It does not say-just "Mr. Carvell." If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, judging by the history of this gentleman, he is no more satisfied to-day with the waste and extravagance of the Government than he was then.
I do not know where he is. I quote from the evidence, the questions being by Mr. Carvell:
Q. Have you any idea as to the number that was being burned ; you say you saw piles. How large were the piles?-A. I did not pay any attention to the size of the piles. They were fair sized piles.
Mr. Carvell was not satisfied with that; he wanted a closer measurement.
Q. Would they contain three or four, or how many?-A. I should say two or three hundred in large piles.
Q. How many piles were there?-A. Several piles; eight or nine piles, so far as I could judge.
Q. Were there any blankets in those piles?- A. Tes, sir, there were some blankets in the piles that I could see.
Q. Were there any other articles of uniform or necessities for the soldiers?-A. There were caps I think too ; that is all I could see in the pile.
Q. How many caps? A. I could not see rightly. They were all in a pile.
Everything was done by piles in those days, but I bring this up merely as an incident of some of the waste that is going on. From careful study, from observation, from an examination of the records of this House, I find that, if the debt of this country was increased by hundreds of millions of dollars for tihe war, hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money never found their way to the war, were never a benefit to the soldiers at the front, were put down as war expenditure, and hon. gentlemen in the Cabinet will, if necessary, be men enough to bear me out in my statement. Why do I say that? I say it because I believe there are other causes for the high cost of living than those usually attributed to it. Hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money have gone to the war, and that being the case, the Government have taken from the consumers of this country hundreds of millions of dollars which could have helped them to pay for the cost of living. You have the waste of the Government, the increased taxation upon foodstuffs in this country, the protection of the profiteers, the increased taxation on incomes, all contributing towards the high cost of living. I will not say that any one thing is the direct cause of the increased cost of living, but I will tell you, Sir, in all confidence-and I would not like rny words to be listened to by certain hon. members-that that is my study of the situation. But if you ask the people of Canada what has brought about the high cost of living, they will tell you, even away down in Nova Scotia, that the Government have been the means of enhancing the cost of living in this country. The Government, from the moment they took office in this .country after Sir Wilfrid Laurier laid down the reins, proceeded to increase the cost of living by increasing the debt, by increasing the tariff, by wasting the money, by bringing the debt per head from something around $22 or $25 to $220. I offer this suggestion to the Government in the way of constructive criticism, that they can lower the cost of living by adopting as a policy the cry of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) when he said: Save; economize; do not waste. If the Government saves, economizes, and does not waste, then the cost of living in this country Will go down.
Hon. gentlemen opposite to whom I have had occasion to listen have said that they cannot support the amendment or the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), be cause it is, perhaps, too radical or not radical enough. We are here representing all classes of the people of Canada, and is there in this country a man who is not to-day asking for cheaper food and cheaper clothing? Has the Minister of Finance met one man in Canada who has not asked for cheaper food and clothing? Why, the Minister of Finance himself is asking for cheaper food and clothing. He knows as well as the House does and as the country does that everybody wants cheaper food and clothing. Then let the Government begin by eliminating the 30 per cent tariff tax upon clothing, and that much reduction will be given to the people of Canada. I am not one of those very radical men who would like to see the manufacturers of this country upset, because that would be a bad thing. But, in the history of a country there are times when some special class must suffer for the general good of the community, and at the present moment the community as a whole is asking for a reduction in tariff. It was admitted by my hon. friend (Mr. 'Calder) that there was a fight in the Cabinet for a reduction in the tariff, but that there was a faction in that Cabinet that insisted upon maintaining the principles of high protection, and that that section in favour of high protection won out. I say without a moment's hesitation that, just as Sir John A. Macdonald believed in the principle of a low tariff, just as the right hon. gentleman whose seat in this House is not occupied to-day, who was the leader of Liberal thought in this country, believed that we had to face fiscal problems by a downward revision of the tariff, so I believe there is only one remedy that may be enforced to-day, to give satisfaction to the people of Canada even if a small privileged class must suffer, and that is to give free food and free clothing in this country.
I find that I have spoken longer than I intended. I have not entered into figures, because figures are somewhat tiring. Today the people of Canada know the figures; they know they are face to face with a debt which in a few days after the Budget has passed will amount to $2,1X10,000,000. They know also that in order to meet the interest upon that debt, they will have to borrow a few more hundred million dollars, and further, that to run this Government in the way it is being run, it will cost a few hundred million dollars more.
Did I say "to run" this Government? I apologize. In the language of the Minister or Immigration (Mr. Calder) " to keep on playing " is going to cost a few more hundreds of millions of dollars. If this system is carried on, there is no telling where this country will land in six months or a year from now. I want to say as emphatically as I can to the Government: Call a halt on expenditure; adopt sound economic principles, whatever those principles may be in your judgment, but do not give out to the people of this country that you are lessening their burdens by borrowing more money to pay the interest on the national debt, because next year the people will have to pay increased taxation by reason of this borrowing, and more taxation still if new loans are raised by the Government.
I have no authority to speak for the Liberal party of Canada, but I believe that I follow the idea of Liberalism, and I want my concluding words to be to the Liberals of this country. The people to-day are demanding earnest and united action by this Government. To settle the unrest, the dissatisfaction, and starvation in this country, earnest and united action by this Government is absolutely necessary. The people will not be satisfied with a shifty policy. They will not be satisfied with one minister after another getting up and saying: "I
cannot agree with the Government upon their fiscal policy." In spite of the statement made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) that whilst the war was over conditions in Europe were still very bad, and possibly at some future time Canada might again be drawn into a war, and the words of the Minister of Immigration to the same effect, what the people of Canada know is that to all intents and purposes the war is over, and now is the time to grapple with the situation that confronts Canada as a nation-a growing nation within the Empire.
The people ask for increased production. They must have it, and they are giving this Government a chance between now and the day of reckoning to say whether they shall or shall not have increased production. It is not the farmer that is to blame for the lack of increased production. From the beginning of the war the cry throughout this country and upon the floor of this House to the farmers of Canada was: " If you want to
help the Allies in this war you must increase production." While calling upon the farmers to increase production, the Govern-
ment made it practically imposible for them to do so, by keeping up all the artificial barriers that stood in their way. Taxes on harrows, discs, ploughs, and almost every other agricultural implement that is used on the farm were not reduced because, forsooth, the hon. member for iBrantford (Mr. Cockshutt) would not allow the Government to do so. He won out. He stands as a big man in Canada to-day because he was able to force the Government to keep up these duties. It is true he did consent to clip the wing of an agricultural implement, providing he got a little more on the other side. He held up the Government. The Minister of Immigration told us this afternoon-he did not mention the name of the hon. member for Brantford, but we all knew perfectly well who he meant-that my hon. friend was constantly watching at the door of the Cabinet like a watch dog, and when the Minister of Finance would come out he would ask " Any concessions to the farmer?" The Minister of Finance would reply " Not yet." " Good." The next day he would be there again, and after waiting all day he would repeat his question to the Minister of Finance " Any concessions to the farmer?" " Not yet," the Minister of Finance would say, and we can hear the voice of the hon. member for Brantford saying " Keep it up, Tom, the people are with you." We do not think the people are with the Government, but that is a matter for the Government to settle with the people, and the day of reckoning is bound to come. We on this side of the House say that the only means by which you will get increased production from the farmers of Canada is by giving them a free market in which to sell their goods, and a free market in which to buy their goods. I have not the authority to speak for the Liberals on this side of the House, but I believe it is a real principle of Liberalism that capital, the result of the real energy of man, must be protected, and that labour must have a fair chance of obtaining capital. I believe in co-operation between capital and labour, founded upon a solid basis, not upon a shifting policy.
These are the views of the Liberal party and Liberals throughout Canada. I know I speak for the Liberals in this House, because I echo the language of the great, the departed, our much lamented leader, the revered figure throughout Canada, the Bight Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This is what he said:-
We are dominated neither by privilege, nor by vested interest, nor by any power or influ-
ence either within or without Canada, other than the voice of the common citizen, whose cause is our cause. We follow the ideal of equal right and equal freedom for all-the ideal of a free democracy, of equality of opportunity for every man and for common justice to all our fellow citizens. We stand for the masses as against the classes and for government of the people for the people and hy the people, which is the essence of Liberalism.
I shall conclude my remarks, Sir, by saying that if the Government, charged by the people of Canada to conduct the country's affairs, have failed to stand for the people and by the people, preferring to stand by combines, trusts, corporations and privileged classes, we on this side, in our lack of power, and in the cool shades of opposition, have experienced a joy in living up to the principle of freedom for all classes in this community-freedom in industry, freedom in labour, freedom in thought, freedom in creed, and freedom in its fullest sense. We believe, Sir, in law and order, and the members on this side of the House have given, as you will testify, Mr. Speaker, upon every occasion on which they have been called upon to do so, their earnest effort to the end that order might be maintained in this House. But, much as we regret the fact, and regret it very sincerely, the time has come when the people of Canada feel that the Government charged with the affairs of the country have not been able to cope with the responsibilities placed upon them, and when they are exacting a new form, a new system, a new set of men, and demanding that undying principles should guide the Government of the country. The star of Liberalism is in the ascendant, and while we are ready to give every aid to the Government whether in the House or in the country, we will noit hesitate to assume responsibilities and to direct the affairs of the country so that all the people of Canada may have a fair show and live freely in this country; so that all the people of Canada may have a free opportunity for advancement within Canada, and that Canada may go on growing as a nation, destined, as it has always been, to be a country meeting other countries on equal grounds. As the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden said in his speech in London, on June 21, 1918:
We come here as we came last year to deal with all these matters upon terms of perfect equality with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his colleagues.
Now, Sir, we the Liberal party of Canada say that we will not go to the United States or to Europe for precedents, and that Canada is big enough and great enough, and
has proved itself competent enough, to manage her own affairs on Canadian lines, guided by the interests of people who are Canadians living upon Canadian soil; and that every effort should be made to attain a happier and more prosperous goal than we have seen in this country since the fateful days when the Liberal party of Canada laid down the reins of office. That, Sir, we will do one and all. That the people of Canada are demanding to-day; and whilst there was a hope and a wish that the Opposition in this country amounted to nothing and were not capable of assuming responsibilities, it has been found that they are man for man the equal of the Government; and their forceful presentation of their convictions and the high principles they hold has so strongly impressed hon. members, including those from the Liberal party, who have been supporting the Government for the past two years, that to-day we find a minister of the Crown, just resigned from the Cabinet, saying to the Opposition: I am with you for the freedom of the people -
'Mr. Speaker, this is the first Budget since the end of the great war and the signing of the armistice, and naturally there are a number of questions and problems arising out of the settlement of the war which require a great deal of consideration during the present session. I have listened to the admirable address of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in the statement regarding the finances of the country and also the addresses of the various speakers who have dealt with the Budget, both previous to to-day and especially this afternoon, with a great deal of pleasure and interest.
Before I proceed to discuss the main features of the Budget, as it concerns the country at the present time, I desire to make just a few remarks on one or two other matters that appear to me to be of pressing and urgent importance. First, I would speak of the state of unrest that obtains in the Dominion, of the strikes that are taking place, or have taken pdaee, and that are prophesied to take place in the near future. These are matters of great concern to many of our citizens as well as to legislators assembled in this House. Perhaps
not at any time within the memory of any inhabitant of Canada have there been as many serious strikes in operation and threatening as within the past few weeks. As a citizen of this country, I deplore such a state of things, and for one I am prepared to do all I reasonably can in every direction to allay unrest, to counsel wisdom and discretion and to endeavour to avoid strikes and all conflicts between capital and labour. I think that must be in the mind of every citizen of Canada at the present time. I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that a wise course has not been pursued in this respect by some of our public men and by a great many of our leading newspapers.
I do not often refer to the press, nor am I anxious to enter into any conflict with the press on this or any other question, but I feel that during the past critical weeks they have given undue prominence to those things that represent disintegration and a bad spirit between different classes of the people rather than endeavouring by wise counsel to allay the trouble. There exists a very serious state of things, and I regret that with such conditions not only some of the insignificant journals but many of our leading newspapers have given way to sensationalism rather than following the wise counsels that should prevail. We know that the feelings of the people are not in quite a normal state at the present time. We know that during the war the people have been subjected to a very great strain, that thousands of our citizens had their dear ones overseas fighting the battles of the Empire, many families being called on to shed tears of sorrow at the losses that have overtaken them. These being the facts, it can scarcely be expected that the people should be in a normal state of mind. There is, therefore, all the greater reason that every *man who is known in his community, and every newspaper that undertakes to represent public opinion in Canada, should use wise and judicious words in discussing all those matters that so closely affect the welfare of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before dwelling upon the fiscal changes and tariff generally, I desire to say a few words in regard to what our statesmen have been doing during the last few months overseas. This is a question that I have been studying from very long range, I admit, and as a humble layman I do not profess to know what has taken place in the greatest Peace Conference the world has ever known. But I do feel that we are taking a very long chance
produces the contents of some of the White Papers on 'this subject. These are no myths, these are reports sent by British consuls from the seat of trouble; and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the tale of woe they relate with regard to Russia has never been equalled under the most barbarous tyrant that ever sat upon the throne of the Russians, or any other empixe, since the world began. That is without controversy. There is one letter, and I have about a score of them under my hand, a few points from it might be worth while to read so that the House will see that I am not exaggerating in this matter. This letter was addressed to Sir George Clerk in November last by Mr. R. H. B. Lockhart, who had been British Consul General at Moscow, and these are some of the few points that he makes as a British consul reporting to his superior:
1. The Bolsheviks have established a rule of force and oppression unequalled in the history of any autocracy.
2 Themselves the fiercest upholders of the right of free speech, they have suppressed, since coming into power, every newspaper which does not approve their policy. In this respect the Socialist Press has suffered most of all. Even the papers of the Internationalist Mensheviks like Martov have been suppressed and closed down, and the unfortunate editors thrown into prison or forced to flee for their lives.
3. The right of holding public meetings has been abolished. The vote has been taken away from every one except the workmen in the factories and -the poorer servants, and even amongst the workmen those who dare to vote against the Bolsheviks are marked down by the Bolshevik secret police as counter-revolutionaries, and are fortunate if their worst fate is to be thrown into prison, of which in Russia to-day it may truly he said, "many go in, but few come out."
4. The worst crimes of the Bolsheviks have
been against their Socialist opponents. Of the countless executions which the Bolsheviks have carried out a large percentage has fallen on the heads of Socialists who had waged a lifelong struggle against the old regime, but who are now denounced as counter-revolutionaries merely because they disapprove of the manner in which the Bolsheviks have discredited socialism. *
5. The Bolsheviks have abolished even the most primitive forms of justice. Thousands of men and women have been shot without even the mockery of a trial, and thousands more are left to rot in the prisons under conditions to find a parallel to which one must turn to the darkest annals of Indian or Chinese history.
6. The Bolsheviks have restored the barbarous methods of torture. The examination of prisoners frequently takes place with a revolver at the unfortunate prisoner's head.
7. The Bolsheviks have establised the odious practice of taking hostages. Still worse, they have struck at their political opponents through their womenfolk. When recently a long list of hostages was published in Petrograd, the Bolsheviks seized the wives of those men whom
they could not find and threw them into prison until their husbands should give themselves up.
8. The Bolsheviks who destroyed the Russian army, and who have always been the avowed opponents of militarism, have forcibly mobilized officers who do not share their political views, but whose technical knowledge is indispensable, and by the threat of immediate execution have forced them to fight against their fellow-countrymen in a civil war of unparalleled horror.
9. The avowed ambition of Lenin is to create civil warfare throughout Europe. Every speech of Lenin's is a denunciation of constitutional methods, and a glorification of the doctrine of physical force. With that object in view he is destroying systematically both by executions and by deliberate starvation every form of opposition to Bolshevism. This system of "terror'' is aimed chiefly at the Liberals and non-Bolshevik Socialists, whom Lenin regards as his most dangerous opponents.
10. In order to maintain their popularity with the working men and with their hired mercenaries, the Bolsheviks are paying their supporters enormous wages by means of an unchecked paper issue, until to-day money in Russia has naturally lost all value. Even according to their own figures the Bolsheviks' expenditure exceeds the revenue by thousands of millions of roubles per annum. These are facts for which the Bolsheviks may seek to find an excuse but Which they cannot deny.
R. H. B. Lockhart.
That is only one of a score of letters contained in this volume as received from the British Consul. I read that in order that the members of the Cabinet who have been attending the Peace Conference may, if they return to the scene of negotiations, bear in mind this, coming from a humble, back-bench follower of the Government- though sometimes a somewhat turbulent one, I admit-that what this world wants is an early peace, a sound peace, a peace that the enemy is not likely to disturb during the course of many years. I should like them to bear in mind that this League of Nations is not a burning question with many of us; that we have our doubts -with regard to it. For myself, I look upon it as a beautiful ideal, but as one entirely incapable of accomplishment. I say in all seriousness that the Peace Conference, by uniting these two great policies, the Treaty of Peace and the League of Nations, are making the most gigantic experiment that the world has ever seen or known. Will it fail or will it succeed? We tremble to know what the result will be. I hope that it will succeed, but I believe that the greatest danger to the League of Nations lies in the attitude of the very nation that originated the idea. I have read some of the speeches delivered in the United States with regard to this matter, and I know how reluctant the American Senate is to give
up any of its prerogatives. I miss my guess if a good many of the members of the American Senate do not hesitate a good while before signing away their right to declare war or to make peace-a right which they have upheld ever since the adoption of the American constitution. That being the case, in my judgment the Peace Conference did a dangerous thing in linking up with the Peace Treaty the project of the League of Nations. True, it is a step in advance, as was pointed out by the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. Howell) the other day, that Canadians are to be allowed to sign the Treaty of Peace; and I rejoice in that, so far as it goes. But the contents of the treaty' are worth far more to us than the signatures that adorn it, whether they belong to this side of the Atlantic or the other. Unless a sound peace is obtained when the treaty is signed, all this labour shall have been in vain, and we shall have thrown away by faulty diplomacy the fruits of a victory won at the point of the bayonet and the muzzle of the gun by the bravest troops that ever fought in battle since the world began. More heroic deeds than have ever been related of the Spartans or the Greeks of old have been performed in this war; the triumph has been won by a sacrifice of blood and treasure the like of which the world has never seen. If the Treaty of Peace is a failure, the failure will be due to the politicians and statesmen who have dealt with it, not to the men who won the victory which enables us now to dictate the terms of peace. If the military had been allowed to take a further try at it and to adopt a firmer attitude, they would have had this treaty signed months ago, and at this time, seven months after the armistice, we should not yet be in doubt whether the treaty is to be signed at all or not. I am sorry to have to express any doubt with regard to a matter of such importance as this, but I feel that the issue is altogether too serious to be lightly regarded. If the League of Nations and the Treaty of Peace aTe adopted together, I hope that the results will be as good as expected; but if there is reason why the results should not be satisfactory, the .two should be separated and a peace entered into with the enemy which will last for a time at least. I, for one, cannot believe that wars are at an end. In my opinion, war will take place -"as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be"-as long as the world lasts. I may be a pessimist, but I am an idealist to a certain extent. While I am not a man of war, I realize that there are occasions 213
when even the most peaceable man must fight, with his tongue if not with his sword.
Perhaps I have trespassed too long upon the time of the House in dealing with a matter concerning which I do not profess to have a very competent judgment, having been such a long distance away from the scene of hostilities. But I read pretty carefully. Although I do not read a great many books at the present time, owing to an infirmity of my eyes, I try to keep posted on current events as dealt with in newspapers and magazines. I have read very carefully all that has been said and done by our own statesmen overseas and by all those who have represented the belligerent countries at the Peace Conference, and I tell you that the whole question has caused me many moments of worry. Now I come to what, perhaps, may be considered a more live issue by some members of the House. It is my unfortunate privilege on this occasion to have to play the role of a candid critic. I have been told by some of my friends that perhaps it will clear the air and do good. I propose to make some criticisms of the Budget as brought down by the Minister of Finance, and I have so informed him. I do not want my friends in the West to think that I am doing this as part of the game. I was told by a Westerner only yesterday that the measure of the happiness of the West was enhanced or diminished according to the extent to which my misery was enhanced or diminished by the tariff.
That being the case, I do not want to appear too miserable, for fear I may make my hon. friends feel too good.
My first proposition is that the Government is, in ,my opinion, trying various artificial means to boost trade. I refer to such measures as the housing scheme, for which, in its present state, I have very little use. I have also very little use fo-r some of the public works that are proposed. I have some use for the highways measure, but it is more a provincial than a national enterprise, and in view of the vast expenditures that we are making on railways and other necessary matters at the present time, I think the Government would be well advised bo cut out all that sort of thing and devote what money we have to what 1 consider would confer a more lasting benefit upon the people. Although hon. members may be surprised to hear me say so, I am very sceptical as to the proposal to boost the manufactures of Canada in the countries of Europe by means of loans to those that may be of doubtful credit. I say that advisedly as a business man. I do not
know what securities this Government have, because they have not taken me into their secrets like the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) indicated, who is generally supposed to be right, but who is very often wrong. This afternoon, he stated that I was wearing out the doorstep of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) to find out what is going on. Not one particle of my shoe-leather will be found resting on his door-step from the beginning of the session up to the present time, and the Minister of Finance can bear out my statement that not once during this session has he been bothered by me. I take this opportunity of telling him what I -think, without having to call upon him at hi-s office. I regret he has seen fit to bring down those measures and I am obliged to criticise them; and if opportunity -affords itself, without causing me to vote for free trade or something of that kind, I shall have great pleasure in voting against them.
In order to make any -solid advance in this country, we must make expenditures only on that kind of industry and investment that is going to be of a permanent character, and to upbuild the nation for years to come, -and no temporary expedients for just the immediate hour, where millions will 'be thrown away and no return ever received, are going to be justified either now or in the future. As a business man, which T /pkof-e-ss to be, and as one not learned in the law nor as a great financier, I advance my opinion for what it is worth, that the Minister of Finance would be better advised in making expenditures in attempting to establish business on a solid foundation and to assist agriculture, mines, forests, fisheries, carrier trade, tranportation and everything of that kind rather than to make doubtful expenditures to the advantage it may be of some individual firms for a short time, but expenditures that will not bring any lasting advantage to the Dominion of Canada as a whole. The only advance that can be made is by successful -industry based upon right principles.
I have another word to say to the Minister of Finance. It speaks volumes indeed for the British tongue that a Minister of Finance can deliver a speech lasting an hour and three-quarters and change some hundreds of items in the tariff, without, from start to finish, ever mentioning the word "protection." If the hon. gentleman mentioned the word "protection" in his speech, I failed to catch it, and I have failed to observe it since. I want to say
this in all kindness to the minister who is a sincere friend of mine, "that protec-ton is not a necessary evil to be apologized for, but a material -good for which to be devoutly thankful." When the next fight comes in Canada, we shall not have so much pussy-footing with regard to the word "protection." As I see -the drift of events, we are making rapidly for a division in parties along the old lines again.
My hon. friends will get some encouragement, but I do not know whether I will join the boys over there or not. It Will depend upon their policy. - As regards, however, the speeches of the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) and those of the Minister of Finance as far as they dwelt on protection, I like the views of my hon. friend over the way better than those of the minister, and if he keeps on improving as rapidly as my hon. friend here appears to be deteriorating, we shall soon be together. I want to remind the leader of this Government (Sir Robert Borden), his Minister of Finance, and 'his Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) that every one of them .came into power in 1911 as protectionists. I want to know why they have deserted their colours -why they are afraid to mention the word "protection" in this House, and why, when it comes to delivering a Budget speech, apology must be made all along the line for every tariff item and not a word with regard to protection or adequate defence of the industries of this country. I say this with all kindness, but I mean it to be understood, and I trust it is. The right hon. gentleman who leads this House came into power in 1911 on the reciprocity cry, and withoult that protectionist cry I believe he would have been in the cold shades of Opposition up to the present time. The Minister of Finance did the same, and although the Minister of Railways was in the House before that, he was a thoroughgoing protectionist up to that time, but even he never -mentions the word "protection." It may be asked: Why hand out all these bouquets to these three leading Conservatives? But we expected something from them; we expected -they would live up to their principles to some extent. As for some of the other gentlemen who held views entirely opposed -to that, we did not expect anything from them, and therefore were not disappointed.
The principles that have, in my judgment, been violated in this respect in the
tariff, are very -serious. I want to place myself on record as agreeing on one point at least -with the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) in his attack this afternoon as regards one of the matters dealt with in the Budget, that is the loading on to the railways o.f burdens that the tariff should carry. The minister is setting a very dangerous precedent. How can our national railways thrive if they are to carry the burdens imposed by the tariff as well as the carrying trade of the country? I cannot see how that -can -be done, and such a proposition is very unwise and unbusinesslike, and it will be roundly condemned. It will afford very little ' advantage -to the manufacturer; it will do a great wrong to the carrying trade of this country, and the minister would be very wise to say that he will not do it again.
There is another item in the tariff to which I seriously object, although it is supposed to be to the advantage of manufacturers that have been hit by the changes. I refer to the drawback system whereby 30 per cent of the duty -paid on raw material for implements and other items is to be refunded. What does that mean? That means that in order to earn the 30 per cent you have to import your raw materials from the United States or some other country, and the policy of all the businesses in which I have ever been concerned is to buy every dollar's worth of Canadian goods possible and not to go to the United States unless absolutely necessary. I wish there were more people in this country who pursued 'that policy.
I regret, too, that the Minister of Finance in his whole speech the other day did not find time to turn his attention for one single moment to what I deem to be a very serious matter, and that is the discrepancy that now exists between our currency and that of the United States. We have to pay from $1.02J to $1.03 for every dollar that we send to the United States. Why is that? It is because we have over-imported already. We are, therefore, called upon to pay $1,021 or $1.03 for every dollar's worth of goods we get from the United States, and the minister has proposed nothing to rectify that condition. In fact, he has embarked on a policy which in my judgment will lead to making matters worse than they are at present.
Some hon. gentlemen may say to me: " Oh, you are not speaking for your constituents. You are not speaking by the book." I would not have made a speech such as I have were it not for the fact that I have in my hand a resolution that has
been submitted to the Prime Minister, sent to him by the workingmen and the protectionists of the city of Brantford. I think it might be well for me to read it:-
Copy of Resolution, carried by a public meeting, held in Victoria Hall, Brantford, April 22nd, 1919.
Moved by-Alderman Harvey Clement.
Seconded by-Mr. C. H. Waterous.
That at this meeting, called to discuss the Tariff issues of Canada:
It is resolved that in view of the difference in interests existing in Canada to-day whereby the Western Agricultural classes urge the Government to the reducing of present Tariff schedules on many commodities, and these views are largely opposed by manufacturing interests, with which interests the working classes are very closely allied.
And having in view the fact, that it is essential to find employment for a largo number of workers lately released from many in-. dustries, and also to And employment for a large proportion of Canada's returning army.
That in order to supply employment for these workers-it is necessary that every manufacturing plant factory or industry of any nature in Canada should be kept in operation at fullest capacity during the whole period of reconstruction to avoid the danger of unemployment-and in order to carry on, and expand where possible, it is necessary that confidence in the stability of conditions be preserved.
And realizing that the various interests must recognize that the interest of each are inseparably bound up and are dependent upon the prosperity of the whole-and recognizing the injustice of one class seeking to benefit at the expense of another class.
We urge upon our representatives in Parliament the great importance of careful and wise handling by the Government of this Tariff issue-
I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance particularly to what follows:
-and that no changes should be made in the tariff of Canada, until a Commission is appointed to thoroughly investigate and to revise and -administer a tariff which will be equitable-and just to all classes of the country.
And that a copy of this resolution be sent tt>
the Finance Minister at Ottawa, Ontario.
That is a copy of a resolution passed by a mass meeting in the city of Brantford on April 22, and I hold in my hand petitions endorsing it. I have not time to give the contents, but they are all of similar import. They contain the names of 4,000 workingmen, in round numbers, petitioning the Minister of Finance to make no changes in the tariff without investigation; but in spite of these petitions, and in spite of my representations by letter, the Minister of Finance has hit the city of Brantford in his Budget proposals harder than any other city in Canada. I therefore feel justified in entering a very strong protest against the Budget as it now stands. I see my hon. friends are beginning to cheer up because
they see I am getting a little miserable. The vefy first of these petitions I hold in ' my hand-and it is rather significant-is from the firm of William Patterson and Son, a name that will be somewhat familiar I think to our friends on the other side of the House. Then follow petitions from Massey Harris Co., Pratt & Letchworth, Verity Plow Co., Dominion Steel Products Co., Waterous Engine Co., Cockshutt Plow Co., Schultz Bros. Co., Canada Glue Co., Schultz Bros., Matthews, Blackwell, Brantford Carriage Co., Crown Electric Co., Brantford Roofing Co., Brantford Oven & Rack Co., Ker & Goodwin, Brandon Shoe Co., P. H. Secord & Sons, Monarch Tractors, Ham & Nott Co., Hall & Sons, Piano Case Co., Adams Wagon Co., A. J. Reach Co., Brantford Computing Scales Co. Then comes the one I have just read from the Goold, Shapley & Muir Co., Limited, who have been, and still are, very strong Liberals. I commend their views to my hon. friend over the way and hope he will help me put in a spoke in their behalf; they are tractor manufacturers.
to get through as quickly as I can to give my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) a chance to speak before it is too late, and although I am willing to answer any question, because I am a perfect oracle [DOT]on tariff matters
That is rather a heavy order. I am not averse to having questions asked, but I am enough of a protectionist when I want to get through in a given time to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be kind enough to see that I have the floor for a few minutes. It is not because I am afraid of opposition, but because I wish to get through in a reasonable time and I have a terrible lot of matter here - yet. I am very much embarrassed by the quantity of it.
Now I want to correct a common fallacy that obtains on both sides of the House to a considerable extent. We frequently hear it stated that the tariff is simply for a small bunch of manufacturers. Have you not heard that statement? My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) nods his head, and others say the same. Now I want to explain what a manufactory consists of. It is true it consists of a proprietor, president or manager, but there are also, as a rule, IMr. Cockshutt.]
from five hundred to a thousand shareholders in the company. The manufacturer has in his employ anywhere from 200 to 1,000 workingmen. Now all of these people go to the making up of one establishment, and if you close that establishment by hitting the proprietor, as you suppose, you hit the 1,000 workingmen who are engaged in that enterprise. My hon. friend from Macdonald shakes his head. That is the truth, and my hon. friend cannot shake it by shaking his head. I say it is a common fallacy that the manufacturers are a very small number. I have here a little pamphlet full of sound. sayings called " Tariff Talk," by G. M. Murray and E. Blake Robertson, and the first statement they make is this: ,
The following benefit by a Protective Tariff Just as much as the manufacturers:-
1. 700,0:00 men and women who work In Canadian factories.
2. The farmers, who And a market in Canada for 80 per cent of everything they produce.
3. The railways and steamship companies, and their employees, who carry Canadian goods.
4. The bankers, brokers, and commission agents, and their employees, who help to finance Canadian industries.
5. The innumerable investors who -own stock In Canadian manufacturing concerns, but who are in no sense manufacturers.
6. The professional classes (doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, clergymen), the insurance agents, the publishers, and all others, who make their living directly or indirectly from industrial concerns and the industrial population.
I want to say to any hon. gentleman who may be skeptical that these classes I have mentioned are more numerous than the farmers of Canada and are therefore entitled to equal consideration, I do not ask for more, but I do not think we shofild take less. I believe we are a united people, Mr. Speaker, and we must live and die together; and I trust that our farmer friends, who I know look upon me as a high .priest of a great heretical doctrine, will also realize that I am in the true sense the farmer's friend and the friend of the working man.
I have lived a good deal on a farm myself, and I have worked otherwise too, and as I said the other night, I am not ashamed to admit the fact. I do not make a boast of it, but I have been brought up to a life of work, and I trust that so long as I am spared to do so I shall be able to work. I want to show something else which the tariff has done. It has brought across the border from the United States five hundred branch factories. Five hundred branches of American concerns have been moved to this side by reason of the tariff, and five hundred million dollars' worth of capital .
has been brought with them. They pay in annual yrages eighty million dollars, a pretty respectable sum and one that is worth while. Why should we not have a business proposition like this that will bring in citizens from every direction and plant them in Canadian cities and make them prosperous Canadians? This question must commend itself to all. We cannot all make farming pay. I have tried it myself and have failed. It costs me about ?1.25 to raise a dollar's worth of farm produce, but I made the best of it. I am not cut out for a farmer, and perhaps- the occupation I pursue may not be conducive to the best state of health. Possibly my farming friends pity me that I am unable to make money at farming, but I will tell them that in order to have a great country-and I presume we all hope to see Canada become a great country-we must have a diversity of labour and a diversity of enterprise. All of us are not adapted for one particular line of work. Some men make good preachers. They do not all display the same aptitude in aieir calling. We mus-t'have all kinus of businesses and occupations, and we must be able to afford young people, who want the best that there is to be got in the world, every opportunity for success and advancement. In order to do this, then, we must have varieties of labour. I might tell the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) that in my judgment this is no time to change the tariff, especially in the wrong direction. May I draw his at-
9 p.-m. tention to the following, which appeared in the Toronto Globe of April 8th:
The revision of the tariff laws of Australia will be undertaken as soon as practicable with the object of developing the. industries of that country, according to a recent announcement * made by Acting Premier Watt. The considerations that will govern the revision will be as follows:
The necessity of preserving those industries brought into existence through the war.
Encouragement of contemplated new industries.
Extension and diversification of existing enterprises.
One of the lessons taught by the war was that it was necessary for Australia to be more self-reliant, along industrial lines, stated the Acting Premier. The proposed tariff amendments accordingly have in view the promotion of those great key industries, the raw materials for which are within the confines of the commonwealth, and upon which numerous other enterprises are based.
The United States itself is proposing to revise, its tariff Tate now. The protectionist party bas again come in there. Perhaps
our friends have not noticed that, but it is the case. The Republicans are again in power in the United States and they are proposing, to revise the tariff upward; and even old Free Trade England-I am sorry the bon-, member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) is not here-is at last waking up to the fact that the free trade policy has seen its best days and will finally go down and out. At any rate, they are proposing a -preference to the overseas dominions, but I will point out that no -preference can- be given overseas dominions without a -tariff at their own doors. How can they give -a preference if they have not something to throw off in favour of the dominions? It cannot be done. Therefore, when- Britain inaugurates a policy of preference it indicates that she is going in for protection, and I have no fault to find with this policy. Free trade has been tried there for a long time. Our friends tell us it proved to be a great bonanza during the war, but I think that free trade has proved to be a great failure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by one or two of my friends to lay down a few of the fundamental principles underlying protection, and I think that as some of even our own friends on this . side who were supposed to be protectionists are getting a little rusty, I, an old salt from away back who came in under the protection policy of 1878 and have been steadfast ever since in the faith, will try to revive in their minds some of the factors that go to make up a protective policy. What is the first proposition I make? It is this: That protection is the first law of nature. I say that protection, which is another word for self-preservation, is the first law of nature. The Almighty, when creating all animals under the sun as well as man, made every one of them capable of defending itself against its likely enemies.
I will show that there were tariffs, although they came in a little after the creation. They were created, though. Now, Mr. Speaker, protecton is this: It is the levying of duties against the goods of a foreign country by a country that desires to protect itself against the inroads of foreign trade and foreign labour. It is the levying of a duty on goods that cross the border of the country, and without paying such duty no goods can come in. That is the reason I told the Railway Committee-yesterday to be careful of aeroplanes and to see that they did not cross the line carry-
ing goods upon which duty had not been paid. It is the first law of nations to protect their own citizens, and in my judgment the government that neglects to protect its own citizens is offending against the very common laws that have been laid down by humanity ever since civilization began to make any advance. The man who does not take care of his family and look after those of his own household, we are told, " denies the faith and is Worse than an infidel."
* And the government mat fails to build up and strengthen its own citizens and put them in the way of making progress is denying the faith and not fulfilling the principal purpose of its existence. Protection is not so monstrous a thing as some of ,my friends endeavour to picture it. We are told that it creates immense combines, trusts and combinations of the worst and most dangerous character. I am sorry the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) is not Jiere now. This afternoon I followed him as he read from several balance sheets. Of course, some did rather badly from our standpoint, but I would ask the hon. gentleman if he had heard of any other kind of combine from the reports of which he did not read? Had he ever heard of the United Grain Growers of the West? Did he tell us what they had made during the past year- what gigantic profits were made there? I think if he had known he would have thought the balance sheets of some implement companies and others were modest affairs beside the balance sheets-if I am correctly informed-of the United Grain Growers of the West. I do not know whether my friend intended to shake his head as an indication of exaggeration on my part, but if I am not giving the facts as they are he will correct me. However, if I am correctly informed, the balance sheet presenteu to the shareholders, of which there are 36,000, was one of the rosiest ever presented in the Dominion of Canada to any body of shareholders.
I am told that after very high salaries have been paid, after every possible write off that could be made has been made from high to low, underneath, overhead and all around, the profits were so large that the directors were comparatively ashamed of them and decided to bury some of them by selling a quantity of American goods at less than cost to those shareholders who were ready to buy them. So, I think that we bloated aristocrats, the manufacturers in the east, are entitled to some consideration at the hands of the enlightened grain growers of the West. If they will divvy up
their profits with me I * will divvy up my profits with them and if they do so I think they will get a great deal the worst of the bargain. Under these circumstances I do not know that the farmer, with whom I have every sympathy, is so terribly oppressed. The ex-Minister of Agriculture this afternoon seemed to speak as though the farmer were the only man who paid import duties. We pay some down east. The city of Toronto probably pays more than any one of the three western provinces. We pay some import duties in the east and we pay them cheerfully believing that they are for the good of the country and that it is desirable that free goods should not come in to the extent that they are coming.
I would have liked, had time permitted, to draw attention to a 'few of what I conceive to be the fallacies that are placed before this House quite frequently. We are told that the West is a unit against the tariff. Is not that a statement that is frequently made? Did we not hear it this afternoon? When was that found out; when was that fact discovered? Certainly not at the last election at which a division on the tariff took place. I have here the figures. In the election of 1911 which was fought on the reciprocity issue the figures for Manitoba, from which some of our leading friends come, (were these:
For reciprocity, 34,781.
Against reciprocity, 40,356.
That does not look as though they were united against the tariff. That was in Manitoba and what obtained in Manitoba obtained to a lesser extent in both of the western provinces.
I have the figures for only the one province. My hon. friend can give us those. What I am now saying will take a lot of combatting. I am advancing those arguments that I think are consistent with the policy I am advocating. My hon. friends are not entitled to speak of the unity of the west until a vote has been taken and, for one, I am ready for the show down. It is said that a western free trader in 'this House not very long ago, after hearing a very fine protectionist speech from our friend over the way said, "where do we go from here?" I want to tell you there, is a protectionist asking "where do I go from here?" That is what I am asking.
I will tell you where we should go in my judgment. In my judgment we should go to the country.
that my hon. friends are ready for the fray. It is coming, you had better be prepared for it and the fight is going to be on the old issue. I for one am not afraid to tackle the issue and I am going to do what I did in 1878 and what I have done ever since. It will be the old fight between free trade and protection. I will miss my guess if the protectionists do not have such a crowd and the other side so few that they dare not assemble themselves together. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this doctrine of free trade, or the open door, is one of the most beautiful theories to make a speech on but it is the poorest kind of a policy to deliver the goods with that the world has ever invented. It never has delivered the goods, and cannot, because it throws open our rich domain in this country to the outsider. That is one reason why I want to draw the Finance Minister's attention to the fact that the Government has no mandate to ask for a commission to investigate the tariff. I know he is not paying any attention to what I am saying hut he can read it in Hansard.
I say that this Government have no mandate to do what the Finance Minister proposes and that I for one have no confidence in what they are going to hunt for. That is plain talk. I say I have no confidence in what they are going to hunt for. Why? Because every move they have made has been contrary to the platform on which they were elected. They have not raised one single item of the tariff that I know of since they came into power in 1911 and every move they have made has (been to cut, it down. They are going to appoint a commission. I want to know what they are going to hunt for. lit is a good deal like the assembly of a large number of parsons who are setting out to hunt for heresy; when they set out to hunt for heresy they are going to find it. The Minister of Finance is going to hunt to find out where he can take down a bar and when he does that he is going to find a place. What I want to know is, if he finds out where the fences are low and where the bars are already down, will he put them up? I want to say that if his speech is going to be put into effect to that extent he will be condemned by the business men and manufacturers of Canada and they represent the workmen of this country. Do
not forget that. My hon. friend shakes his head but I know better. The Finance Minister is apparently approaching this question with the view of seeing what more can be taken down and not what more can be built up. The spirit of approach, in my opinion, should be exactly the opposite and I think that my hon. friends from the West will appreciate this simile better than any other that I could use. I would propose to approach this question somewhat in the way that the prosperous farmer does in the spring when he has got his grain crops in, his hay is coming on and he goes around the farm with a view to seeing how the fences are. He does not go to the part of the fence that looks so formidable that it would take a high jumper to get over it, but he goes to the part that is low, where the breechy steers have been getting over and trampling down the hay and the wheat and he sets out to rebuild it. Are my friends going to tell me that we are going to pull down this fence, that is now too low in many places, and over which $250,000,000 worth of goods came last year more than went from this side? That is the reason our dollar has such a low rating at the ^ present time in the United States. Is this the time to increase these imports? I say no. This is the time to shut them out. Yet, the Minister of Finance comes along with a policy that is going to increase that trouble Why? This policy of cutting protection would be the ruin of the poor farmer. He brings us the policy of the open door and I never knew of anything which had ever been invented that brought so many depressing thoughts in i'ts tracks as free trade or the open door.
Mr. Speaker, in a climate that goes anywhere from zero to thirty or forty below, thank God for the closed door. Let me ask these free traders, for whom were doors made in the first place? For the convenience of the outsider, or for the protection and comfort of the family within? I say they were made for the protection and comfort of the family within; and it is just as natural to close that door against the inroads of foreign goods and foreign labour as it is for a Canadian family to close the door of the home when it is thirty below zero and the wind is raging outside. Many a poor woman in the back hush has thanked God for the closed door, when she has heard the howl of the wolf at the door at night threatening her and her children. And still these gentlemen tell us that the great policy of this world should be the open door and the brotherhood of man- fine-sounding phrases which fail to deliver
the goods. These are big subjects, Mr. Speaker, and I might speak upon them till the morning light appeared-