Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:

I desire to lay upon the table of the House the Re-classification of the Civil Service as prepared by the Civil Service Commission under the direction of the Parliament of Canada.

I had intended submitting this to Parliament upon the second reading of Bill No. 136, to amend the Civil Service Act, but as the English copy of the report was ready, I thought it desirable to lay it upon the Table so that copies might be distributed to hon. gentlemen, and also that it might be available to the Civil Service for inspection. I regret to say that the printing of the French copy of the report is not completed, hut I hope it will be on Saturday or Monday when I shall immediately lay it upon the table of the House. Copies of this report will be circulated at once, and members will find them in their boxes, I hope, about one o'clock.

Mr. DENIS:

Is the second reading of the Bill to be gone on with before the French copy is distributed?

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:

No. I wish to have the French copy circulated before the Bill is brought down again for second reading.

Mr. ROBB:

Is it the intention of the

Government to proceed with the Re-classification this year?

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:

It is the intention of the Government to proceed with the legislation at this session. I may ask the House to consider the advisability of submitting the amending Bill and the classification schedule to a special committee. That, however, will be discussed later on.

Mr. JAMES McISAAC (King's, P.E.I.):

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned

last evening, I was making some reference to the state of our country as unfolded by the Minister of Finance. I had just referred to the fact that the expenditure for the current year, all told, including capital and war expenditure, would amount to $620,000,000, and also that after the total of revenue receipts was applied to the reduction of our expenditure for the year, there would still remain a balance of $300,000,000 which would he the war expenditure. I will, in a moment, refer briefly to the ways and means that may be employed to meet this deficit. I also stated that, under all the circumstances, it appeared to me that this would certainly be a most inopportune time to effect any radical changes in our fiscal policy. It surely is a time when, to use the words of the great dramatist, we should rather " bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of." It is better for us to go on in our usual manner of raising revenue than to plunge into any_ new, unknown and untried methods of doing so. It certainly was generous on the part of the Minister of Finance that, under all the circumstances and obligations that confronted the Government from the monetary point of view, he made such changes in the tariff as to remit at least $17,000,000 of revenue. Under all these conditions it is our duty as members of Parliament and as representatives of the people, and it is the duty of the people to unite and to show the same generosity, the same spontaneity, the same enthusiasm in assisting the Government in completing the war from a financial viewpoint as Canada showed when she did not hesitate when the tocsin of war was sounded, but went forward and acted so splendidly and in a manner never to he forgotten, on the battlefield. The same generosity might reasonably be expected from the people of Canada under present circumstances.

There are a few other features of this question to which I wish to refer briefly. The question of the fiscal arrangements embodied in the pact, which was entered into in 1911 and which is known as the reciprocity arrangement, is a matter of which our friends of the Opposition have spoken, have harked back to, have lamented. Their lamentations and their regrets that these arrangements had not been carried out were almost as serious and as constant as those of the Israelites in the desert when they wept and lamented over the loss of the flesh pots of Egypt. But the Finance Minister, in the remission of taxes

[DOT]3520

that he has instituted, has gone as far and perhaps in some respects further than was intended by the arrangement of 1911.

Hon. gentlemen opposite are not willing to give the Government credit for having done this. Although we have heard them t-alk about reciprocity time and again in this House before the bringing down of the Budget, they have scarcely referred to the matter since. They might indeed, were they so disposed, take a little credit to themselves and say that the Minister of Finance had taken a leaf out of their book and that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." But even that they are unwilling to concede. Their principal object in this discussion, as in all their conduct in this House, seems to be to handicap the Government by all reasonable means within their power, and perhaps unreasonable means. They never advance any workable suggestions that might be of assistance to the Government in this trying time, when the country is faced with so many serious and difficult problems. They prefer to talk of the high cost of living, industrial unrest and labour troubles. These problems do, unfortunately, exist, but the Opposition offer no solution; they simply make the bare statement that all these troubles are due to our high tariff. If that were so, how do they account for the industrial unrest and labour troubles and high cost of living in free trade Britain? They have no high tariff there, but they undoubtedly have these troubles. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite would not attribute the troubles in England to the Canadian high tariff These problems confront the United States, Australia, and almost every other country. Are the troubles of all these countries to be laid at the door of the Government of Canada? Surely that would be absurd. The present upheaval all over the world is most unfortunate, but history teaches us that such conditions follow inevitably after every great war," and if that be true of other wars, the disturbance is likely to be a hundredfold more pronounced after incomparably the greatest war in all history. It is only accentuating these troubles for hon. gentlemen opposite to make speeches, as some of them have done, exposing the line of cleavage between the lower classes of society and the very wealthy. The effect-can only be to make those who are not blessed with so great an amount of this world's goods look upon those who strut around in wealth as their enemies and the Cause of all their troubles. At this particular time when people are worked up

to a very high degree of nervous tension it is our duly to do everything We can to bring about a return to normal conditions. At all events, we should refrain from taking any course of action or indulging in declarations that can only aggravate the present feeling of unrest. This is a time when we should all unite in assisting the Government to bridge over this period of upheaval, until in the course of a year or two normal conditions, let us hope, may be restored, and we can proceed as we did in pre-war times with the ordinary business of tih's country.

This brings me to another question to which I wish to refer briefly. During this debate and on- other occasions the question of East versus West has been discussed. In my opinion, it is to be particularly regretted that any such question should be raised, whether it is East versus West or North versus South. There should he only one question-Canada. Canada for the Canadians-and from whatever part of Canada we come we should all unite in an endeavour to promote unity and good feeling between all classes and sections of the country, so that we may help to bring Canada to the place which she is destined to occupy. Can the West exist without the East or the East without the West? Is not the East the complement of the West, and the West the complement of the East? It is within the memory of hon, gentlemen sitting around me when the West was not such a great country as it is to-day, when it was practically unknown and shut off from the rest of Canada to a very great extent. No one would claim that when all Canada united on the project of building a great railway to open up that country that the West, when- the curtain was drawn aside, appeared in all its grandeur of to-day. If this project had not been realized or a railway had not been built into the West by other interests, I am inclined to believe it would have been many long years before the West would have attained to the greatness it now occupies. We are most ready and, delighted to give our meed of praise to the energy, perseverance, virility, and ambition of those of our friends in the West; they deserve the greatest possible credit. They are young and full of ambition, and it is.not uncommon for the young, when they see obstacles in the way of the attainment of their goal, to become exceedingly sensitive and come to the conclusion that those obstacles must at once be swept out of the way.

At the present time, under our onerous conditions, and under the tremendous responsibility resting upon the Government, it would be a pity that any question of east or west should arise, or that any disposition, metaphorically speaking, should be manifested in any section of the country to take the Government by the throat and say: This is oui chance; we are looking for [DOT]something and we think this is t*he time to get it. Whether they have an existing grievance, rightly or wrongly, we shall not discuss at the present moment. We know that the people of the western portion of Canada did splendid service when the call came to enlist for the war, and I am willing to give all possible praise for what they did. There is one thing that I would like to say, however, not with the intention of detracting from the credit that is, due the people of the West, and that is that a great many of those who enlisted in the West belonged to other provinces. Quite a number of those who enlisted in the West were Prince Edward Islanders. At the same time, I am not attributing that as a fault of the West; it was a mere circumstance. Of the adult native born Canadians living in the West I am not sure that very many of them were born in the Western Provinces. However, that is neither here nor there. These are matters that come into my mind when we are discussing the claims of the West. It has been said, too, by a western member in the course of this debate that after the next election there will be an increased representation from the West in this House and that if they do not now get what they are looking for they will then be in a position to demand it. It would be most unfortunate if any idea of that kind should exist in Canada, and especially at this time, when we have done so nobly and so well and when we have sent to the front those who have done such grand work in the war. It would be a pity that we should not go forward as a united and enthusiastic people to complete the task which we took upon ourselves in connection with that war.

I would like to refer fcr a moment to our national debt, which the hon. the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) has told us will be, at the end of the present fiscal year, in the vicinity of $2,000,000,000. The deficit, due to the war, will be about $300,000,000. Two elements that will enter into this debt will be the matter of interest on the national debt itself and pensions. These are heritages that we enjoy as a consequence of our noble and never to be forgotten participation in the great world war. How is it intended to raise the money necessary to meet this great deficit? As already stated, there will be a hiatus between ordinary revenue and expenditure of about $300,000,000. In order to provide for this deficit, it is intended to borrow the money in one way or another and probably largely by means of national loans, at least, some of it will be borrowed in that way. On this point I wish to make one remark. Prior to the war no Canadian loans were floated within the Dominion. When the first domestic, or national loan, was issued, it is quite possible that there were some misgivings as to what might be the success of that venture. But in this, as in every other effort put forth in connection with the war, Canada rose equal and superior to the occasion. The loans thus far floated in Canada were subscribed with great facility and generosity, so much so that in every case they were considerably over subscribed. That goes to prove that not only in war is Canada great, but that Canada is great in peace and in her ability to finance her own burden of debt. If we have to borrow at all-and what Government has not to borrow-is it not best to borrow from amongst ourselves, that we raise the money necessary to place in the hands of the Government from our own people? The people are giving the money to themselves through the Government to carry on the public business. The interest comes back to them, in due time the principal, and principal and interest remain in the country. In that way the country is not denuded of this money; it is not made so much poorer, as it would be were these financial transactions carried on outside of Canada.

In this connection I can scarcely refrain from animadverting briefly on a remark made by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) when addressing the House a few days ago. He advised the Government to stop borrowing. Any government, I suppose, would be glad to stop borrowing were they able otherwise to meet their obligations, but if they have to borrow at all is it not much better to borrow in our own country and from ourselves than to go abroad and negotiate with those outside of Canada who then will be the beneficiaries rather than ourselves? Following this up, I would say that in Great Britain, where the system of government and the fiscal policy presently existing are dear to the hon. member for Red Deer, they are constantly borrowing money for their public expenditure.

Are they not at present negotiating enormous loans? Well, if it is a good thing for

that country 'and for that government which, in his opinion, is an ideal one, surely it cannot be bad for Canada to follow such an example. I have heard it said that the national debt of Great Britain was one of the greatest elements of her financial stability. At first sight I could scarcely understand such an assertion, but its soundness is established upon inquiry, when it is apparent that the money raised is simply handed by the people to the Government and then goes back to the people again, and that it circulates throughout the country, amongst those who have contributed it. Now if such a policy is good for the Motherland, I can scarcely bring myself to believe that a similar policy is bad for Canada. I have already said that the Government is confronted by serious problems. A considerable amount of unrest exists throughout the country and large amounts of money have to be raised for various purposes. Nevertheless, I think we can be assured that all the problems which confront the Government can be solved, that all the difficulties which face it can be overcome, and that all our financial obligations can be well and reasonably met, when we consider the almost limitless resources of our country and the energy, enthusiasm, and patriotism of our people. In my opinion this is the time, above all, when East and West should stand united, when all sections of the country and all our people, whatever views they may entertain, should work harmoniously together to bring about that which we all earnestly desire, the success of Canada, and all lend our assistance so that our country may be firmly and solidly advanced on the path leading to that proud position which she is destined to occupy in the galaxy of nations.

Mr. J. FERNAND FAFARD (L'Islet)

(Translation): Mr. Speaker, the Government have indulged in so much self-praise and- eulogy of their own accomplishments and were so lavishly boasted by some of their followers, that we would be inclined to think that we have reached the millenium. Fortunately, hon. members of this side of the House rose from time to time to throw cold water on the burning enthusiasm of that brotherhood of mutual worshippers, otherwise the members of the Government and their supporters might have thought themselves great statesmen, ready to wear the crown of immortality. However, it looks as though that implicit approval on the part of the followers of the Government has been somewhat less unanimous of late. Never-

[Mr. Mclsaao.1

theless we must admit that the most noisy ones-of course the most interested- continue to bow and cringe more than ever, hoping thereby to make up for the withdrawals that are becoming more and more numerous. No doubt, it is impossible for a man who is used, through better traditions, to assert his independence, to keep on flattering fulsomely a group of politicians who are united under the same yoke by only one bond, that of a common longing for power and the advantages attached thereto.

It is not necesary to be a very astute politician to feel that it is the duty of every honest member of this House to rise and endeavour to stop the activities of a government who are leading the country into bankruptcy through the despotic use of Orders in Council, following the tyrannical gaging of the representatives of the people.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my firet duty will be to stigmatize this anti-democratic policy and to protest against such abuse of power. Hon. members opposite-those who sit in the front seats as well as those who are in the background out of which they should have never come out-never cease to speaK about justice and freedom. Since the inception of the War, they told us repeatedly that one could not make too great sacrifices for the safeguarding of democracy and of its principles in jeopardy. They were ready to mortgage everything to save the world from barbarism. The wealth of the country and the blood of thousands of our brave citizens were not too much for the sake of so sacred a cause. Everything was to be set in motion for the sake of liberty. Very well. All these expressions of patriotism would have looked splendid had they been inspired by something else than political ambition. They asked that the freedom of the smaller nationalities of Europe, Africa and Asia, be respected, and the representatives of the Canadian people have just been denied the same freedom. The men who always claimed to possess the exclusive privilege of loyalty to the Empire are the same men who wanted to break up the parliamentary organization and to ridicule the Constitution. Where is the freedom so often preached by the great unionist saviours? It is now buried in oblivion, hidden under scores of Orders in Council and gags which were set up by some clever artists occupying the Government benches.

Orders in 'Council and censure, such is the constructive, clear-sighted and saving policy of those who hold in their hands the future welfare of this country. I do not exagger-

ate, (Mr. Speaker. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Champlain, the Hon. Mr. Meighen stated some time ago that there had been as many as 32,848 Orders in Council passed since the beginning of the war. Orders in Council even passed at a time when Parliament was in session, relating to questions on which the representatives of the people ought to have been consulted. That is most unfair and provoking. It is nothing but pure Bolshevism, to use an expression dear to the memDers on the other side of this House. Not only have the Liberal members a right to protest against such bold despotism, but the Unionist members themselves should resent so brutal a treatment. At all events, the Canadian people, the good and honest people of this Dominion will not forget me attempt that was made against their most legitimate and most sacred rights. In fact, how could the people forget the insult offered their representatives? How could the people have any confidence in a Government who gag and ostracize those whom they should hear and listen to? I challenge anybody to come and say that I am not telling the actual truth.

, Is it not a fact thait the Government established a system of censorship as an invidious supplement to the series of Orders in Council referred to? That is not ancient history; it is of very recent date. I am even surprised that in this Chamber they kept the beautiful and noble British motto "Dieu et mon droit." I am sure that if the Government could replace that much respected coat of arms by their own armorial bearings, we would have before us the grotesque and allegorical picture of a huge pile of Orders in Council beside a large muzzle, with these words as a motto "Despotism and Power."

In other countries, ito-day, the people are free to discuss, and so were they during the war. With very few exceptions, did they not interfere with members of Parliament, but popular orators were not in any way troubled when they addressed open air meetings in Great Britain, as well as in Prance and in United States. The powerful British fleet was the subject of some very harsh discussions and out of the critisism offered in the French Chamber sprang up Clemenceau, the grand old man of France.

Some people ask us; "Why did you not protest?" To hon. members on the other side of this House who put such a question, I shall answer, somewhat like that general who said to Napoleon, after a bloody battle: "We had forty-two reasons for not firing

our guns, and the first one is that we had no guns." "That will do," replied the victor of lAusterlitz. Therefore, 'I shall answer to hon. members opposite: "We had a thousand good reasons not to speak, and the first one was that we had no right to do so."

I was anxious, Mr. Speaker, to say frankly and openly what I thought of the policy of extortion to which we were submitted.

I would never get through if I wanted to recall all the absurdities committed by the Government under .the famous "Win the war icry." I could refer to the War-time Elections Act, to the exhorbitant profits made by the profiteers, and to many other topics in which the negligence of this Union Government was fully demonstrated. But that would be going a little too far.

I wish to say a word about the industrial condition of this country, and I wish also to refer to the labour situation and to conditions relating to agriculture. I shall add a few suggestions which I hold as advisable. In showing the evil as it obtains and suggesting oertain remedies, I shall have fulfilled my duty as a citizen and as a representative of the people. That will be my humble contribution to the construction of a truly progressive and national policy.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, what is going to be the policy of this Government as regards our industries? What will be their policy in connection with the tariff? Such is the question for which the eastern and western provinces are anxiously awaiting an answer. Judging by the literature which is 'being circulated by the manufacturers now, the Dominion Government will require, this year, to meet an expenditure, to the enormous amount of $437,679,071. Last year's revenue was 260 millions. Therefore we would be confronted with a deficit of 177 millions. Supposing the Government borrows 85 millions, which would increase our national debt by so much, we would still be short of 92 millions. Then you must add to that the amount of the supplementary estimates, which will make the deficit still greater. Where will the Government get the money to cover the difference? The answer is that the people will be taxed to the extent of $351,785,490, which is a crushing burden. And now comes the most alarming question: "How will these taxes be distributed among the people?" Of course the manufacturers have been long complaining that they were ill treated and that they ought to get more protection. They have made millions and millions during the war, but they would like the farmers to contri-

bute the largest portion of the expenditure. We understand their desire to get rich quick and to pay out the least they possibly can. But there are other people than manufacturers in this country, other classes that the Government is in duty bound not to bleed to death. To consolidate their position, the manufacturers claim that they supply the Government with a revenue of $116,577,066. 24. However, they forget to say that, as a matter of fact, the amount is actually paid by the people. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that the people are paying money each year to maintain certain industries in the lovely fields of protection, where the streams of privilege and favouritism are following?

This tariff of 33J per cent and in some cases 40 per cent may be compared to a wall as intended to protect the manufacturer against any foreign competitor hut unfortunately tending also to restrict our exports. I don't agree, Mr. Speaker, with those who believe that we cannot compete successfully with our neighbours, as far as manufacturing is concerned, because I have enough confidence in the bright and active energy of the manufacturers of this country to assert our ability to compete on foreign markets. The elimination of these taxes would have three immediate results: First, in view of the competition, the manufacturers would increase their production and thus give more work to the labourers; secondly, by increasing their production the manufacturers could export more goods; then, the tax which we cover under the name of tariff instead of paralyzing our industries would he changed into a revenue as ooming from the increased exports.

You need not be a great mathematician, neither have you >

to prepare budgets to understand that the Canadian manufacturer is reaping a double profit, that made by the American manufacturer and the additional amount that the precious tariff legislation allows him to get. Who is paying for it? It is undoubtedly the farmer. Let the Government allow the agricultural implements to come in free during a period of two years, and I have no hesitation in saying that these implements could be got at 20 per cent less than they cost now. The same argument applies to a thousand other industrial products. Consequently, if our manufacturers were producing a larger amount of goods they would require a larger number of employees who could 'be selected from the returned soldiers-these brave men who more than. once have shed their blood to enrich certain manufacturers who were

thirsting for riches or profiteers still gorged with the spoils of war.

Even supposing-that is impossible-that the revenue derived from the tariff would be reduced, why should not the Government make up for that loss in taxing the thousands of acres of land which are held by speculators in the West. According to people who know, we could thus collect a revenue of ninety millions. Why would not the Government, tax these financial vampires who, with the cry of "win the war," have starved the people and speculated on the very lives of our soldiers?

Mr. Speaker, the Government, who favours a policy of naval construction with a view to developing trade, should understand that protection and privilege must he cut down.

If we have a purely protectionist policy the ships will be useless, in fact, if our country is encircled by a wall which will separate us and leave us isolated from other manufacturing countries, we need not spend millions, for we shall have nothing to export.

Such are the different phases of a question which may look complicated in a certain way, but which is very clear when you have but to determine who is paying the cost. The rich manufacturer ox poor Baptiste?

These considerations lead me to speak of the labour question.. Just as I earnestly wish to see our industries prosperous, I desire also that the worker, who is the essential factor of industry, should be able to live in a well deserved comfort. However, the problem is becoming more and more serious -I was going to say tragic. Strikes, lockouts, troubles and acts of violence are noticed throughout the country. When will this dangerous unrest cease? It will continue until we have found a solid basis of agreement founded on common sense and equity. To reduce working hours and increase wages to an exhorbitant rate are two things which will never go together, and that is what we should prevent in the interest of the workers as well as that of the country as a whole. What the worker needs is to be able to secure good food, to educate his children and to live according to his position. If the wages are increasing too rapidly all the commodities which the worker requires will increase also and he will then be in the same position as before. If yo\i reduce the working hours the cost of the commodities will go up and if you add to that the increased wages you will get the result Which we have witnessed with anxiety since the end of the war.

When war was declared Germany had a very large production and was flooding the international markets with her goods which were manufactured by cheaply paid labour. What was the condition in Germany then? The labourers were working eleven hours and more a day and once their regular work was done many of them were spending their evenings in manufacturing various articles.

That is twhat gave Germany its power of expansion. What would happen now should the Government agree to establish a working day of six hours, such as has been asked for, and if other countries with which we have been at war kept up working eleven hours a day? What would happen? In ten years we would have lost most of our gains and we would be left behind in the export trade and in our legitimate race for economic advantages.

Therefore, let us hope that the Government, will honestly endeavour to bring strikes to an end either by a press campaign or by other means tending to enlighten the masses as to their obligations and duties. But, besides the manufacturers and the workers, there is a class of people, Mr. Speaker, deserving more than any other the attention the support and the encouragement of the Government: I mean the agricultural class. And unfortunately, the farmers do not possess the power which is inherent to the labour organization, and the present Government who are well aware of their weakness, did not set fit to grant them the fair treatment they were entitled to.

In the cities, it is customary to complain about the farmers. But the people that they are 'Complaining about are not the farmers properly speaking, but the merchants who come to the market to sell products which they bought from the farmers. Let us talk about the real farmer. I belong imyself to a county which is almost exclusively populated with farmers, and the condition of the "habitants" as we call them, is dearer to me than that of any other class of people. In fact, I regret that there are not any more farmers in this House.

I will give an example which will illustrate my thought. About a month ago, butter was sold 75 cents to $1 a pound. The people in the cities were justly complaining about this high cost of 'butter. But, Mr. Speaker, the butter had been purchased from the farmer in the fall for 42 cents or 43 cents a pound by the cold storage people, who were using the little savings which the farmer had deposited in the bank. Was not the Government aware that there were millions of pounds of butter in these warehouses? What

did the Government do? Nothing. The Government were deceived by the finance mag-, nates who paid over to the election funds the surplus of their dishonest transactions.

If the Government want to make Canada a prosperous country, they must undertake a campaign of education for the benefit of the fawners and the workers. They must suppress the monopolists and the middlemen these blood suckers who are the parties responsible for the increases which led to the high cost of living. If the Government wish to do justice to the farmers let them deal with the pressing problem to which I have just referred instead of wasting millions in the purchase of useless railroads.

Why did not the Government take the duties off chemical fertilizers? We must absolutely give back to the soil what we take away from it for production, especially after a period of over production such as that which existed lately. Therefore it would have been very important to relieve the farmers from duties on chemical fertilizers. The Government have not done it, what do they intend to do?

I would not resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, without making a short reference to what we call the defaulters. I submit that most of these men were ignorant of the many subtleties of the Conscription Act. Practically all of them were acting in good faith, believing they were exempted as farmers' sons according to the solemn promises which had been made to that effect, on the eve of the election. If these alleged defaulters did any wrong, it was in believing in the word of some of the ministers and of other electoral engineers of similar brand. I do not intend to devote more time than is necessary to this question which has been so often discussed in this House. However, I may be permitted to say that the Government having passed over 32,000 Orders in Council since the inception of the war, the farmers were justified in not knowing all these documents by heart!

Who are the members of this House, who never miss an occasion to charge other people with being disloyal? They are always the same great would be patriots, whether they come from Toronto, Frontenac, North Perth or elsewhere. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are practically the same talking machines set in motion by the invisible springs of fanaticism, of narrow mindedness and of yellowism, which deafen our ears with the empty noise of their wearisome music.

Taking after Shakespeare's Shylock, these prejudice mongers are every day in need of their pound of French Canadian flesh to

throw out to their bloodthirsty electors. Were it not for that, those popularity .seekers would not loom large in their constitu-* ency, in their town, or in their wigwam. Their plan is to cast aspersions on everything French and Catholic, We are the people whom they ipake a target for their insults, we the descendants of the pioneers of this country! Let these champions of tyranny spend their energy towards furthering other objects. Let them induce their fellow people in Ontario and the western provinces to treat the French Canadian element as the English-speaking people are treated: in the province of Quebec. It is towards securing such a result that many an hon. gentleman might usefully exert his seething powers.

A few words more, Mr. Speaker, and I shall conclude. II may sum up my whole view by stating that I sincerely trust that the system of government through Orders in Council is about to come to an end. I trust, moreover, that the gag system will be replaced by the reign of liberty for tne representatives of the people. Besides, it is desirable that the Government should get busy cutting down the customs duties, and helping the labouring classes to peacefully attain their purposes. And particularly, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope that the Government shall grant to the farming community all that it is entitled to. We should not concern ourselves quite so much with enriching capitalists, and should endeavour to put the peace-loving countryman in possession of his own. Let an effort be made to enable the agricultural worker to produce more cheaply, and to reap the full reward of his labours. Let us look after our glorious returned soldiers, but at the same time let us keep in mind those who- have sown, ploughed and reaped towards the soldiers' sustenance.

, Now that peace is about to be signed, we should put victory to good advantage. We may as much as we like enlarge on the great ideals which we have vindicated at the cost of our gold and our blood, but we should bear in mind that liberty, a sublime word which has given its name to the Liberal party, should rule not only in the parliaments of Belgium and Poland, but in this very place within the precincts of our Chambers. And liberty is synonymous with justice and equal rights for all. Liberty goes hand in hand with harmony and union between the races.

If Canada is to become great and prosperous, if Canada is to continue advancing

along the wide course opened by the true champions of our national life, Laurier and others, it is necessary that all should respect the traditions and rights of the minority, the opinions, beliefs and speech of those who are bound up in the activities of the country as a whole. Let us have greater generosity, less hatred, greater earnestness, leas politics, more free men, in short, and then we shall see Canada soaring towards those resplendent heights where its past history impels it and entitles it to aspire.

Mr. EDWARD T. W. MYERS (Kinders-ley): Mr. 'Speaker, at this late stage of the Budget debate I hesitate somewhat in asking the indulgence and forbearance of the House. At the termination of this debate each individual member will have to decide whether his vote will be recorded in support of the resolutions before us or in favour of the amendment, with its uncertainties, of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master). In stating my intention of supporting the Finance Minister in his proposals, I do so with a keen sense of the responsibility which, as a western member, rests upon me. However, after a careful analysis of the amendment, there is no other choice for me.

There is no doubt, Sir, but that there is a unanimous opinion throughout the Prairie Provinces, utterly regardless of past political proclivities, that there should be a general scientific revision of the tariff in order to obtain redress of certain undue burdens which, it is assumed, are unnecessarily imposed upon us. As a Canadian, I want to see adopted a policy which will build up a great nation-not rend asunder the eastern part of Canada from the great western heritage which is only in the infancy of its development. If our policy is to be provincial, sectional, selfish or in the form of class legislation, then our true Canadian nationhood will suffer; dissension, discord, and industrial chaos are bound to follow.

Before offering any further discussion directly concerning the resolutions and the amendment thereto, I wish to refer to a resolution which I placed on the Order Paper early this present session, but which I did not have an opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House before we reached the termination of private member's day. The resolution was as follows:

That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that some immediate action he taken hy the Dominion Government in order to in some manner control the price of wheat grown in Canada in 1919, both in the interests of the producer and the consumer; and, further to

make immediate provision lor the establishment of the necessary credits and' transportation facilities to insure that our farm products be marketed to the best possible advantage.

When I drafted this resolution, Sir, with the many vital issues pertaining thereto, I did so with a full realization of its many complexities. Viewed, as it is, with such diversity of opinion and such confusion of thought, I felt rather incompetent to intelligently deal with its many angles of difficulty. The subject, Sir, is of interest to every public spirited man as well as to the farmer, therefore, I hope I will not be judged as being prompted by a sectional, provincial, or selfish motive. This is not a question "based on a selfish principle; it should be viewed from a broad national standpoint. To be sure, it relates to agricultural products only, but when we remember that 50 per cent of Canada's population is engaged in agricultural pursuits, and the value of agricultural products in 1918 was $1,100,000,000, then, Sir, I feel that this question commands the attention of every Canadian, and of Canada's Government, if regard for national prosperity is to be seriously considered, for agricultural prosperity means national and Dominion wide prosperity.

A great deal of unrest exists in Canada to-day, brought about by the unsettled conditions following the war-its sudden termination, and the resultant chaotic conditions in the world. No line of industry feels easy or comparatively safe, for where there is no stability, there can be no industrial safety. The knowledge the public has being limited, naturally creates unrest, and an unstable feeling is therefore exhibited. This is particularly true in Western Canada, in those provinces where grain growing is the chief industry. I feel, therefore, as a representative of a purely grain growing constituency, and from the province of Saskatchewan, which holds the proud record of being the greatest wheat producing province in the world, that I would be derelict in my duty if I did not draw the attention of this House to the issues outlined in the resolution I have just read.

My action was prompted by repeated requests from hundreds of Local Grain Growers' Associations in the constituency I represent, reinforced by resolutions unanimously endorsed by the grain growers of Saskatchewan in convention, where delegates of two thousand or more gathered from every remote district of the province. Our local legislative assembly also unanimously endorsed the principles of my resolution.

When we consider the fact that Saskatchewan produces more wheat than Manitoba and Alberta together-from this year's statistics it will be found to be nearly 30 per cent more-I think it will counteract the weak argument brought forward that the West was not unanimous on this subject. I must, Sir, in passing, refute the statement that the farmers of Manitoba and Alberta are unanimously opposed to some action being taken towards the realization of the principles of my resolution. Despite the fact that resolutions ofendorsation of this question were

not carried. I wish to express the opinion that 90 per cent of the farmers who are grain growers of these latter provinces are in favour of fixation or some form of control. The constituency of Kindersley, which I represent, is contiguous to, or borders on Alberta, and I have had many expressions of opinion from farmers to this effect.

Many delegates attending the conventions held in Alberta and Manitoba were strongly in favour of Government action along the lines outlined in my resolution. What influences changed their convictions can only be surmised? I do know that at the convention of the agricultural societies in Manitoba, held shortly after the convention of Grain Growers, they repudiated the resolutions of the latter convention and unanimously endorsed the attitude of fixation. Likewise, Sir, at the district convention of the Portage Plain farmers, the delegates similarly repudiated the decision arrived at in the Grain Growers convention. I do not wish to impugn the motives which actuated the leaders of the Alberta and Manitoba conventions or leave an impression that they acted from ulterior motives, yet from certain press statements, conclusions might be arrived at that selfish interests actuated these leaders through their friendship with certain grain corporations in which their profits might be restricted if open marketing was curtailed by any form of control.

I have many press statements, Sir, but I shall read one only that was given out by the Hon. George Langley, Minister of Municipal Affairs, and it is on this statement that I base the expression of opinion that I have just uttered. This is the interview as given to the press:

I only want to say that from opportunities I have had of gathering the opinions of farmers, not only in Saskatchewan hut in Alberta and Manitoba as well, that Mr. Crerar is sadly astray in taking the forced vote of the farmers' conventions of Manitoba and Alberta on the

fixing of wheat prices as an indication of the way the farmers of the west felt in regard to the question. The vote was forced on each of these conventions by the farmers' leaders, and I strongly suspect at the instigation of Hon. T. A. Crerar himself. The vote was manipulated by the officials of the United Grain Growers, Limited, and does not represent the real wishes of the western farmers.

However, Mr. Speaker, the farmers do want action taken by this Government, as in 1917, when the price was fixed and the market stabilized. This is essentially a war year, conditions are not stable, and no one will dispute my statement when I say that fixation of the price of wheat in 1917 did not react to the advantage of {he wheat producers. The price was not fixed in their interests or to encourage production, but in simple language, to hold the price down.

Every member of this House should remember that in May 1917, when prices reached $3.05 in Winnipeg and $3.49 in Minneapolis, and without doubt would have gone higher had no fixation of prices been made, the price realized would have been at least $3.50. The yield in Saskatchewan alone in 1917 was over 130,000,000 bushels. Calculate the difference between $3.50 and the fixed price of $2.24, and you will find, roughly speaking, $150,000,000 of a difference in what was realized by the farmers of Saskatchewan alone in the year 1917.

I have heard the opinion expressed, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeking a bonus. I want to tell the House that we are not seeking a bonus, we are just seeking a square, fair adjustment of conditions brought about by the war.

In 1917 and 1918 the farmers did not complain of the drastic step taken 'by the Board of Grain Supervisors. They received a fair return-or those did who were favoured with a crop-and they were content not to unduly burden the consumer, especially at a time when our Mother Country and her Allies were engaged in a life-and-death struggle. At this critical juncture the farmers put forth every effort towards production and a greater production, always with a view of loyally doing their duty in the way of supplying foodstuffs to the Allied armies.

In passing, let me say we are proud of the part Saskatchewan played in the great war. She not only produced foodstuffs to the utmost of her power, but she sent her quota of men just as freely as any other province-indeed, in a greater ratio, considering her cosmopolitan population-than any other province. You did not hear of many serious objections when the Military

Service Act was amended. Of course, this legislation may have somewhat handicapped production, but the greatest need at that time was men, and our boys went forth loyally. Those left behind kept right on in 1918, producing as best they could.

I need not refer to the. campaign for greater production, only to say that this suggestion also was loyally responded to in the West as well as in the East. Many farmers, at considerable outlay- of capital, broke up more land in response to the call. The cost of labour and of implements was greatly inflated, with no restrictions whatsoever on either; and to-day we find that the farmers have a large acreage seeded at an increased cost, and that conditions are in an unsettled state owing to the uncertainty of market conditions.

Respecting assertions made by some extreme partisans that very little of our 1918 crop has been exported, due to the fact that United States grain was permitted to be shipped to Canadian elevators, I may say that this step was not taken at the expense of Canadian export. I can say without fear of contradiction that it did not in the least interfere with the exportation of Canadian grain, nor will it. Our 1918 crop has all been arranged for by purchasing agencies of Great Britain, and I am confident that it will all be transported before the 1919 crop' is ready for marketing. The question is, to my mind, whether Great Britain may not carry over a large surplus of the 1918 crop and thus affect her requirements for the 1919 crop. The unstable and chaotic conditions in Europe prevent the establishment oi sound credits in many of the European countries. Personally, I do not think it wise financially to extend credits to Governments which are not stable. The advisability of controlling or fixing prices hinges at the present time on the question whether the present purchasing agency of the British Government is to continue active for the new crop or will expire with the clearing up of the guaranteed wheat now in store. If Government buying in Europe continues, then Government selling must prevail. Europe may not be ready for open markets this year. United States is in the position of a grain-buying Government, and therefore must be a selling Government. If, therefore, Canada does not take some action, she will find herself in the unenviable position of carrying on individual buying and individual selling, and I am sure no one would argue that we would have any kind of equitable chance against

organized Government buying and organized Government selling.

The special powers granted under the War Measures Act cease with the proclamation of peace. Special conditions may warrant some special legislation to control unlooked-for events, but up to the present we have heard no announcement from the Government concerning a policy of this nature. Some reports state that the price of wheat may reach $3.50 or over; if it does, what action will be taken by the Government? There is only one sane course to pursue, and that is again to fix the price and thus hold it down. Crop conditions in the West are not any too promising this year; there may be a shortage. If some policy of control is not arranged for and stabilization assured, does any sane man imagine that the banking institutions .of this country are going to finance the grain men? Not for a moment will they risk their depositors' money, having regard to the stability of prevailing conditions. The grain men are bound to take and will take wide margins this fall when buying the 1919 crop, in order to protect themselves in an unstable market. This action will be at the expense of the producers who, through urgencies of financial obligations, are forced to sell at depressed prices. In the spring of 1920 the grain men will inflate prices and thus make huge profits at' the expense of the consumers. This has always been a discreditable state of affairs, and I firmly believe that speculation in the grain trade should be done away with. Why should not the producer get fair and full values from the consumer, instead of so many speculators making fortunes through speculation? In view of the possibility of there being open markets this year, the West is being flooded with circulars from grain men asking the farmers to trade in futures. It is time that was stopped.

Before the fixation of price in 1917 the spread between the price paid in the fall of 1916 and that paid in the spring of 1917 ranged from $1.25 to $2. Any one who knows conditions in the West knows that that has been the order of things; and I feel that such a condition should no longer be tolerated.

I would like to refer to the duty of the Government in relation to transportation conditions. Our crop of 1919 must be marketed at a favourable price, or there will be hard times. If United States has a large exportable surplus and Canada cannot utilize United States tonnage, as before, we must' either arrange for some government 224

controlled tonnage or take the consequence of having to use the tramp market for our transportation, and all that that implies. Therefore it is the duty of the Government, if it has not already done so, to arrange for sufficient tonnage for the transportation of the exportable surplus of our farm products.

I wish to refer for a moment to the work of the Soldier Settlement Board. I have heard the work of this board criticized and statements made that its work would not encourage agriculture. To my mind, its chief aim is to encourage agricultural pursuits by getting the returned men to engage in farming. I have no fear of the ultimate results of the work which it is carrying on. A very encouraging report was given me recently by Major Ashton, the Saskatchewan representative on the board.

I have heard it said that the returned men will not remain on the land. I am sure that they will; but in any case there need be no unrest, for if in all cases where returned men throw up their contracts the opportunity of taking the lands thus given up is extended to civilians, the contract will be gladly assumed. In fact, I would like to see this scheme extended to civilians generally; I am sure that agriculture would thereby be encouraged and that the settlement of our rural districts would be given an impetus. I would urge that the Government consider this suggestion.

Exponents of the system of raising revenue by a graduated income tax must be gratified with the Budget proposals brought down this year. If I had any suggestion to offer, it would be that of urging a more systematic organization for the collection of this tax, for I believe that many who should pay it are not doing so. More stringent regulations should be adopted and enforced. When critics argue that the federal income tax is not sufficiently high they must be overlooking the fact that to-day we have a municipal, a provincial, and a federal income tax. As to the advisability of imposing a tax on lands, in my opinion it would be better if a financial arrangement could be made between the Federal Government and the various Provincial Governments under which the income tax would become a purely federal tax and land taxes would be levied and collected by Provincial Governments and municipal councils. Many provinces have already a surtax on wild lands. An arrangement of this nature would prevent duplication and undue hardship. Unimproved lands held by speculators could thus be taxed by a system of assessment based upon the prices which they are asking for the lands.

REVISED edition

No western member can fail to appreciate the railway policy of this Government. The Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) has informed me that from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 will be spent this year in the construction of branch line railways, and this is a sane policy to follow. No single agency is more conducive towards the development of a district than a branch line of railway. I know that certain districts in my constituency will, by the construction of different branch lines this year, progress rapidly and will have an opportunity for greatly increasing production.

I did not intend to speak about the natural resources of our provinces, but as they have been referred to by several speakers, I just wish to state that I am strongly in favour of the return to the provinces of their natural resources, and it is very gratifying to me to see that this is almost unanimously desired. It is almost a love-feast on the part of those who are in favour of this at the present time. I should like to point out to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) that I remember when the ex-Premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Walter Scott, stated on a platform that any person who advocated such a policy was a fit subject for an insane asylum. I have always felt that our resources should be under control of the Provincial Governments, and I should also like to point out for the benefit of the Opposition that when the leader of the Government attempted to restore their resources to the western provinces, most of the opposition came from the other provinces. I am sure the Prime Minister did his duty when he attempted to adjust the matter.

Mr. Speaker, for a brief period I purpose referring to the Budget proposals pertaining to the customs tariff and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster). If the proposals are not just as satisfactory as some western members would like, I would point out that there is a great deal of unrest and lack of stability in Canada as in all other countries as an aftermath of the war, peace is not yet declared, and many grave problems pertaining to reconstruction are engaging the attention of the Cabinet. Demobilization will not be completed until August or September; pensions have to be provided for, and many questions of a really war nature have yet to

be solved. The revenue to be raised is enormous, and, therefore, in the midst of these grave responsibilities, with all the industrial unrest and chaotic conditions, I believe the Minister of Finance did

all humanly possible, without a scientific revision which he promises he and his colleagues will undertake before the next Budget is brought down. Yesterday, we heard from the leader of the Opposition criticism of this proposed revision. He stated that he had his doubts that it would be carried out, pointing out that for the past number of years no revision of the tariff had taken place. We all remember that in 1907 there was a revision of the tariff. I do not think any sane business *man would advocate a frequent revision of the tariff because in that case there would be no stability. That would make the next revision due about 1914 or 1915, and I believe a man would be in the state of Rip Van Winkle if he suggested that a revision should have taken place since 1914. I have every confidence that the Minister of Finance will make a careful, scientific revision of the tariff. From a purely western standpoint, we should like more substantial reductions, but still when one compares the present duties with the duties proposed under the reciprocity pact as regards farm implements, the present duties compare most favourably, and on many articles they are lower than under the terms of the reciprocity pact. To prove my assertion I might cite a few articles. The present duty on farm wagons is 20 per cent. Under the reciprocity pact it was 22J per cent. The present duty on binders, mowers and horse-rakes is 12i per cent. Under the reciprocity pact it was 15 per cent. The present duty on cement is 8 cents per hundred pounds. Under the reciprocity pact it was 11 cents per hundred pounds. With very few exceptions there is no article on which the duty is not just as low as under the reciprocity pact. Small tractors up to a value of $1,400 are to continue free of duty, and this has proved a decided benefit to Western Canada, and I believe a great benefit would be derived if this concession were also extended to the tractors of power known as 15-30, as this is a tractor which is more in common use and more serviceable. Wheat, wheat products and potatoes are all on the free list, and if one studies the customs tariff to-day, one will find that the tendency is generally downwards. This was done under a protective government, not under a government which took office on a policy of low tariff. The tariff reductions aggregate, as stated by the Minister of Finance, $17,000,000, which, added to loss by these reductions, make a difference of $25,000,000. One item particularly pleasing to me is the abolition

of the revenue tariff tax imposed on British preferential rates. I am sure this is a start in the right direction, and I would rather trust a party whose energy was directed during the war in co-operation with our Mother Country, and I believe that through this channel we shall, in the future, always have a most sympathetic trade relationship.

A nation's wealth consists only of a surplus of its exports over its imports, and if the object is to increase 'the imports and to reduce the value of the exports, then we are transferring our wealth to other nations, and, therefore, I hope all our industries will be stabilized through sane legislation.

The leader of the Opposition said yesterday that he was going to support the amendment, but from 1896 to 1911 we did not hear of many amendments along the same lines although we had many, many promises. It seemed yesterday that the leader of the Opposition was grooming himself for a coming very interesting event. He was going to be everything to everybody. He was going to give the West free machinery if we wished it, but would not take away the protection or bounty, as he called it, on iron ore down in Sydney. It is just the old, old story when they are in Opposition.

Briefly analysing the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), let me say first that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) has aptly described it. Expediency is a vague term indeed, and the amendment is most mysterious. I believe it is nothing more or less than political subterfuge, introduced for political purposes only. The hon. member for Brome in this debate has established a reputation for himself as a tariff rhymester, and if I were permitted to reply in the same style I would say that he "works in a mysterious way his camouflage to perform."

In passing, every hon. member knows that we are heavily burdened with our war expenditure, but I wish to refute the statement of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) and other hon. gentlemen opposite, that we are bankrupt through an unreasonable participation in the war. Unreasonable participation in the war! In our hour of trial they failed us. I wonder if they are going to fail us now in carrying our financial burdens. It ill becomes them at this stage to snipe and sneer at the work of the Minister of Finance.

In conclusion, let me repeat that I purpose supporting the proposals brought down

by the Minister of Finance. At least we have made a start in tariff reduction, and the minister has promised that within the year a scientific investigation, will be held into the tariff with a view of remedial legislation being introduced later. I shall support the Government, rather than link up with the Opposition and vote for this amendment of political subterfuge. I appeal to the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark), whose consistent and undeviating course no man in Canada dare question, whose sincerity is beyond reproach, and whose efforts to secure reform have always been steadfast, whether I am not justified in accepting these proposals of reality, rather than a mere profession of good faith on the part of the Opposition. I have heard the hon. member for Bed Deer use the old homely proverb, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," and I think that proverb is most applicable at this juncture. I may be criticised, Mr. Speaker, but that does not matter, for in the words of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Lang), which were permeated with real sincerity, this is no time to think of one's personal political future.

We have great unrest in this country, as they have in almost every country in the world, and there is a danger of industrial disruption. We are carrying a heavy financial burden, but we are not bankrupt. Bankrupt nations do exist in the world to-day, but I am proud, as a Canadian, to say that the British Empire is not one of them. Optimism should be the key-note of every sane Canadian citizen. We can never atone for the sacrifices of this war, marked by nearly 60,000 simple crosses in France and Flanders, and demonstrated in Canada today by the deformed and maimed, but surely as true Canadian citizens we can shoulder our share of the burden, stand together four-square, make the needed sacrifices, and show to the world that civilian Canada is carrying on. And surely with the great national heritage entrusted to our keeping to be developed and conserved we can finally throw off the financial burdens which confront us to-day.

Mr. HEBMAS DESLAUBIERS (Sainte-Marie, Montreal) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to shed any further light upon the present debate, for I believe the situation of the country's affairs is perfectly elucidated and clearly understood by every one, except the Government. I think, however, that it is my duty to strongly protest against this colossal budget

which, in my opinion, is nothing but a partial and official admission of a blindness without precedent in our history.

The more I consider the present Government's policy, the more I find it like that period in the history of New France under the rule of Intendant Bigot, of wretched memory, whose mission was to destroy the colony. Writing one day to his'friend Verger, he said: "Take advantage, my dear Verger, of your position, trim and clip, you have full power, so that you may soon join me in France and acquire an estate close to me." Later, he gave General Wolfe the key to the Plains of Abraham, his country losing thereby her finest colony. Is not the present Government holding the same language to its friends the profiteers, the monopolists, of the brand Mackenzie, Maim, Flavelle and the like? Does it not allow them to trim and clip, saying to them: "Take advantage of your positions, you have full power, keep hoarding up that you may get titles and acquire estates close to us. And all the while waiting for the opportunity to deliver up Canada, plundered and ruined, to the Americans or others, thereby causing England to lose one of her finest colonies. It is most evident to me that such is the whole policy of the Government. Will they have the time 'to accomplish their work? That is the problem. From ocean to ocean, unrest, trouble and strikes are the order of the day. The Government is compelled, in the very centres which were the most sympathetic, to use those hardly cooled cannons, which helped to save civilization overseas, against the people of this country. The people are crying for bread, for work, and, just as in the days of Bigot, that bread is sent abroad, they are even sending it to those who are responsible for the death of

60,000 of our own, to those who have caused so much mourning among us, who have filled our orphanages and our poor-houses and have bred so much misery, and the Government stands pat, so that its friends may clip, trim and hoard their capital, and you think that can last very much longer? You make investigations, you legislate in order to conjure time and revolution is at our very doors! You pretend that things are worse over in Europe and you are, nevertheless, helping to create similar conditions in Canada. ,

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state in this House that I do not see things in that light and that, if it does not make a radical change in its economic policy, the present Government may be deceived in its reckoning. The Government

must put an end to the excessive exportation of our foodstuffs. It is high time to say to the profiteers and to the monopolists: "You have thriven enough, let the people have its turn." The Government should forbid cold-storage owners, such as Mat-thews-Blackwell, Swift, Davies, etc., whose plants are already crammed with provisions, from sending their agents throughout the country, here they are allowed to monopolize the foodstuffs. Whatever the Government may say to the contrary, those are the men who are oppressing the people.

The price of provisions must be fixed and severe penalties imposed upon those who break the law.

I understand how proper it is to appeal to the people to be thrifty in order to relieve the situation the Government has put us into, but, on the other hand, the Government should be the first ,to set the example. That is not what they are doing. Only recently, they have increased the effective forces of the North West Mounted Police. The Government, through the demobilization of the cavalry returned from overseas, found itself in possession of the equipment needed by the mounted police, saddles, horsewhips, blankets, etc. These goods, the greatest part of which were brand-new, were sold at ridiculous prices-the saddles at $4 apiece. Some time ago, a Mr. Desrosiers-, who had acquired the same articles, offered them to the deputy minister Brodeur, if I am well informed, at a price of $4 for the saddles, and 50 cents for the whips, for the mounted police's use. He met with a bad reception. The Government has friends who supply them at $22 a piece. "Trim, clip, hoard up, you have full power." Is that wise and honest administration? The people will become weary, some day.

On June 22, 1918, the Government held throughout the Dominion a National registration. The law, which should he complied with, allowed $2.50 a day to its sworn employees for their work done previous to June-22, and for that day the sum of $4. I have the Government sworn statements of accounts from employees who have yet received no pay whatever. The law is the law. It stipulated such amounts were granted to them, and I was greatly astonished to hear that the salaries paid them were altogether different. The salary of those employees have simply been robbed. The Government should have kept its own engagements. In that case also, the Government. seems to have said, as Intendant Bigot said: "Trim, clip, and hoard up, you have full power."

Mr. DESLAURIERS (translation):

I was discussing, at one o'clock, the question of the cost of living. I would like to add a few words upon that subject.

The Government tells us that the high cost of living is due to the abnormal demands of Europe where abnormal conditions are prevailing. Is that a good reason, because the demands land the conditions are abnormal elsewhere, for placing Canada in the same position those countries find themselves? For my part, I do not share that opinion. Is it reasonable that butter should sell this year higher than it was a year ago, for the reason set forth by the Government, i.e., that revolution rages in Europe? If revolution is caused by the scarcity of foodstuffs, it is surely not wise for the Government to create such a scarcity in this country also, for it may produce revolution. The Government propose to spend millions upon millions particularly in the construction of good roads, I admit that is a good thing, but first of all peace should be maintained in the country. Why do they not apply those $25,000,000 to the building of cold storage plants under their own control? By so doing, they might control the farmers' produce throughout the Dominion and sell it to the consumers at reasonable prices, keeping the necessary amount for the management and the salaries of those employees who would be in charge of the plants. Why do they not act with respect to foodstuffs the same way they have done for the pulp mills? They did not hesitate in regulating the cost of pulp. Why have they done it? Because the press, largely kept in pay at the Government's service, demanded it. They granted

their claims; but when the people's hunger has to foe stayed, they find it impossible to do it.

I have put several questions in this House about the cold storage plants. The Government were unable to give me the names of those who have been rigorously dealt with, the penalties imposed and the places wherein such plants are located. And, meanwhile, I knew that in Quebec, in Three Rivers and in Montreal, the law >was being absolutely disregarded, there being a conviction that the party in power would not start anything against the speculators. I say that this is the true Teasoin of the high cost of living. The Government should have the laws enforced. I do not pretend that they should show the same zeal as in the prosecution of those who transgressed the Military Service Act-men who, in my mind, are innocent- but I ask them to do Tor those speculators only one fourth or half as much as they have done against the others. I am of opinion that the speculators should be in the penitentiaries for the harm they have done, and are still doing to the public.

Why hesitate to amend the tariff, why oppose the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster)? I say it is unjustifiable in the present circumstances and, for my part, I shall frankly and eagerly support that amendment. Since I have started asking in this House questions ias to the strikes-a deep-rooted evil which strangles the workman-absolutely nothing -has been done to stop them. It is true the effective forces of the Mounted Police have been increased. Is it to soothe the groan-ings of those who are starving or to protect the profiteer? Probably one and the other. Let us beware, suffering cannot be cured by ill-treatments. To promote hatred is no way to settle the social unrest prevailing throughout the country. In the name of those who, like me, are still capable of being moved and roused by the workingmen's lot, who have at heart their interests and those of every class of people, I ask the Government to act and to act quickly.

You have imposed Blood Conscription. Why should you refuse to impose Food Conscription?.

The war is over in Europe and the terrible prophecy, uttered in 1870, in Colmar, a small village near iStrasburg, by an old Alsatian, has been accomplished. When the Prussian guard had tied him up, the very day he was marrying one of his sons and were torturing him to make him tell what direction the sharpshooters had taken, the old man ex-

claimed: "Frenchmen speak not!" and when they had gone, he added:

Hark ye to me yonder, victors of the hour, Germany cursed, Germany dung!

Hark ye, sooner or later, to-morrow or ten years hence,

France shall go in your homes and marry thy children,

Thou wilt see them tumble upon the bloody soil Insulting thy shame and defying thy sufferings, Their heel on thy throat and their eyes in thine own,

And when thou wilt be alone to mourn over them

When thou wilt be nothing but an immense graveyard,

And thy sons sleeping united as my own,

France shall cry for me: "Blood drenches blood, Thou hast said it, that is the law,

My sons have fallen under thine accursed hordes,

But all thine own are dead, very well, we are quits."

Mr. Speaker, you know what has happened to Germany. That is the way Providence punishes tyranny, injustice, ferocity, barbarity on this earth.

We .may now repeat with the poet who put the words in General Kleber's speech: " Hail, fair Alsace, forever free to go smiling and blooming to thy old altar, the fatherland, arm in arm with thy French redeemer." We see 'Clemenceau covering his aggressor with his protecting cloak. Lincoln proclaimed as free citizens those who had fought against him. We, in Canada, are overburdened with a debt of two billions and over and when the people is crushed under the weight of taxation, the Government are maintaining, at minister's salaries, a whole band of parade officers who encumber this country's finances. And, meanwhile, the sick, the maimed, the widows and the orphans of this war, are most ungratefully treated.

While the Allies are cheering over their victory, the Government keeps us upon a volcano. We are still at war; filled with disgust, the people see the federal police, generously paid, stirring up the population by arresting honourable citizens guilty of infractions of the law, through the Government's own fault. I declare that all this expenditure is needless, with no other object but that of pursuing a tyrannical and nefarious policy and which can only result in trouble, revenge and hatred of the country's authority. The people you are now provoking, together with the elements that have already raised the standard of anarchy, your friends of yesterday, your present enemies, shall cry out to you, as did the old Alsatian: " Hark ye to us, yonder, victors of the hour. Hark ye, sooner or later, to-morrow, we

shall have our turn." I say that the Government are responsible for the offences against the iMilitary Service Act. It is they who have instigated them. Has it not been clearly proven, in this: 'House, that for political motives the Government, had attempted to break down the- volunteer military effort of the country? Had they not that object in view when they sent as a preacher of loyalty and duty to the citizens of this country, a man who, in 1911, had insulted the British flag by saying: " Holes had to be made in the English flag that we might breathe the air of freedom? " I do fearlessly here declare that the Government, by so doing, had no other object but to gain a pretence for imposing conscription upon a peaceful people to whom the profession of arms was repugnant.

Has it pot been proven that, during their whole electoral campaign, as far as the province of Quebec was concerned, the Government, through their paid and servile press, have not for a moment ceased to calumniate and slander that province in order to stir up the English element against the French, and by such means win the elections? God knows .how well they have succeeded!

Has not the War-time Elections Act in its application, demonstrated over and over again that in enforcing conscription the Government had nothing but a political object in view? All these manoeuvres have been paid for by the country. The budget of the hon. Minister of Finance should not take any one by surprise to-day; every conclusion flows from its premises. Did the Government ever believe it was a good, way to have the law observed when they kept, in the barracks and in the training camps, officers who cursed every man who did not understand the orders because- they were given him in a language foreign to his own? The entire population knew those facts. Was that >a good means to attract the general good-will?

Has it not -been proven that the Government never did respect its provinces nor any of its duties towards the soldiers who had laid their lives in its hands. The Government seems .astonished at 'the fact that some farmers' sons did not comply with the Act, after it had filched their votes by telling them ith-ey would be exempted on account of their being more useful here than in the army. If the 'Government want to have the law observed, was it not elementary that they should themselves respect it? It is not in so doing that a Government can inspire respedt for the laws it enacts?

COMMONS *

One of the Government's first obligations was that of protecting our soldiers' health. I will now produce indisputable evidence from authorized men, in order to prove to this (House how little attractive it was for parents to advise their sons obedience to the law.

On April 23, 1917, having reference to the colonial troops, Captain Guest declared before the British parliament: "During the two and a half, or two and three-quarter years of war we have had admitted into the hospital of Engjland over 70,000 cases of gonorrhea, over 20,000 cases of syphilis and over

6.000 cases of another disease somewhat similar to syphilis."

*Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood, on April 23, 1917, also stated in the British House of Commons that it was a shame for the Administration to treat our soldiers as it treated them; that it was "a perverse sort of hospitality that had welcomed Canadian troops to this Mother Country. . . . Every Canadian soldier is examined on landing. He arrives here not only a first-class specimen of a fine soldier, (but as clean-limbed and as clean a man as the Creator himself would create." . We had a British hospital in France, 500 cots; we were obliged to place

2.000 cots and even that did not suffice for all the contaminated. "I declare," said he, "that from 40,000 to 50,000 syphilitics went through there and that the gonorrhea cases went 'as high as 150,000 to 200,000." All of this was known in Canada, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Arthur Mee, whose book (The Fiddlers) "was prohibited by the Government because he stated what our troops had been forced to endure overseas, frankly declares that, as a result of the authorized selling of alcoholic liquors in Europe, we had lost more men, directly or indirectly, than through the destructive operations made use of by the Boches and by their Allies, that alcohol destroyed our soldiers' endurance and decreased their valour, that alcohol, initial principle of debauchery, had been disastrous for our troops.

If we consult the reports of the military tribunals, we find that officers, responsible for the lives of their soldiers, have 'been sentenced for unpardonable offences due to alcohol.

Sir Conan Doyle, an English physician of high repute, wrote the following in the London Times, of October 16, 1917, concerning the colonial troops;

The harpies carry off lonely soldiers to their rooms, make them drunk, often with vile liquor, and inoculate them, likely as not, with diseases which, thanks to the agitation of well-meaning

[Mr. (Deslauriers.l

fools, have had free trade granted them among us. Our present policy is to shut the museums and keep open the brothels to the lad from overseas who has for the first, perhaps the last, time in his life a few clear days in the great centre of his race, and cannot carry away any recollection of its treasures of art and antiquity, but is forced into contact with what is least reputable of our metropolitan life. It will be poor return to the colonies if we return their splendid lads worse in body and soul.

All of this was known in this country.

About the same date, he further stated, in another newspaper: "If the Germans murder our men, if the Austrians slaughter them, if the Turks butcher them, all of that is tout a part of what men nowadays call the game of war." But the most execrable crime is the free circulation of prostitutes plying their trade in the military areas, in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, toy the tolerance of British law and under the eyes of the British authorities." Had a Canadian, in those days, said as much, I wonder what the Daughters of the Empire would have done to him.

Sir Henry Thornston, an English land-surveyor, expresses himself as follows: "I think it may truly be said that, oftentimes, an advance move, a splendid initiative, whidh might have assured a colossal victory, have failed us on account of mm or beer being distributed as an allowance to our men, beer that stupefied them, alcohol that prevented them from pointing their rifles as they should have done it."

Everywhere one can see that frightful thoughtlessness on the part of the overseas War office. Rev. Father Charron, a Canadian chaplain in England, asserts that spirituous liquors were given to intoxicated soldiers, as long as they had money to pay for their drinks.

Victor Horsley, a famous military surgeon, who was with the Mesopotamia expedition, stated in the Toronto Globe of February 8, 1917; "The most discouraging feature of these campaigns, is that the leaders of military operations1 are mostly whiskey drinkers, and consequently, will let the soldiers drink, here in this torrid climate; they keep on giving them rum allowances in lieu of food or sterilized water; the result is that we are continuously fighting cholera, diarrhoea and dysentery. Our notorious failures had no other cause, in my opinion, but the whiskey, affecting the intelligence and the clear vision of our leaders;, they do not realize that alcohol, even taken in small doses begets a brain fever. It is a disgusting manifestation of our egotism and of our costly unfairness to the country. C'ould not the dis-

Mr. JAMES ROBERT WILSON (Saskatoon) :

Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to the already lengthy debate on the Budget. We have heard in this debate very many divergent and pessimistic views as to what the future of Canada will be if the fiscal policy is not changed to meet the ideas of those who give expression to these views. Some hon. members express the belief that unless this country at once changes its fiscal policy and turns in the direction of free trade we cannot make any progress.

Others express equal apprehension in case anything is done to disturb our heretofore fiscal policy by lopping off here and there some protective or revenue duty and putting our tariff on a more scientific basis, that the country will go to ruin. It seems to me that there is a middle course that might be pursued which will meet, to a great extent, the extreme views of both of these parties. I think that what we require in Canada at the present time possibly more than anything else is less sectionalism and class jealousy. What we require to achieve the national goal is united, productive effort on the part of all sections of our country, that will result in building up a nation to be proud of.

Every man wbo knows Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific must realize that this is a country of immense possibilities. It offers not only opportunities to those millions who wish to come from foreign countries, imbued with the ambition to better their condition, but as well, in its wealth of natural resources, magnificent forests, minerals and valuable fisheries, it offers a varied and attractive field for both the workman and the capitalist, for the one to found a home and for the other to secure a profitable investment. There is no other country in the world to-day that offers equal advantages.

I would say then, in view of this, let there be no pessimism. Our country is established on a firm foundation, and with confidence in our ability to meet and surmount all obstacles as they come in our way, we shall not need to fear the future. To Canadians, falls the task of building up and developing the last and best West. With our knowledge of the successes and failures of our American cousins to the South in the development of similar country, and with our own experience gained during the past thirty-five years that we have been dealing with western development, there is no good or sufficient excuse if we should fail in the task.

The Canadian people have the right to ask and to expect that any Government which seeks their support shall deal with a question such as this in a statesmanlike manner. I think every one admits that it is only by the development of our natural resources that we can hope to meet our heavy obligations as a result of the war. While our financial obligations are great, the possibilities of increasing our wealth are equally great. By developing our natural resources we will distribute our financial burden over a greatly increased population and by so

dcing we will not feel so heavily the financial load.

What Canada needs to-day is more settlers on the land. There have been in past years too many of our young people leaving the land tor the more attractive but uncertain life of the city. The Government is to be commended for its soldiers' land settlement policy. It is to be hoped that greai, numbers of our returned soldiers will take advantage of this policy and establish themselves on the land. As soon as we have the returned soldiers settled on the land, it will be greatly to the interest of Canada for the Government to pursue a vigorous land settlement policy by inducing agriculturists from the British Isles and the United States to settle on our vacant lands. During the past twenty-five years we have made fairly creditable progress in 'the development of our agricultural resources but there still remains much to be done along that line. Agriculture, being our main and basic industry, it should, and must, at all times, receive the first consideration of any Government. I wish to say right here that I think the present Government has made an honest attempt to meet the interest of the agricultural classes. I think that it has possibly done more than any other previous Government has done. We have our other great resources, such as timber, fisheries and the deposits of the mines. Of the world's known deposits of coal Canada possesses seventeen per cent, and occupies second place. Compare these resources with the coal deposits of the British isles which only amount to 5.4 per cent of the total and it is possible to appreciate Canada's position in that regard. In Western Canada also, particularly in Northern Alberta and Western Saskatchewan, there are indications of vast deposits of oil. Since the opening of the Canadian oil fields in the early sixties, there has been a continuous production of petroleum in this country, but for a number of years that production has steadily declined, and it would appear that the industry must be abandoned before many years lapse unless new discoveries are made. The eastern part of Canada, I believe, has been fairly well prospected, and I understand a great deal of exploratory work has been carried on throughout western and south-western Ontario. That part of the province may therefore be regarded as having been pretty well examined, and consequently the future of oil production in Canada lies in the possible discovery of new fields. -In the Prairie

Provinces, particularly in Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, there is a vast and promising field which remains to be prospected. Some borings have been made in Manitoba and Saskatchewan without any result, and in Alberta only small areas have been prospected. Natural gas has been discovered in the latter province in abundance, but as yet no oil flow of any great importance. In the foothills south-west of Calgary oil has been found in limited quantities. In northern Alberta, in the territory known as the Peace River country, very strong indications of oil have been found. A number of outfits are drilling there at the present time, and while some of them have struck oil the production only amounts to from fifteen to twenty barrels per day per well, which the promoters say is not commercially profitable. What I am leading up to is that the Government should take an active part in hastening the development of the great oil wealth which exists in the territory I have mentioned. I would like to see some arrangement made whereby the people as a whole should possess this supposedly great oil resource if it materializes to the extent that some persons anticipate, so that the State will secure the major portion of the profit resulting from its development. It is of vital importance that every effort should be made to strengthen the industrial position of our country by the development of all our natural resources to the best possible advantage, in order that we may be able to ensure employment to our returned men and those who are expected to follow them from the old land. To this end the Government will be expected to use every legitimate means to encourage an inflow of money as well as the immigration of people. In this way we shall contribute to the development of our natural resources in the interests of the nation of which there has been great talk in the past without however anything being done in that direction. With this object in view the Federal and Provincial Governments must give the matter their closest attention and co-operate in their efforts. By so doing they will to a certain extent blaze the way for others to follow. What I have in mind is proper governmental encouragement, through research, as to the existing possibilities and the giving of proper advice as to the conditions and development of our natural resources. I think that if an active interest is taken by our Governments in these matters, Canada

will assuredly occupy a leading position in the industrial world in the very near future.

Coming to the Budget, the speech which was so ably delivered by the Finance Minister, and dealt with in a very illuminating and comprehensive way, disclosed beyond doubt our great financial obligations as a result of the war and outlined the resources with which we may hope to make those obligations good. Personally, I was well pleased and satisfied to learn that notwithstanding the great need for revenue that exists the Finance Minister had regard to the requirements of the West, and other parts of Canada, by taking off $17,000,000 in customs duties which will be made good by increases in the income tax. This, I think, should meet with the approbation of every fair-minded man in Canada. The tariff reductions provided for in the Budget will be a great benefit to the whole of Canada, and some in particular to the western part of the Dominion. I refer especially to the total repeal of the British war revenue tariff of five per cent on all British goods, the five cents per pound under the British preferential, intermediate, and general tariff on coffee, the three cents per pound under the British preferential tariff on British-grown teas, and the repeal of the intermediate and general war tariff of seven and a half per cent, making it no longer applicable to foodstuffs, linen and cotton clothing, boots and shoes, fur caps and fur clothing, hats, caps, hoods and bonnets, gloves and mitts, collars and cuffs, hides skins, leather, harness and saddlery, agricultural implements, petroleum, oils, mining machinery, and bituminous coal. The reductions in the duties on agricultural implements, including the seven and a half war tax amount to twelve and a half per cent on sixteen enumerated farm implements, namely, cultivators, harrows, horse rakes, seed drills, manure spreaders, weeders and completed parts thereof, hay-loaders, potato diggers, feed cutters, grain crushers, fanning mills, hay tedders, farm, road, or field rollers, farm wagons, post-hole diggers, snaiths, and other farm implements; likewise a reduction of ten per cent on five of the heavier implements such as ploughs and parts thereof, wind-mills, portable engines, and tractor engines for farm purposes, horsepower and threshing machines, separators and appliances thereof. Then there has been the placing on the free list of wheat and wheat flour, and potatoes, from countries which do not impose a duty on such articles produced in Canada. The net result is a

[DOT]'1540

178,200,000 acres. If the cultivated area is worth only an average of $34 an acre in all the nine provinces of Canada, the uncultivated area is of much less value. But for the purpose of making an estimate we will allow the same value for all the surveyed land, $34 per acre. If we levy on that land a tax of only one per cent per acre, as suggested by the ex-Minister of Agriculture, the amount of revenue produced would not amount to anything like $75,000,000; but at the rate of one and one-quarter per cent, based upon a valuation of $34 per acre, the tax would amount to forty-two and-a-half cents per acre, or $75,735,000 on the 178,200,000 acres. Of that surveyed area of 178,200,000 acres, 117,000,000 acres are in the Prairie Provinces, which on the basis suggested, would pay a tax of $49,725,000, while the other six provinces, which contain 61,200,000 acres oi this surveyed area, would contribute $26,010,000. You will note, therefore, that the three Prairie Provinces, which contain about one-fifth of the population, would pay practically two-thirds of the $75,000,000; I do not think it is fair or equitable that the three Western Provinces should be obliged to carry a load which is altogether out of proportion to their population. Anyhow, our Provincial Governments and our municipalities, particularly in Western Canada, are imposing all the land tax that the land can stand, and the doubling of that tax would, to all intents and purposes, be confiscation. The national debt of Canada is only about $220 per capita. I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that in many municipalities, even independent oi the provinces, the per capita debt is over $300. If you tax that land, therefore, as is suggested-land that is now overburdened with taxation for municipal and provincial purposes-and endeavour to raise a large revenue for federal purposes, you would be practically confiscating the amounts so raised.

I wish now to refer to the matter oi Government taking some action to ensure a market for our 1919 wheat crop. Our people are alarmed, because owing to the unsettled conditions of world finance and transportation, they do not know whether or not we are going to have a market for our wheat next fall. Financial arrangements might be made for the handling of the wheat, but owing to the unsettled world conditions, these arrangements might fall through at any time. In the meantime, our wheat, being rushed on the market in Western Canada, would have to be taken care of by private firms or individuals, and

as a result of this condition, coupled with the uncertainty of the market, the price might be depressed much below what the supply and prospective demand would justify. Some arrangement should be made whereby this wheat can be taken care of by government control, as heretofore. It is of the very greatest importance that the Government should look into this matter at the earliest opportunity and see vhat can be done. Some fear that if the Government took action by fixing a price and handling the wheat, there might be quite a loss to the Federal treasury. But I do not think there is much chance of a loss, because present indications are that there will not be any great surplus of wheat throughout the world this year; as a matter of fact, it is a question whether there will be enough to go around.

This concludes my remarks, Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to support the Budget.

Mr. F. F. PAJEtDEE (Lambton, West): Mr. Speaker, as is usual in the Budget debate, the question of the tariff has been taken up. The President of the Council (Hon. N. W. Kowell) has told us that in his opinion the question that must be given attention at this time is not the tariff, but the unrest which prevails throughout the country. I purpose, in the few remarks which I shall make, to give my ideas as to how the non-changing of the tariff and the present unrest throughout the country are linked up.

The question, Sir, is, should the tariff be changed, and is there unrest? Unrest there undoubtedly is; there is no doubt about that. Therefore, if there be unrest in this country, it behooves us as responsible men holding responsible positions to get to the bottom of that unrest and endeavour to find out the remedy or remedies for it. In 1914, the enemy at the gate was the Hun; in 1919, the enemy at the gate is the high cost oi living. In 1914, we took means to meet the enemy, and my question is: What are we doing at the present time to meet the enemy of 1919? In my opinion the only method of making food cheaper is to produce more, and if greater production is desired, the tools with which men produce must be made cheaper. Therefore, my first argument is that the tariff on farm and other implements of production should be reduced to the lowest possible rate. In the second place, all foodstuffs and clothing should be free, and in the third place, there

should be a downward revision of the tariff all round.

It seems to be a debatable matter whether the tariff should be touched this year or not, because it is a war year. If it be a war year, and if the Government in their wisdom had seen fit not to touch the tariff,

I say: Well and good; but if they decided to touch the tariff, then they Lad a right to do so in a way that would have been of some benefit to this country at large. The two courses were open; they took one, and when they made up their mind to reduce the tariff, the very least that should have been done was to knock off the 7i per cent all round, and fish should not have been made of the one and flesh of the other. That, to my mind, is a logical argument. Why did they not do that? There is, in my judgment, only one reason, and that is the fact that they were endeavouring to please the manufacturers. There never was a time when the manufacturers, if approached strongly by a Government determined to reduce the protective duty, were in as receptive a mood as they are to-day. My reasons for saying that are as follows: First, because the manufacturers have made huge profits in the last few years; second, because they recognize the seriousness of the industrial situation; third, because they know that if the industrial situation continues as it is at present, their investment must, of necessity, be jeopardised; fourth, because they knew that for years they have enjoyed the highest of protection, and they should, I think, be willing to-day at least to commence to stand alone; fifth, because as reasonable men, they know they have to make further sacrifices to bring back equilibrium to this coutnry.

There is another reason-and it is only common sense that the manufacturers must surely recognize as business men-namely, the rising tide of opinion throughout the Dominion of Canada that the manufacturers have had a protection far beyond the necessities of the businesses they have been carrying on. That being the case, if they still continue in their stiff-necked position of giving nothing and taking all, is it not reasonably likely to follow that greater ills will come than they have any idea of? We had in 1914 an example of a man at the head of a nation who would not bend, who refused to give, who would have all, even the world itself, who continued in that career until to-day he is the most broken thing in the world. The Kaiser never gave; he wanted all; he would not take timely

and efficacious steps to ward off the evils that were to come, but he continued in his stiff-necked course. What happened to him is history. I do not mean to say that that will altogether happen to the manufacturers, but a parallel may be drawn as between that case and that of the manufacturers that, in my opinion, ought to put the manufacturers upon their best behaviour and make them willing to make .some further sacrifices if they have ever made any. In a country such as this it ought not to be necessary for us to plead for harmony, harmony ought to prevail here; there ought to be the fullest coordination and co-operation between farmer, labourer and manufacturer. That cooperation is absolutely necessary for the successful development of the country, and it must come, because a house divided against itself cannot stand, and Canada must be made one of the nations of the world if she is not already one.

The soldier has a right to expect Canadians to be in time of peace what he has shown them to be in time of war, a nation man for man able to cope with any other nation in the world. He has a right to expect that there will be such an expansion of industry and of production as will bring back to the country that which he fought for, prosperity as a whole. But the soldier wants action; he wants questions settled; he wants matters grappled with in the same manner in running the country as he was accustomed to in France. He has a right to expect that; he is not looking for the onus to be shifted time and again to commissions-and the rest of the people are of the same opinion-but he is looking for this Government to do things on their own responsibility, to be responsible to the people themselves and not, whenever knotty questions come up, to hand them over to commissions and endeavour to shift the burden from their own shoulders.

What are some of the causes of unrest? One of the great causes is that, by reason of the inflation of prices, the dollar bill to-day is worth about fifty cents. In passing, let me say that it appears to be rather an anomalous position that we had one of the ministers of the Crown the other day saying, if I understood him aright-and I am subject to correction-that absolutely nothing is to to done to reduce the cost of living; it cannot be done, practically speaking, any more than you can raise the dead: but at the same time we have appointed by the Government, and sitting to-day in all solemnity in an endeavour to find a way of

reducing the cost of living, a committee which is to report to this House. Is that committee, and is the Bill which has already been drafted, I am informed, simply a piece of camouflage thrown out by this Government in order to give the people the idea that they are really endeavouring to do something, while at the same time one of the most responsible ministers of the Crown from his place in this House states that absolutely nothing can be done and we might as well give up the problem? If that is what the Government really thinks, I think it would be better to call a halt to the labours of the committee, and we might find some remedy altogether irrespective of the Government.

Another reason for the unrest is the profiteering that has gone on. Profiteers roam this country rampant to-day, and have roamed it rampant for many years past. They have taken their ill-gotten gains out of the pockets of the people, and I say that these huge profits should not be allowed unless provision is made for returning to the State a large and adequate percentage of those profits. The manufacturers of this country have reaped huge profits, and there has been no commensurate return to the State from those profits. These two things have added largely to the unrest. Could they do otherwise? I say that the individual or corporation that makes huge profit by reason of the fact that the laws of the State protect him in life and limb and property should return to the State for the good of the whole people everything over and above what would be considered a fair profit on his business.

We have heard it said that you cannot reduce prices. Just let me see for a moment whether that statement by the manufacturers is borne out by actual facts. Why does clothing cost so much? We had an illuminating bit of evidence before the Cost of Living Committee to-day upon this very point, and it all comes back to that much talked of concern, the Dominion Textile Company. Let me read what took place:

When the Roumanian contract was made the yarn known as size No. 10 carded white American was quoted toy the Dominion Textile Company at 71 cents a pound. There is a clause in the customs law which grants a rebate almost equal to the duty on raw material used in good's for export, in order to encourage foreign trade. Manufacturers of shirts and other garments for which this yarn is raw material, decided to take advantage of this clause for their Roumanian contracts, and sent inquiries to the spinners of it in the United1 States. The Dominion Textile Company thereupon dropped their price below 50 cents, and almost as* suddenly raised it to 54 cents a pound, where it

now is. This price of 54 cents is sufficiently low to keep the American product out of Canada, and the assumption is that it is also sufficiently high to give the company a fair margin of profit. The surplus1 of 17 cents a pound was squeezed out of the manufacturers who used the yarn, and consequently out of the consumers of their goods. As there are Probably 5,000,000 to G,000,00-0 pounds of this yarn used yearly in Canada, the difference of 17 cents a pound would -result in an unjustifiable profit at the rate of a million dollars a year.

It is no wonder that, as the Gazette says, "all previous high records in the way of gross sales, profits and final surplus of the Dominion Textile Company are relegated into the background " by this annual statement.

It simply means this: That the very moment the Dominion Textile Company found that yarn was about to be brought in here under certain conditions, and that they would have to compete against outside firms, they dropped the price immediately to the consumers of this country to meet their competitors, but then raised them high, enough to make a profit of $1,000,000 a year. Will any one argue, under these circumstances, that such corporations are entitled to a protective duty which enables them to take money out of the pockets of the consumers of this country? I say that the sooner we get down to that class of case and make that particular child of fortune stand alone unprotected, the better for the peace and prosperity of this country, and t-o its everlasting advantage financially.

Let me give the House this little tit-bit from the evidence of Mr. W. E. Patton before the Cost of Living Committee. I shall not read all Mr. Patton's statement, but he says that for the year January 31, 1919, the profits on his business were 72-9 per cent. Now he is protected. Will any one say that he needs that protection? Will any one say that the people o-f this country should be bled through the nose to give any -corporation, no matter what its capital stock, a profit of 72-9 per -cent? I say, no. There is one other reason why unrest is here: I refer to bank mergers. These have been going on for a very considerable time. The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) said last night that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) had stated that a few years ago there were thirty-two banks in this country whereas to-day there were only sixteen. I say that it is not good for this country to have under so few heads the entire management of all the money of this country, for that is practically What it means. In money, as in everything else, competition counts, and banks should not be above it any more than the ordinary merchant.

I now come to the income tax, and I am as glad possibly as any hon. member of this House that it is to be increased, because I recollect making a motion in this House regarding income tax not so very many sessions ago, which the Minister of Finance and the Government considered, but received with no degree of favour whatever. However, after repeated attempts, we finally managed to get an income tax. It is.not as large as it ought to be, but it is higher this year than last. I am delighted that it has been raised in some degree to what it ought to be, but it is not high enough yet. It is not the man with the small income I am after, but the big fellow, and I see no reason why we should not go on taxing the big fellow very much higher than he is taxed under the present proposals. To my mind we should consider not what a man has, nor what he gets, but what he has left after he has paid his tax, and I say that when a man has left over an income sufficient for a comfortable living he should be made to pay very roundly until such a time as the state is again in a,position to lower the tax. I am very much afraid, and I submit that the figures bear me out, that there has not been a wholly sympathetic administration of the Income Tax Act. When you consider -that

31,000 people in the Dominion of Canada have paid taxes on income, and that we have received only $6,500,000 from the whole broad Dominion, with all its wealthy people, I think it will be agreed that there is a cog askew somewhere in -the collection department. Something is wrong; I do not believe that there has been a wholly sympathetic administration of the Act, or why have we not had greater returns? I have only this to say along that line: Speaking for myself, if the figures do not show to a very, very appreciable extent a greater percentage return than they have in the past years, I think the Government will hear something more about it.

There is one other thing in connection with the income tax which I wish to bring to the attention of the House, and that is in connection with exempting the bonds from taxation. I am not now, and never have been, in sympathy with that proposition. I see no reason whatever why the man, or the large corporation that buys a huge amount of bonds should have the right to say: "We shall not recompense the state, although we have the greatest security in the world." I saw in the las-t issue of the Sunday World a remarkable advertisement to this effect: " Bring in your bonds. All

bonds will be taken." Why were they advertising for bonds? It was because there is to be a higher income tax, and -the big men and the big corporations are endeavouring to get in un-der shelter and save their dollars by buying, supposedly from patriotic reasons, the bonds that the little men bought in a really patriotic spirit to help tne country. I should like to see legislation enacted-and I do no-t know whether it would be very radical legislation-that fro-m to-day on every bond sold shall be subject to taxation on the basis of last year's income tax.

It only means this and nothing more, that the man who practically pays no income tax has his little bond. He keeps it. There is no income tax. But, some day, if the large corporation, or the rich individual comes to him and says: " Sell me that bond," and he does sell it, from the minute that individual or corporation takes that bond, it becomes liable to income taxation. I would suggest that that is a matter into which the Government might well look and of which they might well take heed. It might be one of the ways- and it would be one of the ways-in which our loss of revenue of $17,000,000, by reason of the remission of the 7t per cent duty, might be made up.

As the Finance Minister has said that thete would he another bond issue of the Dominion of Canada, I sincerely hope and trust that the next issue will not be tax free. I want to say to the Government very frankly that if that is not done, it will meet with the approbation of nobody except tremendously rich corporations and individuals.

How would you make up your loss of revenue? I would say that you would make it up in two ways which I shall suggest. The one is a graduated income tax; another is a graduated tax on corporations. Sir, in the United States to-day, they collect from their taxes on incomes eight times the amount that they collected two or three years ago. Their income tax exceeds by millions of dollars the customs taxes and to-day in Great Britain the very same state of affairs exists. The income tax-we might just as well make up our minds to that-has come to stay. It has to be put on a scientific basis. The man who is most highly possessed of this world's goods has got his wealth through the efforts largely of other members of the community coupled with his own, and if that is so the community has a right to take a percentage of the return. Sooner or later we have to get to the state where we can

recognize the fact that the income tax is no war measure, but a permanent tax which has come to stay, to be with us always, and if that is so we have to get it on a scientific basis. If we want to make up for the loss of revenue we must have a graduated income tax.

I say to this Government, and to Governments that are to follow: " Tax what

you like but for heaven's sake leave the food and raiment of the poor man alone." Taxes must be get-abable instead of taking them out of the mouths of the people. Unrest. These are some of the causes. In so far as labour is concerned let me say that I believe that for the labourer there must be a reasonable limit of hours of work and there must be fair compensation. By fair compensation I mean that the labourer is entitled to a scientific percentage of the amount that he earns per day to put into the employer's pocket. I believe that has to come. I believe that it will come, and when it does there will be less unrest. It is said by this Government that " We cannot limit hours; it belongs to the provinces." It is said by the provinces: "We cannot limit the hours; it belongs to the Federal House." All I have to say is that the Federal and Provincial Governments in the past have come to an agreement on such matters as roads, health, and other things. Does any person mean to say that they cannot come to an agreement as to who shall limit the hours of work for the workingman? Is it that neither wants to take the responsibility? The sooner the responsibility is taken by somebody, the better and the sooner will the unrest be lessened.

Capital owes a duty to the State, labour owes a duty to the State. They must be made to recognize that fact, because the community is interested; the community has to have the community's business carried on. Therefore, I say that it does not rest wholly with Governments, but it rests with the people at large to see that these disputes are settled.

I just wish to say one word upon the farming situation in regard to the tariff and I am done. It will be admitted, and it is mere surplusage to say it, that there is not a business industry throughout the length or breadth of this land that during the growing time of the crops, and when -the fall comes, is not making its contracts and its purchases always with an eye and regard to what the agricultural outlook is. If you go to a wholesaler, what will he say: I will

buy when I know how agriculture is doing and how -the crop is getting on this year. We hear that everywhere, it i-s a truism, and does not need any amplifying by me. If that is so, then I have merely this to say that to the farmer must be extended the very greatest consideration. I hold in my hand a book entitled "Wake Up, Canada !" by C. W. Peterson. This gentleman has put the case so strongly and in such a manner that I could not hope to present it more effectively, and I am going to ask the House to bear with me while I read a few things which Mr. Peterson says in so far as the farming industry is concerned. The author of the publication referred to says this:

The Canadian farmer has now enjoyed a few years of -prosperity and has been able to discharge his debts-which he always does when he can. He is able to buy * more freely and eastern industry and business, consequently, are flourishing. It is curious how persistently our minds are focussed upon the present to the utter exclusion of the unpleasant past and all its lessons. . . . Shall we cease sneering at the farmer when he gives expression to his well-founded -anxiety about the uncertain future, and perhaps makes reconstruction -proposals that may not appear strictly ortfiodox? Rest assured, that the situation does not call for supercilious criticism or offensive imputations. Every thoughtful and patriotic citizen, irrespective of trade, profession or political affiliation, will ibe well advised to study the real difficulties confronting this country and to contribute his quota towards the solution of the many vital problems that surround agriculture, in the East as well as in the West.

We cannot, of course, control wind' and weather and ensure favourable crop conditions. That is in other hands. But we can, if we will, do much to ensure that when the farmer has anything to sell he shall get it to market in good condition and a reasonable cost, that profitable markets shall not -be artificially closed to him, that, in fact, the returns from his business shall 'be such that he can survive the lean years and thus keep the wheels of industry moving steadily to the everlasting advantage of every one who call Canada his

home Agriculture may

well he termed " the great gamble." The farmer's occupation involves a life of unremitting toil. He must compete in the open markets of the world with farmers of other countries and climates-the -black, the brown, tbe yellow and the white races who have been working at high pressure for centuries, and will probably go on doing so for many more generations. Take it one year with another, our farmer makes a fair living and1 nothing more. And, besides, he has considerable capital invested in his business, on which he draws only a very moderate return. He is at the mercy of the capriciousness of the seasons. , Nothing he can do will enable him altogether to forecast results. Neither can he fix the values of his products. If the season is good in Russia or the Argentine or India, the Canadian farmer must sell his wheat at a discount. The cost of producing It does- not enter into the calculation at all. He comes into the game, but other

people play the cards It is not a

class question. It is our one, great national problem.

That, Sir, as I said before, so entirely expresses my own view in regard to the farming community that I have taken the liberty of reading it to the House for this purpose, and this purpose only, that in any legislation tariffwards that we make, the farmer is the man that must be considered, he is the man that must be considered if we desire the ultimate good of the Dominion. Sir, we are to-day bringing in a land settlement scheme. I want to ask the people of this country, and I want to ask the House, what purpose is a land settlement scheme to put soldiers on the land without you so provide that the soldiers niter they get on . the land can make a living. So far as the tariff, in fact the whole country, is concerned, the East needs the West and the West needs the East. The tariff and industrial conditions are not the same. Under those circumstances, as wise Canadians, we. have got to recognize the fact that the tariff must be a compromise; it is utterly impossible that it should be anything else. That has got to come because, say what you may, Canada must stand as a united and not as a divided nation. I say, Sir, that there should not be dissention. There should be cohesion so that we may build up in this country a great nationality, and cohesion, industry, and work must be the watchword of good Canadians for many a year to conje. [DOT] Sir, the time has arrived when we as representatives of the people must look matters squarely in the face. We have got to speak of the Dominion as a whole and we must be loyal enough to that Dominion, and fearless enough to see that we shall be men enough to grapple with the many intricate problems that are now staring us in the face and'endeavour to find a sane solution, or solutions, for them. I believe, Sir, that the tariff can do much towards that end. I believe that to-day the tariff, with all its attendant followings, is playing a large part in connection with the existing unrest. The position which I took in the first part of my speech I take now, and therefore it is that I shall have much pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter).

Mr. EDWARD WALTER NESBITT (Oxford North):

everything in the form of industry goes to make up the high cost of material when you take away the men working in that industry. Another thing, all the European countries were practically destroyed so far as producing foodstuffs was concerned, and they continued to demand, to the very height of their ability to pay, all the foodstuffs they could get, regardless of price. Therefore, we cannot expect to get a supply of foodstuffs adequate to bring down the cost of living in this country until things come back to normal.

I believe that the farmer during tihe time that foodstuffs were so high made no more money than he made during the time before the war when the price of foodstuffs was normal. I can say from my own experience-and I keep an accurate account of the results of my farming-that I know that he has not .been making any more on account of the high prices that he gets for his produce than he made previous to the war.

I do not know how we can expect to bring down the price of foodstuffs in this country until things come back to a normal condition, and they cannot possibly come back to that condition, so far as farm produce is concerned, until such time as we can get more labour and cheaper labour on the farm. It is almost impossible this year to get farm hands. I know from my own experience that the farmers in our section of 'the country have during the past four years worked practically night and day to try to keep their farms cultivated. They have had to get their children of ten years of age and upwards, and their wives, who had never worked in the fields before, to assist them to try to get their crop in and to try to get it off. They have done everything in their power to produce foodstuffs during that time, so much so that they have got tired, that is, so far as the Ontario farmers are concerned.

My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said the other day that there were a good many abandoned farms in Ontario.

I do not know of any myself. But perhaps he thought that where some

5 p.m. farmers had put their farms into pasture and bought stock to graze in the spring, those farms were abandoned. I am not disputing my hon. friend's statement, no doubt he thought he was right, but so far as my experience goes,

I know of no abandoned farms in the province of Ontario, but I do know that a great many farmers have stopped raising grain and keeping milch cows, for the reason that

they cannot get men to do the work and therefore they have turned their farms into pasture land to a large extent.

I know of farms consisting of one hundred acres of which not more than ten or twelve acres are worked, the remaining acreage being turned into pasture for young stock, farrow-cows, and so on. As for the grain that is grown on these farms, it is not even threshed; it is cut up and used for feed for the few cows that the farmers keep through the winter for their own use. I see, therefore, no prospect of a reduction in the price of foodstuffs until & change comes over the spirit of the country and more people are willing to do the hard work on the farm at a lesser profit.

I do not often quote figures in the course of my remarks, but I was anxious to find out what the conditions would be if there were no tariff or no trade restrictions as between Canada, England, and the United States, and how that would affect the price of foodstuffs. I have prepared, from statements published in Canada by the Labour Gazette, in the United States by the Monthly Labour Review, and in England by the National Food Journal, a statement of the average retail price of foods in those countries in February, 1919. The statement is as follows:

oJ m a>

Canada. (Labour Gazel United State (Monthly Labour Revi England. [National Food Jourmc. c. c.Sirloin Steak-per lb. . . .36.2 41.2 45.6Round steak-per lb.. . ..32.8 38.8 44.6Rib roast, prime-per lb..29.6 3'2.6 44.6Chuck roast,-per lb.. . . 215.4 27.9 28.1Pork roast-per lb.. . . . .35.7 - 44.6Pork chops-per lb.. . . .38.3 37.9 48.6Bacon, breakfast-per lb.51.6 55.3 56.8Milk-per qt . .13.7 1'5.5 -Butter, creamery-per lb. 58.6 57.2 60.8Cheese-per lb .33.8-35.7 40.9 40.5Lard-per lb ..35.7 32.1 40.5Eggs, storage-per doz..56.6 46.8 1.10Eggs, fresh-per doz.. . .64.7 50.6 1.9 -5Bread-per lb . . 7.9 9. S 4.6Flour-per lb

. . . 6.8 6.7 4.6Rolled oats-per lb.. . :. 7.7 9.1Rice-per lb 12.0-14. ,1 14.3 8.1Beans, dry-per lb.. . . .13.9 13.7 12.2Potatoes-per pk ..29.7 31.0 24.9Corn, canned-per can. . .23.1 19.6 Peas, canned-per can. . .19.1 19.2 Tomatoes, canned-per can. 2(1.0 17.0 Sugar, granulated-per lb.12.0 10.7 14.2

Mr. KEEFER:

Does that statement take into consideration the large subsidies paid in respect of. these commodities in England?

Mr. NESBITT:

Certainly. You can see, therefore, that if all tariff restrictions were taken off as between these countries there would be no reduction of the price in Canada of the commodities which are mentioned in this list.

The Government have been asked, through petitions and that sort of thing, to prohibit the export of such goods as eggs, butter, cheese, and meat. I think that would be a great mistake, because the farmer is making no more than an ordinary profit on his production now, and if the export of these commodities was prohibited he would cease to produce them and they would get dearer instead of cheaper. The Government would be very foolish to interfere with the regular channels of supply and demand, and I hope they will not do so.

During the war a good many commissions were appointed and maintained at the expense of the country. The cost of these commissions, which has to be paid by the people in taxes, tends to increase the cost of living. I think that there were more of these commissions than were necessary, and that they involved the establishment of expensive staffs and departments that were not absolutely -necessary. I venture to say that the work could have been done as well with half the service that was maintained.

Moreover, about the time the war started, the Government, owing to the failure of the Canadian Northern to pay its way, either had to take over the Canadian Northern or advance money year after year to maintain it; and they decided to take it over as a Government road. Though I was opposed to the taking over of the Canadian Northern the Government thought it wise to do so. Recently they had to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific; I saw no other course for them to adopt. But you must bear in mind the fact that when the Government took over the Canadian Northern, freight rates were immediately increased by 40 per cent -15 per cent at one jump and 25 per cent at another-thus largely contributing to the increase in the cost of living.

I am glad to say that most of the commissions have been dissolved but there is still a tendency to appoint commissions. Commissions have been appointed since the Armistice was signed, one to go to England, and one here to keep in touch with the one in England. These commissions will follow the usual practice of building up departments around themselves and employing an excess number of assistants, all of which is expensive to the country. Another commission is now to be appointed,

a purchasing commission, consisting of three men at high salaries, who- will also build up a department around themselves. I said the other night, when that matter was before the House, and I repeat it now, that I could- supply a man, who, with one first-class stenographer and two inspectors, could do all the purchasing necessary for the Government departments, and do it well. I say that the Government are to blame in this respect; they could have cut down this expenditure. With reference to the work of the committee of the House which is examining into conditions in the Civil Service, I may remark that half the number of clerks now employed in the various departments would do the work just as well as it is done now. The Government could, therefore, very easily reduce expenditure, thereby giving an example to the people and helping to reduce the cost of living,

I have always been, and am still, a low tariff advocate. I do not believe it is necessary in the interests of the manufacturers that we should have a very high protective tariff. In the first place, I think it gets the manufacturer into a slovenly way of doing business. By intensifying his organization he could reduce his costs quite sufficiently to make up for low tariff protection. All tariffs are on protective basis; there is no doubt about that. But we must not run away with the idea that the amount- of the duty on a particular article is always added to the price of that article manufactured in Canada. I know something about the way manufacturers arrive at their selling prices, and I know of none who take the tariff into consideration when they are determining the selling price of their goods.

Almost constantly you hear city people say, because of the high price of farm products, that the farmer is making a fortune. In the country and, in a good many instances, in this House, there is a feeling that all Canadian manufacturers are making fortunes; that they a-re all rich. I would suggest to the man in the city who thinks that the farmer is making a fortune, to buy a farm and go on to it himself and see how he comes out-. On the other hand, I would suggest to the man who thinks all manufacturers are making money, to form an organization and go into some line oi manufacturing, I do not care which, and see how he comes out, and then he will have experience to show him how much of a fortune the manufacturer is making in his particular line of business. That will

give him a knowledge that perhaps he does not have at the present time.

I should like to say to those who think that every manufacturer who starts in business makes a fortune, that statistics show that, out of every five men who enter the manufacturing or commercial business of this country, four fail. Some of them profit by their experience and afterwards become wealthy or well-to-do; some are too old to profit by their experience, and some are too foolish and the latter just branch out again if they have an opportunity. Experience teaches us that while a farmer works from daylight to dark, many manufacturers who have succeeded in this country work not only from daylight to dark but for several hours after dark. Many of them put in from eighteen to twenty hours a day for years before they make a success of their business and many of them go without any dividend for a number of years. That brings me to my remarks on the tariff.

A feeling has many times been expressed in this House that if the tariff were taken off agricultural implements, the cost of production would be decreased; that living expenses, at least as regards foodstuffs, would come down. I was curious to know what the effect of taking off the tariff would be, and, therefore, I went to the trouble of getting figures-and again I apologize for using figures-as to just what effect the tariff had on agricultural implements. I took the ordinary equipment of 100 acres of land in Ontario, or as I understand it, the ordinary equipment of 160 acres of land in the West, and I took the wholesale prices because the duty is paid on the wholesale and not on the retail prices. The duties quoted are exclusive of the war tax. The following is what I found:

Article. Value. Duty. *Binder. . . .. $2.0-0 $25. 00Mower . . 77 9. 62Horse-rake . . 4:5 6. 75Corn binder 25. 00Disc drill. 16. 95Roller . . 65 13. 0-0Manure spreader . . 180 2-7. 00Corn cultivator . . S7 13. 0-5Disc harrow . . 44 6. 60Cultivator, spring: tooth.. . . 64 9. 60Seuffler . . 12 1. soLumber wagon . . 103 20. 60Walking plough 2. 55Gang plough.. .. ;. .. ii. 10Iron harrow . . 22 3. 30Two double harness.. .. . . 120 36. 00One single harness.. .. . . 50 15. 00Tools 15. 00Buggy 22. 50Total . $280. 4-2

That is at 15 per cent, or the proposed tariff. It is an understood fact that if a farmer takes ordinary care of his tools, the life of a tool on a farm is ten years. The duty paid is $260.42, so that if you take it over ten years, the duty paid is $28 a year. If you take the old tariff, exclusive of the war tax, the duty amounts to a total of $309.62 or $30.91 a year. If you take the tariff off entirely, there would be saved in duty at the proposed tariff, $28 a year. But we have to fill that in with something else, and as the income tax has been increased almost as much as the minister can increase it without driving people out of the country, and as the business profits war tax is certainly as high as he can raise it without driving business out of the country, there would, in any judgment, be only one recourse, and that is a land tax. To provide the amount that -would be lost by the removal of the tarifl would take a land tax at municipal assessments of about two per cent or twenty mills on the dollar, and that tax on 100 acres of land in my county would amount to about $140 a year. If you take the land at a price for unimproved land of $25 to $30 throughout the country, you do not receive any benefit because the lower the assessment, the greater the rate of taxation because you have to raise a certain amount. Therefore, as regards myself as a farmer, I would prefer to pay the duty proposed on these goods to having a land tax imposed. We are all selfish to a certain extent, and I am just selfish enough to prefer paying the tariff proposed on these goods to paying a land tax, because if the land tax were only one per cent, I would be a great deal of money out of pocket. I believe that the proposed tariff will allow a very keen competition from both Great Britain and the United States. It is a fact, I must frankly say, that we get very few agricultural implements from Great Britain because the British manufacturers do not make the class of agricultural implements we require. We buy a large quantity of agricultural implements now under the old tariff from the United States, and the United States manufacturers, owing to their vast market which enables them to employ men day in and day out, for instance, drilling a hole or making a bolt, can pay the proposed tariff of 15 per cent and import goods into this country, and they will do so. It is said that our agricultural implement manufacturers can compete with the world and do export a large quantity of implements to Australia in open competition.

That is quite true. Every man who knows anything about manufacturing knows that if you are turning out every year $100,000 of goods, we will say, and you base your overhead on that amount, if you can increase your output up to $200,000 you decrease your overhead nearly by half, or at all events, by fully a third. So that when you have supplied the home market if you can get an export trade, you can afford to sell at a lower price and still make money because of the reduction in your overhead. That is a simple fact that every man in the manufacturing business in this country thoroughly understands, and which cannot be disputed.

As to the rest of the tariff, there are a number of articles on which the duty in my opinion is too high, but I will come to that a little later on.

I wish to say something on the Business Profits War Tax. This tax was imposed for the war. The reason given at the time was that there were a great many men in this country manufacturing munitions of war who were making very large profits, and it was thought that part of these profits should be devoted to paying the cost of carrying on the war. I think that was quite proper, but we must bear in mind that while this is a war year in the sense that we are paying the expenses and reaping the results of the war, the men who were turning out munitions have had to stop their factories almost entirely or pick up some article here and there which they can manufacture and put on the market. These men will make no profit this year. The ordinary business man had to come under the tax with the munitions manufacturer, because it was thought impossible for the Government to pick out men here and there who happened to be engaged in the munitions business and tax them, and let everybody else go free. So all were taxed. Now my contention is, and was at the time, that it is an unfair tax, because it works out improperly. A corporation that is over-capitalized, for instance, gets off much more lightly than the man who has a small capitalization and is borrowing all his money from the bank in the endeavour to build up a business. That man is practically in the hands of the bank, and it is absolutely necessary for him, in order to build up his business, to put into it whatever' he can earn over and above six or seven per cent to the stockholders. Now while banks are very generous at times if you are engaged in a profitable business, at other times, when money is scarce, they get a little frightened and put on the screws

just when the small man wants money to carry him over; so it is a dangerous thing to depend entirely on banks to carry you along in your business. The Business Profits War Tax taxes practically everything over 7 per cent; profits up to 15 per cent are taxed. 25 per cent; from 15 to 20 per cent, 50 per cent; from 20 per cent upwards, 75 per cent. You might say that 25 per cent up to 15 per cent is a small amount, that a corporation incorporated for $100,000 that made 15 per cent would only pay $8,000. But that same corporation may be borrowing $120,000 from the bank to carry on its business, and not only that, but nine times out of ten when the company borrows from the bank the directors have to put up their personal credit before they can get a loan. It is the small man we want to encourage in this country, not the corporations with large capitalization, although 1 think they are just as fair as the ordinary company if their capitalization is actually paid-up; where it is not paid-up I do not believe in them at all. I do not believe in two or three kinds of stock and two or three kinds of debentures and all that kind of thing. I am pleading now for the ordinary manufacturer or businessman throughout the length and breadth of this land, that he may be given an opportunity of building up a reserve so that he will not be at the mercy of the bank or any one else.

I hope before these taxation proposals are disposed of, the Government will see its way clear to so re-adjust the business profits tax as to provide that on profits between seven per cent and twenty per cent, instead of seven per cent and fifteen per cent, the tax shall be twenty-five per cent, while on profits between twenty per cent and thirty per cent, instead of between fifteen and twenty per cent, the tax shall be fifty per cent. A man starting into business with $100,000. must turn that over three [DOT] times a year, to make a reasonable profit he must make sales up to $300,000. If he is going .to make ten per cent he must turn his capital over three or four times per year to earn that profit. You must remember that he is not making more than two and-a-half or three per cent on his turnover. That amount looks big if his capitalization is low, but it is not very big on the turnover. I would like the minister who is representing the Minister of Finance here this afternoon to call the minister's attention to the point that I am now going to refer to. Farm tractors were allowed in free last year, and of course

the material entering into their construction must also be allowed in free. The manufacturers get a drawback of ninety-nine per cent, but they sometia.es have to wait for six or eight months to get that drawback. I do not see jdiy the Customs Department should not be instru 1 ed to allow that material in free at th<, time it is imported, in place of making th s. n pay the duty and compelling them to lie out of the money for from six to ten months before they get the drawback.

I am satisfied with the assurance of the minister that this is a temporary revision of the Budget. I perfectly agree with the ' proposition that the Minister of Finance, together with some other ministers-not a commission-I am sick and tired of commissions-should travel through the length and breadth of this country and burrow into the business establishments from every standpoint, farming, manufacturing and commercial. Then a tariff should be devised which would be a revenue-producing tariff and at the same time afford a reasonable protection for the manufacturers who require it. It should be a revenue-producing tariff. I am very much pleased with the proposition, and I would like to say to my friends opposite-I think they are all my friends yet-I have a very kindly feeling towards them anyway