remains a very large quantity of hardwood, such as beech, birch and maple which can, at a very small advance over the price of spruce pulp, be converted by the soda process into pulp suitable for newspaper print. At the present moment also, experiments are being made as to the suitability of South American grass for this purpose. Experiments are likewise being made along other lines, which lead1 us to believe that within a very few years a substitute may be found for spruce in the manufacture of paper.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the chief objection I have to an embargo on pulpwood is based upon the fact that it will injuriously affect the settler in northern Ontario. It has been my privilege to live among the settlers of northern Ontario for thirty years. I saw the first settlers who went into that part of Canada cut and burn pulpwood which to-day brings them a sufficient return to enable them to clear their farms profitably. To show the House what the pulpwood industry means to the settlers of northern Ontario and Quebec I will quote figures here taken from the return of the Royal Commission on Pulpwood. In 1920 the total value of ordinary forest production

The Budget-Mr. Lapierre
on the farms of Canada was $87,700,000. If to this figure there be added: the value of maple syrup and maple sugar-obviously products of the forest-the total is over $72,000,-
000.	This is of interest. The $72,000,000 of forest products represented more than eleven per cent of the total grain crops produced on the farms of Canada in 1920; it was over thirty-two per cent of the value of all forage crops; over eleven per cent greater in value than the value of all field crops other than the foregoing, namely greater than the aggregate of all root crops, tobacco, hops, flax and so on; more than two and three-quarter times the value of all fruit crops produced on the farms; and finally was considered greater in value than the total egg production. All of us who are familiar with the situation in northern Ontario realize the value of pulpwood to the farmer; and one of the inducements to the farmers from the older part of my constituency who have left their farms since the wood industry has moved farther north is the fact that they can clear their farms profitably by means of the pulpwood they take out and dispose of.


Charles Herbert Dickie: You say that after they
clear their farms they move on?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: In some parts of
Nipissing, along the streams where the land was poor, the farmers left when the lumber camps moved1 because they had no market. When the lumber camps moved farther west they were too far away for the farmers without transportation facilities to reach them. Consequently they moved further out to new farms and they are to be found to-day all along the line of the Transcontinental from Quebec as far west as the boundary, Manitoba.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Would it be a fair inference that they moved from those farms as soon as the pulpwood was exhausted and went further back?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: No, these farms were
in the unproductive part of Nipissing. They moved away and to-day they are in the famous clay belt of northern Ontario, the most fertile land in the province of Ontario.


Charles Herbert Dickie: The pulpwood commission in their report referred specially to the bogus settler who cleared his farm of pulpwood, and when it was cleared he abandoned it, and went further away to some other district.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: In reply to my hon.
friend, I may say that all that land has been abandoned by the farmers. It is to-day the most suitable land that could be taken up by 122
the government and used for reforestation. There are certain lands in northern Ontario which, when stripped of their timber, are not of any use for agriculture. In the ollden days less care was taken in the selection of farm land owing to the high prices obtained for farm produce. Lumbering was being carried on on a large scale in Ontario. In the old days, timber was floated down the Ottawa and taken as far as Quebec, largely from that section. A tremendous market was created for the farmers in that district, but once the timber was cut and the lumber camps moved from that section of Ontario, the farmer had no market for his produce. In order to make this clear to my hon. friend I may say that in that section the farmers raised nothing except hay, oats and potatoes. Their land was hardly rich enough to make farms.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in this report of Sir Frederick Williams-Taylor I find the third item is, mineral products $158,000,000. It has been an annual' habit of mine to quote figures illustrating the tremendous production of minerals in northern Ontario. Without taking up too much time I will quote a few figures to show what the mineral wealth of northern Ontario means to the future development of Canada. During the last few years tremendous developments have taken place in northern Quebec and northern Ontario. In the great pre-jCambrian range, the most important, the largest, and the most extraordinary deposit of mineralized rock has been discovered. That district, extending from the province of Quebec right around the shores of Hudson bay and reaching into the Yukon, with its southern extremity in Minnesota, will produce almost all the valuable metals known to science, and it has been said by the mineralogists of our Department of Mines that the surface of the country has only been scratched. Here are the figures of the production of northern Ontario for 1924:
Gold	 *25,000,000
Silver	 11,500,000
Copper	 13,000,000
Nickel	 20,000,000
Now it is interesting to note what this industry means to the other parts of Canada and I have here a table showing what the mines buy by provinces, as follows:
Nova Scotia	 $ 821,288
New Brunswick	 94,968
Quebec	 310,790
Ontario	 3,382,064
Manitoba	 29,214
Saskachewan	 31,536
Alberta	 789,748
British Columbia	 1,892,322
Total	*7,382,526

The Budget-Mr. Lapierre

The wages paid were $33,000,000, supplies $25,000,000 and dividends $10,000,000. The following will show who benefits from the production of mineral wealth. Taking the northern Ontario mineral production of $68,284,658 and setting aside $10,000,000 for dividends, wages $33,000,000, the rest is spent
as follows:
Meat	 $3,692,700
Dairy produce	 4,220,000
Flour, bread and cereals, etc.. ..	2,299,000
Fruit	 471,000
Sugar	 990,000
Tea	 380,000
Coffee	 130,000
Vegetables	 1,121,000
Fuel	 3,105,000
Rent	 4,309,000
Boots and	shoes	 943,000
Clothing	   3,378,000
The mines spent the balance of $25,000,000 on supplies and equipment, and this is how it
went:
Machine shop work	 $3,250,000
Chemical and	apparatus	 2,340,000
Coal	 1,070,000
Equipment	 1,612,000
Explosives	 3,000,000
Freight	 2,050,000
Hardware	 1,145,000
Lumber	 1,080.000
Power	 4,750,000
The mines in Ontario paid out in dividends in 1924 the sum of $7,797,043. The total since the opening of the northern Ontario mining area, gold and silver, is $139,780,125. The Hol-dinger mine, the principal gold producer, has already paid in dividends $22,904,000, and in silver the Nipissing $26,383,297, and the nickel mines $85,000,000.
In view of the far-reaching effect this must have on trade in Canada, I would call the attention of the House to the absolute necessity of developing the tremendously rich iron deposits wdiich we have in northern Ontario. I have not the figures at hand in connection with these deposits, but I will refer to this again if I have an opportunity of discussing a resolution which I have on the order paper. What I wish to impress upon the government is the necessity of giving the development of our iron ore deposits the attention that it deserves. There are but few of us in Canada who realize how much the future development of this country depends upon the development of these iron ore deposits. It is known to people engaged in the business that magnetite and higher grades of ore in Minnesota are within calculable distance of exhaustion, and that at the present time those interested in iron deposits are now looking over the situation in Canada. I hope to see the day when this government in co-operation fMr. Lapierre.]
with the provincial governments will give to the iron industry all the consideration it deserves.


Mr. ANGUS McDONALD (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I see ;by the trend of speeches made by hon. members who have preceded me in the budget debate, that it is the custom to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Rofoib) on the budget he has been able to bring down. I cannot go as far as some of the speakers have gone in congratulating him upon his budget, but I must say that I congratulate him upon being able, in a little less than two short years, to bring down a budget, from my viewpoint, at least, somewhat similar in nature to many budgets brought down on this hill in many sessions that have passed into history since 1878. I cannot, for the life of me, see in the budget brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance anything that goes to help the class of people to which I belong, men whe have to work out in the rigours of our northern climate, men who have to work on the farm and who are raising children. I do not see where any reductions are made in the burdens that are placed upon them by reducing duties on the stockings and other necessary clothes that have to be worn by those people who iwork hard, and who, after all, are the pedestal upon which society in this country is built.
The state of my health will not permit me to speak at any length in this debate. The reason that I venture to .make a few remarks at all is to try to correct some statements that were made in this House not so very long ago. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to extend to me the same privilege that was extended to an hon. member last Wednesday afternoon, so that I may correct a few statements that he made and that I do not believe he would have made had he been in possession of the facts. I refer to the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), who stated in this House last Wednesday afternoon that $240,000 of hard-earned money had been filched from the poor miners of Nova Scotia, and that they were very hard up. The hon, member was somewhat out in his figures. Last year, $247,000 was collected from the miners of Nova Scotia, but the hon. member was not in possession of the facts, or he would not have said that eighty-five per cent of the $247,000 ever left Canada or went into the coffers of the United Mine Workers of America, Out of the portion of this sum that goes to the United Mine Workers' organization on the

The Budget-Mr. McDonald (Timiskaming)
per capita rating of fifty cents on the dollar, $100,000 went to pay merchants in Glace Bay and Sydney, N.S. for debts that had accrued there in January and February, 1924, The balance went into the treasuries of the district organizations and the locals in Nova Scotia. The dues are one dollar per month upon the miners of Nova Scotia. These are facts. I have paid my dollar a month dues for the last thirty-eight years into international unions, but in our organization we do not have quite as high a per capita going to the internationals. Fifty cents out of that dollar goes to the international of the United Mine Workers; thirty-five cents goes to the district organization and fifteen cents to the local. The thirty-five cents and the fifteen cents go to pay funeral benefits, sick benefits and to take care of other accidents that may happen from time to time.
I wish to put on Hansard this statement that can be verified by any member in this House who desires to seek for himself reliable information on this subject:
I extend my thanks for your courtesy in writing me and forwarding clippings from the Montreal Star. The news item from Glace Bay contains information much distorted. As a matter of fact eighty-five per cent of the moneys collected by the United Mine Workers of America in Nova Scotia remained in that province and was expended for the use and benefit of Canadian citizens. One hundred thousand of the amount collected was used to pay Sydney and Glace Bay merchants' indebtedness incurred by the Nova Scotia mine workers in their strike of January and February, 1924. The Montreal Star is, of course, favourable to the interests of the British Empire Steel Corporation.
Reciprocating your good wishes, I am,
Yours very truly,
John L. Lewis,
President,
United Mine Workers of America.
He is a man who knows what he is talking about and he does not make any rash statements. Those are the facts in connection with what money was collected, and I think I can leave it in the hands of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) to verify this statement for me right here.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Does the hon. member
know whether prior to the disbursements, the money went into the international fund?


Angus McDonald: I have
already stated the division that is made of the money collected in dues from the miners of Nova Scotia. Fifty cents per capita goes to the headquarters office.


Harold Putnam: Is that first handled by the international union?


Angus McDonald: No, it
is handled by the local first, and then a pro
122i
rata share is sent on to the parent organization, the international.
Now I find at page 1772 of Hansard that the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) made this statement:
It is quite true that there is more destitution and poverty there now owing to the fact that, although these poor miners in 1924 paid $240,000 into the United Mine Workers' fund, that organization has not come across with one dollar, so far, to relieve the suffering in Cape Breton.
I want to state that the international union has come across with at least $50 for every dollar of Canadian money sent across the line. I make that statement of my own positive knowledge, and I think the Minister of Labour will bear me out. I wish to get these statements on Hansard to correct what was said by the hon. member for Lunenburg, who I am sorry is not in his place, and who I believe would not have so expressed himself had he taken the time to become seized of the facts. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. D. A. MACKINNON (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is to go into committee of Ways and Means. I take that to mean the ways of spending money, and the means of obtaining money for the purpose. During the course of the debate all sorts of theories have been put forward and I hope they will be helpful to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). By increasing the duty on slack coal from 14 cents to 50 cents he will increase the revenue without making the tariff strictly protective on this commodity, because the coal is sold at $11 or $12 a ton, and 50 cents on that figure is a very small percentage.
While we are looking into means of increasing the revenue, I am going to offer a suggestion. Every year we import approximately $10,000,000 worth of bananas and oranges. Last session in the committee dealing with the National Railways we were told that it was almost impossible to look for trade from the West Indies to the Maritime provinces because the United Fruit Company was carrying the West Indian fruit to New York. I have been thinking this over, and my suggestion is that a 20 per cent tariff be imposed upon these fruits with a 10 per cent preference for those entered through Canadian ports either on the Pacific or the Atlantic. I think this would help solve the trouble we have in the Maritime provinces. Next session when the Acting Minister of Finance announces an addition to his surplus of $2,000,000 from this source, no doubt he will pass a volte of thanks to me for my suggestion. That is the only suggestion I would


Mr. TOLMIE:: May I ask the hon. gentleman what proportion of that expenditure was related to the wiar?


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: I am coming to that. I say that I am not blaming our predecessors in office for the whole expenditure. Of that, $1,670,000,000 was related to the war. But I do blame them for not meeting more of the expenditure out of current revenue. In Great Britain during the same six years the government expended as much money as bad -been expended for over two hundred years before, but they collected 38 per cent of the expenditure while the people were making profits out of war supplies. Had our government of that day the same vision and collected a similar percentage from those who were making huge profits on war contracts, we would not be obliged to-day to retain the duties on this, that and the other commodity in order to meet our obligations. On the contrary, we would have been in a position to reduce the tariff all around. To ask the Acting Minister of Finance to make further tariff re-iuetions at the present time is to put an mpossible burden upon him. Look at those who have preceded him in the Department of Finance, look at the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) Who brings in an amendment, which stultifies itself in that in the first part he asks the government to reduce the sales tax, and in the second part he says that the tax cannot be reduced because we have spent so much money. The amendment is self-contradictory. The exMinister of Finance states that the government have increased the national debt this year, but I submit that he is mistaken and that the amount due has been decreased by over $5,000,000.

I was sorry to note that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens)-coming from a city that has perhaps progressed more than any other city in Canada under this administration-cast aspersions on the Acting Minister of Finance by stating that in private life the Acting Minister of Finance would have been guilty of moral obloquy if he had published such a statement as he has submitted to the House. But we regard him as the soul of honour, and I contend that he has submitted a perfectly correct statement to the House, for any hon. member who examines the budget will agree that he has properly accounted for a cash surplus of $1,823,000. In addition there is $4,000,000 interest due from Greece and Roumania, and if he had1 not included that sum in the assets of the Dominion he would not have been doing his duty as a minister. I find that in 1921 a certificate was given by an auditor brought from the United States, and in it these loans to Greece and Roumania are included; and in the public accounts at the present time there is a certificate, which the minister produces, showing that this conforms with the account as given at that time. The question is asked why that $4,000,000 was put there. Well, it was earned on principal; part of the principal had been paid and part of the interest was due. It was adjusted and there was found to be $4,000,000 altogether due. And that is capitalized in the way that any mortgage is dealt with. That $4,000,000 as I understand it is interest-bearing as the $30,000,000 is. The thing is as simple as it can be and there is no attempt at dishonesty or anything of the kind.


Robert Forke: Does the hon. member wish to convey the idea that anyone disputed that this was an asset? We all recognize the fact that it is an asset but it went into the public accounts of the country as money received. That is the difference.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: No; I will explain it.


Robert Forke: You have a surplus of $1,-
800,000	and add $4,000,000, claiming $5,000,000 altogether of a surplus. That was the statement of the minister.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: That was not the
way the minister put it; he said that the debt would be reduced by $5,000,000. And that is right. If the hon. member will look into the accounts for the year 1921 he will see at the beginning that the entry is cash so much; and the same applies to the year 1924. In 1923, the accounts for which appeared last

The Budget-Mr. Mackmnon
year, there was an entry, " by cash " $45,000,000. Under this are the Imperial loans and loans to foreign countries, Roumania and Greece. All these are set forth in the table, not as a cash balance but merely by way of a statement of the situation; and a certificate of the auditor brought from the United States when the hon. .member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was Minister of Finance appears printed in the statement with these items included. The whole thing shows where the country stands; it is a statement of the capital debt in 1921 just as it is a statement of the balance of capital debt in 1925, and the situation could not be properly set forth unless this $4,000,000 were included as going to the reduction of the amount of the debt. Anyone who understands figures will appreciate that. As to the words " cash surplus ", I do not think the minister used that expression.


Robert Forke: He certainly used the word surplus. There is no dispute about the amount being an asset, but if the hon. member will look up the speech in question he will find that the claim was made that there was a surplus of $5,000,000.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: That amount is so
much ready to be subtracted from the debt of the country.


Robert Forke: No one is disputing the fact that it is an asset.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: What I find fault with is the language that is used, reflecting upon the honour of the man who heads the department at present (Mr. Robb) and who has burdens enough to bear. He fills an important office and should have the sympathy and support as well as the intellectual help of every man in this House. This country is too large and its problems are too great to be managed on the lines of recriminatory party politics; we have tremendous burdens [DOT]to bear and it will require the courage of the best men we have to manage our affairs properly.
I have already referred to the question of increasing our revenue, which amounts to some $344,000,000. Now, the government has been blamed, in the amendment which has been proposed, for extravagance, for spending too much, and that- sort of thing. Our expenditures amount to some $342,000,000 and of that amount $184,000,000 consists of interest and pensions as well as statutory payments to people who retire. The minister therefore can use no discretion whatever so far as this much of the expenditures is concerned; it is
there in spite of anything he may do. The minister must meet interest charges and he must pay the pensions that are due, and those pensions will increase because more people throughout the country will have to be looked after. So that when this $184,000,000 is subtracted from the total expenditures, what is there left for the Minister of Finance to be extravagant with? There is only about $160,000,000 or less. And if we look back to the years 1914, 1912 and 1911 we shall find that the government of that time was expending that much money without any complaint. I think the expenditure in 1914 was some $127,000,000. But there is a great deal more reason to-day for spending money than there was at that time. Now, it is no use creating a feeling throughout the country that the government has been extravagant, because the fact of the matter is that the affairs of the country have been handled with exceeding care; and we should be pleased that the minister was able to come out with any surplus at all. It was estimated that with the falling revenue in customs, and in view of the condition of business in the country generally, the government would come out badly. And some of our critics, it seems to me, would have been better pleased if the government had announced a deficit of $25,000,000 or so. But surely that is not the attitude for hon. members to take. We should be proud indeed that the minister came down with a surplus; and he did not manage that without the greatest possible care, for he was pressed on every hand for increases in the expenditures. Every part of the country has been claiming some increase here and there and it speaks well for the control the minister exercised that the situation is as satisfactory as it is. I wonder what the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. McDonald) would do if he were in the minister's place. Reference has been made to the miners of Nova Scotia. Well, I have had a notion of asking the Minister of Finance for enough money to carry on mining investigations in our island, but after the fuss that has been experienced in the neighbouring island I think I shall give it up for a few years. We do not want any disturbance of that nature in Prince Edward Island where the people are doing very well.
There are a few things that have arisen in this debate to which I might refer in passing, and one is the argument that has been advanced that more protection would provide employment for a larger number of people. And France is taken as an example. But

The Budget-Mr. Mackinnon
France to-day has a deficit of four million or five million dollars. Perhaps that might please some hon. gentlemen who are anxious to have the tariff increased. I do not know that many hon. members would object to increasing the tariff here and there if the reasoning were sound. But hon. gentlemen forget when they take the United States and other countries as illustrations that we have our own experience in Canada to guide us; and I think our soundest judgment would be based on what has happened in this country itself. Let us go back to the time the National Policy was adopted and see what progress was made since then. At that time our manufactures amounted to some $350,000,000 and after ten years of protection it had increased only by $165,000,000. That was the first decade in the operation of the National Policy. Men of a different school of thought came into power in 1896, men who were in favour of reducing the tariff and making it one of revenue rather than of protection. They were condemned for doing it. It was said that it would injure the country, but still they went on, and what has been the result? We should base our judgment on experience, which is the best teacher we can have. We had an increase from 1901 to 1911 of $650,000,000 in manufacturing alone.


Robert Forke: Does the hon. member not think that the opening up of the northwest, the building of railways, and the large influx of settlers into that territory had more to do with the increase in manufacturing than the tariff had?


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: I think the government was condemned for opening up the country with railways at that time.


Robert Forke: That is not the point.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: They began to come in in iarge numbers, not in 1901, but later. They came in in hundreds of thousands in 1907, 1911 and 1912.


Robert Forke: From 1901 to 1911 were the ten big years.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: If that helped, I am pleased to acknowledge it, but that development took place under a reduced tariff. The trade of the country increased by over half a billion dollars from 1896 to 1911. Everything was going right ahead at a rapid rate. Of course, the tariff for revenue did not do it all. The people had to do it, but it was under that system this growth took place. Having learned that lesson, I think it is up to us to have a tariff for revenue only, and to reduce it here 
and there as soon as we can get along with less revenue, but you cannot get along with less revenue than the minister is seeking this year to meet the country's requirements.
The United States is often quoted as an example of a high protectionist country that we should imitate. I am surprised that some speakers urge that, because to-day the United States is more free trade than protective. She imports 58 per cent of her merchandise entirely free of duty. If we were to imitate the United States, we would be allowing agricultural implements to come into this country free; we would also allow leather for boots and shoes, and manufactured boots and shoes to come inito this country free. If some of those who urge us to follow the example of the United States knew that, they would not point so often to that country as an example. But that is the situation in the United States. They are handling more in the free trade line than in the protective line. They have, of course, high protective duties on different items, but taken as a whole their protection is not nearly so high as ours. If you will compare the two countries you will find that the duties in the United States amount to about $5 per capita, compared with $10 or $11 per capita in Canada. That is another reason for reducing the duty. What I maintain is that we are more protectionist to-day than is the United States by that per capita difference. Very few people think so, but if you will look at the statistics you will find they figure out that way. I think the time has gone by to talk of protection. We do not want to hurt any industry at all. Industries developed better under a tariff for revenue than they did under protection, and they will do it again. The manufacturers of this country will prosper a great deal more under that system.
On motion of Mr. Mackinnon the debate was adjourned.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MEIGHEN POINT OF ORDER-FORM OF ANSWER TO A QUESTION-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER

Mr. SPEAKER:: The House will allow me to give a ruling on the point of order raised this afternoon. On the 2nd April an answer was given by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) to a question put by the hon. member for Kent, N.B., (Mr. Doucet). The question reads as follows:
1. What was the amount paid by the government in connection with the investigation and report mad* by Sir Henry Drayton in regard to the North Atlantic Steamship Conference and ocean rates?
A further question was asked by the hon. member for Kent, but it is the answer to the

Privilege-Mr. Meighen-Ruling
first question to which exception has been taken. The answer to the first question, given by the hon. Secretary of State reads:
1. Sir Henry Drayton was carried on the pay-list of the Board of Railway Commissioners for the period from July 31, 1913, to September 21, 1913, when he was employed on the ocean rates inquiry, and he was paid during the inquiry his regular salary rate as Chief Commissioner, namely $12,500 per annum, and $1,074, expenses.
Objection was taken to this answer as not being the proper one to make to the distinct and specific question asked by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet). Rule of the House No. 37 reads:
(1) Questions may be put to ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and to other members, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same. And in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
The government, when questions are put, can always ask that the question should stand as an order for return, and when they deem that it is not in conformity with the public interest that an answer should be given they can decline to answer the question. In the present instance, however, the question is very simple, and very specific. I shall repeat it:
1. What was the amount paid by the government in connection with the investigation and report made by Sir Henry Drayton in regard to the North Atlantic Steamship Conference and ocean rates?
The question asked has reference to the amount which was paid Sir Henry Drayton es qualite of investigator in connection with the North Atlantic Steamship Conference and ocean rates, not as chairman of the railway board. The Railway Act clearly defines what were his powers and duties as chairman of the Tailway board. It states further-section 26 -what salary was to be paid him es qualite of chairman of the railway board. In the present instance the answer is beside the issue, because the question put by the hon. member for Kent is, what was the amount paid by the government in connection with the investigation and report made by Sir Henry Drayton in regard to the North Atlantic Steamship Conference and ocean rates? It has no reference to his statutory duties as chairman of the railway board.
May, at page 249, says:
The purpose of a question is to obtain information, and not to supply it to the House. A question may not contain statements of facts, unless they be necessary to make the question intelligible, and can be
authenticated; nor should a question contain arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, or controversial or ironical expressions.
May here speaks of questions, but of course the same argument applies to answers. When a mere question of fact is stated in a question, the answer must refer to that fact without any inference. The present question, in my humble judgment, is clear and intelligible. There is a clear-cut question and it calls for a clear-cut answer or no answer at all. There was, in my judgment, only one of two answers to make: Either the 'government should have answered that Sir Henry Drayton had received nothing in his quality of investigator of oceanic rates, or that he had received something. The answer as if reads leaves an inference and equally it should not remain in Hansard. Bourinot, at page 314, states:
An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by a minister on the ground of the public interest.
That is what I meant a moment ago when I said that the government could decline to answer on the ground of public policy. Bourinot continues:
The answer to a question should be brief and distinct.
In the present instance, in my humble judgment, the answer is not distinct. The question being specific; the answer should have been specific. I, therefore, rule that the answer be expunged from the Hansard and if the question is put again, a distinct answer should be given.


Mr. BELAND:: It is impossible in this instance, without the question being asked again, to have another answer given.


Hewitt Bostock: It is for the government to answer or not. As all authorities state, if the government thinks that the question should not be answered on the ground of public interest, they may decline to answer. But if a question is put as distinct and intelligible, as the one put on the 2nd April last was, the answer of the government if given must be as distinct, clear and precise.


Mr. BAXTER:: In the absence of my leader (Mr. Meighen) may I suggest that the question, or that portion of it that is not answered, should be restored to the order paper, and an answer given in due course?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has
only to give notice of his question again and it will be answered in due course.
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil) the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Ocean Shipping Rates

Tuesday, April 7, 1925