April 17, 1925

approximate a total cost of $50,000,000 for those handling bonded wheat in that port. Their revenue returns are based upon one cent a bushel for the grain elevated, and this represents five days' free storage with one-fourth cent charge for each seven days thereafter. For 1924 Buffalo received 152,678,218 bushels of Canadian grain. If all this paid the cent storage it would represent for these bonded elevators that cost $50,000,000 a total revenue of $1,526,762. Toledo is offering Toronto people flour milled from Canadian wheat at a price below that quoted by Canadian millers, and contracts have been made by the Toledo millers. I have particulars of these, and I intend to produce them when the Grain Act is before the House. Grain bootlegging is very profitable. If it is done in the States here is the possible process and the profit. The duty is 45 cents a bushel, but this is not paid on the grain going through in bond. Say a hundred thousand bushel shipment of No. 1 is sent down the lakes, covered by the Dominion government certificate, loaded in a bonded elevator here or at any other port on this side, for every bushel removed and kept in the United States the saving of this 45 cent duty is gained by the fraud. For each bushel so removed, however, a bushel of United States grain must be substituted. The substituted grain might cost $1 a bushel, while that removed might cost $1.50. There is another profit of 50 cents. The bootleggers have 'thus an article worth, for domestic purposes, 95 cents more than it has cost them. The dilution of a hundred thousand bushel shipment of Canadian hard wheat with ten thousand bushels of United States inferior grain would not be noticed by the average United States elevator employee, even if he were looking for substitutions. Few ordinary elevator employees are graders; that is a particular science of the trade. The Canadian certificate covers the shipment. It goes through with its inferior substitute, but when it reaches the other side expert graders at once detect the difference. Then comes the adjustment, but too many alien agencies have handled the shipment in its transmission in bond to ever enable the source of the fraud to be discovered. Obviously, with the Canadian flour under present conditions actually increasing the volume of sales in those markets over those of the United States millers, it is not difficult to understand how rapidly these foreign markets would be absolutely dominated by Dominion products if the United States millers did not have the privilege of grinding Cana- dian flour in bond for their export trade, coupled with the questionable advantage of the United States providing the highway through which so much Canadian grain must pass to foreign countries. Remove both these advantages enjoyed by the United States millers and the Canadian flour would have no competition worth mentioning in these thirty-three foreign markets. That is one of the possible effects of the policy I propose. All Canadian wheat milled in bond in the United States goes out to the world, of course, as Canadian flour, yet the Dominion authorities have no control over this produce from the moment it passes into the United States, though it is covered to the very point of consumption with the Dominion of Canada's certificate of quality. The state of New York is now building a huge elevator at Oswego to take care of the Canadian grain passing there from the lake boats from lake Erie, through the Welland canal. At Gowanas bay, Brooklyn, there is just now nearing completion a New York state-ovmed million and a half bushel elevator. Toledo has been extensively engaged in the milling of Canadian wheat taken into the United States in bond. The mixing of Canadian hard wheat and United States soft grain is very largely carried out at New York as well as at Baltimore and Philadelphia. However, when a cargo of Canadian grain, sent there in bond, is to be mixed with a percentage of American grain, the Canadian government certificate no longer protects the shipment. The Canadian certificate is cancelled and a new one is issued under the authority of the New York port authorities and grain exchange. This cargo then goes out to the world bearing what is knovra to the trade as a "seaboard certificate" and the mixture is stated to be of "Canadian origin." It is supposed to state definitely the percentage of the mixture in its relation to "Manitoba origin." This juggling of Canadian grain, of course, goes on without any representative of Canadian farmers or the Canadian government being present. Those interested in the process are Americans and their activities are based upon profit only. They have no concern about the quality of Canadian grades. Who knows the difference between this New York oi Baltimore mixture covered by a "seaboard certificate" of Manitoba origin, and the product which has the Dominion government certificate of original inspection quality? A fleet of floating barges is made available in the harbour, say, at New York, and when the grain gets there it is mixed on the barges and there is no Canadian certificate. An embargo would stop all this. The new elevator The Budget-Mr. Putnam at Gowanas bay, Brooklyn, now nearing completion, is designed to enable the barges from the Erie state canal and grain trains from Buffalo to unload their cargoes of Canadian bonded grain (expeditiously. The largest ocean liners can take on their Canadian gram at this elevator without loss of time. This new equipment will largely reduce the cost of transferring the Canadian grain from car3 and barges to the floating tank elevators in the harbour, which in turn float the grain out to the ocean liners. This is a saving of time and money that will mean much in the way of holding this Canadian made traffic in an alien port. Millions of dollars have been robbed from the farmers of the west in connection with this grain business. Since confederation we have had thirteen grain investigations, and you might as well toss all their reports into the waste paper basket for all the good they are as regards protecting the poor Canadian farmer. The farmer has my sympathy, hard worked as he is, taxed as he is, and with the intolerable conditions that he has to face. The ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce is a hard worked minister and he has been doing good work in this connection, but I would iike to see him go into the matter, as well as the Minister of Railways, with a view to doing something to relieve the situation. They have the Canadian National railways and the Canadian merchant marine; let them take steps to have this Canadian grain go through Canadian channels and thus take oare of some of the deficits on the Canadian National railways. If the milled grain alone could be taken care of, the $56,000,000 deficit of the Canadian National Railways would be wiped out in a year, and the elevators at present operating at Buffalo would have to come over to Canada. I have discussed this matter with experts in the United States. I met a gentleman in New York, a friend of Mr. Barnes, and he told me that many of the buyers in the British market are insisting that this Canadian wheat shall go via Vancouver or Montreal; they are trying to have it go over Canadian routes in order to put a stop to the bootlegging which has been going on at Buffalo, Toledo and New York at the expense of the poor Canadian fanner.


Harold Putnam


Mr. HAROLD PUTNAM (Colchester):

Mr. Speaker, it was not my pleasure nor my leisure to hear the whole of the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church). That hon. gentleman has a generosity which inspires good faith on the part of his friends. He told me in good faith that he should be concluded at a few minutes after eight o'clock, a statement which I accepted in good faith,

and in the quality of that good faith there was an absolute and unrestricted reciprocity.

As I say, I did not hear the whole of that speech. The hon. gentleman never disappoints us with a speech in the factor of quantity. I have no doubt that he said a great deal that was instructive and a great deal that was logioal, 'but it was my bad fortune, in the parts of his speech that I heard, to gather only those remarks which were uninstructive and very illogical. For instance, during the afternoon, while I was in for a few moments, he was telling us in positive and academic and unqualified terms that a high tariff was an absolute cure for unemployment. I could not help remembering that those who constitute the official opposition have warned us very unctuously not to allow any more labour to come into Canada. It is a strange coincidence that this high tariff which they idolize and which ithev say will fully take care of the unemployment, will hunt down the last unemployed person in Canada and set him to work at a fair living wage according to his station and degree in life, but that in the desideratum for more immigration we must not let any more labourers in, however respectable they are in the country from which they come. Against such they would put up the bars of protection sky high. But it just so happens that they could noit take care of one man more of the unemployed, though exactly able to take care of all present unemployed in Canada by the simple device of high protection.

May I. at this belated stage, join with those members who, irrespective of the part of the House in which they sit, have expressed their lament that the power of sickness still detains the right hon. Finance Minister of this country (Mr. Fielding)? Those of us who have taken the opportunity of calling upon him at his home during this session are delighted to report that 'his health is visibly better than it was twelve months ago. I am sure that ithe House and the country will wish that he may regain that health which was his, notwitstanding the comparative advancement of his years; that health which was his when he applied himself to every complex problem of his wonderfully patriotic career, reserving no force of that master mind, forgetting nothing in the line of his duty except his oft earned holiday.

I am interested, Mr. Speaker, in the tactics and the attitude of the official opposition during this debate-and it may perhaps not be egotism on my part to point out in this connection that so far as actual presence in this chamber is concerned their numbers are very

The Budget-Mr. Putnam

few. As I understand the matter, in times past and normally any full dress debate upon the question of tihe tariff is reserved until the time when the budget is brought down. But in this present session we find amongst the notices of motion one from no less distinguished a member than the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen),, praising to the vault of heaven the doctrine of protection, which by all rules of the game in the past was reserved for the introduction of the budget.

We also find that the right hon. leader of the opposition was a little bit impatient to deliver his broadside on the beauties of protection before the normal announcement of the budget, and he accepted with absolutely bad grace the fact that the day of the budget appeared before he could deliver his paeans of praise over the blessings of protection and his condemnation of any government, and in the concrete this government, if it refused to apply immediately that particular elixir to our national life. We on this side of the House are sometimes accused by those immediately opposite on the ground that the Liberal handbook, which was used here and there throughout Canada by some in compassing the defeat of the late administration, was too rosy in its promises. Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that book was one hundred miles to the leeward in moderation and modesty and in paucity of promises compared with the innocent little notice of motion put on the order paper by the right hon. leader of the opposition.

Now, why was it that there was this change of tactics? Why was it that, contrary to the history of this parliament, the amendment to the budget moved by the opposition made no mention whatever of the subject of the tariff? Well, we may in the liberty of this free country at least surmise reasons. Possibly the right hon. leader of the opposition had heard that Napoleon made it an almost irre-fragible rule that he would attack the enemy rather than wait for the natural time of battle. I may be permitted to suggest another speculative reason. Possibly the keen and speculative eyes of the right hon. gentleman turned towards his left and saw the Progressives there in pretty good numbers, those who not so long ago the right hon. gentleman had named the "dilapidated annex," those same Progressives who in a comparatively brief space of time exemplified the rapidity with which retribution may follow the sin of trying to place an undeserved nickname, for in a very short time they had come back to this House with a following thirty per cent

TMr. Putnam.]

greater in numbers than the following behind the right hon. gentleman in this selfsame House. I can fancy the right hon. leader of the opposition asking himself the question: Incorrigible as those Progressives are on the question of the tariff, is it possible that they could be wooed on the dissociated question of the alleged extravagance of this particular government? These were the tactics carried on, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that reason dictates that the purpose is not unsearchable. By this motion there was to be a discussion of the tariff ahead of the budget, and later discussion of an amendment to the budget which makes no mention whatsoever of the normal factor of the tariff.

There are naval critics who say that in the battle of Jutland the Germans pursued1 tactics which for a little while at least rather took the British by surprise, and that was the device of concentrating their fire upon one British ship and sinking it before picking out another British ship for destruction from their massed fire. Naval critics actually say that those tactics not only took the British by surprise in the early stages of the 'battle, but that to some extent they were successful. It does seem to me that there is some homely parallel here, and that the Conservatives thought, "If we can single out the tariff by this notice of motion and get it in operation, fire well upon the tariff by that particular means, concentrate the Tory fire upon the tariff, we may have the good luck that in the low visibility of the close of a private members' day we may sink the tariff doctrine with our big guns before the Liberals and Progressives may rush up to answer the fire." I think the intention next was to concentrate the Tory fires upon the alleged horrible extravagance of this govern-ernment in the hope that the unsophisticated and bewildered Progressives, at that stage of the battle, and in the gathering darkness, might 'be trapped into the expedient of joining their fire with that of their high protectionist enemies the Tories and sinking the Liberal government, only awakening in the dawn to discover in the better visibility of another day that they had united their fire with their worst tariff enemies in sinking their best allies.

Mr. Speaker, during the Great war the allies did not all admire one another as to their dharacteristics and customs

10 p.m. and nationality, and perhaps even their courage, but they all did sensibly say that they would forget these minor differences while the mad war dog of Europe was still unmuzzled. There is no

The Budget-Mr. Putnam

doubt that these two traps were set. There is no doubt that the first one did not go off: there is no doubt that the second one is in plain view, and I would1 very respectfully appeal to my Progressive brethren to 'have nothing whatever to do with springing the second trap. Otherwise they might find as their allies the high protectionists of this country who have made millionaires, and who see potential millionaires still in the hatching, at the expense of the great consuming people, the great general masses of the people of Canada.

I suppose most of us, Mr. Speaker, or perhaps all of us, are here as the result of a contest, and I hope we all had common sense enough to know the uncertainty of an electoral contest. No public man of any intellectual size ever assumed that an election was certain, and I suppose that humanly we all felt a little glow of pride, though it may have been only temporary, that we had, if I might use a semivulgar expression, beaten the other fellow. I hope we had a sympathetic feeling. I hope we realized, and tenderly realized, that that which meant for us the sunlight of victory meant for the other man the shadowy side of the mountain of defeat. I will go a step further. I dare say that we have sometimes had that searching of conscience, if we are frank, which has asked of us: After all,

were our tenets, were our propaganada and our policy sufficiently better than that of the other man, and sufficiently feasible of accomplishment, to have made it fair to defeat him, to have made it ethically worth while. Now Sir, if I am right, or even if I am not right in that particular speculation, I happen to be in this House the one man whose conscience should not experience the first symptom of rebellion for having defeated my particular opponent in the contest of 1921, because, Sir, within about three short years after that rather memorable campaign he himself openly and most publicly, and without the first shadow or sign of equivocation, told the world at large that he had suffered a complete recantation of all those policies and propaganda with which he had once tried to defeat myself and the Liberal party in Colchester county. He was no less a personage than the ex-Minist-er of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy) in the cabinet led then by the present right hon. leader of the opposition. Now the publicity to which he resorted was spectacular. He published a pamphlet which he called A New Confession of Faith and therein he gave his complete and his absolute recantation. I remember Mr. Speaker, that in the campaign he was also a pamphleteer,

and he sowed my county knee-deep with pamphlets protesting that high protection was the one hope and remedy not only for the Maritime provinces but for every area of this wide country of oure. In each case he had the front page adorned with his own picture. It may have been Apollo-like in its beauty, but I think that whether or not we all agree that the hue of political genius was upon his cheek, everybody will agree that those two pictures were exactly alike in having on his cheek the glow of good health and self-satisfaction, the picture on the pamphlet when he was opposing a lower tariff and the picture on the pamphlet when he made his confession that he was in utter and basic error in doing so. And whether there was depicted there the hue, as I say, of political genius, there was depicted the hue of the most rosy good health and self-satisfaction. Sir, in great contrast with that is the device of the patent medicine man who gives two pictures, one "before" and one "after" taking the remedy-the one "before" taking showing a man emaciated in body, shrunken in features and perhaps shrunken in conscience in the view that his latter end is rapidly approaching; and then, "after", we have the rosy cheek and the air of self-satisfaction, a complete and absolute contrast between that and the first picture. But I congratulate that mentality which belongs to the ex-Minister of Public Works. I congratulate him upon the ethical standard which evidently belongs to him so that he can swallow a dose of high protection and a dose of low protection and in each case show no possible sign that the contrasted medicine had made any perceptible difference whatsoever- in fact I think it was precisely the same photograph that was used for the two occasions.

I am inclined to congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition-against whom personally I would find it impossible even on a limited acquaintance to wish any personal harm-I am inclined to congratulate him that he was defeated before the McCurdy conscience asserted itself and denounced the high protection which its owner had formerly preached. That hon. gentleman and I were brought up on two respective farms about a mile apart, and with apologies to the Liberals of ward 1 in the city of Halifax before whom I used this metaphor a few weeks ago when I had the honour of addressing them. I am going to use a certain illustration again. The ex-minister of Public Works and my humble self have both known the phenomenon of a hen having duck eggs placed under her at setting time. In her innocence she sets there about one week longer than the normal time.


The Budget-Mr. Putnam

It is true she hatches out a brood over whom she presumes she will have leadership; but it is equally true that as soon as the ducklings see a pond of water she realizes that her own leadership instantly ceases to function. The horrible, stupid, tragical part of it in the case of the ex-Minister of Public Works was that in denouncing high protection' as a cure for the ills of the Maritime provinces he conceived that he was a leader of thought. He had done so great a deed as to defeat no less a great imperialist no less a great Canadian than the distinguished Minister of Finance of this country in 1911. He then assumed, perhaps very rightly so on paper, that he had hatched protectionist chickens with which he would still be able to tramp over the dry lands of Ontario. There was a war election in 1917 and perhaps for that reason the hon. gentleman thought that his brooding process had again bred protectionist chickens. But there came the election of 1921 and thereafter in the silence of his deliberations the ex-Minister of Public Works realized that he had been setting on the wrong eggs and this time instead of hatching protectionist chickens he had hatched real, web-footed, Maritime ducklings, and when they rushed into their native element the sea, he followed them to the edge of Halifax harbour waving after them his latest pamphlet and thereby trying to imitate the honest quack of a mother duck. Were I inclined to indulge in the Latin tongue to which some hon. members are prone, I should say of him sic transit gloria McCurdy. I would also say in Latin for the benefit of the right hon. leader of the opposition: "So perish every traitor." It was no discovery on the part of the ex-Minister of Public Works that we in the Maritimes have been somewhat surfeited with the medicine of high protection.

In regard to the present budget-and let me say here that I wish to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance upon the budget that he has produced-some hon. members have seen fit to praise its diction, its clarity, and its preciseness and arrangement. It does seem to me that ought to be taken for granted for I for one would be astonished if there has been a budget since confederation as to which that preliminary and that mere literary compliment is not entirely due. I for one would be astonished if it were so. But coming to the substance of the budget, it seems to me it exhibits the qualities of carefulness, and if you like of caution, and at a time when these qualities should be at a very high premium. Because, Mr. Speaker, this is a time when we do realize as never TMr. Putnam.]

before the differences in the economic conditions, the differences in the physical conditions, of the various provinces and the various areas which we call Canada-this far flung country. It seems to me that we realize as never before the great length, I might almost reverently say the discouragingly great length, of the country from east to west and from west to east back again; and perhaps we realize as never before that the average settled width of the country from north to south, using the word "settled" in any reasonably strong sense, is comparatively a very narrow width, and when we realize that our immigration has been checked by the war, and realize the frightful results of the war and realize also that immediately to our south there is a great country, a highly civilized country, which happens to have climatic conditions much milder than our own and which is a perpetual temptation for emigration of our people down to that country, we do come to this conclusion, that much as we desire more population, much as it is well nigh imperative in the problems we have, and particularly in our ambitious railway problems, there is no immediate prospect- and we might as well look the facte in the face-that in the very near or immediate future we shall have any material addition to our sparse population-sparse I say reverently-in comparison with our very vast area. And while I believe the low tariff people are much .in the majority in this country, there is that high tariff school supported by powerful interests, which really makes two schools of thought, as .to whether the tariff should be very much raised, or whether it should be greatly lowered, and therefore under all these perplexing conditions the very outline of which I have attempted merely to mention, and in presence of that double school of economic thought, I commend the acting minister, for his prudence, in bringing down a budget which in the main confessedly so closely resembles the budget of a year ago, which I believe won the approval of the vast majority of the people of Canada.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) is not in his seat, although possibly he has been so sufficiently bandied about within the last few days that it is not rendered necessary for any other hon. members on this side of the House to say anything in regard to the hon. member. But I have been amused at his reading of English history, when he in effect makes the sweeping assertion that protection made England and that free trade is ruining

The Budget-Mr. Putnam

England. I wonder if he has ever heard of the Napoleonic wars, because wars of that magnitude and the war of the great magnitude which we have experienced since that time, have dis'ocated all the normal and ordinary rules of business. During the Napoleonic wars the industrial situation was such on the continent of Europe, that those people who gave their energies in a death struggle very fully demonstrated that fact, and in spite of protection England saw wonderful prosperity then. Now there was the aftermath of the war. There was the readjustment which in some measure we are having, and it is a simple matter of history that England then saw terrible depression in her industries though high protection still obtained. I wonder if the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River ever heard of the hungry forties, and I wonder if he realized, as would be my reading of it, that the industrial position of England became so desperate that Premier Sir Robert Peel took the action that he did with regard to the corn laws as an experiment. I am sorry the hon. member is not here, because I should be only too happy to discuss with him our respective interpretations of English history respecting the whole question at that time of protection and free trade.

I was interested in the contention and argument last evening of my hon. friend from Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte) to the effect that even in this young country high protection as such and properly divorced from controlling side issues had never won a single victory. At the expense of repeating some of his statements, and possibly with the hope of developing a little of what he stated, I wish to review very briefly the elections which have been referred to. Starting with 1878 we had the frank, the implicit, and the unequivocable promise of Sir John A. Macdonald himse'f that protection would only be used temporarily for those infant industries, and as a lever and a club to bring about reciprocity itself. Then we come to the election of 1S83 and at that time hon. gentlemen know the industries were enjoying something of an artificial stimulus under protection, but even at that time stood the promise of Sir John A. Macdonald, which is still a clear matter of political history, that this high tariff was only a temporary expedient and that before long we would have reciprocity. Then when we come to 1887, the industries were a little older. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton pointed out that at that time we were confronted with the Revising Barristers' Act, a deliberate attempt, as those of us who are older in this House know, to

defeat the free and voluntary will of the people. But apart from that, there had been the Riel rebellion in the Northwest, and all sorts of racial and religious and provincial side issues were dragged into the contest, and I think it is only fair to say that in 1S87 there was no fair and separate pronouncement upon the question of protection as such. Coming to the year 1891-and I personally well remember that election- it was purely an appeal to loyalty. It

was a waving of the old, old flag. It

was an unctious statement of Sir John A. Macdonald in his old age: "a British subject I was born; a British subject I will die," and it sufficiently swept the heather against the economic principle of a commercial union with the United States if that were obtainable.

Coming to 1896 my hon. friends were defeated, much as they tried to hold to the front this doctrine of high protection. Then in the general election of 1911 there was a tragedy. Again the Canadian people allowed themselves to be fooled by the misappropriated cry of loyalty. In 1917 we had the War Time Elections Act and my hon. friends were successful on the canvass of prejudice. Coming to the elections of 1921, I am going to give the right hon. leader of the opposition credit for trying-and I believe he succeeded -to conduct that election upon the sole and the dissociated question of protection as such. There was no question about the right hon. gentleman's position in regard to high and "adequate" protection*. He had announced his policy many months before and continued to announce it right along. There was no subterfuge and no statement that thi3 protection was for infant industries. He had finally and fully abandoned the position Sir John Macdonald took in that respect. Week by week during that election-and I was carefully following newspaper reports of his speeches and of his tours, little expecting that I should be in the fray-I noticed that protection was to be the sole issue in the election of 1921, and he told us-and I direct the attention of hon. gentlemen directly opposite to this-that there was no danger that the public should be misled by side issues at that time. It was insisted that the high tariff of protection on the one hand, or the low tariff on the other, which was promulgated by our friends the Progressives, and largely by the Liberals as well, was the issue and the only major issue; and he told us that preliminary to that we should have an ample campaign of education. He staked his word as it were that there would be no

The Budget-Mr. Putnam

side issue, no minor issue, that there would be no red herring drawn across the trail this time; in 1921 we were to have a clear cut issue and decision on the question of protection as such. And I think that question was voted upon; I am absolutely of the belief that this was by far the major issue in the last campaign. With what result? With this result, that those who favoured the low tariff propaganda literally swept the country and left behind the (followers of the right hon. gentleman's party, with numbers which were a record for their historic paucity.

WThen I go to Nova Scotia, which has been greatly in the limelight, I need not depend upon any alleged new found doctrine of my late opponent, the eix-Minister of Public Works in the last government. There is no doubt that Nova Scotia, in a proper sense of the word, is still all right. I do not know that we ever expect to be a great numerical people with teeming industries and millions of people in that little province, where our geographic position is modest and where, to be frank, we are just a little out of the way as compared with Canada as a whole. But we are not pessimists as regards the future of Nova Scotia. We, all of us, believe, as does the ex-JMinister of Public Works in the' late administration, that high protection after a long and more than a fair trial has done harm and harm only to the Maritime provinces. I picked up the Morning Chronicle the other day, and while it is true it is a Liberal organ, it so intelligently summarizes some figures from tTie census returns that I shall take the liberty of reading a portion of the article setting them forth. After showing that protection and the element of railway rates have been against us, the editorial goes on to say:

In spite of all this, if the growth in population of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia since confederation in 1867, be compared with that of Quebec and Ontario, it will be found that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have increased respectively by 58.74 and 53.9 per cent, while Ontario and Quebec have only increased by 110.13 and 112.42 per cent respectively. This is no startling difference when the huge free grants of extra territory which the two larger provinces have received-still at our expense-are taken into consideration along with the operations of high " protection " entirely in their favour and to our most serious disadvantage and loss. Ontario has never gained an additional representative in parliament through increase of population since confederation. She came within an ace of suffering the loss of one by the last census. Nova Scotia did gain one extra member, by the first census after confederation, that of 1871. Her losses, since then, began under and have kept pace with the " National Policy " of high protection for the advancement of central Canada.

To show how that policy has affected Ontario as well as Nova Scotia, a few facts will suffice. These facts will show, at the same time, that tariff " pro-

tection " is for the exclusive benefit of cities and towns at the expense of rural communities. In brief, then, the facts are that 35 counties of Ontario lost

78.000 in population between 1911 and 1921. Thirty-five counties are, all but one, twice the number of counties in Nova Scotia. Yet in those ten years Nova Scotia's eighteen counties made an increase of nearly

25.000 population. The thirty-five Ontario counties made very considerable progress towards becoming a " Withered Arm," because they were unduly and improperly taxed for the upbuilding of the cities and towns of that province. Nova Scotia was blighted by the same means, but held back of the " withering " stage.

Nova Scotia was an old settled country at confederation. In the preceding 120 years she had gained a population of only 330,000. She has increased this by 200,000 in the fifty odd years since confederation. The prairie provinces, relatively, are now where Nova Scotia wTas at confederation. Their days of rapid growth are as definitely over as are ours. The next twenty years will tell where the " Withered Arm," if it exists, will have to be looked for.

That is more concisely put than I could state it, and it expresses the effect of the operation of protection so clearly that I have taken the liberty of reading it to the House.

Our friends of the official opposition are prone to twit us with the commercial treaties we have sought afar, such notably as the French and Italian treaties as well as the suggested Australian treaty, and they have declared that these treaties do not amount to very much, being hardly worth the time, the effort and the ambition which this government has spent upon them. All I can say to that is that it does not lie in the mouths of these hon. gentlemen to make any such criticism, [DOT]because in 1911 there was the golden opportunity, to defeat which they immediately lined up their followers, by the means they employed. If we had then achieved the reciprocity which was offered us by the United States, and as we thought honourably offered by Canada in return, we should not have needed to send our missionaries over the earth to search out infinitely (inferior trade treaties. We missed an opportunity which possibly may never occur again; and, if I am not using slang, it makes me a little bit tired and decidedly impatient to sit here and listen to the official Tories twitting us about the trade treaties which we are trying to secure in lieu of that master treaty which we could have had with the United States. I say that it does not come well from hon. gentlemen to suggest that these treaties are not of so much importance.

I do not know precisely the attitude of the Conservative opposition towards our coal duty which we recently raised as respects slack coal. I do know, however, though I am not in a coal county, that 50 cents a ton on slack coal is a lesser ad valorem duty to-day than 14 cents was formerly. As I understand it,

The Budget-Mr. Putnam

slack coal is in its initial stage a waste, something comparable to the sawdust which the lumberman encounters in getting his lumber sawn. If that sawdust comprised about 50 per cent, instead of a very small proportion, of the actual lumber, the comparison would be almost complete. The fact is that with the American slack coal coming in, this byproduct of the coal industry in Canada was well nigh a waste to our coal operators. But by putting the duty up to 50 cents on slack coal we think the coal operators of Nova Scotia will be able to ship about half a million more tons of slack coal1 into the market and sell it at a small profit.

Do not tell any Nova Scotian that that change is going to raise the price of round coal, because it is not. It will be far more apt to have the effect of slightly reducing the price, inasmuch as by getting a better price for what otherwise would be his waste product the mine operator will produce coal on the whole cheaper than he did before. I am willing to admit that it is somewhat of a reversal of the trend towards a lower tariff. But we have to recognize this fact, as it was succinctly stated to me this afternoon by a very bright member of the press gallery-that confederation to be held together seeks resort after resort to artificial means. I admit that on economic grounds the raising of the tariff upon slack coal is something of 'an artificial means. I had no patience with my good friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) when he said that we were not entitled to this assistance, and that if Nova Scotia coal could not be placed in New England at a living profit we should let the mines go down. If we go back to the time of confederation-and surely nobody will discount the promises of leading Canadians at that time-we were told and openly encouraged to believe that our coal mines were a part of the great contemplated Canadian partnership assets, and that the coal of Nova Scotia would be burned in the grates of Ontario. The hon. member for Brome cannot tell us now, with any semblance of justice, fair play or equity, that it just depends on whether it is a strictly economic transaction, and that if we cannot mine our coal under the conditions of profit we have to go out of business, we have to throw that pride of asset out of the reckoning of confederation as a whole.

I have another view on this coal question, Mr. Speaker, which I think probably has not been touched in the economic aspect. During the Great war the coal fields of Sydney helped at one stroke materially to bring victory to the Allies. The armed minions of the British navy saw to it that the warships,

the troop ships and the freight ships were assembled at Sydney, carefully guarded and bunkered, so that we were dependent on no nation outside the British Empire to get our supplies and men overseas, and to keep open the arteries of commerce, which was a tremendous and spectacular undertaking. We are not so far advanced towards universal peace that we have any proof that Armageddon may not come again. During the last war the government put an embargo against the export of Canadian coal, showing that we would take no chances in the winning of that tremendous struggle, and that we appreciated the strategic position of Sydney with its coal fields nearer to the pivotal points of the world than those of any other part of Canada. Therefore for that reason I say we should never allow these coal mines to be dismantled. There can be no economic profit for the British government to keep great stores of ammunitions, but it is a preservation against the storm. Our coal fields at Sydney, in Cape Breton and in Nova Scotia generally are directly in that category, and I say that if all other economic reasons for this duty were absolutely unsound, we should preserve these coal mines in working order against any such horrible and unexpected contingency as that which we passed through only a few years ago. The people who know this business tell me that you cannot drop a coal mine like a pitch fork and take it up again when you please; you have to keep it open, you have to keep it running practically to capacity to be able to draw upon it in case of emergency.

I have alluded to the position of my opponent the ex-Minister of Public Works in the late government. When I read that pamphlet of his I found he said that if we cannot get rid of this high fence of protection we in the Maritime provinces might as well cut the painter so far as the Canadian connection is concerned. I have a personal friend in this House in the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey). He said something a little along the same lines, and the Tory press from one end of the country to the other proceeded to denounce him as a traitor to confederation and a dangerous demagogue, and I cannot remember the variety of anathema which they poured out against him. It is wonderful that the ex-Minister of Public Works in the late government so well escaped the adverse criticism that fell to the lot of the hon. member for Springfield. I would say of the latter gentleman that a better Canadian, a more intelligent or more fearless member, one who understands the spirit of our constitution better, one who is

The Budget-Mr. Putnam

more widely read and a more thorough allround Britisher, does not in my humble opinion sit in this parliament. And I only want to say that if these denunciations are to be continued, he has the company of a gentleman very recently a minister in the government led by my right hon. friend. But I think the statements of these two hon. gentlemen are capable of a reasonable interpretation. The hon. member for Springfield does not make the stupid mistake in that regard of thinking that he is a leader of public opinion, although his ability is widely recognized. My late opponent, the ex-Minister of Public Works in the late government, does evidently profess to think that his conversion made of him a leader of thought. The hon. member for Springfield did not come out with any flamboyant pamphlet with his portrait on the first page. What those two hon. gentlemen said was in effect simply this: There is a

way to have even-handed justice dealt out to the various sections of this Dominion, there is a way to do it before it is too late, and if you could imagine a state of affairs wherein we could not do it, why what is the good of maintaining confederation at all? You might as well tell me that if I put up at an hotel and said to my host, "If you don't give me fair accommodation here I will not stay," it would not be other than a simple and firm invitation to the host to treat me fairly. It would be intended to bring results and would succeed. And we in the Maritime provinces, with our friends in the west, do feel that under the scheme of confederation we have not yet got anything like even-handed justice, and that the chief factor against that justice which we seek is the bane of this high protection, which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) was extolling with his last utterance to-night when he left By-town for Hog-town.

Now, if we take the $344,000,000 representing the revenue of this country, I think it will be enlightening to tens of thousands of hard-shelled Tories and high protectionists to find that only 31 per cent of that revenue, or less than one-third, is made up from customs duties. I approached an otherwise intelligent man in the last Dominion election to vote against the forces of high protection, but I could not persuade him that high protection was not the be-all and the end-all of our national existence; he seemed to think that protection was the one idol which was our salvation and our sure and only means of revenue. I am sure that when I see him again and tell him, "Why, my good man. less than one-third of the money that is

necessary to carry on the country is obtained from that idol of protection of yours," he will begin to see that there are other and more open and manly ways of raising the revenue than by this subterranean method of the tariff. There is a sales tax and there is an income tax. I admit that taxation in any form is never welcome, and these two forms of taxation are no exception. But they have at least this virtue, that they are collected in the daylight, whereas this 31 per cent coming from customs duties is collected in the dark. I hope that the government will diminish more and more the percentage that comes from the customs tariff.

Our Progressive friends have been subjected to tactics which do no credit either to their intelligence or to their astuteness. I would not assume to dictate to them, but I would ask them, in the presence of those who have been responsible for the tactics to which I have alluded, to be very careful about giving their imprimatur to the high protectionist tactics involved in the innocent notice of motion that I have mentioned, and the budget amendment which contains no reference to tariff. These are tactics which, I submit, are divested of every element of candour and good faith.

As to my statement that the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) said nothing more un-Canadian than my opponent in the last election, the ex-Minister of Public Works under the late government, I wish to gay that the hon. member said nothing more un-Canadian-it was not un-Canadian at all-than Mayor Murphy of Halifax said the other day when the Maritime delegation came here to press for their rights and to supplement the efforts of the Maritime province members in this parliament. Most hon. members heard what he properly said.

In conclusion, I merely wish to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance upon the fact that his budget is commanding the support of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). The hon. member is the leader of a non-negligible group in this House, and last session he voted for an amendment which condemned the government for not proceeding more rapidly toward the goal of a very low tariff. I think therein we have some indication that the public at large appreciate with the rate of geometric progression the difficulties which the government has to face and realize that after all we are making steady progress toward better financial conditions through the destruction of the idol of superhigh protection.

The Budget-Mr. Hodgins


Archie Latimer Hodgins


Mr. A. L. HODGINS (East Middlesex):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Putnam), and so far as the Progressives are concerned I do not think they can find much fault with his speech. I have listened attentively to the different speeches which have been made during this debate, and I find myself largely in accord with one hon. member who spoke last night and who said that after listening to all the speeches that have been made and after reading a good many of the criticisms in the press he was still at a loss to know just what the financial condition of the country was. However, of one thing we may be sure, and that is that we are still in debt. If the debt is not piled up in one way it is another; if it is not increased in connection with ordinary expenditure we have it added to by the outlay in connection with our national railroads. If our governments would devote as much energy to the reduction of expenditure as they do to the levying of taxation, I think we could make our budgets balance a great deal better than we do. We can only balance our budget, it seems to me, either by reducing expenditure or by increasing taxation; and I think hon. members will agree with me when I say that the people to-day are taxed almost to the limit.

When I first heard the budget speech of this year I did not think there was much in it to find fault with, but when I read it over a little more carefully and gave a little more consideration to it, I found there was more in it than I thought there was. But I am glad to say that the most objectionable feature of the budget has been withdrawn, namely, the clause regarding the dumping duty. There are other objectionable features in the budget and they might well be withdrawn without making the budget unacceptable. But I regard the budget as more objectionable for the things it does not contain than for the things it does contain.

Regarding the stamp tax, I cannot say that I am very much against the idea of placing such a tax on any form of paper which amounts to the same thing as a cheque. It is a system of direct taxation, and although I believe it will hit the farming class more than any other section of the people-because ultimately the farmers have to pay a great part of the taxes anyway-it is all right to have fair direct taxation. To that part of the budget, therefore, I would not object very seriously.

With regard to the tariff board I shall not say very much, because the hour is getting late and I am going to cut my remarks very short.

I do not believe a tariff board is necessary at all. We surely have machinery enough in the departments at Ottawa to furnish any information that may be required in order that the government may establish a tariff that is necessary to carry on the business of this country. I agree with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) that this board will De a smoke screen behind which the government will get in the matter of tariff. A tariff commission is something that was advocated by the late government, and now it is advocated by the present government. I hope that if the Progressives occupy the government benches they will never advocate anything of this description.

In listening to the debates in this House I have been wondering whether there is any central part of this Dominion. We have heard a good deal about the east and a good deal about the west; but after listening to the hon. member for East York (Mr. Harris) last night, I came to the conclusion that there was a central part of Canada and that it could be heard from coast to coast. But in Ontario we have a province that we can well be proud of. It might be inferred from many of the speeches that are heard in this House that Ontario as a whole was in favour of high tariffs; that the people of the province could not subsist without high tariff protection. But I want to say here and now that over forty per cent of the people of Ontario live in the rural districts, and from the representation in this House at present it can readily be seen that a large percentage of the people of Ontario are not very high protectionists.

I happen to come from what we think is one of the best districts in Ontario. I am situated down in that southwestern comer which is highly industrialized and which has some of the best farming lands in the Dominion of Canada.

Yet in that western peninsula of Ontario, which comprises fourteen counties and contains 13.550 square miles, we produce 26 per cent of the manufactured goods, 45 per cent of the field crops, and 49 per cent of the live stock of the province. Then when we consider that this same province produces about 50 per cent of the manufactured goods, 23 per cent of the field crops, and 32 per cent of the live stock of Canada, we can realize that this portion of our country at least is no mean portion of Canada. Yet even in this well favoured portion of Canada, what are our conditions? We find that there are there over 100,000 acres of good, tillable land lying idle or in pasture, and some 235,000 acres offered for sale. In this same portion, in the

The Budget-Mr. Hodgins

year 1919, there was a survey made by the officials of the Agricultural College, Guelph, of over thirty farms in the immediate vicinity of the city of London, and what is the condition on those farms? This survey showed that on these thirty farms the average labour income was $778. There wasl an average taken as respects size, from 150 to 200 acres, and this $778 is the labour income not only for the farmer himself but for the whole family, and on a great many of our Ontario farms, as well as on other farms 1 believe throughout the country, the housewife earns I think fully as much as the man himself.

The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) a few evenings ago brought up the question of placing a high protective duty on early fruits and vegetables. This is a matter which I happen to know a little about, being situated in a district where this business is carried on quite extensively. London has a population of some 60,000 people. For its size, it is a city whose market cannot be beaten I think by any place in this Dominion. Around that city there are a number of market gardeners, and they have been doing very well I believe, so well that instead of having a zone of market gardens around the oity of London for only one or two miles, that zone has been extended until produce now comes into the city from as high as fifty miles away. The automobile, sir, I think is more a cause of the hardships of the market gardeners than any low tariff business we have in this country to-day. I will admit, however, that there are some early fruits and vegetables coming in from the United States, but if we were to put a high duty on these products coming in, what would be the outcome? As soon as the duty goes on, the price goes up, and that means the consumer has to pay just that much more. Then what is the result? The one who purchases those articles, no matter whether he is a workman, a capitalist or anybody else, has to have more money in order that he can keep up Ms standard of living. His cost of living goes up, and if he happens to be an employee he asks his employer for more money, and his employer under present conditions has to give him an increase. Then the employer in turn has to get more for the goods he produces in order that he can afford to pay his employee. Then the tax is passed on from one to the other until finally it falls on the shoulders of someone who cannot pass it on, and in the great majority of cases that is the man who produces the goods on the soil, the farmer. I would like to quote in this connection the opinion of one who I think knows more about this subject than I do, and that is a

man who was invited by the Ontario Vegetable Growers' Association to address them at their convention held last winter in the King Edward Hotel, Toronto, a man by the name of Mr. Norwood. He came from the United States, but what connection he has with the vegetable business I personally do not know. The Ontario Vegetable Growers' Association, however, I presume thought well to invite him, and therefore I think his word should go as a quotation. He says:

You are labouring under a false impression when you think that these southern fruit and vegetables are produced by cheap labour. Cheap labour is all used for cotton production in the south. The Japanese at one time threatened the truck interests in California, but with the passing of recent anti-oriental legislation growing is again in the hands of intelligent white men.

The report goes on:

Mr. Norwood claimed that the northern states had been harder hit than Canada by the competition of the south, but in many cases they were meeting this invasion successfully by improved marketing. He intimated that Ontario growers would be rather ahead to pay less attention to tariff matters and concentrate on modern selling methods. He used the Milwaukee situation as an example. The growers in that section are less favoured than those in Ontario in the matter of climate and soil, yet to-day they are holding their own local markets against all comers.

We have listened to some speeches in this House, Mr. Speaker, which would lead us to believe that Canada was going, I might say, almost to the bow-wows. But in looking over the growth of Canada during the past number of yeans I was amazed at the growth that has taken place in this Canada of ours in spite of the hard luck stories which we hear. The increase in the last twenty years is in population 65 per cent; in trade 407 per cent; field crop production 400 per cent; railway tariff receipts 525 per cent; exports of agricultural products, 1,300 per cent; exports of wood and wood products, three times as great; wheat crop, seven times as great; mineral production. 117 per cent increase; manufactured goods 70.000 per cent increase, which I think is pretty good; capital in manufacturing, 70 per cent increase. Canada's trade per capita is the greatest of any country in the world except New Zealand. Our export trade per capita in 1924 was $112.60; that of the United States, $40; Great Britain, $80. Our imports per capita were $96.22.

We have continually heard about the ruination of business, the unemployed and the empty dinner pail, but, Sir, I believe that we could furnish work for thousands of people on the farms of this country to-day if we were able to pay them sufficient

11 p.m. wages to compete with those paid in other walks of life. I have prepared here a short table which is largely taken

The Budget-Mr. Hodgins

from the Labour Gazette published by this government. I have cheeked this report over so far as I could from my own knowledge of affairs in this country, and I find it correct so far as I know. I find that the wages paid to employees in different walks of life in Canada are as follows, and except for agriculture, which takes in a day of from ten to twelve hours, the other occupations are figured on a nine-hour day:

Per day

Agriculture $ 2 00

Mining 4 00


4 50Lumbering

3 60Miscellaneous factory

5 40Boot and shoe

4 50Rubber

4 50Furniture

4 00Carriage

3 75Pulp and paper

3 75Meat packing

4 50Brick layers - .. 9 00Carpenters

8 00Electrical workers

7 20Painters

6 25Plasterers

11 25Plumbers

8 00Stone cutters

9 00Labourers

4 50Blacksmiths

5 00Boiler makers

8 25Machinists

8 40Moulders

8 40Sheet metal workers

0 25

You will notice that the farm labourers, the men who are hired on the farm are only paid one-half the amount that men in other occupations receive.


An hon. MEMBER:

What are the farm

labourers paid?


Archie Latimer Hodgins



Two dollars a day. That includes board also. Now, as I said a moment ago, I believe we could furnish work on the farm for thousands of people in this country. But I believe there are some who are placed in circumstances and environment from which they cannot escape. There are I think such cases in the Maritime provinces at the present time. With those oases I sympathize, but it seems to me from what I can find out about the Nova Scotia situation that it is economically impossible to work those mines at the present time. Coal can be produced in United States mines at a price so much cheaper than the coal from the mines in Nova Scotia that I do not see how it is possible to profitably operate the latter.

A lot of reasons have been given in this House for the existence of hard times, depression in business and similar conditions. I think one of the main reasons why we have hard times in Canada to-day is the financial system which we have, or rather the working out of that system. Indeed it affects our 140

business to a greater extent than any tariff policy that could be adopted, and it is time the existing system should be remodelled. If that is not done we should have an entirely new system. I suggest that we try out the system of co-operative banks with a federal reserve bank over it. All our bankers, I believe, are good straightforward and honest men. I think they are trying to do their duty but they are too slow and conservative to keep up with the business of the country. The damage to our business is largely done even before the bankers wake up and realize their responsibility and the condition that matters are in. If they would become leaders in their respective communities instead of being satisfied with being trailers it would make a wonderful difference in our business life. While speaking about the banking business of the country I should like to follow the example of the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Humphrey) and remind the government that there are a great many people scattered throughout Canada who would like it to bring in a measure for the relief of the depositors of the Home Bank. In view of the report of the special committee appointed last session to investigate the matter I cannot see how the present government can get away from its responsibility, and I sincerely hope that it will not try to do so.

Now I should like for a moment or two to speak about a business that has been much discussed in this House at one time or another, and that is the woollen industry of Canada. A few days ago the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods) made a statement regarding the woollen industry carried on in a mill in his constituency. A day or two afterwards the statement was contradicted in part at least, by the horn, member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I do not know anything about that particular industry, but I do know something about other industries that are conducted along the same line. I picked up a clipping from the Toronto Globe a short time ago; it is very brief and I will read it to the House. It says:

The Milton Worsted Yam and Spinning Mills Company has a flourishing industry here. It employs 150 hands and for a long time has operated day and night-one shift from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the other from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m.

That does not look very much like going out of business. A short time ago I had occasion to visit a little town situated not very far from Ottawa where there are four woollen mills in full operation. They are not only running full time but are making money in doing so. Sometimes gloomy statements


The Budget-Mr. Hodgins

in regard to industrial conditions -are made by hon. members to my right, and afterwards we find out that the conditions are altogether different from what they were represented to be. So I think that the talk of hard -times, so far as manufacturing is concerned, is largely bunk. It is only a short time since I had a conversation with one of the leading citizens in the city of London who is carrying on a large manufacturing (business there. That same man is crying ou-t at the present time for high protection1. He is a man of about fifty years of age and he told me in conversation that he started in as a young m-an with practically nothing except his own head and hands 'and- to-day he is worth $80,000. Now it is not too bad when men who are carrying on business -are making money as fast as that man. is, and I could cite you other cases of the kind. These men should not be asking for high protection to-day ait the expense of somebody else in view of the success which has awarded their efforts and the privileges they enjoy.

There is another matter to which I would like to direct the attention of the House for a moment or two and that is the railroad situation in this country. I understand the subject will be introduced here later on, and so I shall only apend a very few moments in discussing it. We all know our railway indebtedness is piling up year after year, and we as Canadian citizens must put forth every effort in order that the existing situation may be remedied. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) stated the other day that by cutting out duplication in railway services on the part of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways a saving of about $75,000,000 might be effected. I do not know whether the statement is absolutely true or not but I have a good dteal of confidence in the opinion of the hon. gentleman on this question because he has given it considerable study, but even if the saving were only one-half the amount stated it would be well worth considering. Furthermore, our freight rates, as everybody knows, have got into a tangled state at the present time, and the government, parliament and1 the railway commission, and other authorities are trying to unravel the snarl The west thinks it is imposed on, the east is sure that it is suffering from an imposition, and Ontario has the idea that she is paying for the d'eficit at both ends. Even in Ontario there is discrimination between different points in the same neighbourhood, and these things cannot continue.

I should like to say a word in regard to egg inspection throughout this country. I want

to say that I am very much in favour of egg inspection-the most rigid inspection in the case of importations and exportations of eggs. I was very pleased to hear the statement of one of the hon. members for British Columbia the other day that on account of the inspection of eggs importations from the United States had been reduced-I think some six millions dozens in two years. It was gratifying to hear that, but I say that the inspection of eggs in our domestic trade is a nuisance to the farmers, to the storekeepers and to those buying the eggs in the cities. I think the difficulty could be overcome in some way. Our storekeepers or our ordinary grocers are absolutely refusing to have anything to do with eggs on account of the inspection they have to go through, and if provision could be made that the names of the owners of the eggs should be placed on the wagons or crates, so that the people would1 know from whom they were buying, it would save a lot of inconvenience among the farmers as well as the purchasers of the goods.

There is another matter on which I would like to express an opinion. I have several items before me but I will omit them. The matter to which I wish to refer is regarding co-operative buying and selling. I think, Sir, that the system of distribution that has been established in this country is one of the most expensive systems that it is possible for the mind of man' to think of. In a great many cases it costs more to place our goods on the market than it does to manufacture them. We have the profits of the retailers averaging anywhere from 30 to 300 per cent. Then we have the profits of the wholesalers on top of that, and on top of that again we have one jobber, and may be in some cases two or three; and by the time the goods get to the consumer they are sold at about two or three times the price at which they left the manufacturers' hands. I think our costly system of distribution has more to do with the high cost of living than even the profits the manufacturers are getting. I would say that the best way for our manufacturers to overcome foreign competition is to put up an article which is just as good or a little better than the imported article. I believe the people of Canada to-day want to buy Canadian made articles if they can get them just as good. It is our duty I think to buy Canadian goods, to build up our home industries where possible, and I think we all as loyal Canadians will do our utmost in this regard. In closing, I should like to quote a few words from a gentleman who is well known in this House. I refer to Mr. Tom Moore. I do not always

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard

agree with everything he says, but this struck me as so good that I will repeat it in the House:

Have toleration for the view of others, even when they are most antagonistic; give to every man his just say, seek for points of contact instead of points of disagreement. If these simple things were adopted in letter and spirit by the employers and employees of this country, unrest would vanish, the work of confederation would be complete, and we would not have nine separate provinces politically allied, but a Canada, unified, happy and industrially content.

This is a fine idea to hold forth, and if we could only imbibe the same spirit in the different sections of Canada, and between the different occupations as well as between the employees and the employer, I think it would bode well for the future.


Joseph Georges Bouchard


Mr. GEORGES BOUCHARD (Kamour-aska):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the

budget, and after having heard the volume of oratory already devoted to this subject, I cannot refrain from thinking of the pregnant words of two deputies, in the French parliament, at the first post-war session. One of them said:

In this time of reconstruction, let us stop talking and really get down to work! ....

And the other:

Spade work is far more valuable than speeches 1

These words, Mr. Speaker, may appear paradoxical when applied to this House, where speech making is an essential of the proceedings. The idea I want to convey, however, is that instead of indulging in empty talk which has no relation to present conditions, we should confine ourselves to constructive discussion. This then will be my objective in the remarks that I am about to make.

It is an axiomatic statement that agriculture is, and will be for many years to come, the basic industry in Canada. Consequently, it is my intention to speak primarily from the standpoint of those who are directly engaged in this important industry; and my outstanding reasons for adopting this attitude are first and foremost the fact that I represent a constituency which from its earliest history has been and still is essentially agricultural.

In addition, records show that in 1680 the founder of my family on Canadian soil, was established as a farmer in Riviere-Ouelle, where the best farms of the district are still to be found, and from that date until to-day, there has been an uninterrupted succession oi his descendants who by the sweat of their brow have formed and developed other districts in this and surrounding counties. As a matter of fact, my father and brother are at present working a farm which was opened up 140J

by one of my forefathers, and which is only a short distance from the spot where my Norman ancestors first settled.

Furthermore, in my earliest childhood, it was one of my greatest pleasures to follow my father as he turned the long furrows of sweet smelling earth; and in later years during my youth, it was my duty to participate in all the activities of the farm.

Impelled by the inherited love of the soil and inspired by this first hand contact with it, I then spent several years studying the principles of scientific agriculture in various countries. May I mention incidentally, for the information of my Scottish friends, that among the most pleasant memories of that period of my life, are those of the time spent working for a full season on a farm in bonnie Scotland, near Kilmarnock. It may be safer to add however that these memories have no connection whatever with the product for which this part of Scotland is world famous.

The past ten years spent in my professional capacity working side by side, hand in hand with the farmers and their sons, who are specially trained in the agricultural college of my district, have given me a further insight into and have familiarized me with the needs of our farming communities.

Representing as I do an agricultural constituency, being rooted into the Canadian soil through my pioneer ancestors and ten generations of settlers and farmers, having personally experienced both the theory and practice of farming, you readily understand, Mr. Speaker, it is not only my right, but also my natural inclination and duty to deal with the agricultural aspect of this budget and of other pieces of legislation. May I add, that being a descendant from those hardy pioneers who wrested their living from the land by the strength of their arms, and who did not measure their prosperity by the difference between their income and their expenditure, but rather by the pleasure of home life and the contentment which follow an arduous task well accomplished, I cannot subscribe to or condone the spirit of pessimism which has found its expression in many of the speeches emanating from certain quarters of this House. We must remember that pessimism is the worst of all pests; and had it not been for the undying optimism, the unquenchable hope and the undaunted courage of those who made this country, in the face of difficulties far greater than exist to-day, Canada would never have reached her present, stage of development.

My sympathy for the farmers would make me the last one in this House, Mr. Speaker,

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard

to find in the precedent of past sacrifices a ground for future privations on the part of the agricultural class. The fanner being a vital factor in our basic industry is entitled to the fullest possible consideration by the government. On the other hand, actual conditions must be taken into account, and I do not favour any Utopian scheme which has no practical basis and which can only serve to break down the courage by giving false hope to a credulous people. No one can deny that Canada, in common with other countries, is now passing through a crisis due in part to post-war deflation of value, but also in part to the extravagances, excesses and want of forethought of the previous government. If the statesmen of that time had been far-sighted enough to provide means for the part payment of war expenditures out of the surplus profits derived through wartime industrial activities, many of our ills would have been partly cured automatically, and this government would not have inherited such a heavy burden and a hard task.

Whatever may be the causes of these difficulties in our national life, or of those abnormal conditions, we must bear in mind, in any discussion looking towards improvement that each class of the community must bear its portion of the inevitable sacrifices imposed during the reconstruction period. I do not believe that any universal panacea, even a tariff policy, can be found that will instantaneously remove all our evils. Not being one of those mountebanks who believe in an all-embracing cure for every ill, I would rather deal with some special feature of existing and possible legislation which has been or may be a valuable factor in the improvement of our agricultural conditions.

Bather than dealing specifically with the budget of this year, which so far as the interest of the farmer as concerned' is practically identical with that of last year, I will simply state that, in my opinion, it marks a further step in the right direction, and tends to relieve the farmers of some burdens which have been pressing very heavily upon them.

The taking off of the sales tax on agricultural implements and the reduction of the import duty on them, has resulted in substantial savings for those farmers who are compelled to purchase one or other of these implements nearly every year. I would like however to touch lightly upon certain features of the agricultural situation which would appear to merit special attention at this time.

Let us consider for a few minutes the situation with regard to horse breeding in Canada. As you are all aware, the first horse brought (Mr. Bouchard.]

into Quebec in 1647 was to be presented to the governor, M. Montmagny, and the importation of horses continued until 1660, when, on account of the prominence given to horses to the detriment of the raising of cattle, the Intendant, Raudot, had to issue an order to the effect that the increasing of the number of horses was not to be continued. You are all aware also that the first Clydesdale was introduced in 1840, the first Percheron in 1855, the first Suffolk in 1868, the first Shire in 1883 and the first Belgian in 1902. Since that time, the horse breeding industry developed to such an extent that the great championship at the Chicago International1 Exhibition last year, was awarded to a Canadian breeder and .the Clydesdales from Saskatchewan were awarded all the stallion championships.

During the war and also in -the immediate post-war period, the great demand was for quick transportation!, irrespective of cost. It was not only necessary to produce but to produce rapidly at any cost and also to put the products on the market at the earliest possible moment. As a consequence, the horse, both for work purposes and as a means of transportation, was largely displaced by tractors and auto trucks. This condition of affairs continued until the replacement of these tractors became necessary, when many farmers and others began to realize that the 'capital investment and overhead expense were disproportionate to the result obtained as compared with the use of horses. Those who have weighed the evidence in this connection have come to the conclusion that in many cases home grown living motors, whose fuel consists of hay and oats rather than gasoline, is the more economical. This has been accentuated by the fact that the price of horses has decreased more rapidly than that of motors and tractors. Unfortunately, in the meantime, and before the changing conditions were fully realized, not only was the breeding of horses neglected but the colts were underfed to such an extent as to prevent their full development. At the present moment, judging from the information Which I have obtained from the west and also by the results of an auction sale of pure bred Percherons at St. Anne dte la Pocatiere, where the raising of this breed was initiated some ten years ago, that corner has now been turned, so far as this industry is concerned, and there is every prospect of it flourishing again in the future. Just here, may I quote an article from a local paper indicating how quickly these horses were sold.

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard

The auction of registered Percheron horses, which took place on Wednesday, was a fair success. Notwithstanding the rain and the bad condition of the roads, the crowd was quite a large one and the bidding was lively enough and even at times very contested.

Fourteen picked animals were sold at prices varying from $350 to $800. These horses thus distributed in the various parts of the province will greatly helLp in improving the breeding of the Percheron horse. Another practical result of this auction sale will be to advertise throughout the province what an excellent centre for breeding of Percherons there exists at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere and in its vicinity, and thus encourage the breeders of that district to further rear good horses for (breeding purposes, thanks to the assurance they have of being able to sell their animals at profitable prices.

As in the case of all agricultural organizations, it was the Revs. Messrs. J. Bois and M. Godbout who saw to all the details of this first sale, we must therefore congratulate them on their success.

The farmers in each province are waking up to the situation and' are asking for further co-operation from the government. Might I ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who is always ready to meet our fanners half way in anything that pertains to real progress, to give special attention to this phase of the live stock industry? In particular, I would respectfully call his attention to the difficulties experienced in the application of the law regarding the bonusing of pure bred stallions. The act may be quite satisfactory to the west, where the farms for the most part are large and where breeding is conducted on a large scale, but in the east we are confronted with many difficulties in its application. Some of these difficulties are outlined in letters which I have received from several horse breeding associations, and which I will send to the hon. minister for his information. I feel sure that he will take up this question with his departmental officers and the horse breeders with a view to arranging for some modification that will meet the requirements of the whole Dominion, and so further this increasingly important industry for the benefit of the farmers at large. I am specially confident of this because of the efficiency with which a very similar situation was dealt with regarding another branch of agriculture. If I refer now to the sheep industry it is not so much because of its comparative importance, but rather because its development furnishes the most striking example of the results which may be obtained through a sane departmental policy, combined with an efficient co-operation between federal and provincial agencies. Notwithstanding the fact that for many years the agricultural societies in the province of Quebec had been working for the improvement of this industry by a bonusing system, the farmers did not avail themselves of the opportunities offered, and as a consequence until very recently this line of agricultural activity was almost stagnant in many parts of the province. What step was then taken to remedy this? Roth the federal and provincial departments of agriculture appointed sheep promoters who, working hand in hand, were able to convince the farmer of the value of our federal bonusing system. Rome was not built in a day, nor were these conditions entirely changed within a year. Within a few years, however, a marked improvement was noticeable, and to-day sheep bred and raised by the farmers in these same districts are realizing the highest prices on the Boston, Toronto and Montreal /markets. In a report based on an investigation made by the representative of the Market Intelligence Service at Montreal, who has drawn a comparison between the type and quality of commercial lambs, raised in Quebec and marketed at Montreal during the years 1919 and 1924, I find the following:

In 1919 the average weight of all lambs marketed was 67.3 pounds, and 38 per cent were graded as good, 62 per cent as common. In 1924 the average weight was 73 pounds, and the grading 62 per cent good and 38 per cent common, the reverse of the figures for 1919. Basing the increased average weight per lamb of these better quality lambs on prevailing market values, the improvement represents a money value of $250,000.

These facts are further verified by the signatures of all the commission firms and packers operating on the Montreal market to the report submitted by the representative of the Markets Intelligence Division. The improved quality of commercial lambs raised in Quebec has promoted the development of a market in Boston where the lambs of this province are at the bop of the market,-I think most of these lambs come from the youthful county of Beauce-in spite of an existing tariff of S2 per head. During 1924 upwards of 40 carloads of lambs were shipped direct from lamb shows and sales to be disposed of on the Toronto market, where they topped the market in competition with all other lambs. Firms securing these lambs have stated in a letter to the Hon. J. E. Caron, provincial Minister of Agriculture, quoted in his report for 1924, to the effect that they would be pleased to secure all lambs to be marketed at lamb shows and sales in Quebec during 1925. I can confirm these results by personal experience in my own constituency, where last summer at the sheep sales I saw lambs sold for an average price of over $8, as compared with a price of only $3 for common lambs sold through ordinary dealers. There were many steps which contributed to this result, among them being the choice of the most suitable breeds, the introduction of pure bred rams, the proper

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard

care of the lambs, dipping and so on, preparation for t'he market, organization of sheep shows, the sales by auction and the co-operative shipment to outside markets in carload lots. All these steps meant ardiuous work for those engaged therein, but the result has more than justified the policy pursued. The same improvement has taken place in the swine industry, but time does not permit me to deal with it.

Closely related to the sheep industry is the wool business, which present conditions make particularly attractive, there being a worldwide shortage of wool, and last year's clip having been sold at a good price. There is a great potential market open for Canadian wool, not only in the United States but also in the Orient. An agency which has already done much to further this industry is the Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers' Association. During the seven years of its existence this association, working in conjunction with the department in its grading service, has proven itself to be one of the most helpful channels by which our farmers can dispose of their wool. This is shown by the fact that in that time it has handled over 25,000,000 pounds of Canadian wool. This has been beneficial not only to the farmers who (Obtained a better price, but also to the manufacturers who were provided with a better quality and a more uniform raw material. In addition this association has carried on a campaign to increase the use of home-grown wool, and to further the sale of clothing made therefrom. As an aid in reducing the cost of living, may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we all encourage this industry by wearing suits made out of the wool of our sheep and shirts made from the flax of our fields? Are not those clothes just as good as the imported ones? And they are Canadian! Furthermore, this society is founded upon the basic principles of real agricultural co-operation, which have been tried out and found successful in every country where the co-operative movement has proved to be a benefit.

I would like to deal very briefly with another branch of agriculture which this government has fostered and promoted most effectually, namely, poultry farming, in which I am particularly interested, as president of the Quebec Provincial Poultry Association.

It may be said without fear of successful contradiction that with regard to certain phases of this increasingly important industry, Canada leads the whole world. To enumerate briefly some of these, I may mention that Canada is the only country in the world which has perfected a system for the registra-

tion of poultry on a production basis; which has organized a national standardized series of egg laying contests; which has a federal plan for record of performance, and whose legislation regarding the grading of eggs is so effective. Until comparatively recent years strictly fresh eggs were not to be had in the winter, and hens which laid two hundred eggs in a year were considered phenomenal. To-day, however, due largely to the efficient work accomplished by the Department of Agriculture, the majority of the farmers produce new-laid eggs in the winter and two hundred egg hens are no longer rare. As an indication of this improvement, may I quote a few figures gathered from the reports of the Canadian national egg laying contests? In the contest year 1919-20 the average production of the 1,610 birds entered was only 122 eggs, and of this number of birds only 48, or three per cent, laid over 200 eggs. Last year, however, the average production of the 3,610 birds was 169 eggs, an increase of over 39 per cent, and the number of birds laying 200 eggs or over was 1,060, an increase of 31 per cent. In the contest conducted in my own constituency last year, 23 birds laid over 200 eggs as compared with none which reached that mark in 1919-20.

A concrete example of the increased production in country districts was furnished recently by the provincial district agricultural representative for the Abitibi, which, as you know, is a newly settled region. Last year the number of eggs produced exceeded that of the preceding year by over 29,000 dozen, or a value of over $13,000. This rejpresenlts almost one dollar per head of the total population. The district representative states that this progress is due entirely to the work accomplished by the federal government through the experimental farms.

I am informed by one of the Canadian delegates that during the World's Poultry Congress held in Spain last year, the Canadian birds, despite the trip of nearly 6,000 miles

some of them came from British Columbia,-were more vigorous than those from any other country, and were the centre of interest for all the visitors. This was partly responsible for the securing of the next world's Poultry Congress for Canada in 1927.

The registration of poultry inaugurated by this government assures the purchasers of registered male birds an authentic pedigree of at least two generations of high producing hens. The result has been the opening up of an immense foreign market, and as one prominent poultryman in the United States stated

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard

recently, the eyes of the poultrymen of the world are turned toward Canada for future breeding stock. The keeping of a record of performance for poultry has increased egg production to a wonderful extent, and the government regulations regarding the grading oi eggs assures to the consumer the quality for which he pays, and to the farmer a just price for the quality which he produces.

This furnishes another concrete example of the practical measures adopted by this government to improve agricultural conditions.

Now let us consider, Mr. Speaker, the production of maple sugar, an industry that is typically Canadian and is largely localized in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I think that Quebec itself supplies about 85 per cent of the total amount produced in Canada. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are also interested in this industry. According to the statistics, over 20,000 people in this present season are busy making maple sugar and syrup. The value of the total production in 1920 was 88,000,000; in 1921, $5,000,000; in 1922, 85,000,000. Our experts are of the opinion that if properly developed this industry might double its production. Up to the present time we have been handicapped by many fraudulent products which appear on the market to the great disadvantage of the consumer and have the effect of discouraging the producer of genuine maple sugar and syrup. Let me quote in this connection a clipping from the Ottawa Evening Citizen of March 16, 1925:

On many farms, however, the sugar bush is a thing of the past. The many substitutes for maple syrup and its higher production costs have materially reduced the revenue derived from this source, while the high prices prevailing for hard maple for firewood have been a temptation too strong to resist, and many of the sugar bushes have been cut down.

The hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Beland) is quite aware of the difficulties with which our sugar makers are confronted. Coming himself from the district of Beauce, where so much sugar is produced, he must have heard very many complaints. If my recollection is correct, he was one of the most interested about ten -years ago in working on legislation to protect the producer. The last bill was drafted in 1920 and took effect on July 1 of the same year, but it still leaves the door open to fraud. The producers and manufacturers of genuine maple products, seeing that our export market was in great danger on account of the many adulterations, attempted to have matters improved. Hon. J. Caron, Minister of Agriculture in the province of Quebec, who is always deeply interested in anything that affects the farmers, requested an officer of his

department, Mr. Vaillancourt, to join a delegation which was going bo Ottawa to discuss these matters with the hon. Minister of Health. This delegation, which I had the honour to introduce to the hon. Minister of Health, was composed of five prominent men in the maple sugar industry and of my parliamentary colleagues in the districts interested in this industry. Our petition was fully considered and discussed by the hon. minister and his officers, and we were promised some improvement. Might I ask the hon. minister, while he is in his seat, if any amendments to the present law will be introduced to require the producer of sugar to put a label on his product indicating its purity and place of origin.


Henri Sévérin Béland (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; Minister presiding over the Department of Health)



Does my hon. friend desire an answer immediately?


Henri Sévérin Béland (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; Minister presiding over the Department of Health)



I did not want to interrupt my hon. friend- in his highly interesting, instructive, polished and informative address, but I have no objection at all to giving him a reply.

Let me tell him and the House that the government agrees entirely with his plea that the maple sugar industry should be further protected from adulteration. There is no doubt that new regulations should be enforced to prevent unscrupulous producers from ruining this important market, and since my hon. friend has asked me the question, I might say that it is the intention shortly to enforce measures providing for the labelling of all maple sugar so that in case of adulteration it will be possible to trace those guilty of fraud. I realize, as my hon. friend has said, that it is most important that we should protect the honest producer against the con-demnable methods that have been adopted especially in the last two or three years.


Joseph Georges Bouchard



Mr. Speaker, I think all the sugar makers will be delighted when they read the important statement that has just been made by the hon. Minister of Health.

May I just say a few words on another very important question? It is a recognized fact to-day that it is almost impossible, under ordinary conditions, and particularly with land that has been cropped for successive years, to obtain a satisfactory yield without the use of fertilizers. I am ready to admit that the old-fashioned fertilizer, farm manure, has no equal, but in many instances this cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities; consequently, commercial fertilizers are begin-

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard

rung to play an important part in the development of agriculture here in Canada, as they have already done in the older countries of Europe.

What was the situation with regard to this question when this government came into power? A multitude of agents were flooding the country with commercial fertilizers, of which the farmers had not sufficient guarantee as to the quality or the price. As a result, after a few experiments with these fertilizers, the farmers in many cases became skeptical as to the value of this method of fertilization. Let me outline what was then done to relieve this situation.

During the session of 1922. the administration of the act dealing with these fertilizers was transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Agriculture, and it was my privilege, during the first week that I sat in this House, in May, 1922, to assist in the preparation of a new act which covered this subject, so as to make it more effective for the protection of the farmers. Judging by information received from time to time, I think I am safe in stating that in the three years which .have elapsed this new law has proved of immeasurable benefit to our farming population. This is acknowledged by the foremost agricultural authorities on this continent and this legislation is looked upon as a model of its kind.

Furthermore, conditions were improved by the removal of the safes tax and later on of the import duties on these commercial fertilizers and this was another step deeply appreciated bj' the farmers. In order to further the interests of the farmers who are remote from commercial centres and who are not well informed regarding current prices, in 1923, the department began to publish a periodical, the Market Review, which contains current market quotations for seed grain, animal feed and commercial fertilizers, together with a summary of local market prices. This review is available for a very nominal subscription. Any farmer who does not subscribe directly for it can always obtain the information contained therein through his local farmers' organization.

This most valuable legislation, combined with the spirit of co-operation, which is being manifested by the farmers in this connection, makes it possible for them to obtain a product of which the quality is assured at a most reasonable and fair price. As an example, we may take basic slag from Belgium, containing the minimum of 16 per cent of available phosphoric acid, which according to the last

market report can now be bought for $18, which is about half the price of ten years ago.

Our Canadian farmers are particularly appreciative of the fact that the inspection labels for all fertilizers sold in the province of Quebec are bi-lingual, which enables them to read the analysis in their own language.

There is another feature of agriculture which is extremely important, and which must on no account be overlooked. I refer to investigational and experimental work connected therewith. To some minds these words, investigation, research, and experiment, seem to be bugbears. It is an undoubted fact, however, that modem agriculture is an art, a science, an industry. Such being the case, it is essential that its practice should be based upon principles that can only be laid, down as a result of investigational and experimental work. It is to be expected that expenditure of public money for this purpose might be misunderstood and criticized by those who are not in a position to appreciate its importance. I am always thunderstruck, however, when I see this critical attitude finding expression in this House and often among members representing districts which directly or indirectly benefit by this type of work. If, then, agriculture is essentially an experimental science, and no one will deny this, it requires men with scientific training and the provision of adequate facilities to conduct the necessary experimentation to establish the basis of this science. As a matter of fact, the most prosperous agricultural countries in the world are those which have devoted most attention to this type of work. A concrete example among thousands which might be quoted is furnished by the research which resulted in the discovery of basic slag, which-to-day may be aptly described as the bread of the land not only in Europe, but also all over the world. Before its utilization for fertilizing purposes this was merely a by-product of the steel industry, which had absolutely no economic value. The Objection is often made that owing to the need of economy in difficult times this work should be curtailed. These, however, are the very times when it should be extended in order to increase the total production and decrease the cost thereof. Research work which is admitted to be the basic factor in manufacturing industries should equally be applied to agriculture. This principle is even truer of agriculture by reason of the fact that instead of being centralized with capital at their disposition to conduct thelir own experiments the farmers are scattered throughout the

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard

country and have not always the facilities for so doing.

Our federal system of experimental farms is the admiration of agriculturists the world over, not only by reason of its extent but also because of the opportunity which it affords for undertaking uniform and standardized work.

The contention is often made that these experimental farms are not self supporting and consequently, do not pay. In immediate returns it is true that they do not pay and that they will never pay so long as they function as they should do. Experimental work is, by its very nature, too costly to be self-supporting. Who can calculate, however, to tak'e only one example among 'hundreds, the billions of dollars by which western Canada has been enriched through the discovery of marquis wheat; a discovery which involved many years of patient, scientific research and experimentation. Similar work, at present, on the way, indicates that in the very near future, other varieties such as garnet wheat, and so forth, will be produced and will prove to be of even more economic importance.

If time permitted I could cite equally striking facts concerning practically every branch of agriculture, including animal husbandry, horticulture, field husbandry, poultry, beekeeping and tobacco growing. I know by personal experience that the farmers of my district are very grateful to their former and never forgotten member, the present honourable Minister of Justice, for the part he played in securing the establishment of the experimental farm at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, and which has contributed v.ery effectively to solve many of our acute problems and to generally help agriculture in lower Quebec. For these reasons, I trust that the bon. Minister of Agriculture, notwithstanding the need of real economy, will recognize that a curtailment of this work would be really false economy and would be most detrimental to the interest of the farmers.

We often hear the statement made, that on the south side of the border, t'he farmers are far more prosperous than here. I have no intention of denying the prosperity of the United States but I feel I am safe in saying that very few, if any, farmers from eastern Canada have crossed the line to establish themselves on the land. Moreover if one may judge by reports, farming conditions over there are not by any means rosy. I have here a despatch from Chicago dated last year which indicates this.

I have only attempted, Mr. Speaker, to express briefly certain of the outstanding

activities of this government in relationship to agriculture but -the instances I have quoted show plainly that the present administration has at heart the best welfare of farmers. To my mind the solution of the problem with which our agriculture is now faced will be largely found in increasing the productive capacity of the land, now under cultivation, and at the same time in decreasing the cost of production. Steps toward this end have already been taken by the reduction of the duties and removal of the sales taxes on agricultural implements, and so on, and by the dissemination of information regarding up-to-date and more successful methods of cultivation, based on practical experience.

We must endeavour, still further, to improve the quality of our products. It is too often said that the market is overloaded without taking into account the quality of the surplus stock. As the old proverb says "there is always room at the top," which, applied in this instance means there is ever a good market for produce of high quality. In this connection the various grading services are contributing wonderfully to the improvement of the quality: which results in a better price for the producer.

As I have already pointed out co-operative marketing will also do much to improve present conditions and will be of a decided benefit both to the producer and the consumer. In order to realize the best possible returns, the farmer, in common with those engaged in other lines of commerce, must market his goods at the most favourable time and in the most efficient way. He is substantially aided in this respect by the market report services of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Live Stock branch, Seed branch and the International Institute of Agriculture.

In view of the fact that the government attaches such importance to the question of transportation costs, I sincerely believe that in this connection the interests of the farmers will be protected to the greatest possible extent.

I cannot emphasize too strongly that agricultural activity is the foundation of national wealth, that in recent years the wheat of western Canada, whose waving golden grain glorifies twenty-five million acres of our fertile land, was the big factor, which in the balance of international trade, maintained the stability of our Canadian dollar and placed it on a par with the best money of the world, and that the agricultural class is the bulwark of the family as well as the best guardian of the health of the nation. Consequently in the name of economic solidarity, professional

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard

men, industrial workers, labourers and tradesmen must inevitably realize the necessity of an agricultural policy most helpful to the farmers, and should associate themselves with all measures, which will have for effect the increasing of farm revenue.

It has been insinuated that the policy of this government will result in killing many of our Canadian industries. Despite these spurious and preposterous affirmations of an opposition, inspired rather by a partisan resentment than by a genuine desire for national welfare, this government will never let the fires of our factories die out. On the contrary those fires have been stirred up and fanned into flames as is shown by the following statements. I quote from Le Devoir of April 11, 1925:

Les affaires. . . sans lunettes bleues

De la page financiere de la Gazette, hier:-Improvement in wholesale trade-Considerable activity in the retail trade-Collections slowly improving-. Dans une autre colonne: Trade conditions show betterment- Halifax: Wholesale trade continues satisfactory. Retailers generally report slight improvement.-St. John: Both wholesale and retail trade up to expectation. Collections satisfactory.- Montreal: (Tous les genres de commerce vont assez bien). Collections generally fair- Winnipeg: Splendid weather has stimulated retail sales in all lines of seasonable goods. . . Wholesale business steady. Collections fair.-Calgary: Business generally is showing a slight improvement. Collections fair.-Vancouver: No material change in whojesale and retail trade generally, but prospects brighter for the future.

Ce n'est pas dans le ton des jeremiades de M. Meighen, de ses "orateurs" et de ses organes. Mais il y a des chances pour que cela soit plus vrai. En tout cas, c'est a retenir pour le jour ou le parti des "affaires" criera famine et reclamera plus de "protection".

This government has no intention either to stifle, by the imposition of a ruinous tariff, the rising in the rosy dawn, of those columns of pale blue smoke from the hearth of the log house of the settler, from the thatched roofed homestead of the remote farmer and the cabin of the hardy fisherman or lumberman. These significant columns of smoke will continue to ascend to the sky as an incense to the glory and ability of our statesmen and as an indication of that prosperity which will assure for this Canada a foremost position among all the nations of the world.

The ship of state guided by the capable hands of the hon. Prime Minister, helped by the energies and efforts of all classes of the community, will successfully weather the storm and emerge triumphant from the tempestuous seas into which the poor helmismanship of the preceding government had plunged her. The administration of the country which was suffering from a chronic disease, that would never have been cured under the care of our predecessors, was operated upon by the clever

scalpel of an outraged public opinion. The Dominion is now convalescent and fresh air, not hot air, good care, sympathetic help and the co-operation of the people will effect a complete cure. The people themselves, however, must see to it that no relapse occurs, or to use a Biblical quotation-the last state will be worse than the first.

Let us then go forward with that unquenchable courage which animated our pioneer ancestors. May we not find inspiration in the eloquent words of an outstanding figure in our national life, His Excellency the Governor General, who said in a recent speech:

Are there not moments when we may see some things, here and now, which want constructive helping, which want doing, which want developing, to make this Dominion what we hope to see it?

Are there not times when apathy, pessimism, materialism, and cynicism, require fighting? Then seems to be the time to attack, to pursue, and to rally. Attack all that interferes with the development of your country, attack this pessimism and materialism, pursue your objective to the end, and rally again. Yes, rally French and English, rally east and west, rally you men and you women from the historic Maritimes, rally to the one ideal of country first, and be ready again. Then can you say in a paraphrase of the words of the dying William Pitt " In the war Canada helped herself by her energy, she must now help the world by her example."

On motion of Mr. Archambault, the debate was adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 12.15 ajm. (Saturday).

Monday, April 20, 1925


April 17, 1925