What about vehicles? What about coal? Did the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) put something over on my hon. friend? Where does he find coal in this list of free goods?-
Wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food, farm implements and machinery; farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline; illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; nets, net-twines and fishermen's equipments, cements and fertilizers.
No coal there; no vehicles there. Does the hon. gentleman think that the member for Cape Breton North and the member for Shelburne and Queen's would stand for free coal? Does he not remember the speeches of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's in this House when he was Minister of Finance? Does he think that the member for Cape Breton North would submit to free coal? Free coal is left out, but they meet the gentlemen of the Farmers' party half way, as they call it. How do they do it? They leave out free coal and vehicles, and they say to the gentlemen of
the Farmers' party: Now, you just do without free coal and vehicles and we will give you-what? Free wheat, wheat flour and the products of wheat; farm tractors; rough and partly dressed lumber; nets, net twines and fishermen's equipment. We will put every one of these on the free list-every one of them was free before they passed the resolution and is free to-day. Of this list of eighteen articles that I have just read, the following are altogether free: wheat,
wheat flour and products of wheat; farm tractors up to $1,400-that includes the bulk that are used-rough lumber; partly dressed lumber; gasolene-12 cents a gallon in free trade England but free in Canada- nets, net-twine and fishermen's equipment. Just think of the hon. member for Brome solemnly getting the Liberal convention to put in this new article in order to make the list look long: "nets, net-twines and fishermen's equipment " all of which, together with the articles that I have read, are free already. And this is the Liberal platform that takes the place of the pronouncement of 1893, where protection was consigned to everlasting oblivion. Even fertilizers uncompounded are free now, but of the eighteen articles I think it is eleven that are free already; and the making free of these eleven already free and of the six others that I will refer to in a minute constitutes the concrete policy of the Liberal party to-day.
Let me ask the leader of the Opposition why was not the Liberal tariff platform moved in amendment to this Budget?
the Liberal platform? What is the matter with the latter half of it? The member for Shelburne and Queen's knows that he cannot move another amendment; he knows that right well. Why, they have taken this Liberal platform and they have cut the dog,-well, not at the tail, but they have cut it horizontally right through the middle; they have left- the whole travelling part at home.
What is the matter with the active, concrete portions of the Liberal platform? Why is it discarded? Is it a scrap of paper? Has it gone the way of the Liberal platform of 1893 and the denunciations of protection? I think it has. The leader of the Opposition has a somewhat difficult task in trying to sing the siren's song to the Agrarian party and at the same time to keep pretty close to the tune of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. MAY 25, 1920
Fielding). But my prognostication is that my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) will get a great deal closer to the note of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's than he will to that of the hon. member for Red Deer. What has become of the active, concrete portions of the Liberal platform? Where is this 50 per cent British preference? Why has it gone by the board? Nothing doing ! No one speaking ! Where, too, has the Farmers' Platform gone, this Farmers' Platform which has been proclaimed not for rhonths but for years in this country? Have we ever heard it moved in this House?
We shall stay in Ottawa just now. Is it the amendment to the Budget? Not at all. All they are seeking is to pick out something that is common to the two and that means the minimum, nothing, if they can get to it, in order, if they possibly can, to get a vote of want of confidence in the Government of the day. That is what I called political poker playing.
I set out to say that both parties, if you call them such, or rather both horses of the same team, for political purposes, pretending only to pull in opposite ways, ask for a reduction in the duty on agricultural implements.
I know what the hon. gentleman is thinking of. In the month of January, 1911, when the duties on farm implements were as I shall give them in a minute, I moved for a substantial reduction in those duties. -
Just that, and just that I obtained but not from the hon. gentleman's friends. Why, the hon. gentleman does not know what the duties are. The following are the duties that he supported and that hon. gentlemen angularly opposite supported through the whole fifteen years of Liberal government. I will give the reasons, taken from Hansard, why they did so. In order to keep things clear before hon.' members, I had better give three scales of duties, first the one that prevailed for fifteen years. On some articles it was a little higher prior to 1907; they did not reduce the duty on farm implements by a copper between 1896 and 1907, a period of eleven years; then they took 2) per cent off certain farm implements, and they said that was a very substantial reduction.