I made no such statement. I said that these munificent gains which are going to bring prosperity to the West-the hon. gentleman included, I suppose-all these small gains in the aggregate constituted a large loss for the manufacturers of implements. That is what I said, and it is quite correct, I doubt if my hon. friend at this time in the morning can analyze the statement.
100. Then if we had the same rate on wheat for one-third the distance we should only pay 214 cents instead of 414 cents, or if they had our rate then they would pay SI.25 instead of 64 cents, and this 64 cents on coal, remember, is a domestic rate, not an export rate.
A few other discrepancies might be quoted to show the chaotic condition of this freight rate question. Sugar from Vancouver to Calgary, 640 miles, costs 98 cents per hundred; to haul it to Winnipeg, an additional 833 miles, only costs 62 cents. Tea costs from Vancouver to Calgary SI.50 per hundred, and to haul it an additional 1,256 miles to Fort William costs exactly nothing; in other words, the rate is the same to either point 1,256 miles apart. Grain from Calgary to Winnipeg, 833 miles costs 26 cents; Winnipeg to Port Arthur, 423 miles, costs nothing. Is it any wonder that the people in St. John say that if wheat can be taken from Winnipeg to Port Arthur for nothing, why not Montreal to St. John, which is only 480 miles.
The domestic rate on tea from Vancouver to Calgary in carload lots is $1.45, and the " domestic rate from Vancouver to Winnipeg, $2.51. To Winnipeg the import rate is $1.50 in carload lots, the same to Fort William, Brandon, Edmonton, Weybum, Regina, Moose Jaw. In less than carload lots the rate is $2.
There has been a lot said in this debate about the uncertainty the manufacturers are in if the tariff is taken off; they do not know what to do, it is said. But I wonder how much certainty the farmer who produces the grain and live stock in this country has? Who guarantees him an income? Who guarantees him a reasonable price? Who guarantees him a reasonable return for his labour? The farmer is up against weather conditions and other uncontrollable factors, but we do not lie down and whine and ask that somebody else be taxed to keep us alive and in the game. The railways through the Railway Commission have their dividends guaranteed, the same applies to the Bell Telephone Company. It is guaranteed eight per cent, and its stock has gone up to 127i and was up to 128 yesterday. We have no dividends guaranteed to the farmers. I do not believe in guaranteeing any man's investment in this country. Every time you guarantee a man's investment you are creating a contingent liability on the credit of the other fellow. The manufacturers say that this uncertainty is killing the industry. I say it is not, and we propose to kill that heresy.
My right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition charged the government with bring-
ing irrelevant issues into the campaign. Well, some of us fellows have the idea that members of his party did the same thing out in the West, but we are not making much complaint about it. He also said that unity in Canada was essential, and in that I entirely agree with him. Urban and rural, east and west, manufacturer and farmer, we are all solid for that doctrine. I asked the right hon. gentleman to-night if he preached that doctrine in Montreal and Toronto, he said that he did. Now all through our debates in this House the right hon. gentleman has been trying to hang every slip and every defection from the party opposite on to the Prime Minister himself. He holds him responsible not only for his ministers, but for all the members of his party. It is therefore only fair that he should accept the same responsibility for his own following, and if there is one thing that we need in this country it is harmony. Now I would say to the right hon. leader of the opposition that one member of his party, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), through his work is doing as much to spread dissension and distrust in this country as anyone I can think of. There is nothing to be gained by that sort of thing, and the Conservative party can never work themselves into public favour by adopting such tactics. I refer to some of the work that the hon. member for west Toronto does in the Orange Sentinel. We read in the Scriptures: "Whatsoever things are
pure, whatsoever things' are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, . . . .
think on these things." I do not see very much of that kind of thing being reported or discussed in the Orange Sentinel.
It is time that sort of stuff was dropped. While I am a member of the same church as the hon. member for West Toronto I never feel proud of the fact when I look at the Orange Sentinel, which is not very often. If we want unity we must first establish a desire for it in the hearts of men. There is something of more value than making money in this country and that is that men may think rightly toward one another. The methods of my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) are not helping towards that end but having the very opposite effect.
In regard to the budget while it has not gone as far as some of us would like, especially in certain lines, yet it is a step in the right direction and I am going to support it.
is morning. I say this with regret but not with apologies.
It is quite clear to me, indeed abundantly clear, that the surplus of $30,400,000 claimed by the government does not exist. I have listened to the debate from both sides of the House on this matter and the only excuse, or explanation, I have heard from the government side has been "but they did it also," referring to the Conservative party. In the budget statement we find an allowance of only $23,781,000 for the deficit on the railways, whereas according to a return made to the House, I think secured by the ex-Minister ot Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), the total deficit for the calendar year was $44,962,760. Now, if we make an allowance for a possible increase-as a matter of fact there really was an, increase in operating revenues over the expenditure for the months of January, February and March-we can estimate-indeed I made an estimate some weeks ago and fairly accurately-that the total deficit for the fiscal year will have been in the neighbourhood of $41,500,000, or $18,719,000 greater than the amount allowed by the Acting Minister of Finance. This obviously reduces the surplus, and the actual reduction in the national debt will then be $11,700,000 of which $8,199,000 is admitted to be a payment on an amount due by the Imperial government. What had happened in this case apparently was that the government had paid out in net ca^h to the railways the amount of $23,781,000 allowed by the Acting Minister of Finance, but in addition they paid out the balance of the deficit of $41,500,000 odd from the loan of
$50,000,000. Now, I regard that loan as just as much a part of the liabilities of this country as, any other item of the national debt. The government, in my opinion, would be well advised to take into consideration the necessity for altering the present accounting methods so that when the annual statement is laid before the country the man in the street, the ordinary business man, could appreciate at a glance exactly what was the financial condition of the Dominion.
I now come to the tariff changes. These I do not intend to discuss in detail. I simply wish to refer to the extraordinary gloom that arose, surrounded, depressed and still rests upon hon. members to my right and the horrible picture which they painted of ruined cities, destroyed industries, and a destitute and impoverished Canada. Well, that picture gave me the creeps. After all who is hurt? Has anybody been hurt yet? May I suggest to my hon. friends to my right that they might have taken into consideration the solicitude with which hon. gentlemen opposite take care that the interests of the manufacturer shall not be hurt. First by a free entry of pig iron, bar iron, and bar steel; secondly by the reduction of 7i per cent under all tariffs of materials which enter into the cost of those articles upon which the duty has been reduced in the budget; thirdly the drawback of 99 per cent on all materials and parts on hand which were imported prior to the date of reduction; fourthly exemption from the sales tax of materials to be used in the manufacture of agricultural implements, as well as of goods consumed in the process of manufacture. On April 30, we find additional advantages brought down. The duty is reduced, or entirely wiped out, on such other articles as enter into steel and iron production. We find free entry of wood handles or stems for shovels, and on a recent date still further advantages were given to manufacturers. All this to the end that those who advocate protection may be saved from its effects. But a further precaution was taken before the budget was even brought down, the precaution of removing the 5 per cent margin that existed between the fair market value of imported goods and the invoice price. It is true that regulation was suspended and then the suspension was suspended but I would call the attention of those who are enemies of protection and the friends of freer trade to the fact that the suspension is only a suspension-it is not a removal. If this situation is not definitely cleared by the words of the Acting Minister of Finance when he closes this debate I doubt very much whether I would be justified in supporting the budget.
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
A body we are told is to be appointed to investigate the matter of taxation and advise this government. If that body is to be^in the nature of a permanent tariff commission I want to register my grave suspicion of it. As a result of the reliefs which I have mentioned it is fair to state that the reductions made in the duty on agricultural implements have been offset entirely, and I am satisfied that were agriculture in even a reasonable condition of prosperity not only would the profit making policy of the implement manufacturers not be damaged but it would be enhanced by the action of the government.
In this connection it may be interesting to again quote-I admit it has been quoted before, but it proves my point-the letter of the Massey-Harris people who make this very clear. It reads:
The provisions of the budget which exempt farm implements from the sales tax are most welcome, and these, combined with the lowering of customs duties on raw materials announced in the government's amendments, now enable the manufacturer to make an immediate reduction in his prices. So far as the Massey-Harris Company is concerned (and no doubt this applies to other implement companies) there will be passed on to the farmer in the way of reduced prices the complete saving effected in the remission of the sales tax and the lessened duties on raw material.
I have a further extract if necessary in support of the position taken by the implement manufacturers. Colonel J. B. Maclean is no free trader. On the contrary he has been guilty of writing articles of the most extravagantly protectionist character; yet in the Montreal Herald of May 14, appeared the following:
Col. J. B. Maclean, who as a publisher of trade
papers naturally represents the views of manufacturers of this country, evidently sees no cause for the alarm of some of the Tory politicians at the Robb budget, for one of his journals, the Financial Post, says: "The old adage that 'an old tax is no tax ' applies very aptly to the present tariff situation. There is little possibility that any of our industries will be wiped out or even seriously handicapped- statements by leaders in the steel, motor and implement industries are less disquieting as the facts arc faced. Looking at the business situation throughout the country as a whole there seems to be little justification for the degree of pessimism which has existed in some sections during the past weeks."
So that the manufacturers are not hurt. Unfortunately, however, we find that the chief basic industry is still in a serious position. It is loaded down with a heavy accumulation of debt, and we are attempting to pay upon those debts interest rates at 8 per cent, 9 per cent and in many cases 10 per cent. At the same time a tremendous disparity exists between the prices we receive for the goods we produce, and the prices we pay for the manufactured goods which are necessary for the maintenance of the farm, the
farmer and his family. The result obviously is either a seriously curtailed or wholly destroyed purchasing power. I could give this House many examples-if it were not so early in the day, of the methods the farmer is employing to meet the situation. He is doing without implements, he is borrowing them from his neighbour, or loaning them to his neighbour, or he is patching up the worn-out implements. I think the action of the government in this matter was not brought in any too soon, but was delayed too long. We find that organizations of farmers in Western Canada are now banding themselves together to pledge each other not to purchase any implements so long as prices continue high. I read the following extract from a report of a Farmers' meeting:
PROTEST AGAINST MACHINERY PRICES Nakamun local recently passed a resolution protesting against the continued rise in price of agricultural machinery, and pledging their members to " desist from purchasing any more new implements, and that in the interests of economy, and with the spirit of mutual aid and co-operation, we make our present outfits serve our purposes, and agree to assist our neighbours wherever a lack of proper machinery is observed.
The inevitable result of that situation, the lack of purchasing power, and the revolt on the part of the farmers against prices has been a tremendous falling off in manufacturers' sales. The proof that this is so may be found on page 529 of the Canada Year Book. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is exceedingly difficult for a private member of this House, and an individual not entirely friendly to the manufacturing interests of this country, so far as protection is concerned
always friendly to them in every other respect-to secure accurate information from these men as to the amount of their sales in this country; so that I cannot produce definite figures with regard to actual sales of farm implements in Canada, but I think it is fair to take the figures given in the Canada Year Book for the imports of agricultural machinery as reflecting the purchasing power of the farmer as regards the not only foreign product but the home product also.
I find that in the year 1921 the total imports of agricultural machinery from all countries into Canada was $24,458,000 worth. In 1922 it had dropped to $7,718,000. In 1923 there is a slight increase, the amount being $8,423,000. However, it should be remembered that during that last year there was a rapid rise in the price of agricultural implements; so that the $8,000,000 purchased less machinery in 1923 than the $7,000,000 in 1922. That I think conclusively shows that the sales have been
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
reduced by two-thirds as compared with 1921, the reason being that the purchasing power of those who consume the goods was gone. But were the manufacturers on the other hand, piling up implements? Were they manufacturing? If we turn to page 525 of the Canada Year Book we will find that the iron ore importation had dropped between the years 1921 and 1923 from nearly 2,000,000 tons to just over 1,000,000 tons, or had been cut in half. Again we find that in pig, ingots, blooms and billets the value of imports was 84,638,987 in 1921, and $2,277,435 in 1923. In scrap iron or steel the amount in 1921 was $2,419,000 and in 1923 the amount was $242,632. Then there was $6,790,520 worth of castings and forgings in 1922, and 83,304,595 worth in 1923; and so the figures continue until we reach the total. The total imports of the raw product of the implement manufacturer for 1922 was $70,056,650, and in 1923 it was only $36,573,581. There had been more than a 50 per cent reduction in the activity of the agricultural implements industry. In short, we may assume that, even before the Robb budget was brought down, the implement manufacturing industry of Canada was in a half dying condition.
It must be clear that a reduction in the duty on agricultural implements can be reflected in the saving to the farmers in this country only if the reduction is passed back to the farmer in reduced prices, and if the farmer is able to purchase the implements. These are the two conditions, and these alone upon which the saving can be returned to the farmer. And so, Mr. Speaker having shown that the purchasing power is gone or practically so, then in spite of the enthusiasm with which the Minister of the Interior assured us of the benefits to agriculture of this budget-and I quote his words:
That this budget has succeeded in extending the most clear cut and practical recognition of the needs of those immense new agricultural and commercial interests which have arisen in western Canada.
I must most regretfully express it as my opinion that, because 'of the lack of purchasing power, even should the saving be passed back to him, the amount would be so very small that the effect of this budget in remedying the condition in agriculture would be pitifully inadequate. I do not, however- let it be clearly understood-decry the timid step taken towards freer trade. I am glad that step was taken, but I do most earnestly point out that all the exaggerated claims of hon. members apposite cannot and will not be fulfilled while agriculture is in its present condition. The most urgent need of the moment is not a reduction of the duties
on agricultural implements. That was one way in which to help slightly, but the most urgent need at tte moment is some system of agricultural credits which will relieve the farmer of the great pyramid of debt which is now bearing down upon agriculture in this country, a system which would release our basic industry from at least a part of the huge interest charges that she is at this time attempting to carry.
Some hon. members think that the immense crop of Alberta this year has solved all our difficulties. May I give to the House the opinion of a banker in this connection?
I asked him last winter what was the actual reflection of the crop on the financial position of the farmer. He answered that as regards current loans, they had been paid up, and that we were in that respect better off than in the previous year. I asked him then with regard to the pile of debt upon our shoulders, and that banker stated that at the most we had removed between 18 and 20 per cent of it. Let me remind hon. members that the crop of 1923 in my province was three times the size of the crop of the previous year and twice the size of any normal crop; yet it had the effect of removing only between 18 and 20 per cent of the debt on our shoulders and leaving 80 per cent carrying a rate of interest of from 8 to 10 per cent. No, the bulk of our debt is still there. Years of ceaseless and heartbreaking toil and bondage to the mortgage companies and the banks face us unless the government takes immediate action.
Let me turn for a moment to Saskatchewan. The premier of that province, Mr. Dunning, in his budget speech, called the attention of the people to the fact that the total proceeds from agricultural products of 1922 was $232,524,300, but in 1923 with, let me remind hon. gentlemen again, a much larger crop, the total proceeds were only $171,556,750, or a loss of $60,967,550 over this previous year's income. No province of the size of Saskatchewan with a population of 750,000 or so can afford to lose in one year nearly $61,000,000 worth of purchasing power and not have that lack reflected in loss to the eastern manufacturers. Does this show agriculture to be on the up grade? Is this what our professional optimists call " turning the corner," towards prosperity? Let us not forever try to fool ourselves and other people. Let me make this [DOT] very clear: There is nothing
wrong with this country. We have the most fertile soil probably in the world. We can raise in my province crops of a quantity and quality unequalled anywhere else in the world. I have never heard of their like. We have mineral resources beyond those of any other
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
province in this country. We have live stock that walk off with the Chicago awards year after year. We win your dairy prizes at the Chicago fair every year. We won first prize for wheat for the world this year. We won first prize for oats. The barley king of the world lives at Claresholm, Alberta. There is nothing wrong with the country. What is wrong is that I see my people there digging in year after year in a well nigh hopeless effort to overcome the handicaps placed upon their industry by the crass stupidity and greed of their fellow men. I have been called a pessimist for uttering truths that have never been successfully contradicted, for picturing conditions that must, in Canada's own interest, be remedied, for saying things that if whispered on the roaring front pages of a Montreal newspaper or ripped down the columns of a Toronto magazine, would be called courageous publicity, or if uttered by a lieutenant governor of a province, would be called " frankly facing the facts." Let me, however, tell hon. members that at every meeting at which I have spoken during the last recess-and I addressed forty-five of them-I made one appeal consistently, that my fellow farmers at that meeting should stay in this country and fight it out with us here; that nothing would be gained by leaving this country and going to the United States or anywhere else. We want to keep them here, but we want a policy that will keep them here. These r en are encouraged to know that even though our efforts are largely nullified by the attitude of opposing interests, they at least have representatives who are pleading their cause without fear of party or of press, and who will not be silent while injustice still stands.
I intend to go on fighting for my people telling the truth about conditions in Canada and no mere name-slinging politician or journalist will intimidate me, nor cause me to slacken in that attack. I appeal to this government to recognize' the condition of the West where high prices and high interest rates are destroying the people and driving them from us, and to recognize that they must do something more effective than merely tickling the tariff. They must tackle it and tackle it courageously. I intend to support the amendment because it represents the principles upon which I appealed to .the electorate and upon which I was elected. The timid and ineffective nature of the tariff changes themselves do not inspire me nor fill me with expectation. Let it, however, be understood that so far as they have gone, they are, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.
While I am on that question, may I refer for a moment to the very able and eloquent speech of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey)? In referring to the amendment, he quoted the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and congratulated him on having become a convert to tariff reform. He attributed the conversion to the fact that the hon. member sat beside the genial and always friendly hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). He quoted from the speeches of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg of 1923, words which would lead one to believe that the hon. member thought that the tariff was but of significant character and that tariff was but of insignificant character and that he had changed his stand thereon.
What the hon. member said-and I quote the words quoted by the hon. member for Springfield-was:
I would, however, like to point out that in the opinion of the group which I represent the mere bringing about of a larger measure of free trade does not really touch the root of the trouble to-day.
Had the hon. member for Springfield only taken the trouble to look at the speech of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg of this year he would have found the following two passages:
Might I suggest that all which was in that article prophesied as likely to happen if protection were abolished has actually happened within the last few years. A good deal of it would have happened even under free trade. The fact is we must get down below either protection or free trade to some more fundamental policy if we would meet the needs of the present hour.
My last point in the analysis of the situation which I made was the necessity of basing our foreign trade policy and international relations on a clear recognition that the world has become an economic unit in which the welfare of each nation is dependent upon the welfare of all others. I venture to say that the movements .which are going on in south-eastern Europe to-day, the proposals which are being put forth by the Dawes commission, the possible change of government in France after the next election, are far more vital to the people of eastern Canada than are the proposed changes in our tariff.
And I most certainly .agree with him. There is no difference whatever in the position taken by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg in 1922, 1923 and 1924. The only difference so far as I can ascertain is in the position of the hon. member for Springfield, who supports a certain policy on the hustings and then comes into the House and refuses to vote for it. I have said that we need some long time credit system in order to help ' agriculture in this country. The report which Dr. Tory has just brought in urges that the movement for rural credits is a normal development arising out of modern scientific
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
agriculture. To-day in Europe the agriculturist can borrow money cheaper than anyone else in the community, while exactly the reverse is the condition in this country. In France he may borrow through the co-operative banking systems and the Credit Fon-cier at 4 per cent; in Denmark, through the system of co-operative banks, at 5 per cent; in Germany farm loans are obtainable at between 4 and 5 per cent; in England from 4i to 6 per cent. The average rate of interest on farm loans in Europe is 5 per cent. In nearly every country in Europe facilities are now provided to meet in some way the demand for cheap mortgage credit and many of these systems are wholly or partly state-established.
I will come to that in a moment. In Australia the agriculturist can obtain loans at 5 per cent, in South Africa at 6 per cent and in New Zealand at 5 per cent. In New Zealand there is a system that allows the farmer to get a loan for 36i years at 5 per cent, and in the United States the maximum rate on farm loans under some of their new systems is 6 per cent, although the rate of interest may be lower. In the United States there was also established a method of equalizing the rate of interest East and West, and I submit that something of that kind should be introduced in this country. I do not wish to quote at any considerable length, but some of the matters discussed in the report of Dr. Tory are of such vital importance to this country that the government, I think, should be considering them at this time. Dr. Tory states that the present system of short mortgage loans makes it difficult, by reason of high cost of equipment and the increasing value of land,-indeed makes it impossible-to redeem mortgages out of farm production, and further that the establishment of a long term amortisation plan for mortgages at a fixed low maximum rate of interest would materially strengthen the position of farmers in competition with Europe. In my opinion, whatever system is set up, it should have as one of its objects the placing ultimately of its administration in the hands of the borrowers and not in the hands of joint stock banks or private mortgage companies which are governed by considerations of profit rather than of service. Some organization for co-ordinating the credit of the farmer is required. It would make it liquid and more readily acceptable to those who have money to lend. And when we realize that 2 per cent
under amortization will amortize a farm mortgage in twenty years it must De apparent that the reduction of 2 per cent would be equivalent in thirty-five years to the total capital mortgage debt. The estimated mortgage indebtedness of the farms of Alberta is 8100,000,000 and a reduction of 2 per cent on that amount would represent a saving to the farmers of that province of at least $2,000,000 annually, which would be infinitely more than the budget reductions represent. I therefore urge on the government again the necessity for setting up, without delay, a long-term mortgage system for the purpose largely of funding the present indebtedness of the farmer and extending payments at a low maximum rate of interest, such a rate, as would permit the Canadian agriculturist to enter into fair competition with the farmers of European countries. I trust that action will not be delayed another year. We have had two years of investigation already, one inquiry having been held before the special committee on Agricultural Conditions last year, in which a very exhaustive examination was made of conditions generally. In addition to that we had the commission of Dr. Tory in the winter. Again, if further information is required, the government can secure it from the reports of the American commission that toured Europe; the evidence obtained by that commission is among the records in the Library and it relates to the credit systems of the world. No further delay in my opinion should be permitted, and indeed no excuse can be found for such delay.
Hon. members to my right, and occasionally some hon. gentlemen opposite, urge that the country should be self-contained, manufacturing all that is needed within its boundaries. I have often puzzled over this and have wondered what those gentlemen meant. Do they mean the exclusion of the goods of other countries? I have listened to their arguments but have never received any logical explanation. The last voice I heard proclaiming this doctrine was that of the delightful member, whom it is always a pleasure to hear, the representative of the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). He said:
I claim that we should be a self-contained nation, manufacturing what we want instead of being dependent upon other countries for our needs.
It was, I confess, somewhat of a shock to me at the moment to hear such a doctrine propounded from the ranks of those who are supposed to be a tariff for revenue party. But let us examine the statement in order to ascertain whether the doctrine is possible even if it were good. There was a time in primi-
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
tive society when the economic issues were comparatively simple, when the producers were the farmers and the hunters. They produced or secured in some way what was required and they consumed it themselves. Later on came the leather maker, the tool maker and the weapon maker, and trading commenced. Even then, though the farmer of the valley traded with the herdsman on the hills and the weapon maker in the village, they lived' practically isolated, neither caring nor concerned about conditions elsewhere in the world or how other people lived. Such isolation is no longer possible. The economic life even of the individual has swept out into ever-widening circles, beyond the valley, beyond the hills, beyond the oceans and1 beyond the continents, until to-day each individual life encircles economically the whole world. The industrial revolution with its labour-saving, space destroying, and immensely productive inventions brought about and cemented this condition. It brought to us the steamboat of 1807, the locomotive, the power press, the making of paper from wood, it brought the telegraph, the transatlantic cable, the wireless, the telephone, the radiophone. Thus we have to-day that condition which brings every individual in this world in as close touch with his fellow-men as were the people of neighbouring villages in past centuries.
Now, the effect of this industrialism and of these labour-saving inventions is to create an interdependence of nations, chiefly because nature has not located the raw materials necessary for an industrialized nation in equal quantities throughout the earth not as she has distributed sunshine and air. For example every nation under our present industrial system requires coal, iron, copper, oil and certainly wheat lands and meats. They are localized in their distribution. How localized they are perhaps the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and other hon. members to my right have scarcely appreciated. We find for example, that Great Britain, in 1913, in 1921, m 1922, did not, and still does not produce petroleum; Germany produced 850,000 barrels in 1913, 274,000 in 1921, and 200,000 in 1922; France produced none for 1913, but did produce 392,000 barrels in 1921 and 494,000 in 1922; Russia produced 62,834,000 barrels in 1913, 29,150,000 in 1921, and 35,091,000 in 1922; Belgium did not produce any, neither did Spain; the United States, on the other hand, produced 248,446,000 barrels in 1913, 472,183,000 in 1921, and 551,197,000 in 1922; Canada produced 228,000 barrels in 1913, 190,000 in
1921, and 179,000 in 1922. But Canada imported in 1922 no less than 513,217,000 gallons of petroleum and petroleum products, and in
Now, Mr. Speaker, it must be obvious to hon. gentlemen that no nation can survive in competition with other nations without at least crude petroleum. Yet we notice that it is scattered in such unequal quantities that trading is essential to secure it to all. In 1922 the United States produced five-eighths of the total of the world's petroleum output.
I have also the figures for iron ore production in metric tons for the same nations, also for coal and copper. I do not desire to delay the House or to weary members by quoting these figures in detail, so with the permission of the House I will hand them to Hansard.
1913 1920 1921Britain 16,263,950 28,607,900 21,918,000 Pig iron 3,801,273 12,912,065 6,361,600 3,533,950Germany France Russia 171,500 17,260 4,767,693 67,604,465 8,060 131,300Belgium Spain 9,861,668 20% of world supply. 196,558 United States 29,282,690 960Canada
These figures are all to be found in "Mining Industry" Yol. 31, Edition 1922.
It may interest hon. members to know that the greatest copper ore deposits are the Chu-quicamata deposits in Chile. Now, I could put the information in another way. In 1913 the United States produced 36 per cent and consumed 37 per cent of the world's iron ore; Germany produced 20 per cent and consumed 27 per cent; Britain produced 9 per cent and consumed 14 per cent; France produced 12 per cent and consumed 7 per cent; Russia produced 5 per cent and consumed1 5 per cent; Belgium produced none, and consumed 4 per cent; Spain produced 6 per cent and consumed 1 per cent. Only in France and Spain did production exceed consumption, and four of the other nations had "to depend on other countries. Belgium in spite of her great industrial development imports all her iron ore. We find the same condition of affairs in regard to coal.
Millions of Tons Produced Consumed
United States .... 517 495
Austria-Hungary .. .. 17 30
Canada to-day is dependent on other nations for coal. France, Italy, Austria-Hungary-since divided-are all dependent on outside coal supplies, especially Italy. Italy produced one million tons and consumed ten million. Modern manufacturing and transportation depends on these minerals and the fuels I have mentioned. Nations must and will depend therefor upon each other. The principal deposits of iron ore, copper and petroleum happen to be in the western hemisphere. And the world requires them. On the other hand, we require the products of the rest of the world, and must get them. Therefore trading is only natural. The United States has the largest iron supply in the world, France the second, Newfoundland the third, Cuba the fourth and Brazil the fifth. The
world's interdependence is again reflected in the growth of world trade. World trade, in spite of trade barriers, increased from $4,049,000,000 in 1850 to no less than $75,311,000,000 in 1919. But the next year, the last for which I have the figures, shows a falling off of no less than $13,893,000,000. That I think is a fair reflex of the unsettled industrial condition of the world at the moment.
May I suggest to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that Great Britain relies largely for her wheat supply on the United States, Argentine, Australia and Canada? But strange to say she buys twice as much from the United States as she does from any other country except Canada. Belgium relies on the Argentine and the United States for the grc a ter part of her wheat supplies. France relies almost entirely on Australia, the United States and the Argentine. It may be interesting to know that out of a total importation of 24,692,000 bushels of wheat France
6 a.m. imported only 2,850,000 from Canada. Italy relies on the Argentine and the United States. Germany also relies on those sources of supply. In the case of Germany, out of 51,000,000 bushels imported in 1922, 26,000,000 bushels came from the United States. I hope I have dispelled from the mind of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George the extraordinary idea that to-day any industrialized portion of the civilized globe can be self-supporting and independent. At the same time I trust I have shown that the interdependence of each nation is so vital that the absurdity of making trade difficult must be clear.
The blocking of trade by artificial barriers is absurd, but the evil effects of this practice have been only too well demonstrated by the never-ending state of war in which the world has found itself. Think of the tens of millions of people who are at this moment co-operating throughout the entire world in the production of the necessities of life and in their transportation, or the attempt to distribute them, and think on the other hand of the effort that is being made by privi-
The. Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
leged interests in every nation to block and check the transporting of supplies between nations. Each great nation in the world must provide itself with the essential raw materials, and so we find that each nation is busy securing, either by aggression or by financial invasion-it is called "investment," but is as far-reaching an evil in its influence as any invasion by force could be-the largest possible resources of raw material, and each of these nations in turn is then using trade barriers to prevent other nations securing their requirements on equitable terms-all except free trade Britain. I have no hesitation, then, in stating that one of the great world problems is the competitive struggle between national groups for trade, for markets, for resources, and with this problem of course, goes its partner, the excessive concentration of world wealth in a few centres and in the hands of a few individuals. Real peace is impossible under these circumstances. But preparation for war by increasing armaments is the negation of intelligence. This problem must be solved. The war has shown that war means world-war. It also has shown to those who think, that peace must be world peace and that prosperity will be world prosperity. We suffer here because Europe suffers, and to-day we must recognize that it is impossible to destroy the economic well-being of an integral part of the world without destroying the general prosperity of the whole world. In the Manchester Guardian some time ago I read words which I would like to read to the House in this connection, the words of Sir Charles W. Macara, chairman and managing director of Henry Bannerman & Sons Limited, chairman of the Cotton Employers' Association, and a man holding many other important positions in Great Britain:
It is impossible for any country to expect to win economic success at the expense of or in total indifference to the success of others the good of
one country -is bound up with the good of another, and it is only by studying what will be mutually advantageous that we shall find the key to our good fortune. The whole world is interdependent, and you cannot injure one member [DOT] of the international body without injuring all the rest.
And here, let me remind the House of the thought of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), a man whom we always delight to hear, a man for whom I have a great personal regard, but who slipped from his usually high plane, and in the spirit of the king of old, who challenged God to a duel, rejected as will-o-the-wisps the ideals of free trade and peace, linking those who sought them with the seekers of perpetual motion and consigning them all to insanity. If it be sanity to call free trade and peace will-o-the-
wisps and madness, if in seeking them we must wander from protection and war, then may our feet earnestly seek the path of that which is free and the " madness " of peace rather than the " sanity " of war.
It is of little use to argue disarmament. There is little value in holding peace parleys so far as actual results are concerned, but I agree that they have a great force as an educational factor, and I would encourage the holding of them as often and for as long a time as possible. Let them sit all the time; I would agree to them doing that. But the great hope is not in the holding of these peace parleys or in these arrangements for mock disarmaments. The great hope is in the ever-increasing number of young men and women who to-day are looking forward, hungry for the realization of those ideals that were portrayed so eloquently by Woodrow Wilson. To use his words: "Instead of exclusive combinations I want to see universal cooperation, " America "[DOT]-let me substitute the word "Canada" for that; let us have America too-" Canada shall stand for the just conception and basis of peace, for the completion of merit and the generous rivalry of liberty." Again he says: " The essential principle of peace is the actual equality of nations in matters of rights and privileges."
I urge therefore- that Canada do herself the enduring honour of taking a lead in international affairs now. . Let her send out a call to all the nations of the world to come and hold an international trade conference having for its object the mutual elimination so far as may be possible of international trade barriers. I admit that we cannot hope to wipe out the effects of the dense stupidity of past centuries in a breath. It may take time; it will take patient courage; it will take great idealism; it will take a clear far-seeing vision to bring this to pass. And so, by all means, while striving for peace, while striving for this great ideal of international free trade, let us prepare for that war of which everyone is at the moment speaking. Let us prepare for it in the most effective, the most comprehensive manner, by the enactment of legislation for the conscription of wealth and industry as well as of manpower. Take the profit out of war-all the profit- and there will be less eagerness for it; there will be less talk about it; there will gradually come a clear realization that the true law of nature is co-operation, not war.
It is perhaps hardly necessary for me to remind hon. members that the great bulk of our national debt and the debts of the entire world to-day, the overwhelming debt running into hundreds of billions of dollars, is the re-
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
suit of war and continuous war, and yet are we so deadly stupid as to keep on fostering them, building them up, preparing for the next, and never making an honest attempt to wipe wars out? Our national debt at this moment -I am dealing only with Canada, a small country of nine millions of people-is given as $2,888,827,237. And when people talk of that they think they have spoken of all the debt. The man in the street, the woman in the house, the farmer on the farm, think that is our whole national debt, the debt we owe largely as a result of the war; but it is only a fraction of it. There is the debt that has been accumulating in the provinces through the war years, and due largely directly or indirectly to war condition. There is the debt of the municipalities. I have here the figures for 1922, showing a debt for the provinces of $629,705,771 and for the municipalities of $794,941,476, or a grand total of debt, excluding individual debts, traders' debts, and debts between wholesaler and retailer, store and individual of $4,313,474,484, or more than $500 per head of population, or a sum of $2,500 per family of five.
And during the six fiscal years of the war what were the conditions? I have a statement from the Bureau of Statistics which shows that during those years-1914-15 to 1919-20 inclusive-the total revenue receipts of the Dominion were $1,461,396,304, and the total disbursements were $3,145,576,179. The total collected from special war taxes in the same period was only $183,658,287, but this was swallowed up in interest on war debt and in pensions. The total disbursements on capital account for war and demobilization purposes duting the same period was $1,670,406,242. This sum is exclusive of interest on war debt, current payments for war pensions, and so on. We should have paid our war debt out of the tremendous war profits as_ the war was fought. As it is, not only is industry in our own country -staggering but industry throughout the entitre world is in the same desperate state, and most nations engaged in the war are insolvent. Another general conflict would most certainly ruin modern civilization. The Toronto Star in a recent article expressed the following opinion:
The world is realizing that war and civilization cannot tolerate one another much longer. One or the other must go.
The soldier went over and got $1.10 a day, and the danger, but the farmer and the workman who stayed at home fared fairly well. The manufacturer and the capitalist who operated or owned a factory made fortunes. I am in favour of legislation providing that not only shall the young of our country be
conscripted, but that labour and capital be drafted as well. When the nation is at war let no one profit by the nation's peril. No one should be permitted to gain more than a soldier in war time. Action in this should not be left for the hurried frenzy of emergency but should be taken now in the bitter realization of the effects of war. Let us whilst we still stand amidst the ghastly ruins of nations and of industry, whilst we have the cold facts of wrecked bodies and minds, the result of the insanity of war still around us, plan out methods of eliminating as far as possible the recurrence of this scourge. Let us leave it not to the younger generations which, being taught now the glories of war, will hear but the beating drums and the call to arms. Let our bitter experience be our guide whilst it is still strongly present. Canada sent overseas between 400,000 and 500,000 men. Sixty-three thousand of them are dead in France, one hundred and fifty thousand of them are wounded, and we had an amputation display in Ottawa not long ago that ought to thrill men's hearts to a realization of what war means. In the United States five million men went into uniform for the war. Between sixty thousand and seventy-seven thousand lie buried in France, and two hundred thousand were wounded. And yet, according to an article by Mr. Marquis James, 6,664 American citizens became war millionaires, and more than ten thousand American citizens amassed fortunes from profiteering in war necessities. Doubtless we have like examples in this country. Mr. James further states that out of 27,000 contracts totalling 6 billion dollars there was not one single cancellation clause. In this country the evil system of " cost plus " contracts added enormously to our debts. Let us, Mr. Speaker, have equal rights for all. If man be conscripted then on exactly equal terms let industry and finance bear its share. Let there be equal service for all, and special profits for none.
At present in the United States Congress, amongst the people, and indeed all over the world there is a movement in this direction. Let Canada give her impetus to the movement. May I quote here the draft of a resolution which is only one of several attempts that are now being made in the United States to achieve this purpose. It is the draft of a resolution introduced in the United States Congress by Royal C. Johnson, ranking veteran of the United States Congress. It reads:
That in the event of a declaration of war by the United States against any foreign government or other common enemy, the Congress shall provide for the conscription of every citizen and all money, industries and property of whatever nature necessary to
The Budget-Miss Macphail
the prosecution thereof, and shall limit the profits for the use of such moneys, industries and properties.
The whole case for the universal draft as we may call it is well summed up by Colonel Wainwright, who retired as Assistant Secretary of War of the United States in order to take his seat in congress. He has this to say, and I recommend his words to the jingoes and militarists in this country.
Wealth should be controlled and called into service as well as man-power. I am convinced that a way must and can be found to approach that ideal where, if we cannot avoid war, we can accept the whole-hearted support of the great majority and compel a few industrial bandits to abandon hope of gain while the struggle is on. Those who labour in factory and field to produce the things essential to the nation in war must be convinced that no inordinate profits shall result from their labour. They must find also that as the war progresses those who sell food, sheFar and clothing do not profiteer.
Let us act, then, Mr. Speaker, before we:
-have forgotten ancient martial musics,
That summoned youth to blunted, faceless years, Galloping drums, proud horns, and sounding bugles
Drowning the guns, trenoh-smells, before-dawn fears; -
-have forgotten in this tree-filled valley,
Loud with the rush of wind like surf on shore,
How it grows fat, feeding on our oblivion:
The dumb and hungry cancer men call war.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker, I put human values too high to impose on this weary house the thirty-five minute speech which I had carefully prepared, and I trust that when numbers of women come to take their seats in this chamber such nights as this will be unknown. I want simply to make my position clear on the vote that is about to be taken. It is not for the Liberal party, or for the Liberal government, or the present budget, that I am thankful, but for the independent political thinking and voting of such sections of Canadian people as are reflected by the new groups of this House, groups whose presence here and actions since coming, account for the departure by the Liberal party from a fiscal policy essentially one of protection. I am convinced that more aggressive action by us would have brought a budget more nearly approaching that called for by the Woodsworth amendment. I will support the Woodsworth amendment because I believe in the principles laid down in it, because it is part of the platform on which I was elected, and because it is part of the memorandum, at present in my hand, that was drafted by the Canadian Council of Agriculture and presented to the government no later than April 2, eight days before the budget came down. It is the goal to which we are working, and
working the government ahead of us as we go. I welcome once more the presentation of this amendment, substantially the same as that presented last year, to the government for their careful consideration. I am not going to depart from the supporting of principles which I Relieve on technical grounds.
I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, but I should think we might get
along more quickly with the work if we met in the afternoon, took up estimates, and proceeded with some of the branch line bills in the evening. I imagine those who would be primarily interested in the Department df Agriculture estimates might be willing to be here this afternoon. I think we should be making as much progress as possible with the business.