May 14, 1921

make is that these gentlemen are occupying an anomalous position. They have no right to be buyers and sellers at the same time, and if their own sense of propriety does not dictate that to them the Government should step in and see that the men who are in charge of the National Railway System as directors should not be associated with companies which are doing millions of dollars worth of business with the National Railway System annually. Let me tell you that the people of this country who know anything about the railway situation appreciate that point. You will hear it everywhere. How does the Government expect to make public ownership a success under these conditions? They must first have the confidence of the public, and they will never get it unless they do what should be done. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid), is looking for suggestions. Let me give him two: First, ask for the resignation of the president; second, ask for the resignation from the directorate of men who are associated or affiliated with other companies doing business with the railways. If he does this he will go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the enterprise, and in that way he would help largely to wipe out the annually increasing deficit. My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, has been delivering a good many addresses outside of this House, and once or twice in the House, with reference to the adverse balance of trade. I should like to say a word or two bearing upon that important subject. I do not care what views any hon. gentleman in this House may hold with reference to the tariff. I do not think that anyone will gainsay the fact that our manufacturing industries in Canada have done much to develop the country. I have no hesitation in saying that; nor have I any desire to minimize the effect of what they have done. In my opinion, however, the manufacturers of the country to-day are nbt fully alive to their responsibilities. I believe they have been paying too much attention to the home market of 9,000,000 people, and not giving enough attention to the markets of our sister Dominions comprising in all over 400,000,000. There are two alternatives when a business man or a manufacturing concern is threatened with competition. In the first place, if it is a question of price, the business man sits down, looks the situation over carefully, and realizes that one way of improving matters is to increase the volume of business, decrease his overhead, and thus re- duce the price of his finished product so that he may meet competition. There is another way, and it is one which I think has been more in vogue during the past few years than is really good for the country, and that is, for the manufacturer to come to Ottawa, and ask for more protection so as absolutely to shut out competition. When that is done, so far as he is concerned, he is through; and many of the manufacturers, I am afraid, have pursued this line of least resistance. I know that the Minister of Finance is always frank; but, if he were perfectly willing, I have no doubt he could tell us to-night that during the past few weeks there have been many hundreds of manufacturers from various parts of the Dominion calling ai his office and asking for protection, and more protection. So far as this Budget itself is concerned, there are no tariff increases; but I am not so sure that in connection with the legislation enacted by my hon. friend, extending the anti-dumping clause, there is not room for some of our manufacturing friends to be well taken care of. As a matter of fact, this new law will give the Minister of Customs almost arbitrary authority in regard to fixing the price at which goods may be entered, although of course, I do not say that will be done: Within a year we shall learn whe-' ther it is or not; but there is ample room there for a good deal of protection, probably more than 5 or 10 per cent of a direct rise in the schedule would be. As I have remarked, I think the manufacturers of this country have been paying too much attention to the home market to the neglect of foreign markets. Recently a campaign has been put on to buy goods made in Canada, and in connection with that compaign, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association made a tour of the principal cities in Ontario. This gentleman not only addressed encouraging remarks to the business men to buy goods made in Canada, but he also delivered addresses on pretty nearly every question under the sun. In one place, I notice, he warned them against the evils of an early election. He said: "If you have an election now it will interfere with business and unsettle the minds of the people of the country." An election interfere with business to-day, when one-half of the factories are shut down and the other half running on half-time! An election unsettle the minds of the people, when the great majority of the Canadian people are only waiting for an opportunity to get their minds settled by turning out this Government! Why, sir, the unsettling factor in the country to-day is, that the people are not given the opportunity to state their minds; and if my hon. friends opposite have any doubt about that, let them put it to the test, and they will soon find out. Now, my hon. friend, the president of the Manufacturers' Association, was kind to my Agrarian friends. I do not know whether it was at Peterborough or at some other place he suggested that it might be advisable to allow a rebate of income tax so far as the farmers were concerned. Well, that would make for a very friendly feeling, as he said, between the farmers and the manufacturers; but I do not know why he simply limited his proposal to the farmers. Why did he not suggest taking the income tax off everybody and thus have everybody cheering for the Manufacturers' Association? It would have appealed to a good many of us, I know. These gentlemen are not paying sufficient attention to foreign trade. Recently I had the opportunity of listening to an address delivered by Mr. A. N. Lawrence, the general sales manager of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, who had just returned from abroad after having travelled for over sixteen months throughout the sister Dominions, and having covered 64,000 miles. What does he say with reference to the enterprise and initiative of our Canadian manufacturers? This is what he says: During my entire sixteen months abroad, I never met a single representative of any Canadian enterprise. On the' other hand, the activity of American representatives in these same countries is so decidedly marked that one could safely say that to-day American industries are invading the whole of the British overseas possessions. That is the statement of the sales agent of a Canadian concern. He spent sixteen months in the British Dominions, including India, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and the Straits Settlement, representing a total population of some 400,000,000: in some of these Dominions we have a preferential tariff; nevertheless, these places are all over-run by Americans, while there are no representatives of Canadian firms in any one of these countries. What does this gentleman say? In every city he visited the Americans were selling their goods and buying raw materials, and those same raw materials they subsequently sold in New York to Canadian manufacturers. Is there any wonder there is a balance of trade against us? It is not the fault of the consumers whom my hon. friend has been lecturing; it is largely the fault of those who supply the consumer. Sir, I have some figures here in regard to last year's trade imports; they are taken from the statistics supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and cover the imports for the fiscal years ending March 31, last. They disclose that furs and skins to the value of $10,878,924 were imported from the United States. Why send our raw furs to the United States and bring back the finished product? Of leather and manufactures of leather we imported $15,742,091. Surely such an extensive importation as that constitutes an indictment against those who are in the leather and shoe business in this country. Then of copper and its products we imported $8,477,403 worth. Now, there is no country in the world in which there is more copper available than Canada. Why then should we import over $8,000,000 worth of copper and its products from the United States? Then of electric and gas apparatus we imported $10,780,775. We have concerns in Canada who are manufacturing these very articles under protection. In that case why should our people have to go to the United States and buy $10,000,000 worth? There is something radically wrong when such importations are made, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance should lecture the Canadian manufacturers in that connection. He should tell them to make what the people of this country want and there will be no difficulty at all in getting the Canadian consumers to buy Canadian products. Apropos of the addresses that have been delivered by my hon. friend, I notice that he has been lecturing the ladies on the wearing apparel which they obtain in the United States and elsewhere. I have not sufficient knowledge to determine where that wearing apparel comes from, but I assume that my hon. friend knows what he is talking about. Speaking more particularly of the women of my home city- Windsor-they do not go across the Detroit river and pay ferry fare, car fare, and the exchange on Canadian money, and then duties on the goods they bring back, just for the privilege of purchasing clothing in the United States; they go there simply because they cannot obtain what they need from our local stores. That is not the fault of the local merchants, it is because the manufacturers in Canada are not giving them the desired style and quality. Just as soon as they provide these requisites there will be no need to lecture the con-

sumers on the necessity of buying home products. Nobody wants to buy any goods made outside of Canada; everybody that I know of wishes to help Canadian trade by buying Canadian goods. All want to do their part in that regard, but let the Canadian manufacturers give them value for their money. I agree that the slogan "Buy goods made in Canada" is a good one, and I heartily approve of it, but I would add these words to that slogan "Just as long as you get equal value for your money." I do not believe it is right to penalize the consumers in this country in order to keep Canadian manufacturers in business who are not able to meet proper competition. I have nothing more to say except a word or two in reference to the amendment. I need hardly say, Sir, that I propose to vote for the amendment. I shall Jo so for several reasons: In the first place, it emanates from the Liberal party, and the Liberal party and its policy have always appealed to me. The Liberal party was the party that made this country prosperous, and I am perfectly satisfied that if it is again returned to power, prosperity will once more return to this country. That is one reason why I am going to vote for the amendment. Another reason is this: I believe that my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is absolutely proceeding along the right line when he says the kind of manufactures that should be encouraged in Canada are those that will avail themselves of our raw materials. I have no hesitation in supporting that. I likewise believe in the statement contained in the 10 p.m. amendment that any change in the tariff should be one that will lower the burden which the consumers of this country are carrying today.


Samuel Charters




was very much surprised at the tone of the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kennedy, Essex) who has just taken his seat. Most young men now-a-days are cheerful in their utterances, but the hon. member was very doleful-he sees nothing around him that is good. He complains of what he calls "the flag waving" of the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie). My hon. friend will not he accused of anything of that kind. Let me say that the Minister of Militia, though he may be sneered at by hon. gentlemen opposite who are not in sympathy with him, stands high in the affections of the people of this country because of the position he took

three or four years ago when it meant a very great deal for him to take the stand he did.

The complaint is also made that we have too many generals. Surely my hon. friend knows that the generals were not the product of any action on the part of the Government; they were the product of the war. These officers won their generalships by sacrifices and by services to their country, and had other gentlemen acted similarly they might have also been promoted.

My hon. friend' from Essex has complained in regard to everything. Judging by his speech, if he had his way the militia would not be needed, the naval service would be discontinued, and the railway situation might be regarded as settled. Many years ago we were accustomed to what were called "blue ruin" speeches, but not much has been heard of them of late. Now we have had a resurrection of those sentiments by my hon. friend from Essex. However, such views are not very generally entertained by members on either side of the House. I do not think my hon. friend will strengthen himself in the town of Windsor by the position which he takes in relation to the manufacturers of the country. He tells us that a number of manufacturers visited the Minister of Finance before the Budget was brought down

that they came to Ottawa, looking for more protection. Surely my hon. friend did, not expect the Minister of Finance to intimate to them that they must not come. My hon. friend adds, however, with respect to the interview "They did not get it." If that is the position surely there can be no complaint on that score.

Then my hon. friend said , that half the factories in the country are closed and the other half are not operating on full time. All they want, he says, is an election in order to have a chance to turn the Government out. Then, I suppose, they will go full steam ahead.

My hon. friend tells us we should buy goods from the United States if the value of the goods is just a little bit better than the value we can obtain at home. I do not think that is a good policy myself, and I am satisfied that the people of this country, to a very large degree, do not believe so either although I think we have a right to give them every advantage so far as we can do so.

I do not know that I would be wise in attempting to follow any further the statements that have been made by the hon. gentleman. They will be read throughout

the country with very great surprise by those who had expected from the young, cheerful, coming and expectant Finance Minister something more encouraging and li apeful.

In this, as in every other Budget debate, it is contended that the policy of protection works injury to those engaged in agriculture. Protection, we are told, has made for the abandonment of farming, for rural depopulation, for decreased production, and for unequal and burdensome taxation. If that charge could be proven I do not think the farmers of Canada would have supported the policy for so many years. They would have abolished it. But the conditions that obtain in the province of Ontario-that is where any rural depopulation or shifting of population is most pronounced-are practically the same as they are elsewhere.

For instance, in Michigan it was officially reported that there were no fewer than 18,132 farms abandoned in last year, that

1.700.000 acres were undeveloped, that

30.000 farm houses were vacant, and that

46.000 persons left farms in three years and 10,000 in one year. The same conditions prevail in the state of Indiana. According to a statement made in April last by the Wall street journal, 255,000 farmers- left the land in one year in that state, 24,000 vacant farm houses were reported in New York State, and only

300.000 farmers remained on the land in that state. So if there has been some shifting of population in this province, the same condition exists in the states across the line. The protective tariff, which is higher there, has not kept the people on the land; nor has the free trade, or near free trade policy had that effect in England, because the same condition exists there.

What are conditions in the province of Ontario? We have been told over and over again during the past forty years that 3,500 people had left the farms every year and had gone to the cities and towns or elsewhere, and it has been contended that the Government, or the National Policy, is responsible for this so-called rural depopulation. If the policy of the government is to blame, then one side is just as responsible as the other, because for fifteen years the Liberals were in power in the Dominion and for twenty-five years in the province, and if it was possible to remedy that condition of affairs by legislation they would have done so. But the statements are not -quite borne out by the facts. For instance,

those who left the rural parts of the province were not by any means all farmers. In almost every part of old Ontario there are many unincorporated villages, the inhabitants of which are classed as rural residents. Because of the changed conditions these villages have been practically wiped out in some places and the people have gone elsewhere. But they were not all farmers; there were the corner tavern keeper, the grocer, blacksmith, the wagon maker, and the others employed in different lines of trade; they have gone, and in that way there has been a reduction in population. But in addition to that we have other causes that I need not refer to here, one of them being the exceedingly low birthrate in certain rural parts of the province.

But if those people have left the province in any considerable numbers-and undoubtedly they have-they have not been lost to Canada, because they have gone to one or other of the western provinces and are now assisting in developing the country in the various capacities in which they are engaged. That is borne out by the fact that in this House 33 members representing western constituencies were born in the province of Ontario, and I think that should be regarded as a recommendation in favour of those members.

But whatever may have been the conditions in the past, the changing of population has ceased. There is no' longer a decrease in the rural population of the province of Ontario. The population of 1919 is greater than that of 1918 and the population of 1920 is greater than that of 1919. The figures are:

1918 996,228

1919 998,597

1920 999,910

The increase is not very large, it is true, but there is an increase, and it is about equal to half of the decrease in the years referred to. Then, on the other side, instead of a further increase in the population of the towns and villages there has been a decrease. The decrease last year compared with 1919 was 8,255, or two and a half times as great as the decrease in the rural population in the years, immediately preceding. This, I think, furnishes very good evidence that the so-called exodus from the land, in so far at least as the province of Ontario is concerned, has practically ceased; and i* evidence also that the people in the-towns and villages are seeking employment in the country, a condition of affairs which will be generally agreeable to all those who are interested in the progress of the country.

But while there has been that decrease in population in those years, production has not decreased. Improved machinery, improved methods, improved conditions have made possible increased production with the decreased labour. Many millions of dollars, as everybody knows, have been expended in the construction of good roads, and this has made possible the easier marketing of farm products. To-day a man can drive a distance of fifteen, twenty or twenty-five miles with half the time, labour and expense that were occasioned in days gone by. Millions of dollars have also been expended in establishing the rural mail service, which has been another convenience to the people in every part of the Dominion, perhaps more especially so to those in the older portions of Ontario. Then, too there has been invested in telephones in the province of Ontario no less a sum than $50,000,000, with 360,000 telephones in use, or one for every seven persons. I mention these things for the purpose of indicating the changes that have taken place and also the improvements that were possible because of those changes.

Let me give an illustration furnished by the Department of Agriculture a short time ago. In 1850 it took one man 39 hours to produce an acre of corn; to-day it requires only 18 hours. In 1850 it took a man 61 hours to produce an acre of wheat; now it takes only ten hours. In 1850 it took a man 21 hours to harvest an acre of hay; to-day it takes only 8 hours. In Belgium one man works five acres of land; in England, 10 acres; in Ontario, 40 acres. That is, Ontario's production per man is very much higher than in those two countries, although their yield per acre is very much greater than ours.

As to our field crops and other farm produce during the years that have been complained about, taking the years prior to the war, the following statement will be interesting as applying to Ontario:

1883 1913

Field crops $114,000,000 $160,000,000Farm buildings .. 163,000,000 345,000,000Live stock

99,000,000 237,000,000

This is not an indication that agriculture was going back in that province. The same applies to the Dominion. The total farm products of Canada in 1900 amounted to $364,000,000; in 1910, $663,000,000; in 1919, $1,197,000,000.

If there have been abandoned farms, as is contended-and there were some, but they are very few in so far as that pprt

of the country is concerned-there were also abandoned factories. It is sometimes contended that every farmer is a man who is suffering, and that every manufacturer is a man who is prospering; but in the ten years 4,500 failures of manufacturing concerns have taken place in Canada. And, let me say that rural depopulation has ceased to exist in Ontario, if it ever did exist. Abandoned farms are few where the land is good and reasonably certain for cultivation.

It cannot be denied, however, that there is still a shortage of farm labour, and nobody has been able to suggest a remedy that can be adopted to provide against that shortage. Everybody knows that there is very considerable unemployment in the cities, while the farmers require hired men. The reason that those idle men in the cities are not employed in the country is because the farmers are unable to pay the wages demanded, and those who are out of employment refuse to accept the wages the farmer is able to pay. If any one can devise means by which the two can be brought together, he will be doing a good service to his country, but so far nobody has proposed legislation or any other remedy that will accomplish that end.

While everybody is anxious to see as many people as possible working on the land, it would not be well for everybody, or even nearly everybody, to be a farmer. It is a fact that those countries in which farming is the chief occupation of the people are not countries which we look upon as examples, so to speak. In Mexico nearly all the people are on the land. In Russia 85. per cent of the people are still engaged in farming, and in India the proportion is equally large. An hon. gentleman referred the other day to a native of China, a grandson of Confucius, as giving valuable instruction to the people of this and other countries. In China the people are largely on the land, and Canadians, supposed to be downtrodden and taxed to death, are subscribing money to keep the Chinese people from starving in the famine districts. I mention these things because in recent years it has been a common practice on many platforms to assert that the farmers all over Canada, particularly those in Ontario, are suffering because of the policy of protection. It is a fact, however, that under the policy of protection the farmers of Canada have prospered as they never prospered before, and they are prospering to-day much more than they would have done had the policy

of free trade which is advocated in some quarters been adopted.

Another complaint we frequently hear is that the farmers are subjected to unfair taxation. There is no doubt that the farmers are able and willing to hear their fair share of the burden of taxation, and the complaint that they are unduly taxed is not justified by the facts. One complaint that is heard very frequently is that the duty on farm implements is a heavy burden upon those engaged in agriculture. But those who have made a careful study of the situation say otherwise. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), himself a farmer, is an example. He showed the other night that $28 per annum was the amount paid in customs taxes by the farmer on the ordinary 100 acres of land. If that is true-and I have no doubt that it is-surely there is not much ground for complaint on that score.

Then there is the other argument that the tariff increases the price of farm implements, and that if the duty were removed, if we had free trade, prices would come down. But the experiences of the past have not shown that to be the case either. The question of binder twine has been before the country for many years. There is no tax on binder twine, and if the arguments of free traders hold good that article should be just as cheap in Canada as it is in the United States. But the facts are that this year in Ontario-* and I have no doubt in the western provinces as well-the price of binder twine was from 20 to 211 cents per pound, while in the United States-Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois-the price was 161 cents. This is an instance of what we might expect if the duty on other articles was removed.

Then, there is the other article about; which so much has been said, the cream separator. Mr. Findley gave a very exhaustive statement on this subject last fall. He pointed out that a cream separator sells for $105, no duty being imposed, but that a mower, in which there is very much more material and the construction of which involves more labour, sells for $97 although it is subject to a duty of 121 per cent. These are sample cases; I am sure that instances of this kind could be multiplied indefinitely.

The question has been raised whether the burden is too heavy in other directions. Does the income tax bear too heavily upon the farmers of Canada? Everybody knows that it does not. Answering a question in the House of Commons a few weeks ago the Finance Minister said that the

amount collected in income tax up to February 28, 1921 was $62,687,258 and that of this amount the farmers had paid in 1917 and 1918-the returns for 1919 being not then complete-$957,980. This shows that the income tax is being carried by those who are best able to pay and is evidence of the wisdom of the Finance Minister in imposing it as he has done.

We hear a good deal this afternoon about the sales tax. I said at the beginning of my remarks that the member for Essex was in a doleful mood; I do not think he was any more doleful, however, than our usually cheerful friend the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) : The sales tax,

according to him, was everything that was bad. The hon. member estimated that the sales tax would amount to $147.50 per family.


John Flaws Reid

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :

I wish to correct my hon. friend; I did not make any such statement. What I did say was that the customs tax plus the sales tax would amount to $147.50.


Samuel Charters



posed on goods imported into the United Kingdom. In other words, the average amount paid by the residents of the United Kingdom, represented as a free trade country, by way of customs tariff tax last year was $16, only $3.50 per head less than that collected in Canada, which is supposed to be a high tariff country. The amount paid in England per family, therefore, would be about $80 per family.

The hon. gentleman, who complains about the sales tax, the customs tax and almost every other tax, subscribes to the doctrine that there should be freedom from taxation and free trade everywhere. That view, of course, he has the right to hold and to advance as far as he is able. But surely he must forget that we require $450,000,000 of revenue during the next year. Where are we going to get it? If he wipes out $100,000,000 or thereabouts in customs duties, the portion of the sales tax with which he is dissatisfied, and other items dealt with in the platform which he supports, we shall have very great difficulty in securing the money or in providing other means of taxation. As to a land tax, I venture to say that it would not be very acceptable to the farmers of this country.

Let us keep in mind that there must be industrial centres and the question is whether they will be in Canada or in a foreign country. Every shoe factory that is now in operation, every woollen industry, every foundry, every factory of any kind, gives considerable employment, increases the purchasing power of the community, and adds to the prosperity of the people. Seven hundred thousand men are now engaged in the factories of the country and are supporting no less than 2,000,000 of the people in this Dominion. In that number 75,000 are engaged in branch factories of American concerns that have been established in this country because of the tariff, and that are established only because the tariff has been imposed. These people are receiving from those factories no less a sum than $80,000,000 in wages annually. Surely, we are not anxious that that should be reduced in any way, and I am quite satisfied that if the policy advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite is put into effect, there will be very few, if any, of those factories remaining in Canada five years hence.

We are anxious also to interest outside capital. We cannot interest outside capital by the method adopted by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) who speaks for the

Opposition as a financial critic. That hon. gentleman the other day gave this warning:

If there are any people in Canada who are contemplating the establishment of new lines of business in which they feel that tariff protection is necessary, I do them a friendly service when I say: "Don't do it," because anybody who counts upon the continuance of a protective policy is bound to find that he is pursuing a delusion. If any outside capitalist purposes coming to Canada to start some industry which he believes can only be kept alive by protection, again, I advise him not to come.

That is not good advice to those who are contemplating coming to Canada. It is not good advice to those who are here; but as the hon. gentleman and his friends will not have an opportunity for many years to come of putting their views into practice, I do not know that we need pay much attention to it. The National Policy has met with the approval of the people; the policy that has made Canada great during forty years will continue to make Canada greater and greater in the years that are immediately before us.


Andrew Knox


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):

Mr. Speaker, while I have been listening to the different contributions to this debate during the last few days, there have presented themselves to my mind several thoughts which I venture to place before the House. In the first place, the one outstanding feature of the Budget, as I see it, is that while an effort is made by my genial friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) to raise the necessary funds to meet what are, in some cases, unnecessary expenditures, a very different policy is followed this year from what was repeatedly announced last year as being the policy of the Government, that is that while last year the policy of direct taxation was placarded all over the luxury taxes of unhappy memory, this year the Government has changed its mind and adopted its old policy of indirect taxation and, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has pointed out, these taxes actualy place a heavier burden upon the workingman than upon the millionaire. In this regard, I would point out that in the United States while they are repealing the excess profits tax, they at the same time propose to replace it by a tax upon corporate profits, so that this tax may be adjusted according to ability to pay. But under our Budget scheme, the business profits tax is repealed, and the burden is shifted on to the shoulders of the consuming public in the shape of a 50 per cent increase in the sales tax.

A good deal has been said about expenditure in other countries in comparison with Canada, and a few days ago the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) gave us bushels of figures along this line, but then he did not give the whole story. I find that the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States announced, in his estimate of expenditure for this year, a reduction of $1,000,000,000 from that of last year, or in other words, a reduction in round numbers from $5,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000. This expenditure of $4,000,000,000 which is proposed for this year works out at $37 per capita, while ours in Canada of $591,000,000 on an estimate of our population of 8,500,000, is just aropnd $70 for each man, woman and child in the Dominion. That is to say, $37 per capita in the United States and $70 per capita in Canada, or almost double that in the United States. The Minister of Militia and Defence, however, showed us that the militia and defence expenditure in Canada is only $1.69 per capita, while in the United States he showed it to be $13.13 per capita. This would leave an expenditure for everything outside of defence of $23.87 per capita in the United States as against $68.31 per capita in Canada, or. practically three times as much.

I am reminded of another famous speech by the Minister of Militia and Defence in which he criticises the farmers of the Dominion for purchasing machinery made in the United States. I would draw his attention to a statement of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), that last year Canada imported 2,000,000 pounds of strawberries and 4,000,000 pounds of out of season tomatoes from the United States, and I would ask him: Does he think these were purchased by the farmers?

While the expenditure of the United States is being cut down by $1,000,000,000 and is only $37 per capita as against our $70, the Secretary of the Treasury is evidently convinced that it is still too high, and in his message to the Committee on Ways and Means he has this to say about it, which might well be considered here:

The nation cannot continue to spend at this shocking rate. As the President said in his message, the burden is unbearable and there are two avenues of relief. "One is rigid resistance in appropriation and the other is utmost economy in administration." This is no time for extravagance or for entering upon new fields of expenditure. The nation's finances are sound and its credit is the best in the world, but it cannot afford reckless or wasteful expenditure. New or large expenditures cannot be financed without increased taxes or new loans. Expenditures

should not even be permitted to continue at the present rate.


Samuel Francis Glass



Could my hon. friend tell the House what are the per capita imports of the United States and the per capita imports of Canada? They would have a material bearing on this question.


Andrew Knox



I am speaking about the per capita expenditures, and I think the quotations given should be quite satisfactory to prove my argument.

In regard to our estimates of expenditure for this year, I would point out that there are .many items, some very large items, which might well be eliminated in view of the strenuous times through which we are passing, and in view of the fact that to meet these expenditures it is necessary to resort to further taxation of the great masses of the common people who are already indirectly taxed to the limit on almost everything they purchase, outside of some foodstuffs. Why should the workingman of the city of Prince Albert, or the homesteader or farmer of northern Saskatchewan have to pay an increased tax for the purpose of spending millions of dollars on the Welland and Trent Valley canals, which can give no immediate returns, while they are denied the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, knowing as they do that the difference between the transportation charges by the present route and the Hudson bay route would mean the difference between success and failure for them?

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. member for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt) as a supporter of the Government, criticise in no milk and water fashion . the wanton expenditures that are taking place, particularly that connected with the Trent Valley canal. I am sure that many hon. members supporting the Government, if they really spoke out their minds, would speak in the same way. The argument has been made that these expenditures are merely for the purpose of giving employment. If that is the case, I can easily mention a number of ways in which employment can be given with much more beneficial effect than by this expenditure on canals and dry docks. One way in particular that commends itself to me, and that would certainly have the advantage of benefiting a class of men well deserving of it, would be a loan to the returned man, so that he might build a house for himself and thus help to re-establish himself in the country. If the same amount

were expended in this way it would give a great deal more employment than if expended on canals and dry docks; secondly, it would be spread over the whole Dominion more equally; thirdly, the money would eventually find its way back to the treasury; and fourthly, and most important of all, you would have the satisfaction of knowing that you were doing something for the man who really deserved it. Many of these men have come back with the full intention of marrying and settling down, but in view of the present housing situation, this is impossible. In many of the towns and cities rents are practically beyond reach, and very few returned men are in a position to build without assistance. I ask the Government seriously to consider this proposal.

Speaking of northern Saskatchewan, I would point out that the people there are naturally optimistic if they are only given a chance. They feel that they have an unequalled heritage both in soil and climatic conditions. It is now more than fifty years since the first settlement was made in the Prince Albert constituency, and during that time we have never had a crop failure. We have untold undeveloped natural resources in the northern part of the constituency, but vast areas are handicapped for want of transportation facilities. Speaking of transportation facilities, I was gratified to hear the Minister of Railways announce a few days ago, when giving the programme of branch lines on which steel would be laid this year, that steel would be laid on the Paddockwood line north of Prince Albert, and on the line running north-east from Melford. I have here a copy of the Prince Albert Daily Herald, published since then, making reference to this construction, and I wish to quote a short extract to show that the people there are mindful of the situation, and appreciate what it is proposed to do:

Much gratification is naturally felt in the city and district over the announcement from Ottawa that the Paddockwood railway line is on the program for rails this year, which means that trains may he running north from this city before the snow flies again. Operation of this branch will at the outset open up a rich territory but the importance of the new line lies not so much in the first twenty miles as in later extensions which will put a vast area possessing wonderful natural resources into touch with Prince Albert.

Laying of steel on the north line will be most gladly welcomed by the prosperous soldier settlement which has gone in around Paddockwood. It is possibly largely on account of promises made to this settlement that the Government has decided to proceed with this line in a year

when only a small mileage of steel laying will be attempted.

In view of the plan of the Government it will be necessary that the grading work on this line be rushed to completion so that there will be no reason to be advanced on that score why the steel cannot be laid in late summer and fall.

The contract was let and the grading partly completed last year. The balance is being rushed now, so as to be ready for the steel.

I must admit that I can see a slight ray of light, possibly a slight indication of penitence, in the fact that the Minister of Finance has exempted from the sales tax foodstuffs in their natural state, as well as the first product of the fisheries, mines and forests. If the Government would only extend this exemption to apply to customs tariffs on the implements of production used in these same lines, I would be forced to the conclusion that they had at last repented, though it might be only death-bed repentance. I am sorry, however, that there are no indications of any such thing.

As the platform of the Progressive party calls for the free admission of the implements of production and the amendment now before the House also calls for that, I shall certainly vote for the amendment.

The present Government has announced its policy as a policy of protection. We know where they stand in that regard. We also know where the Manufacturers' Association stands with regard to the Government. But what is this protection going to do for the farmer of this country? It is going to increase the price of everything he has to buy without any corresponding increase for what he has to sell, and it is going to increase the cost of living for the public generally. Here is what the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour once said about protection, speaking in Edinburgh:

A protective policy ie a policy which aims at supporting or creating home industries by raising home prices. The raising of prices is a necessary step towards the encouragement of an industry under a protective system. The object of protection i-s to encourage home industries. The means whereby it attains that object is by the manipulation of a fiscal system to raise home prices. If the home prices are not raised, the industry is not encouraged. If the industry is encouraged, it is by the raising of prices.

I think that that coming from a man like Mr. Balfour, shows that it is a recognized thing that protection does increase prices. A few days ago I had a letter from a western farmer who gives a good deal of thought and study to economic and public questions, and one paragraph coincided so

closely with my own views on the subject that I venture to quote it here.

To make our railroads profitable we must have production along their lines; to have production we must have people; to have people producing we must create such economic conditions surrounding production that they can reasonably hope to make that production profitable.

I would ask, in all fairness, if there is any indication on the part of the present Government, or one jot or tittle of evidence in their policy, to show that they are making the least attempt to create such economic conditions surrounding production of the natural products that those engaged therein may reasonably expect to make that production profitable. If there is, I have been unable to find it.

A great deal has been said about a Board of Inquiry to inquire into the grain trade. If anything can be done to improve condi-ditions in that trade, it will certainly be appreciated by the people of the West, but permit me, Sir, to inform this House that there is a strong feeling throughout tire West at present that this board has been appointed for a very different purpose than to improve conditions in the grain trade. This feeling is gaining ground, not only among the opponents of the Government, but also among those who are, or possibly I would be more correct in saying, who were, supporters of the Government. I have before me a copy of an article written by a gentleman of the latter class, and published recently in western papers over his own signature. He is Mr. E. N. Hopkins, a prominent citizen of the city of Moosejaw, a most highly respected man, who for some years held the high and honourable position of President of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, and who still is honorary president of that association. He was always known as a staunch and loyal supporter of the Conservative party, and as proof of that I would point out that he was appointed by that party some six or eight years ago as a member of the Economic Development Commission, so there need be no mistake as to this gentleman's political standing. I shall not read the whole article. After dealing with certain matters connected with the grain trade and the Board of Grain Commissioners, Mr. Hopkins has this to say:

If I were to give the Government a little friendly advice-unsolicited-I would say that the farmers have been wondering for some time if a farmers' government would not foe a distinct improvement, and they are now beginning

to feel confident that it could not be worse than the present regime. The first thought is dangerous, but the second will be fatal to the Government once the farmer realizes the absolute justness of the case and the utter weakness and unfairness of the shallow arguments advanced by the Grain Commission. The present Government would be well advised to take time by the forelock and make as many as possible of the "faithful" safe and comfortable by placing them in that political graveyard known as the Canadian Senate, for, unless they mend their ways, their days are numbered, and we would have them know that the mal-admin-istration of the Grain Act has played no small part in their downfall. The farmers of the West have very little use for governments that "break faith" and for commissions that prove false to the trust reposed in them.

Appeasing Farmers' Wrath Since writing the foregoing word has come to hand that the Government has appointed a commission to investigate the whole grain trade. By this means It is hoped to appease the wrath of the farmers and give the Government time to go over the same ground, bring down more legislation, and entrust the administration of same to three or four more of their incompetent but very faithful henchmen. But this will only bring us back to where we started. There is no need for any investigation into the grain trade, no need for any further legislation, but there is very real need of the present Board of Grain Commissioners being fired and replaced by men who are not only thoroughly conversant with the grain trade, but are also known to be sympathetic in their attitude towards the act which they are required to administer. The whole difficulty is that we have a Grain Commission which is not in sympathy with the Grain Act, and which, therefore, makes no effort to administer the Act in the spirit in which it was conceived. To. suggest an enquiry into the grain trade and to take One of the grain commissioners , and place him on the board of enquiry is a most extraordinary procedure-especially when it is borne in mind that the activities of the Grain Commissioners will come in for close examination during the investigation. With a grain commissioner on the board of enquiry it is safe to assume that anything reflecting on the Grain Commissioners will be ruled outside the terms of reference, and the unfortunate farmer will once again find himself the goat in another piece of political strategy.

What may we expect from a commissioner who has been unable to interpret the spirit or intent of an Act he has administered for years?

I might add Mr. Speaker, that the people of the West are anxious, if any investigation is to take place, that it be carried out in such a way that the members of the Board of Grain Commissioners be called upon to appear as witnesses and not as judges. I commend this thought to the Government.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier

Laurier Liberal

Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) :

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, several sittings of this House have been taken up by the debate on the Budget. Such as it is, this speech is open to a good deal of criticism,

as well as the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. To my mind some statements have been made which should not go unchallenged. Although the discussion concerning the financial and economic aspect of the question has been dragging on for quite a while, I feel it my duty to submit a few remarks to your indulgent attention. The most to be deplored in the present Budget is to my mind the regrettable state of our finances. Indeed any one who has followed so far this debate, is forced to recognize that the burden of our taxes is ever increasing; that the extent of our liabilities is now boundless. Following on this dismal picture, it is painful to note the deplorable lack of a progressive tariff policy which might relieve the general uneasiness in the country by bringing on a revival in production and trade which might take us back to the much regretted happiness and prosperity of former years.

Our finances, as every one admits, are in a deplorable condition, and yet. the Government does nothing to remedy it. I understood that after the great war, we should have had a painful burden of debt to bear. Had it been only that, we could by necessary sacrifices effectually meet our liabilitites, however heavy. No, I do not refer here to the encumbrances, the necessary consequence of our participation in the war. These we regard as a debt of honour; let us put aside the consideration of the causes which brought them on; besides the people understand that the sacrifices represented by taxes to be paid in money, can never equal our greater and nobler sacrifices in blood. No, I shall not speak here of the burdens created by the war; but I wonder, in connection with these heavy sacrifices, which some were ready to offer to "the last dollar and the last man," how the Government can be exonerated for the unwarranted expenditure of these last years. Can the Government ever be forgiven for the millions of dollars sunk in the acquisition of bankrupt railways, in the creation of a merchant marine, in the maintenance of public services, such as those of health and road building, which undoubtedly belong to the Provincial Governments, a policy which involves a constant menace of an unconstitutional encroachment upon the autonomy of the provinces?

Are the Government justifiable in spending millions annually for the creation of a permanent army after the enormous cost of our participation in the war? This is to my mind the grossest inconsistency

IMr. Fortier.]

on the part of our ministers; this is something which clearly demonstrates the incapacity and lack of foresight of the Government; this is, in a word, a most manifest example of the antinational and unpatriotic policy of our rulers.

The hon. Minister of Militia, in the wake of the right hon. Minister of Commerce, has thought proper to take a hand in this debate in defence of the expenditure of his department. He stated that his military expenditure was low in view of the present revenue of the country, and that they did not amount to the contributions made for that object by countries comparable to ours in population and resources. I may answer that it must not be forgotten that our revenue cannot serve as a point of comparison in connection with military expenditures, past, present or future, for this revenue has been artificially swollen with all kinds of possible provisional taxes with a view to meet liabilities incurred in the war. As tp other countries, it is immaterial to us whether they engage in militarism and misconceive the needs of the day. They are, however, not to be justified for ignoring the pacific spirit which should prevail in the League of Nations. As we cannot boast of an independence which might in another country justify the maintenance of an army, we are not called upon to follow their example and we should not forget that after all we are but a colony. I shall now proceed to communicate to this House an important statement which the predecessor of the present Prime Minister made to the press indicating a stand which his successor was wrong in not adopting. This statement was made in January, 1921, in reply to a request from an American newspaper leading a crusade in favour of general disarmament.

Sir Robert's view on disarmament In reply to a request from the New York World, which is conducting a crusade for a general disarmament by Great Britain, 'United States and Japan, Sir Robert Borden has sent the following statement to the World. "I sympathise most deeply and earnestly with every reasonable proposal for the reduction of armaments." Untold sacrifices endured in the Great War will have been wholly in vain if the nations are still to compete in a mad struggle for supremacy in the power of destruction. The economic folly of such a policy is to,, manifest to be gainsaid. Is there not a sorrowful and bitter protest from millions on the verge of starvation in Europe and Asia which must ring in the ears of every thoughtful man? Continued competition in armaments assuredly brings the nations to the path that leads to the ultimate disintegration of existing civilization the foundations of which have already been rudely shaken. How can it

be otherwise: To those who ask for bread

civilization gives armaments. In the boundary between Canada and the United States, unfortified for more than a century save by the common trust which has never been violated and in the intimate friendship which that just confidence has maintained and strengthened, we have given to humanity a lesson which ought never to be forgotten in the determination of this supreme question.

R. L. Borden.

By one of their authorized spokesmen (the right hon. Minister of Commerce) the Government has defended the large appropriations of the Budget for the creation and maintenance of an army. Our military organization is to be retained; our military spirit is to be preserved. It is alleged on the Government side that peace is not permanently established in the world, and that as long as the Central Powers have not abided by their obligations under the treaties, we must, as the other allies, have an army on land and sea, which must cost enormously.

These are but pretenses suggested 'by the Government as a justification for most absurd expenditures which are condemned by the people. Let us examine the situation, and let us try to find out whether there is any real need for such military expenditure in order to insure the carrying out of the Peace Treaty or the defence of our country against all possible aggression.

To begin -with, we have won the war, and our enemies, vanquished and crushed, have on their knees begged for peace from the Allies. In order that this peace be genuine, arms were surrendered and the Imperial armies disbanded. I do not know that any of the allied countries has found it necessary to organize its army and to increase its war budget, with the sole object of forestalling a sudden attack from the disarmed common enemy, nor that it ever was, since the armistice, the desire of the Supreme Council of the League of Nations to henceforth cover Europe with permanent military camps. Was it not the object of the war to crush the monster of militarism? Hear the memorable words of a thinker: "This war is going to kill war."

, Have we already forgotten how England rose in its might, in 1914, to protect Belgium's neutrality which .Germany despised and would have cast to the winds as she would a scrap of paper; to disarm the Germans and protect the smaller Christian nations against the brutal axiom: "Might is right."

When victory came, the allied nations wished by a memorial, to commemorate in a permanent way the re-establishment of a long-lived peace, and with this end in view the League of Nations was formed. Our young country has the honour of sending representatives to the conference of this League of Nations; Canada will be represented as a nation alongside of our Mother Country, her voice is heard; she is listened to with respect. Does she not speak in favour of a reduction of armaments. It is iihportant that the military policy of the Government should permit them to say that the Dominion of Canada is in favour of disarmament. Do not the great sacrifices, both in men and in money, which Canada has made for the war, call imperiously on her administrators to secure peace throughout the world by means of disarmament and by the compulsory arbitration of all disputes which may arise between nations?

It is Canada's duty to reduce as much as possible her expenditure for armies, both on land and sea. It is equally Canada's duty, as the oldest and most powerful British colony, she who is recognized as a nation, to declare herself by word and deed in favour of disarmament, the abolishment of the military system, the respect due to small nations, to minorities and proclaim the triumph of civilization and right. After all, why should we have an army? Were we an independent nation, had we any aspirations towards playing a part in the world, I understand that our national dignity would require that we make the necessary sacrifices for the maintenance of an army. But, we are only a British colony, and though we enjoy, it is true, a [DOT] beneficent autonomy, we are nevertheless gloriously held by the colonial bond.

An independent nation may have to maintain an army for three reasons: First, to protect her independence; secondly, to assure her national development; thirdly, for the maintenance of order and peace.

During this debate some one suggested that an army would be needed to defend our territory. It is assuredly not when we are celebrating the centenary of our friendly relations with our good neighbours of the American Republic, that we will think of erecting forts near the 45th parallel. Moreover, these militia expenditures which are totally unwarrantable for the very reasons which I have just mentioned, could not be undertaken on account of our linancial situation.

The Minister of Finance has admitted that the national debt now amounted to $2,350,236,700. Last year, when he presented his financial Budget, he assured the House and the country that not only would the debt not be increased but that it would be reduced. Yet, the present year has seen an increase of $101,368,077 in our national debt. If we consider the reasons for this increase in our national indebtedness we come to the conclusion that it is due to the administration of a Government which, under several names, have been in power since 1911, and more particularly to their policy of participation in the European war and their railway policy. Let us subtract from the expenditure for the last fiscal year $212,000,000, which represent our war outlay and $13,000,000, representing our railway expenses, and we shall have a surplus.

What will be our financial position next year? It is easy to foresee, as does the Minister of Finance, that we shall still have a larger deficit. There are no new taxes to fill in the ever increasing gap in our Budget. Last year, we had to pay $140,000,000 interest on a revenue of $432,000,000. This year, we shall have to pay the same interest on a revenue which has been reduced to $372,000,000. The expenditure shall be $600,000,000 approximately. How can we meet such a deficit?

I would like to conclude these remarks which have been suggested to me by the sad position in which we are placed financially, by quoting a writer of the present time:

The speech delivered by the Minister of Finance is anything but encouraging. We should not be astonished. Are we not governed at present by Mr. Meighen, he who was ready during the war to lead the country into bankruptcy? It was also our Prime Minister, and one must not forget it, who, by a stroke of the hand, purchased the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk. It is then but fair that Mr. Meighen be in charge of public affairs at the present moment so that he may witness the effects of his policy. In' 1914, our debt amounted to $335,996,850; to-day after these seven years of a Borden-Meighen administration, the debt has increased to $2,350,236,700.

Mr. Meighen's desire has been nearly realized, our finances are in a pitiful state and were it not for the inexhaustible resources of our young country, Canada would be on the verge of bankruptcy. Ever since 1914, we have run from one deficit to another: when shall we see the end?

The economists are right when they say that the most powerful weapon given to statesman to repel the disastrous and repeated raids on the public treasury and

prevent the disorganization of a country's finances, is the tariff. It is with a view to bringing back confidence among a large section of partisans of the Government and among the people who have at heart the country's interest, that the Government kept on promising for the last few years a general revision of the tariff, so much so, that as soon as the war was over, western members supporting the Government thought it was time to talk about the tariff so as to bring reduction on duties tending more or less to free trade. What was the Government's answer? That they would not revise the tariff? No, but they stated that a general revision would take place as soon as a full enquiry was made throughout the country so as to discover what new needs have arisen from the war. The enquiry took place; the opening of the session was even postponed in order to allow the Minister of Finance to hold meetings in all cities. Now that the Government have all this information, when it is obvious that the majority of the people are in favour of lowering the tariff in the sense recommended by the Liberal party, the Government imbued, as they have always been, with the Conservative and Tory spirit, refuse to grant this popular demand and to revise our fiscal policy. The Government have no right to delay unfairly a revision which they admitted themselves to be necessary. What the people want now is a downward revision of the tariff as recommended by the continuous and traditional policy of the Liberal party. The Government know it too well and this explains why, in this House as well as in their party organs they refuse to discuss this question on its merits. They delight in falsely representing to the country at large that the Liberal party are in favour of free trade, thus seeking to make the electors believe that the discussion is based on free trade versus protection. As regards this last complaint against the Government my conclusion is this: After the

solemn promise given the farmers last year; after the commissioners' report to the Minister of Finance on the opinion of the people touching the tariff, notwithstanding the clever but less substantial spech of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) I am bound to conclude that the Government is bringing dishonour upon themselves by refusing to revise the tariff in the course of the present session; the dishonour lies in the fact that the Government refuse to keep their word. I join with the farmers in so stigmatizing them.

I am most happy to give my sincere \ support to the amendment presented by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). It represents faithfully the views of Liberal members of this House, it would receive the whole-hearted support of the majority of the electors, should an election take place, and it is in accord with the best traditions of the Liberal party. Since the large convention of 1893 which took place but a few years before the Liberals came into power, up to the conference of 1919, which will be followed by a similar victory at the next general election, the Liberal policy as regards the tariff has always been the same, unceasingly this policy has been directed towards a downward revision of the tariff so as to help the consumers while it amply provided for revenue. During a period of fifteen years the Liberals have made their country happy and prosperous. To-day I am glad to once more endorse this policy recommended by my party and I shall do so by voting for the amendment.

On motion of Mr. Armstrong (Lambton) the debate was adjourned.




On motion of Mr. Steele for the third reading of Bill No. 38 to incorporate La Compagnie de Telephone Quebec Union Electrique (The Quebec Union Electric Telephone Company)-Mr. Power.


James Alexander Robb

Laurier Liberal


The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) told me this afternoon that he desired to move a very slight amendment to one of the clauses of this Bill. He is not yet in his seat, and under the circumstances I would ask that the Bill stand.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):

i Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member for Beauce given notice of the amendment? If not, the Bill should not be allowed to stand.


Georges Henri Boivin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Laurier Liberal


The notice

required by Rule 112 has not been given. The motion for third reading has been made in the regular way. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Carried on division.



Bill No. 147, for the relief of John Wilson.-Mr. Fripp. Bill No. 148, for the relief of Albert Harding.-Mr. Fripp. Bill No. 149, for the relief of Thomas Furneaux.-Mr. Mowat. Bill No. 150, for the relief of Matthew John Scott.-Mr. Best. Bill No. 151, for the relief of Dora Lucy Bell.-Mr. Mowat. Bill No. 152, for the relief of Henry Kropp.-Mr. Smith. Bill No. 153, for the relief of Arthur Daughton.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona). Bill No. 154, for the relief of Annie Maude Bell. Mr. Boys. Bill No. 155, for the relief of Thomas Henry Foster.-Mr. Rowell. On motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House adjourned at 11.13 p.m. Monday, May 16, 1921.

May 14, 1921