May 13, 1921


Joseph Elijah Armstrong


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Quebec South is in hospital and not likely to be out for several days.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)



The third reading will stand.



On motion of Mr. H. B. Morphy (North Perth) the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 44 respecting the Western Dominion Railway Company was read the first and second times and concurred in.


Debate resumed on the annual statement presented by the Minister of Finance.


Lucien Turcotte Pacaud

Laurier Liberal

Mr. L. T. PACAUD (Megantic) :

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) who preceded me this afternoon will not, I am sure, find me discourteous if I do not follow him closely in the remarks which he uttered. He has given to this House as leader of the Gov-

first place, the Opposition fought for information which the minister refused to give. In the, second place, the Opposition requested that, faithful to tradition, faithful to the best procedure in this House, the leaders of both parties should get together, so that in the expenditures of such large appropriations of money, the best interests of Canada should be maintained and safeguarded. What was the result? The better to shut out debate, to eliminate all danger of having to give the information which was sought of them, the Government immediately imposed the closure, making of this Parliament a mere tool of the Government, handing to the few men who happen to be ministers of the Crown to-day, $80,000,000 of the people's money without proper or full discussion by the representatives of the people. To pass their Estimates with the least resistance, the Government uses a double weapon; they sharply curtail discussion through closure, and they rely on all-night sittings of the House, the better to achieve the end which they have in view. This high-handed method of procedure, to my mind, at least, is no mere parliamentary incident which can be easily discarded and forgotten. It is the sapping, at its very basis, of the first function of a parliament, the control of the purse, the control of the expenditure of the people's money.

May I show this House, by an example, the great benefits that may be derived when this control of Parliament of these expenditures of the public money is maintained, respected and safeguarded by the Government? Let us turn to France. Nobody in this House would like to minimize the record of France, whether it be in time of peace or in time of war. Her strength lies in her patriotism-patriotism that places country ever before party. Let us take her Budget of 1921. It will be to us a lesson which it would be well for us never to forget. The Finance Minister of France was confronted with the figures presented to him by the various departments of the French Government. He, unhesitatingly, began his work of elimination. Estimates comprising many millions of francs were cut out, and he confidently presented to the French Parliament his revised esti mates for their perusal and consideration. What happened? The two Budget commissions of both branches of the French Parliament, with the freedom of action that was denied to us in this House under the circumstances which I related, began in turn to scrutinize the whole range of

national expenditure, and as a result of their labours-labours unhampered as were ours in this House-there was a reduction in their estimates of three billion francs, accepted by the French Parliament, by the French Government and by the French people. Does this example not show us the dangerous course that we have been following? Does it not show what we have never ceased to claim that it is high time to return to constitutional practice, to put aside these autocratic methods of government which are flourishing to-day as they have never flourished before in the history of this country? Is it not fair to ask that if the Government had given this Parliament the same freedom in the voting of large appropriations of money

a freedom that ought to be guaranteed by our constitution, a freedom for which our soldiers fought and for which 60,000 are now lying in France to protest against the autocracy of Germany-should we not, like France, have been able to reduce our Estimates by many millions of dollars, and would not that have been a benefit to the taxpayers of Canada?

There is another question intimately connected with retrenchment and economy. Every member of this House will agree with me, I am sure, as to the necessity of stimulating production in every branch of industry as a means, if for no other reason, of improving our present financial position. But, Sir, to achieve'this end, to reach the results which we have in view, is it not evident that every producer in Canada, if you wish him to respond to this call, should at least feel and know that no partiality will be displayed to any one section of the community to the detriment of any other section, but that all the producers of Canada will be placed on the same footing with equal opportunities.

Sir, let us watch this Government. Let us see to what extent they measure up to this standard without which their policy becomes a mere sham and an outrageous mockery. They start off on a nation-wide campaign, with a great flourish of trumpets, to instil into the hearts and minds of Canadians the necessity for work, and more work, and they couple with that advice a warning to economize-something which the Government never practice themselves-as the one and only means of improving conditions in Canada. The patriotism of the Canadian people, so severely put to the test during the years of high deeds and noble sacrifices, again asserted itself in unmistakable tones. They took the

Government at their word and responded loyally to their appeals. The Government, recognizing that production without markets in which to dispose of your products would be like a body without a soul, launched out into their new policy of granting loans and credits to foreign countries. But here, Sir, the scene changes. We find that this Government, appearing to us as preaching giants, are ip reality but pigmies at work.

May I illustrate by an example that I have in mind? Let us take the credit of $25,000,000 to Belgium. I do not wish to discuss the question of the advisability or otherwise of this Government granting credits to foreign countries. That is a question to my mind intimately connected with the tariff, and would draw me away from the only point I wish to make. I might say, however, that in my view it might be a dangerous form of helping the producer, because you might hurt very considerably the whole body of consumers unless you lowered the duties on the articles affected by such credits; but whether this view be right or wrong, once the Government had decided on such a policy, what I do affirm is that there was no country in the world in which Canada could have found greater security than Belgium, a nation to which the whole allied world owes to-day such a deep debt of gratitude. We have in Belgium, Mr. Speaker, a manufacturing country, which did not need our manufacturers' goods, but wished to avail herself of this loan to secure our Canadian hard wheat. What did this Government do? They made an agreement dated March 21, 1919, by which only one-fourth of this loan to Belgium could be available for the purchase of food stuffs, thus forcing the Belgium Government against their will to purchase manufactured goods and raw materials of manufacture to the extent of four-fifths of the entire loan. What was the result? Just what was to be expected. With the exception of $1,500,000-$277,000 in food stuffs, $185,000 of which was for bacon, an article of food which made a name for itself during the war, and the balance for manufactured goods and raw materials-the credit was cancelled and the Belgium Government had to go . to American bankers to secure our Canadian wheat, which they wanted to get from Canada, but which they could not get in Canada due to the partiality exercised by this Government in enforcing on a manufacturing country this agreement whereby four-fifths of the loan had to be used for the purchase of manufactured products or

raw materials. To throw more light on this subject, and to establish more clearly the case that I have in view, may I be permitted to read a letter which I have received from a correspondent in the West: Regina, March 1, 1921.

Dear Mr. Pacaud,

I beg to inform you that I have just returned from an extensive trip in Europe. As you know I have been interested for the last ten years in grain growing in Saskatchewan, and took great pains whilst in Belgium to find out about the 'market conditions and possibilities for the placing of our Canadian wheat in Belgium.

Unfortunately, I have found out that millions of bushels of Canadian hard wheat have been bought in the United States because no credit could be obtained from our Government in Canada, the $25,000,000 credit which had been granted to Belgium only being available for the purchase of manufactured goods, which were not needed in an industrial country. To-day on account of lack of credit in Canada the Belgian Government is unable to fill its requirements in Canada, and would at present place its orders here, which amounts to, between 20,000 and 30,000 tons monthly, if credit could be obtained.

I believe it would be to the advantage of the whole of Canada, to do anything possible in this line, in order to secure that market and it is with that object in view that X have exposed this situation,

I hold this information from high authorities in Belgium and would apreciate it if you kept me posted by wire upon any development in this line, to enable me to inform my friends in Belgium.

I hereby authorize you to make - use of this letter whenever required.

Tours sincerely,

( Sgd.) G. POOTMANS.

In this letter we have not only the evidence of partiality, not only an indication of the enormous commissions made by foreign bankers which should have gone into the pockets of our Canadian farmers, but we note above all what we have never ceased to proclaim, that this Government is nothing more or less than the willing instrument of a few citizens of Canada who have contributed to their political success and who are to-day reaping their reward and inspiring and directing the policies of the Government. This Government is today on trial before the people of Canada. Its whole record since 1911 is before the people of this country, and the Government is tottering to its fall. We trust that the day of reckoning is not very far distant, and we await with confidence, when that day does come, the verdict of our fellow countrymen.

Before concluding, I desire to say a word on the amendment presented to the House by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). That amendment meets with my approval because it asserts the principle of Liberalism on fiscal matters. It instantaneously brings before my eyes

a double picture: On one side, the present fiscal policy of the Government, which is drawing the country to the verge of bankruptcy, and, on the other side, the picture of the Liberal policy inaugurated in 1896 and kept in force for fifteen years, the policy that brought to the citizens of this country happiness and prosperity, and created harmony between province and province, and between race and race,-that harmony which, in my opinion, is needed to instil into the hearts and minds of all Canadians the one thought that we should all have, namely, the common good of our common country.


Robert King Anderson


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton) :

The speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), this afternoon so clearly answered all the arguments that have been, and can be, advanced by the Opposition that I hardly think it necessary to make any reply to the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Pacaud). His arguments were all answered in anticipation. Now, this House listened with more than ordinary interest to the Budget speech delivered on Monday,'and the House and the country are both taking an increasing interest in budget speeches. The present Budget speech, I think, was awaited with more than ordinary interest by the country at large, in view of the investigations made by the Tariff Commission which, it was expected, would result in some revision of the tariff. During the past few months there has been a very decided change in public opinion on this question, and the feeling has been rapidly growing that the time is most inopportune for any drastic changes in our customs duties. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), in his investigations during his tour across the country came to the same conclusion, and I wish to congratulate him on his masterful presentation of the financial affairs of the country. May I also compliment him on the success he has had during the past year in making revenue and expenditure meet.

We have a huge debt of $2,350,000,000, largely incurred in the defence of the country, and I am sure that every citizen will agree that the safety of Canada is well worth the expenditure of that money. While we do regret the fact that our 9 p.m. debt is so tremendous, still I do not believe any one would criticise the expenditures that were necessary for our participation in the war. Every citizen of this country shares equally in the blessings of peace and liberty, purchased by the blood of our sons and the money which IMr. Pacaud.]

we spent, and every citizen therefore owes it to the state cheerfully to shoulder his fair share of the burdens that come to us after having won the war. We need a revenue many times greater than was necessary in pre-war days, and I think this fact is readily conceded by both sides of the House. The only question in dispute is as regards the method by which we should raise that revenue. The ordinary citizen will defend his pocket almost as fiercely as he would his life, and any injustice in the matter of taxation, whether fancied or real, is a cause of resentment and dissatisfaction. But the people of this country, if they are properly informed, are perfectly willing to pay their taxes, and if the country is to remain solvent, it must pay its debts. Now, the Government has but one way of raising money, that is, by means of taxes from the people themselves. One of the essentials of taxation is that the method be as simple as possible, in order that the average citizen may be made fully to realize his duty and to appreciate his personal responsibility to the country's obligations.

The task of raising revenue for this country in pre-war days was a very simple one compared with the same task to-day. If the Minister of Finance were required to raise to-day, as in 1897, only $42,000,000, he would consider it a holiday. He would attend to the matter before breakfast and go golfing in the afternoon, leaving the details of such a Budget as that of 1897 to his office boy. The growth of Canada's expenditures since the year 1867 has been steady, and to show what it is to-day, as compared with former periods, I shall give the figures at the end of each decennial period.


Tear Form of Expenditure Expenditure

1868 $ 14,071,000

1877 32,507,000

1887 41,504,000

1897 ' 42,972,000

1913 144,556,000

1917 Ordinary. $191,815,000 1

War.. .. 306,488,000 1 498,303,000

1920 Ordinary. 397,843,000 1

War.. .. 345,920,000 1 743,763,000

Thus it will be seen that the expenditure *f 1920 was five times as great as that of 1913, and seventeen times as great as that of 1897, when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was Minister of Finance. This shows a huge increase in public expenditure since Confederation, and it demonstrates the increasing difficulties which the Minister of Finance to-day encounters in raising the necessary revenue. The sum of $42,000,000 in 1897, and $144,000,000 in

1913 look small compared with $743,000,000 in 1920. In view of these facts, every citizen in the country should cheerfully do his best to help the Minister of Finance to cope with the difficulties of the situation. The minister's task is a stupendous one which requires a big man, and I compliment the country on having the right man in the right place.

The peak has been safely passed; Canada is able to meet all her obligations, and is in better financial position to-day than most of the Allied powers. We can look forward to a material decrease in our annual expenditures, but our funded debt will remain to remind us of the strenuous years through which we have passed. Although our expenditure has increased in such measure since 1867 we have grown in other ways to meet it, and this shows the wonderful progress and the indomitable spirit of the Canadian people. In this regard we emulate the spirit of our soldiers, their prowess, their courage and their self-reliance which enabled them to fill the breach at the battle of Ypres and saved the day for the civilized powers.

A short glimpse of our increase in trade and commerce since 1867 is very interesting. I will give it in decades.

Total Trade Increase Increase Tear Exports & Imports amount percent

18B8 $119,500,000


169,500,000 $50,000,000 421888

190,500,000 21,000,000 121898

286,000,000 96,000,000 501908

615,000,000 329,000,000 1151918

2,548,000,000 1,633.000,000 312

Taking the whole period from 1867 to 1920 the increase was $119,500,000 to $2,351,000,000, an increase of 2,000 per cent. Taking the period from 1900 to 1920, the first twenty years of the present century, our trade increased 600 per cent. Now when we compare these increases with the trade growth of our two most progressive competitors in the commercial world, England and the United States, we find we make a very favourable showing. As I have already mentioned Canada's increase of trade in the first twenty years of this century was 600 per cent. In the same period England had increased 200 per cent , and the United States 473 per cent. Now with regard to England that comparison is possibly not quite fair, because England was at war and her trade and commerce was very much interfered with; but if we take Canada and the United States the comparison is really against the neighbouring republic because they had a better

opportunity to progress. They were three years later in entering the war than the Dominion of Canada, and yet during that period we have a very comfortable margin of 121 per cent of increase during the first period of the twentieth century. If we compare Canada and the United States for the whole period from confederation to the present time, when the two countries were working under similar conditions, we find that we have still a very confortable lead. From 1868 to 1920 the increase of trade in Canada amounted to 2,000 per cent; during the same period the increase of trade in United States, was 1,700 per cent. We therefore lead them in this respect also by 300 per cent. Surely the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who tried to establish the other day that our trade was not increasing to as great a degree as that of these other nations can hardly get over those figures. If he looks up the Canadian Almanac he will find the figures substantially correct; he will also find them in the census returns for the Dominion of Canada.

Now let us take Canadian manufactures during the same period. We find that in 1871 we had capital invested to the amount of $77,964,000. In 1881 the capital invested amounted to $164,957,000, an increase of 111 per cent. In 1891 the capital invested amounted to $331,635,000, an increase of 101 per cent. In 1901 it amounted to $446,916,000, an increase of 34 per cent. In 1911 it had become $1,247,000,000, an increase of 179.15 per cent; while in 1917 it had become $2,786,000,000, an increase of 123 per cent. In 1900 there were 14,650 manufacturers in Canada. In 1917 the number had grown to 34,392, a good deal more than an increase of 100 per cent. These figures surely demonstrate that Canada has been progressing since Confederation to a very marked degree. *

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we examine our increases in population since Confederation, and compare them with the same two countries, we find that our showing is very favourable. The comparison is set forth in the following figures:

Population Increase

1861 1901 percent


3,090,000 5,371,000 73%England

28,907,000 41,450,000 30%United-States. 38,558,000 75,994,000 97%

This will show that the whole period since 1861 Canada has maintained her position in growth of population with these two countries.

You have frequently heard the expression that the nineteenth century belonged to the United States but the twentieth century would belong to Canada. It is interesting to note, in this connection, that in the first decade of this century Canada has fulfilled that prophecy.

Comparing the population of these same countries between 1901 and 1911, we find: 1911

Canada, 7,206,000, an increase in 10 years

of 34.17%.

England, 45,221,000, an increase in 10 years

of 8.7%.

United States, 91,972,000, an increase in 10 years

of 21. %.

This shows that in the first ten years of this century Canada leads the United States in increase of population by 13 per cent. According to the report of the census commissioners of 1911, our increase of 34.17 per cent was the largest percentage of increase in population of any country in the world.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am endeavouring to show that our increase in trade and the important increase in the number of manufacturing concerns, the capital invested and the value of the output was far in excess of our growth in population and cannot be ascribed to that source.

As I have shown, our trade increased

2,000 per cent since 1868 while the manufacturing industry increased from a few industries in 1867 and a capital of $77,000,000 in 1871 to the respectable showing of 34,392 concerns, having a capital of $2,786,649,000 in 1917. The fact that our population increased during the same period by 101 per cent clearly shows that we must look to other causes than the increase in population for an explanation of the rapid rise of Canada in the economic and industrial world. It is not a question of mere numbers.

We may very reasonably, I think, find some of the causes in the country itself. There are several factors, to my mind, that can reasonably be regarded as contributory causes of our growth,-first, the country itself; second, the character of the people; third, our fiscal policy and fourth, the extraordinary events of the last six years.

Canada of course is the greatest factor in our growth. Without natural resources to produce wealth no people could progress. You cannot trade with other nations unless you have something they need and want. Canada has the territory, the soil, the natural resources, the raw material, the products of which other people want

and in that respect she is the richest nation, per capita, in the world.

Our people are energetic, self-reliant, and progressive and are awakening to a sense of nationhood. The fiscal policy pursued since 1878 has done much to develop that sentiment. It has fostered our manufacturing industries, stimulated agriculture and produced a spirit of commercial independence and self-reliance that is beginning to give results-indeed, has given results.

The Great War with its imperative demands for extraordinary effort to meet the exigencies of a perilous situation spurred our people to superhuman efforts in all lines of industry that had been established largely through the protective policy pursued during the last forty-three years. Germany was preparing during all that time for the Great War and apparently Canada was too-the one intentionally the other unconeiously.

Had our agricultural and (manufacturing industries not been fostered our war effort, of which we are so justly proud, would have been impossible. Our manufacturing plants were soon changed to a war basis for the making of munitions and our agricultural industry

was stimulated to make up thedeficiency in food due to wastage

and lessened production in other lands. We were thus enabled to take advantage of the extraordinary world conditions, and our trade increased enormously. With the impetus given and the prestige acheived we have been able to increase our trade and advance our position in the world to a very marked degree. Canada has all the elements of greatness in a superlative degree. We have a vast extent of territory to be settled by immigrants from the British Isles and the teeming centres of Europe. I am not in sympathy with those who would shut our doors in the face of the newcomer. Population doubled in the next quarter of a century is the solution for our national debt and our railway problem. I believe in stimulating immigration from the British Isles and northern Europe. I believe in admitting only those who are physically fit and mentally sound so far as a rigid medical examination at the ports of entry can ascertain. I believe in having a standard of education for the immigrant before giving him full citizenship rights, and I would not give him those rights until he had resided here for five or ten years. Our climatic conditions are such that they will attract the most virile

races from northern Europe, and I feel every confidence that we can develop on this part of the North American continent a nation that will be able to hold its own with the best in the world.

So far as the future of Canada is concerned, I am a consistent full time optimist. We have a great variety of natural resources to be conserved for future generations of Canadians. I believe that our raw materials should be manufactured here in order that we may be able to build up a self-sustaining independent nation, so far as it is possible to be independent having regard to our international obligations. I would not carry out any selfish policy in this regard. I believe that we cannot shut ourselves off from the rest of the world, and that we should have due regard for the needs of civilization. We have transportation facilities furnished by nature which reach to the very centre of the Dominion. The Hudson bay and our Great Lakes, assisted by engineering skill, will some day settle the question of getting the produce from our great Prairie Provinces cheaply and expeditiously to the markets of the world. Our natural resources in land, forest, stream and mine are so multifarious that they lend themselves to all kinds of human effort, and they should be developed as a whole the one assisting the other. A one-sided development would be fatal. The manufacturing industry and agriculture should go together. To be independently great, a country must be able to minister to the wants of its people, not only with regard to the necessities of life but also the comforts of life, and this Canada will be able to do if our natural resources are developed on truly progressive lines. This is one of the lessons taught us by the great war. When we were cut off from the manufactured products of Europe we realized that we were using many manufactured articles which we could produce at home. Although our basic industry is agriculture-and it should be stimulated to its highest perfection- we should not lose sight of the fact that a prosperous agricultural community depends upon the growth of our manufacturing industries to absorb the products of its soil and minister to its wants. We should also remember that prosperous manufacturing industries depend on the prosperity of the agricultural community. Although foreign market is absolutely necessary for our surplus products, the home market is indispensable. It is always here, and it is regulated by supply and demand. And I might say that I am not in favour of Government control of prices. The ill-fated Board of Commerce in its short career-and it was none too short- demonstrated absolutely the futility of regulating prices by Government control. Government control of the prices of selected commodities, while others are left free, is an abuse of authority and creates discontent. I believe the Board of Commerce will not be revived, and I hope that it will not be. These are some of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why Canada has kept pace with other countries and maintained and improved her position, and they are the reasons which will cause us to forge ahead in the future, if we are wise enough to abstain from the free trade heresies of the Opposition.

With regard to protection, that is the policy which I believe will make us independent. I am not a high protectionist; I believe in moderate protection which, as the Prime Minister has said, will enable our industries to maintain their position and not be put out of business by foreign concerns. The fact that this policy has been kept in force by both the great parties while they have been in office since 1878 ought to be evidence to any person that it is the best policy for Canada. During that time it has been endorsed by the people every five years, showing that the majority of the electorate are in favour of a protective policy. But as experience has not convinced some members opposite, I am going to give a few extracts from speeches of prominent Liberals in years gone by, who in certain measure at all events were in favour of protection. In looking for some of these extracts I naturally went back to the time when the now famous National Policy was introduced. I read some of the speeches made between 1876 and 1879, and curiously enough in a speech delivered by the late Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright I came upon a passage which I consider a very good argument in favour of protection, although he gave it as an argument in opposition to it. This passage will be found at page 446 of Hansard of 1879. It was delivered by Sir Richard Cartwright in reply to the Budget speech of the late Sir Leonard Tilley in the first Parliament after the initiation of the National Policy. Sir Richard said:

This tariff! assuredly cannot stand.

In the light of forty-three years' experience hon. members opposite will be able

to see how great a prophet Sir Richard Cartwright was. He continues:

Manufacturers will obtain no permanent relief from it.

That, too, in the light of forty-three years' experience, indicates again what kind of a prophet Sir Richard was. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not agree with that. They have been saying for a number of years, particularly the years when they were in opposition, that the manufacturers were receiving too much permanent relief from the tariff. They have been talking a great deal about the "big interests," and I notice the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Pacaud) also gave them his attention. It is a notable fact that hon. members opposite had nothing to say about the big interests when they were in power. Evidently it makes quite a difference whether they are in opposition or in power. Sir Richard continues : .

For one, two or three years they-thp manufacturers-may succeed in mailing considerable profit out of the operations of the tariff, but in the end they will find that it was the greatest misfortune to encourage the undue home competition which will inevitably take the place of the foreign competition of which they complain.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I contend that that is a very good argument in favour of protection. In fact, it was the reason given by the late Sir John Macdonald for the introduction of the National Policy. He claimed, as members on this side of the House still claim, that protection would bring the foreign manufacturers to Canada and induce them to establish their plants here, which would give employment to our artisans and create a market for our farm products. That is exactly what has been done in the past and what it is claimed will be done to-day, and yet Sir Richard Cartwright gave it as an argument against protection. Surely, he was in error when he said that undue competition created at home would put our manufacturers out of business. I should say that any manufacturing concern, which in the same country and under the * same conditions, could not compete with its neighbour, should go out of business; there is something wrong with it. Either there is inefficient management, or they are turning out an inferior product, one which the people will not buy.

Sir Richard Cartwright certainly was no protectionist. In order that hon. gentlemen may not think he was a protectionist I will read to you what he said in 1890.

Sir Richard Cartwright was afterwards Minister of Trade and Commerce in the Cabinet of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He said:

i stand by the declaration I have made that protection is nothing more than deliberate, legalized and organized robbery.

That shows that Sir Richard Cartwright was no protectionist. On page 110 of Hansard of 1876 the Hon. Mr. Paterson made certain remarks with regard to protection. Hon. gentlemen know who Mr. Paterson was; I believe he was in the Cabinet formed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1896 and he it was who, with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, negotiated the Reciprocity Pact in 1911. Mr. Paterson said:

I am not a protectionist. . . . but I must admit I am in favour of a defensive policy.

That is very interesting at this time, when it is obvious that we should initiate a defensive policy against the principles enunciated by the Young Bill which has been introduced into the House of Representatives in the United States, embodying the policy of increasing the tariff duties against Canada. I assume that if the Hon. Mr. Paterson were alive to-day he would advocate an increase in our tariff duties. When in 1876 he made the statement to which I have referred, Canada was in the midst of the most serious trade depression which she has ever experienced. So great was it that Parliament gave it special consideration, and in 1875 a resolution was introduced into the House and a committee appointed "to inquire into the causes of the present depression in the manufacturing, mining, commercial, shipping, lumbering, and fishing interests." The report of that committee can be found in the journals of the House for the session of 1876. In that report it was stated that "the causes of the depression are quite beyond legislative control in this country." Sir Richard Cartwright, although in favour of a defensive policy, sat in the House at that time, with the report of that committee before him, and made no effort in a legislative way to remove the trade depression in Canada. At that time the farmers were receiving about eight cents a dozen for their eggs and ten cents a pound for their butter. But Mr. Paterson continued, page 111 of Hansard of 1876, as follows:

The Administration should protect our agricultural interests. . . . The other year the

Finance Minister in revising th? tariff gave some encouragement to an industry which we never had before. The result was that a thousand

men who were engaged in that industry in Germany were literally transported, by the change in the tariff, to Canada and set to work here. The cost of the article was not increased one iota, and Canada got all the benefit.

Surely that is a splendid argument in favour of protection. The probability of bringing to this country from Germany a whole manufacturing industry, with its employees, their wives and families- perhaps five thousand people in all- creating a market for our home produce and not increasing the price of the article in question, is the strongest argument you could use in favour of protection.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that manufactures which are suited to the country, in respect of which we have the raw material to be turned into the finished product, should be protected. It is in our own interests that these manufactures should be protected. Protection is of use to the manufacturer, but unless it can be proved that it is of use to the whole country as well it is untenable as a policy. I do not support protection simply in the interests [DOT]of the manufacturers; I support it in the interests of the whole country, those of the farming community included. It certainly can be established that the farming interests of this country are in favour of protection. I know that the farmers in my own county, whether engaged in mixed farming, fruit growing, or dairying, are largely in favour of protection. Those engaged in the fruit growing industry are, I think, without exception, in favour of protection. I have had many conferences with them, and they have so expressed themselves. The experience of the Tariff Commission as it passed through the farming communities certainly goes to show that the farmers are alive to the benefits and advantages of protection.

Now, in 1854 Canada had a reciprocity treaty with the United States. It was to operate for a period of ten years and was renewable, but could be abrogated by either party giving one year's notice. From 1861 to 1864 the United States was in the throes of civil war, and in 1864 they notified Canada that they intended to abrogate that treaty, which they did in January, 1865. The reasons which they put forth for abrogating the treaty can be found in the Congressional Globe of 1863; they were presented during the course of the debates that took place in the House of Representatives of the United States by several members who spoke to the resolution in favour of the abrogation of the treaty. One of the first reasons given

for the abrogation of the treaty was that the United States needed more revenue to meet the excessive cost of the war, and in order that they might be able to meet the extraordinary expenses and the great need for revenue, the duties which had been taken away by the reciprocity treaty should be restored. Surely that argument suits Canada to-day. We have recently emerged victorious from a great war. We have a great expenditure, a large debt to meet, a large revenue to raise; consequently we need the taxes and we need the revenue. If in 1865 the United States, with 40,000,000 people, needed protection against a country of three and one half millions- which was the population of Canada at that time-surely in 1921 the people of Canada, numbering eight millions, need protection against a people of 110,000,000. We are in a worse position to-day than the United States was in 1865; and yet that was the attitude they took.

The second reason given by the American Congress for the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty was that they wanted to check the flow of imports and increase their own exports in order that the American dollar might be brought back to prewar value as soon as possible. Surely that argument is applicable to Canada's position to-day. Exchange was running high against the United States in 1865; I believe the value of their dollar depreciated to about 60 cents-worse than ours at the present time. Accordingly, the means they adopted to bring their dollar back to its pre-war value was to raise their tariff against imports, thus excluding imports and increasing the revenue. Exchange is running high against us to-day; we need to check the flow of imports into Canada.

The other reason given by the Americans was that they considered it a wise policy and in the interests of the country that they should take every means to build up American industries in order to keep American labour and American money in their own country and thus provide a market for the production of their farmers and employment for their people. That is another argument which applies to Canada to-day. We need to practise the same policy; we need to build up our manufacturing industries, to have a market for our farm produce and to keep our people at home.

I submit that members of the Opposition who vote for the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) are necessarily supporting

the view that we can get along with less revenue. The amendment sets forth no means of furnishing the revenue which would be taken away through the removal of customs duties. The hon. leader of the Agrarian party (Mr. Crerar) says that he would put a tax on land values throughout Canada and thus make up the loss in revenue occasioned by the reduction in duties. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) fails to state by what means he would make up that loss.

I have mentioned casually the home market, and I believe the home market is indispensable to the Canadian farmer. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) would do away with our home market; he would practically put it out of existence for the Canadian farmer by introducing free trade. The other day he mentioned that he would remove the tariff duty on fruit and that, by that means, he would assist in paying the deficit on the Canadian National Railways. He would aid the Canadian National Railways by having them bring in the strawberry in the spring and take back the juicy grape in the fall. The hon. member for Red Deer would actually ask the fruit growers of the Dominion of Canada to pay the deficit on our National Railways. I think the hon. gentleman would not be well received if he preached that doctrine in the fruit-growing sections anywhere from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If that policy were brought into effect, the fruitgrowing sections of the Maritime Provinces, Ontario and British Columbia would be ruined. The hon. member's vision of the extent of this country is limited by the horizon which is revealed to him as he looks across the undulating prairies, and in that way he views the fruit sections of this country. The home market was indispensable in the opinion of John Charlton who, in 1876, said, as reported on page 313 of Hansard of that year:

I believe that the interests of the nation at large would be promoted by judicious protection ; I believe that the agricultural interests of the Dominion would be promoted by protection, and that the manufacturer, being brought to the door of the farmer, would afford a market for a great -many articles of produce that would not be salable if the market were 3,000 miles away.

Surely, that is good argument in favour of the home market. The constituency which I represent is interested in mixed farming and fruit-growing. The fruit-growing industry is in close proximity to our Ontario cities. Fruit, especially small fruit, is a perishable product and it must be marketable quickly to ensure full returns. Most of it is sold in the cities of Hamilton,

Toronto or Montreal, and without these cities the fruit business would languish and die. Large quantities are also sold to the canning companies in the county as well as those in the neighbouring cities.

I am sorry that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) is not in his seat. These fruit growers are badly handicapped on account of lack of railway transportation, and, apparently, the railways do not cater to this trade. These fruit growers need refrigerator cars to enable them to get their fruit into the cities and larger towns of northern Ontario, and I hope the Minister of Railways and Canals will take the matter into consideratihn when he gets hold of the Grand Trunk and will see that these people have better facilities in this regard.

The whole southern section of the county of Halton, stretching along the shore of lake Ontario, is the finest fruit-growing district in America. All kinds of fruits and vegetables are grown and sold in the nearby cities and without these cities the fruitgrowing industry in Halton would be nil. For these industries the home market is the only market as they could not compete in the American market with American producers on account of the increased cost of production and the following reasons, namely:-

(1) The American fruit is two or three weeks earlier on the market, and the cream of the prices is gone before our .fruit is ready for sale.

(2) The cost of production is less in the United States on account of climatic conditions-less labour is necessary to protect the tender plants from frost in the winter and spring. The Canadian grower must provide himself with frame-yard room and sash and fertilizer to grow his seedling plants and protect them from the chilling winds of spring. This is not necessary or as expensive in a warmer climate.

(3) Top dressing with straw, involving time and labour, is absolutely essential in this country and not necessary in the United States. The Canadian producer must also employ his help longer in the year on account of these extra precautions, and that adds materially to the cost of the article as compared with the cost in North and South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and New York. x

If we open our markets to American fruit, the early market of the spring would be entirely in the hands of the American fruit-grower and by the time our fruit came in, the cream of the prices would be

reaped by the American producer. The first fruit in the spring is always the sweetest and the people will buy at prices that would not tempt them in another two or three weeks, when the appetite has become sated. Take off the duty on fruits and allow our market to be flooded in early May, and you will ruin the small fruit industry, not only in Ontario, but for that matter in the Dominion of Canada.

The section of Ontario along the shore of lake Ontario from Toronto to Hamilton, and including the whole Niagara peninsula is a veritable Garden of Eden, not surpassed in beauty and prosperity and in sturdy citizenship anywhere in the British Empire. In ruining the fruit industry in this section, you will strike a deadly blow at the future of the cities and towns in western Ontario, and throw out of employment thousands of persons engaged in the industry. Bound up in the fruit industry is the future of the canning industries of western Ontario. They buy the raw material from the gardeners in their vicinity, give' employment to many hands, and get the perishable product of the gardener into the foreign market many months after it is picked. But for this, the gardener would be compelled to produce less or allow his product to spoil in the fields. Some of the gardeners in the southern section of the county of Halton sold as high as $10,000 worth of fruit to these canning industries in one year. The fruit business is their principal industry and to destroy the market for their produce would be a very decisive blow to something over .three thousand people who are producing the raw material for these industries.

There are forty-two canning plants in Canada with an approximate output of $16,000,000 per annum, employing in the busy season, three thousand people and buying raw material from approximately five thousand farmers. Fully one-half of these fruit-canning plants are products of the war, when the British manufacturer was compelled by war conditions to withdraw his product from our market. The increase in six years in the canning industry in Canada is a marked indication of the benefit a proper system of protection is to the building up of industry in this country.

In the county of Halton the agricultural interests have something like $22,000,000 invested in farms; farm buildings and implements. In 1919, the total product of the farms, that is of grain, cattle and dairy

products, amounted to $7,984,431. This does not include fruit, vegetables and a large variety of other products which the farmers sell, which would bring the total up to approximately $10,000,000. Our manufacturing establishments in that county number 119, the capital invested is $7,711,441, the number of employees is 1,657; the salaries paid, $1,448,814; the value of the raw material used, $4,810,281 and the value of the finished products, $8,781,804.

If you take away protection from this country, a deadly blow will be dealt to these industries. I sent out questionnaires to most of them, and in not a single instance did I receive a reply that any of them wanted the protective duties reduced. They all said that they were satisfied with the protective tariff as it was to-day.

With regard to protection, where do hon. members opposite stand? We have heard a great deal about the policy of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and it is very hard to make out what that policy is. The leader of the Agrarian or Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) is more definite in his statements; he is frankly a free trader. He has said so on many occasions, and I do not believe that he wishes to get away from his statements. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) when, as Finance Minister in 1897, he delivered his first Budget speech, placed on Hansard, this " resolution." He said:

We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people and we declare our conviction that any tariff which is based on that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours.

That was placed on Hansard on April 22, 1897. I believe the hon. member was speaking not only for himself but for his party. That was a direct, definite statement that he was opposed to protection; yet he remained as Minister of Finance of this country for fifteen years, and during all that period he made not one effort to put his policy into effect. I cannot understand what the hon. gentleman really meant. He certainly could not have been sincere, and I often wonder if he is sincere to-day in the amendment which he has introduced into this House. I cannot, nor can anybody else, blame the people of this country if they look with a good deal of suspicion upon the policy presented by the hon. gentleman. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1893, after the convention at Ottawa, said:

I will not be satisfied until the last vestige of protection is removed from the soil of Canada.

Yet he remained in power fifteen years and during that time did hot bring in any measure of free trade or give any relief from the protective duties which he claimed were hurting the country. In 1911 his Government went out of power, and speaking in Hamilton shortly afterwards on November 26, 1913, he said:

The policy I give you at this moment, the policy I believe every patriot in Canada ought to support, and the policy I believe it to be the duty of the Government to immediately inaugurate, is a policy of absolutely free food-free from customs duties.

That is what he said less than two years after he had gone out of power. Yet he had been in power fifteen years and had not made the slightest effort to put that policy into effect. I do not charge him with insincerity; possibly he had a change of heart after he left Ottawa as Prime Minister of this country.

The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) takes a peculiar stand on the policy of protection. The fact is nobody knows what his policy is. Judging by his speeches in this House and outside it is absolutely impossible to come to any definite decision as to what he wants. Speaking in Toronto on August 16, 1920, he is reported in the Toronto Globe as saying: *

It is not a question of free trade or protection.

You will notice that he made no explanation of what he really did mean. It was not a policy of free trade or protection, at all events. Further on he said:

But such a tariff as may be necessary in this connection will be under Liberal policy a tariff for consumers and producers and not a tariff to further the interests of combines, monopolies or any special or priviliged classes.

The hon. gentlman, now that he is in Opposition, speaks a lot of the special and privileged classes, but he forgot those classes when he was in power at Ottawa. I do not think the leader of the Opposition can blame the people of this country if they do not support him and his policy, and if they fail to understand it, for apparently he cannot explain it himself. He will find that the people of this country are not so easily deceived by a policy which tells them nothing, and I believe that when the time comes for the people to express their opinion at the polls they will express their dissatisfaction with the hon. gentleman in that respect.

The hon. leader of the Progressive party, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), in speaking in different places in Canada, has had something to say on the tariff issue. Speaking at Brandon on November 29, 1919, he is reported by the Canadian Countryman to have said:

The policy of protection is the greatest curse and drawback we could have in Canada.

I think the hon. member must have been reading one of the speeches of Mr. Davies, now Sir Louis Davies, who used a very similar expression in 1893 when speaking on the protective policy. Speaking in Massey Hall, Toronto, on December 17, and 18, at the Convention of the United Farmers of Ontario, the hon. member for Marquette is quoted in the Canadian Farms as saying:

The protection tariff confers privileges upon those who are beneficiaries of it, and for that reason the organized farmers of Canada are opposed to the principle of protection in our tariff.

The organized farmer of Canada in the mind of the hon. leader of the Agrarian party are evidently the United Grain Growers of Western Canada. The leader of the Agrarian party is certainly a free trader. He cannot get away from the statements that he has made on free trade in various parts of the country, and if he is elected to power at the next general election, he will be expectd to carry his policy into effect. If he does not do so, he will be betraying the farmers of Western Canada, who honestly believe in free trade and are supporting him on that issue. If he becomes the Prime Minister of this country I am satisfied that he will introduce a certain measure of free trade.

I have before me the Farmers' platform, as announcd by the Canadian Council of Agriculture at Winnipeg on November 29, 1918. It contains a good many planks but I shall read only those or sections of those that deal with the tariff issue. Speaking of the tariff it says:

Our tariff laws should be amended as follows: (a) by an immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff; (b) by reducing the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual, uniform reductions be made in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years.

That surely is a free trade policy. It cannot be considered as anything else, and the hon. leader of the Agrarian party will certainly try to implement that platform if he has any influence in this Parliament after the next election.

Now I desire to draw attention to some circumstances in connection with the United Grain Growers' Grain Company. The hon. member for Frontenac ;(Mr. Edwards) made some mention of this company a few days ago. I shall make some further mention of it, and in one instance, at least, I shall disagree with what the hon. member for Frontenac said.

The United Grain Growers Limited was formed in September, 1917, by an amalgamation between the Grain Growers Grain Corporation and the Alberta Farmers Co-operative Elevator Company, with an authorized capital of $5,000,000, with shares of par value of $25, and no member allowed to have more than 100 shares, the average holdings being 10 shares, amounting to $250.

At the end of 1918 they had a paid up capital of $2,159,763, subscribed capital $2,891,050, reserves and undistributed profits, $1,872,746, making a total of capital and reserves at the end of 1918 of $4,032,509.

The officers of the company are T. A. Crerar, M.P., President, Cecil Rice-Jones, Manager and First Vice-President, J. R. Murray, Winnipeg, and E. S. McRory, Calgary, District Managers.

The Company has under its control and ownership several subsidiary companies, namely:

I. The Grain Growers Export Company of New York.

II. The Grain Growers Export Company of Winnipeg.

III. The U.G.G. Sawmills Ltd. & Timber Limits, B.C.

IV. The U.G.G. of New Westminster, B.C. (Feed Business).

V. The U.G.G. Securities Corporation.

VI. Live Stock Dept.

VII. Educational and Legislative organization comprising: (a) The Public

Press, Ltd., Winnipeg, Job Printing, (b) The Grain Growers Guide.

The Company has 35,000 shareholders, divided into 350 clubs, having approximately 100 members each, scattered over the Canadian West. These shareholders pay this money into the Company, and receive stock certificates drawing 10 per cent on the par value of the stock.

I have copied these statements from the sworn evidence given by Mr. Cecil Rice-Jones before the High Cost of Living Committee in Room 318 of the House of Commons, on Friday, June 27, 1919. This company engages in a large number of businesses, under the name of the principal company, such as the implement business, the flour business, coal, lumber,' apples, and other supplies, including binder twine, barbed wire, wire fencing, salt, hay. I believe they are also engaged in the insurance business.

I disagree with the statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac a few days ago with regard to the Export Company of New York. The hon. member for Frontenac said-I believe he took his figures from the sworn testimony of Mr. Cecil Rice-Jones-that on a capital of $100,000 this company had made a profit of something over 500 per cent. Now in looking over the company's annual report for 1915, I find that there was a $50,000 investment in the export company, and that the company made a profit in 1915 of

531,000, which amounted to 1060 per cent on the total paid up capital. In 1916, they put into the capital of the export company a certain amount of earnings from the year 1915, increasing the capital to $250,000 and in that year they made a profit of 130 per cent. In the next year, 1917, they made a profit of 66 per cent. Now that is pretty good for one of the subsidiary companies, but I would not object to these profits were it not for the statements made by hon. members opposite in this House.


John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. REID (Mackenzie):

Will you be kind enough to tell the House what amount of money was borrowed from the Bank of New York to conduct the business with?


Robert King Anderson



I was not in communication with the Bank of New York, and as the annual report does not give that statement, I cannot inform the hon. member. He should have seen that it appeared in the Annual Report of 1915; if it were in the report I should be glad to read it to him. The Grain Growers' Company, the parent company, the owner of all the subsidiary companies, according to the sworn testimony of Mr. Cecil Rice-Jones, vice-president and manager, given before a committee of this House, made profits in the year 1916 of 66.2 per cent on paid-up capital. The hon. member for Frontenac, said it was 62.6 per cent, but the difference is small in any event, and either of us may be wrong. In 1917, according to the same testimony, they made profits amounting to 44.92 per cent on paid-up capital, and in 1918, 19.7 per cent on paid-up capital.

I would not object to these profits, Mr. Speaker, but for the statements made by members of the Agrarian party. In 1920,



the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), in answer to a question asked by a member on this side of the House, said he considered that any company that made over 30 per cent profit on capital was profiteering. The hon. member for Assiniboia, I think, is a shareholder in this company, although he may not be a director, and I should like to know what he thinks of these profits of 66 per cent, 44 per cent, and 130 per cent in his own company. In 1912, the, company had a capital of $586,000, and, so far as I can ascertain, they had no reserve. But in 1918, the capital was more than $2,159,000. The reserve in that year was $1,898,282. During this period of six years the company paid to the Farmers' Organization for political propaganda purposes the sum of $82,200, and invested, in the export company, dividends to the extent of $375,000, thus making total earnings, above expenses, and 10 per cent on capital of some $2,355,982, which is more than 100 per cent on their capital of 1918, and 325 per cent on the original capital of 1912. That is a very good showing, and proves that the company is a very successful concern. But these items represent surplus earnings during these six years which have been taken out of the pockets of the people who do business with them. The people who do business with the company are not all shareholders and do not participate in the 10 per cent dividend, and the company is not what it claims to be, a philanthropic concern doing business for the benefit of the people of the country, because they are taking out of the pockets of the people more than is necessary to run their business. I think, strictly speaking, this surplus belongs to the shareholders of the company hut it is held by the directors, and cannot be paid out unless the company is wound up. Now, Sir, I think it is obvious that this company is a cold business corporation doing business for profit in competition with other corporations and individuals in this country, and is by no means a philanthropic concern as hon. members on the other side claim. Their operations may have the effect of reducing the cost of living to a certain extent, but, if they do, it is in the same way as any other corporation in the open market may be said to reduce the cost of living to the Consumer as a result of competition. The organization department consists of the 10 p.m. United Farmers of Alberta, the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, and the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association which, in the words of Mr. Rice-Jones, " is the educational and legislative end of the farmers' end of the association." The Grain Growers' Guide is the mouthpiece of this organization department and is the medium used to educate the people. Grants amounting to $82,500, were made to these different branches during the years preceding and including 1917. ' I wish to draw attention to another circumstance. Some years ago the company conceived the idea, which was a very useful one, of organizing what is called the Canadian Council of Agriculture for the purpose of bringing all these variotis associations and joint stock companies into one organized body for the purpose of increasing the benefits to themselves, of getting better markets for their grain, and of getting legislation through the parliaments of the western provinces of the Dominion, favourable to themselves. I do not quarrel with that. They had a perfect right to do so, and if the farmers by such an organization could improve their conditions, I am in favour of it. This Canadian Council of Agriculture is composed of executive officers and the following associations: The United Farmers of Alberta, the Alberta Co-operative Elevator Company, the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company, the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association, the Grain Growers' Grain' Company, the Grain Growers' Guide, and the United Farmers of Ontario, the United Farmers' Co-operative Company, of Ontario, representing 65,000 farmers distributed over the Canadian West and Ontario. The executive officers of these various companies and associations form the Canadian Council of Agriculture, which drafted the farmers' platform. The Canadian Council of Agriculture is the executive of the United Farmers' or Progressive party. I am not taking exception to that organization being the executive of their party. The leader of the Farmers' party (Mr. Crerar), is president of the Grain Growers' Grain Company. He is in the House as representative of the Independent Farmers' party and as representative of the Grain Growers' Grain Company. On March 25, 1919, the Council of Agriculture discussed the question whether or not they Should enter into politics. This matter must have been discussed on various occasions, but I refer to the year 1918, and a report of* that discussion will be found in their annual report for that year. I might explain that apparently the company had sent a delegation to the United States to inquire into the farmer organizations there to see how they were getting along with their political work, and they were making a report I presume to the company. The report says: One of the main reasons given by the officers of the organization in several of the states was that in our Canadian organization we have not mixed in politics but have used our strength to influence legislation that was in the interests of the farmer and the people of Canada in general, while they state in most of their organizations in the United States there has been an inclination to organize their associations into political associations taking an active part in politics. This fact has been more responsible for wrecking the farming organizations in the United States than anything else. Then they go on to state: In spite of the efforts of the organization to the south of us in the political field we can safely, state that more legislation favourable to farmers and in the interest of the people of Canada has been passed in the three western provinces than all the twelve states we visited. That was the opinion of the Canadian Council of Agriculture in the fall of 1918; they came to the decision they had better not enter into politics. Yet in spite of that decision what have we witnessed? On March 25, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MpMaster) introduced an amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply which proposed the acceptance of the Reciprocity Pact with the United States providing for free trade in foods, in natural products, and in agricultural implements. In speaking to that amendment the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar)-then the Minister of Agriculture in the Union Government-said this: "If the amendment were accepted It would mean the overthrow of the Government and a general election, with all the necessary turmoil that woultj ensue. I say that it would mean the launching of this country into a general election, and that is not desirable at this stage. It is wholly undesirable for several reasons, which I do not need to enumerate. This amendment is introduced for no other reason than to embarrass the Government in carrying on the business of the country." The hon member supported the Government at that time and voted against the amendment in order to prevent the Government from being defeated. If we examine the situation then we will see that the country had just come through the war, the demobilization of the army was well under way, reconstruction was well advanced, the country was at peace and everything was favourable. The Government was in a strong position, it had 213i a large majority in the House and apparently it was not the desire of the hon. member to oppose the Government and attempt to defeat it. But what do we find a couple of months later? On June 9, of the same year, the hon. member for Brome introduced his amendment of March 25, as an amendment to the Budget then brought down by the hon. ex-Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White.) But at that time the hon. member for Marquette was no longer a member of the Government and he voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Brome that he had voted against two months previously, in order that the country might be thrown into the turmoil of a general election, which he had stated, only two months before, was wholly undesirable. The propositions introduced in that Budget went further in reducing the tariff on agricultural implements than the Fielding tariff had gone in fifteen years. It remitted seventeen and a half millions of customs taxation and imposed taxes on the wealthy; yet the hon. member for Marquette opposed all this and tried to force the country into a general election. Now I wish to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the coincidence of the resignation of the honourable member as Minister of Agriculture, the appearance of the Farmers' political party and the Winnipeg strike. On May 15 a sympathetic strike involving ninety-five unions was called in the city of Winnipeg, resulting in a complete tie-up of business, a declaration of control over civic affairs and an effort to control provincial and federal employees. The object of the strikers was to control municipal government in the city of Winnipeg when sympathetic strikers in various cities of the Canadian West 'would take control of the Provincial Governments. The condition became so serious that revolution was threatened and the future of Canada was imperilled. So serious was , the situation on June 2 that a resolution was moved in the House of Commons by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the strikes in Winnipeg and other Canadian cities. The hon. member for Kamouraska, in speaking to this resolution, said: "This debate is one of the most extreme urgency. We have been criticised for not having already discussed in the House this alarming situation."

The honourable member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) in speaking upon the same resolution, said this: ""Wc have the spectre of a revolution which first became apparent two weeks ago, appearing like a hydra-headed monster in a dozen Canadian cities."-Hansard, page 3029. The honourable the Minister of the Interior, at page 3039, is quoted as saying: "It was essential that the greater issue raised by the assumption of Soviet authority, and it was nothing less on the part of those in control of the strike in the city of Winnipeg, should be once and for all decided and decisively beaten down," This statement made in this House was a reflection of what was appearing in the daily press and showed that Canada was passing through the greatest crisis in its history. At no time during the period of the war was there a greater menace to the peace of the country. , Yet on June 4, two days after this discussion the honourable the Minister of Agriculture resigned his portfolio, took his place on the cross-benches and announced his decision to withdraw his support from the Government and became the leader of a new political party with the object of defeating the Government and throwing this country into the turmoil of a general election. Had he succeeded, could any one imagine the result? No one could predict what might have happened if the country had been hurled into the turmoil of a general election with an incipient revolution on its hands. The honourable member comes from the West and cannot plead ignorance of the conditions which existed, but as a member of the Government he had a more accurate knowledge of what was transpiring than private members, and had the added advantage of a perfect familiarity with conditions in his home province. This strike took place in the city of Winnipeg where the head office of his company and the offices of the newspapers which he controls were situated, and he must have had inside information on the conditions. I do not charge the honourable member with any sinister motives in timing his resignation to suit these events, neither do I wish to charge him with expecting to ride into power on the wave of revolution which might have resulted, but I do charge him with a decided lack of that foresight and those statesmanlike qualities which are essential to the leader of a political party aspiring to the premiership. The honourable member must have known, had he given the consideration to the national [Mr. Anderson.) situation which every public man should, that the time was most inopportune for any attempt to gain a decision at the poles by a political party;' yet he took the plunge, either as a result of ignorance, or from a spirit of bravado, and was only saved by the superior foresight and wisdom of western members, who, seeing eye to eye with him on the tariff issue, yet had a more statesmanlike grasp of the national situation. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read the following taken from the Grain Growers' Guide of July 23, 1919: Trial by Jury Abolished X°ur civil rights are in danger because tile Government at Ottawa has passed a vicious amendment to the Immigration Act under which citizens not born in Canada may be arrested; tried behind closed doors by a committee appointed by the Government; denied the right of facing their accusers; denied the right of trial by Jury; and deported without the formality of a civil trial. To-day labour men are arrested. To-morrow it may be farmers. To-day men not born in Canada are suffering. To-morrow it may be the Canadian-horn. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If you were accused of a crime how much would you give for the right to be tried by a jury of your peers? Tour right is bound up with that of the labour men who have been arrested in Winnipeg. Do unto others as you would be done unto. Help these men to get a fair trial by sending a donation to James Law, Secretary. Defence Committee, Room 12, Labour Temple, Winnipeg. This article appeared in the Grain Growers' Guide of July 23, 1919, appealing to the farmers of Western Canada for aid in support of the accused and imprisoned strikers in the city of Winnipeg, on the assumption that the strikers had been denied the right of trial by jury. No other meaning can be taken from the appeal. It was purposely worded so as t(o create that impression. Note the words "Denied the right of trial by jury. To-day labor men are arrested, tomorrow it may be farmers." A more vile appeal has never been made in any newspaper in this country. These men had not been denied any right to which they were entitled as Canadian citizens. This was known to the managers of the Grain Growers' Guide. They were in close touch with all the events of the strike and knew absolutely the true situation, and yet this newspaper, owned and controlled by the political corporation of which the hon. member for Marquette is president, gave it the sanction of what approval it could get by appearing in that paper, and sent it broadcast to the sixty thousand readers and subscribers of the paper. Why was this done? Surely the money paid for such an advertisement was hardly sufficient to induce any newspaper to print it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not deny the right of a political party having a newspaper to place its ideals before the people and expound the gospel of its particular political faith, but I do deny the right of a powerful commercial corporation, entering the field as a political party, to attempt to seize the reins of Government to further its own commercial interests. I claim that the attempt of the United Grain Growers' Company to corral the farmers of Western Canada, and use them for political purposes is a subversion of the principles of responsible Government. It is indeed the most daring attempt ever made by a political party in this country to destroy democracy and place in its stead corporate, autocratic rule. The irony of the attempt, the irony of the whole political farce is that it is being done in the name of democracy. I observed, Mr. Speaker, during the war that those who shouted loudest in the name of democracy were themselves autocrats at heart. Suppose, for instance, that the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is one of the most powerful corporations on the North American continent, decided to go into politics, and succeeded in electing their president, and some of their officials to this House and eventually obtained control of the Government, and the president became Prime Minister. Would the hon. leader of the Agrarian party or the hon. member for Red Deer think that that was right? I am quite satisfied that they would think it was absolutely wrong. And yet that is practically what their party is doing to-day. I shall leave these thoughts with the hon. leader of what shall we call it-the Farmers' party? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a Farmers' party. The sympathy of the great mass of the farmers of Canada is not with the hon. gentleman and his political methods, nor do they follow him on his platform of free trade and class rule. The hon. member for Marquette made some references a year ago to the depopulation of rural sections of Ontario. Between 1901 and 1911 the rural population of Ontario decreased about 59,000, but the rural population over the whole of Canada increased. During that period the urban population has gradually increased until in 1911 it exceeded the rural population, but that is bound to occur in any country which develops along all lines of manufacturing industry. The following table will be interesting as showing the gradual increase of the urban with a corresponding decrease of the rural percentage of population in the Dominion and in Ontario for the decades from 1871 to 1911: Rural Urban Canada- Per cent Per cent> 1971 .. .. 81.2 18.81881 .. .. 79.9 21.11891 .... 71.3 28 91901 .. .. 62.4 37.61911 .... 51.4 45.6Ontario- 1871 .. .. 80.6 19.41881 .... 77.2 22.81891 . . . . 66.8 33.21901 .. .. 59.3 40.71911 .... 47.8 52.2 In 1911 it will be seen that the urban population of Ontario was 52.2 per cent, and yet although the farmers claim they have not proper representation in Parliament, they rule in that province. The Hon. Mr. Drury in speaking to the farmers of the county of Halton last fall said to them that they were a minority, and that minority rule is autocratic rule, and that they would have to be satisfied to see their policy carried to fruition by all the .people of the Dominion representing all classes. In connection with this increased ration of urban as against rural population, I wish to call the attention of the hon. member for Marquette to one of its results. Since 1867 in direct proportion as the cities' population has increased the price of commodities sold from the farm has increased with it. I have here a few figures taken from the Globe of 1867, 1901, and 1921: Place Commodity Toronto-Wheat.. Oats. . .. Barley.. Hay. . .. Hogs.. . . Beef. . .. Lamb.. . Butter. . Eggs. . . . Chickens. Apples. . Potatoes.. February February May1867 1901 1921? 1.80 $ .661 $ 1.9832 ,281 .493.59 .42 9013.00 14.50 30.005.25 8.50 20.006.00 8.50 18.003.50 each .07h lb. .15 lb..12 lb. .20 lb. .61.16 .22 .33.40 pair .60 pr. .35 ib.None 2.?5 bbl. 10.00 bbl..35 bag .85 It will be seen that with the exception of the first three items, every one has increased materially in price since 1867, showing that the increase of urban population has been conducive to the advantage of the farmer by increasing his home market and giving him a better chance to sell his products. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for taking up so much of the time of the House.


An hon. MEMBER:

Hear, hear.


Robert King Anderson



I hope the hon. member who says "hear, hear" will take up as much time to answer some of these questions, which I am sure the people of this country will be very glad to have answered.


John Archibald Maharg


Mr. J. A. MAHARG (Maple Creek) :

Mr. Speaker, before entering into a discussion of the Budget I wish first to direct a few remarks to the address delivered this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), and also a passing remark to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Anderson) who has just preceded me. The Prime Minister gave us a somewhat lengthy address, chiefly in an attempt to ridicule the two parties, as he described them, on the Opposition side of the House, and to create in the minds of the people the idea that there is an amalgamation between the two groups on this side of the House. He made a further attempt, in which he was very successful to win applause from his supporters by his very complete and splendid system of ridicule and sarcasm.

I should have paid no attention whatever to my right hon. friend's reference in this regard had he dealt with the matter fairly. A few months ago the Prime Minister took part in an election in the eastern part of Canada and there he started a campaign of misrepresentation. According to my recollection the campaign of misrepresentation on the part of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat was exceeded only by that of the Prime Minister himself in opening his campaign during the by-election to which I have referred. In his attempt here this afternoon the hon. gentleman undertook to ridicule the progressive group for not placing their platform before the House. , I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman was present at one of the sessions of this House three years ago, when that platform was placed before the House in its entirety. It is on Hansard, and may be seen by any one who wishes to refer to it. I observe that my hon. friend is indulging in another of his sardonic, satirical and cynical smiles, directed toward this group.


Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)



I did not say that my hon. friends had no platform. What I said was that it had never been moved and the judgment of the House obtained upon it.


John Archibald Maharg



I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Government have ever moved their platform in the House? Has the hon. gentleman ever moved his platform?


Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)



Undoubtedly. Our platform is in the Budget and a vote on the Budget is a vote on the platform.


John Archibald Maharg



Well, if my hon. friend can find his platform in the Budget I would like him to draw our attention to it; so far as I am concerned I have not been able to find it. My hon. friend and his supporters have not drawn attention t(5 it and cannot do so, for the simple reason that it is not there. With all his talk, what did my hon. friend say about his platform? He said that the platform of his party was one which would give adequate protection to the industries of Canada-as meaningless a statement as could possibly be made. Who is going to say what is adequate protection to the industries of Canada? Evidently some one is saying it for the hon. gentleman and those who support him on that side of the House.

Now, Sir, I want to go just a little further. The hon. gentleman made some very uncomplimentary remarks with regard to the Progressive party this afternoon. He described them as the tools of the Opposition, as a dilapidated annex, and so on. Well, as to whether or not the Progressive party is in a dilapidated condition, if the hon. Prime Minister will just be good enough to give the country an opportunity to decide that question we shall be perfectly satisfied with the result.

In dealing with the amendment this afternoon the Prime Minister described it as a circuitous sinuosity. It is pretty strong language; but, Sir, if you can find anything more in the nature of circuitous sinuosity than the Prime Minister's address this afternoon-well, you simply could not do so, I would yield the palm to the Prime Minister in that respect now and for all time.

The Prime Minister this afternoon indulged in his usual habit of laying traps, and he succeeded in dropping out bait which was picked up by an hon. member on this side. I am very glad he did, Mr. Speaker, because it gives me an oppor-

tunity to have a little to say in that respect to-night. The hon. gentleman read from a pamphlet; he was not going to tell us just at the moment who the author of the pamphlet was, though, of course he would have done so later had some one not asked the question. He told the House that the author of the pamphlet was Mr. Norman P. Lambert- which, of course, was a sweet morsel under the tongues of hon. gentlemen opposite. But, following his usual custom, he did not go so far as to explain to the House just why that pamphlet was published. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the House tonight just why that pamphlet was published. It was published some time ago. Several pamphlets were prepared by the same gentleman, for those in whose employ he was at that particular time? He was a young man, a journalist starting out in this country. I observe that the Prime Minister is finding great difficulty to keep his seat this evening while I am speaking, just as he did when the hon. member for Red Deer was addressing the House. I hope he will be good enough to let me proceed; I did not interrupt him this afternoon. I simply want to explain how these pamphlets came about. Mr. Lambert, was a young man in the employ of a protectionist newspaper in the city of Toronto, and he had instructions to compile pamphlets having for their purpose the discouragement of any "truck or trade with the Yankees," as it was described at that time. He was a very capable young man, a very good prospect in the journalistic world. He succeeded in carrying out the instruction of his employers and these pamphlets were issued. But, Sir, this young man came to maturity later on and he decided that he would no longer sell his services; that he would write things as he saw them, and he has done that. The great difference between the Prime Minister and Mr. Norman P. Lambert is that Mr. Norman P. Lambert refused to sell his services and sacrifice his principles for the manufacturing and big interests of Canada, while the Prime Minister was representing them at that time, is representing them to-day, and, from all appearances, intends to continue to represent them for all time. Mr. Lambert comes from a family who always, so far as I know, gave very strong support to the Conservative party. He, like a great many others in Western Canada-thousands of them, myself; included- commenced to see that there were

two sides to these questions, and, as they did, got away from the old environment and changed their ideas. At present this young man is working in the interests of the general public; he is not giving himself over to the wishes, the demands, the exactions of those who undertake to carry on a campaign on behalf of the interests to which I have referred.


May 13, 1921