June 17, 1919

L LIB
L LIB
UNION

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Unionist

Mr. NESBITT:

-that the Government in reference to this tariff proposition, have done the very best they could considering the difficulties they have had to face. The actual fighting, I hope, is done. We cannot tell but I hope it is through. But, we have results worse this year than we had previously. I do not regret, and I do not believe anybody else does, the expendi ture that was made on the war. There is no doubt that a great deal of it was extravagance more or less and perhaps some ol it unnecessary. But it was a peculiar time. The situation was like that in which a man with a great rush of business finds himself; he has not time to sit down and work things out. This country had to do the best it could in the war and I doubt if anybody regrets that it did the best it could. The expenditure was large and perhaps some of it was wasted. I have no doubt that some of it was wasted but at the same time there would be few of us who would have asked the Government to stay their hand. They are only ordinary people like ourselves, they did the best

they could and let us give them credit for that.

Now, in reference to this tariff proposition, I believe as solemnly as I believe that I am standing here, that the Government have gone as far as they can safely go at the present time. I think the farmers will find that the arrangement in regard to freights on their implements will make a great difference. Somebody-I do not remember whom-while speaking here the other day, sort of laughed at the idea of the reduction that, had been made in freight, rates and said that it would be of no benefit. I think he will find that it will make a. great deal of difference in shipping to the West. I have always found, in shipping to the West, that the freight charges were, to speak very plainly, practically horrible when I came to pay them. But, it is necessary because you can see that the railway companies are not making money even under the increased rates. After the increase in freight rates, we had the Government requiring the Canadian Pacific to pay over any excess profits which meant penalizing a successful corporation. I dislike penalizing a man because he makes some money I do not believe in penalizing a successful corporation. I think they are people who should be held up as an example to the rest. They should be encouraged. But the Canadian Pacific were penalized. That is a principle that I object to in so far as I am personally concerned. Although the freight rates were raised some of these roads still do not pay. You will find that the reduction brought about by the Minister of Finance in freight rates will be of material advantage to the people in the West in the shipment of their agricultural implements. I hope that when the vote comes on the tariff proposition hon. members will show their appreciation of what the Government have tried to do in the way of assisting them for this year and which will give them an opportunity to thoroughly study the tariff situation from the standpoint of the interest of the whole people and not that of any {particular class.

My hon. friend from West Lamb ton (Mr. Pardee), in sitting down this afternoon, said that this country, to succeed, must be united. There never was a better example of unity than when Marshal Foch was made commander and put at the head of the allied troops. There never could be a greater example of unity than that. The people of this country, whether they live in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime Provinces, or the west, have to get over their grouch

-with each other. We have to unite and the people on the farm have to get it into their minds that there is not a fortune in coming to town to work by any manner of means.

I claim, and I think I can prove it, that a single man to-day who is getting $35 per month and his board on the farm is better off than the man who is getting $3 a day in town and boarding himself and who is subject to all the inducements to get rid of his money that he always finds in town.

In the first place his clothes will not cost him a fraction of what they do in town-he is better off in that respect. Then the inducements to spend his money will be less; and I would like to say to you people that have lived in towns all your lives that you may sit behind a desk and worry your soul out how you are going to get money to meet your expenditures the next day when you would be a lot happier even if you were a little dirtier-if you were working as am ordiina'ry labourer on the farm. You can always bear in mind that water is, thank heaven, free in this country, or practically so, and if you get a bit dirty during the day you can easily cleanse yourself at night and you can go to bed and sleep soundly. And the next day all you have got to do is to get up and repeat the same performance-work like a man. I have no sympathy with this agitation for shortening the hours of labour to six hours a day and all that sort of thing-not the slightest sympathy. When I was a boy I had to worft from morning till night. It did me no harm, it kept me out of devilment and did me good. I do not think there is a truer adage in the world than the old one that " Satan finds mischief still for idle hands to do ". As for the man that only works six hours a day and wants the rest of the time for fun, I think that is nonsense-absolute nonsense. When I am at home and have got the time I go out to my farm and work until I can hardly crawl into my buggy at night, but after returning home, getting a wash-up and a real rest, I am just as good and a lot better the next day. I have yet to see hard work kill any body, but hard work and worry will kill everybody. The fellow that works hard really, after all, is the fellow in town that is trying to build up a business, on his own or somebody else's credit, and working from eighteen to twenty hours a day to do it until he has broken down, and he thinks it is inore fun than cleaning horses and milking cows. He never did the latter job or he would know better. The farmer is not making a fortune, I will concur in

that statement, but he is making a living. My hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) said the farmer had to compete with the world, but it so happens that it does not matter what he has to sell, from buckwheat to a pig, his market is always right at his door. He does not need to have commercial travellers going around the country to seU his goods; he has got his market right there, there is no possible question about it. It is too bad when the market goes down and the author quoted by the member for Lambton was quite right when he said that no business in the world is more of a gamble than farming, for the simple reason that the farmer's crops are exposed to the elements. We see that at the present day. I may tell you that in Ontario we had too much rain when we were putting in the crop, altogether too much. The crop went into wet ground, or, rather, it was not entirely wet, but it was too moist, and the consequence was that the ground baked. Now the hot sun is drying it up so that the grain is turning yellow, it has not got the moisture to keep the good solid green; and fall wheat, as to which there was a prospect of the greatest crop Ontario ever saw, is ripening too- fast. I only say that to illustrate that the farmer is up against the elements every day. There is no telling what to-morrow will bring forth for him. As my hon. friend (tMr. Pardee) has said, the farmer deserves all he can get; but I have endeavoured to show, speaking absolutely from a farmer's standpoint, that I would prefer to pay the duties imposed under the Budget than to pay a land tax, and we have got to have one or the other. You cannot raise the income tax any higher without driving people out of the country, or else driving them to buy Victory Bonds. I am sorry to say a great deal of that has been- done. You may have noticed when the last Victory Loan was floated a great many thousand-hundreds of thousands, I think-of people in this country bought those bonds, but many and many a man subscribed for them because he was paying for them by instalments, and before the instalments were due sold the bonds again on the open market in Montreal or Toronto. For weeks there were anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000 worth of bonds sold on the open market in Toronto every day, and the same thing occurred in Montreal. Who bought them? The men who would otherwise be paying an income tax. I have no objection to the ten per cent income tax on corporations, I think that is perfectly fair, but I do object to the business profits war tax, which is an en-

tirely different thing. I- think that the corporation has as much right to pay a tax on income as an individual has. a great many corporations will doubtless object very decidedly to paying income tax, but they will have to pay it. I suppose, like every human being, they will do the best they can to evade payment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to appeal to members on both sides to drop class thinking and "locality'' thinking, if I may use the term, even if it is provincial-wide. Let us drop all class thinking and action and join heartily together when it requires all the little brains that the Lord has put into us to successfully carry this country over the next two years. Let us join together as much as we can in producing all that is possible, not only for our own benefit, but for the benefit of the country, so as to make this Dominion a united and therefore a successful Canada.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.

The House resumed at 8 o'clock.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
L LIB

Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier

Laurier Liberal

Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in his explanation of the budget stated that in order to balance our finances, we must produce and save. This is undoubtedly a short but comprehensive description of the policy to be followed all over the world during the period of reconstruction in which we are entering now.

There is one thing that I profess to know in the district where I live and more particularly in the city of Hull and in the county which I have the honour to represent in this House, and that is that the people have started long ago to produce and save. They made necessity a virtue. The people had to work and they bad also to dispense with many comforts, and even then while they led such a sober and laborious life they experienced much difficulty in making both ends meet. I think that these directing principles of our life: "Produce and save" are understood much better by the humble working man than by those who govern them. I think I have every good reason to doubt whether the policy of the present Government, furthers production and saving. It seems to me that their policy strangles the producer and despoils the man who saves.

Mr. Speaker, the farmer is first among the producers; he is the only essential one. He produces the bread, and the textiles with

which we are clothed; consequently it is the farmer who produces two essential commodities: "bread and clothes." The real producer is the man who exacts from t'he soil the economic wealth. Well, of all the workers whose hands dig into the land, none more than the farmer can bring out this economic wealth which enables him to live not more comfortably, but just decently.

It is high time that those who administer the affairs of the country gave more attention to this noble worker of the soil. I need not point out the primary importance of agriculture as a factor of this country's wealth. We find the best proof of the benefits accruing from agriculture in the history of the development of this country, from the days of its origin, when our ancestors came from France to economize, colonize and setr tie on the shores of the St. Lawrence up to the prosperous time when nine autonomous provinces fraternally vied with each other to carry on the fruitful works of peace under the direction of a central power.

After having gone through the terrible ordeal of this great war, when every thoughtful Government should direct their patriotic efforts toward creating, extending, and improving out important agricultural industries, there is no proposal before this House in favour of the farmer. The Government, whose duty it is to carry out the work of reconstruction systematically ignores the leading producer of the country.

As an example, I will point out, as did all my hon. friends on this side of the House, that the proposal of the Government to reduce the tariff in the interest of the agricultural class is only seemingly favourable to that class. As a matter of fact it does not relieve the financial condition of our farmers, who finally, as regards the production of cereals in particular, will find themselves in the same position as they are in now. In fact, under the new system, the farmer will have no advantage in producing more than he was doing under the old system.

The reduction of the tariff on certain agricultural implements has only the semblance of generosity. What is offered to the farmers amounts only to a few dollars. iHowmver, the price of the agricultural implements has increased to such an extent that it has now become prohibitive for the small farmers. They whose means are limited deserve all my attention and admiration, because they are the majority, and their work opens districts which were so far unproductive. It is the small farmer, the pioneer who increases the acreage of production and introduces civilization in all the fertile parts

of our great country. I have another observation "to make, on the same subject. The Government were voted millions for technical education. Their intention is excellent, a.s they wish to increase the number of skilled workers in our industries. It is true that ito become a skilled worker, it is not sufficient to go through ordinary daily work, but you must also apply the theory and the professional knowledge. The Government does well to encourage the producers in the industry, but how is it that in the same budget they seem to forget the farmers who are, as I said a moment ago, the leading producers of the country and, strictly speaking, the only essential ones. In fact the Government could have appropriated a few' millions in their budget to increase their number of agricultural schools in the farming districts-I mean the experimental stations which cost very little money. For instance, in my own county there is a very large rural population and there is not one experimental station. In the county where I live, there is the very interesting question of colonization which the Government should not forget -and it would be absolutely necessary for those who come and settle there to have such a station. Many hon. members representing farming districts could offer the same criticism. I think that the Government are not consistent when they ask to increase production and at the same time neglect the first among producers.

I have another suggestion to make. The Government states that in order to stimulate production they vdll adopt a policy of immigration by which .they will endeavour to bring ii^ farmers into the Dominion and more especially in the West. I approve of the .plan, hut here again we notice a gross inconsistence. The Government is ready to spend money to bring in foreign settlers and wdien they have to deal with our own farmers they do nothing but persecute them. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I say "persecute them." Is it not persecution and revenge to send police officers in the country to take away from the soil which he cultivates the young farmer or the farm labourer and after the local courts have decided that these young men had a good reason to act as they did to drag them before the military tribunals and to dishonour them by committing them to jail or to despoil them by exacting fines of a few' hundred dollars which they or their families worked hard to earn? Before showing such kindness to the foreign immigrant the Government should first of all give his attention to the sons of Canada.

May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to point out to .this House some of the vexatious and iniquitous processes which the Government took pleasure in introducing and to favour in my county.

Emissaries of the Justice Department, possessed of a so-called list of farmers who had failed to report for military service, scoured the country places in search of deserters and succeeded in bringing a certain number of them before the police magistrate. Well here is what happened: Among those farmers, some held temporary exemption papers duly obtained by them during the amnesty period of August last, and others had formally asked for such leave of absence during that amnesty .and had been promised one. These facts having been established before the court by means of affidavits and by the evidence of the interested parties, the tribunal decided upon the only thing it could do and dismissed the cases. However, the Government always controlled by a small clan of fanatical persecutors and over-anxious to chastise innocent people, as long as these were conscripts from Quebec, protested against the decisions of the court presided over by [Magistrate Goyette, and* consequently instructed its own police officers what to do-to indict those conscripts before another court, such as are established in different localities of our districts? No, sir, but to arrest those farmers and to take them handcuffed to the Kingston dungeons.

In the spring of 1918, yielding to my constituents' just prayers and entreaties, I have assisted several young farmers in my county in securing them the permits to which they w'ere entitled. Later, when came the amnesty, owing to demand, Colonel Bywater, the commanding officer, to whom I had transmitted two lists of names, granted leave of absence to some and promised to send the same to those whose names were on the lists.

On May 17 last, these young farmers, although holding regular permits of leave, were arrested and taken to the Kingston black hole where they are still imprisoned while waiting their trial before a military tribunal. I demand that the Government put an end to this persecution, I demand that the Government, well knowing the real facts, restore their freedom to these farmers so injustly arrested.

What can they be guilty of when they have regularly obtained from their officer commanding the leave they were entitled to? That leave of absence, through routine

orders, has 'been extended from September 21 to October 30, and from the latter date to November 15, that is to say, until after the armistice.

Would they perchance be guilty for not having reported at the barracks after the armistice in order to obtain their discharge? No, Mr, Speaker, for it is established that these farmers' could either report personally at headquarters or wait till they had received a form addressed to them and to be attested before a local justice of the peace. Now, the officer commanding was notified to send such a form to all and each of them. If he has not done so for the Kingston prisoners, it was no fault of these conscripts and they should not be inflicted the infamous penalty of jail on account of the military authorities' error or oversight.

The Minister of Justice, relying upon false reports sent in by over-zealous inspectors of the Dominion Police, has manifestly rebuked some just decisions given by the magistrate's court- which has always held the respect, the esteem and the consideration of the public. The Government has unjustly attacked the president of that tribunal, without affording him any opportunity to state the reasons he had given from the bench and which justified .him in pronouncing the judgments which have given offence to the prosecutors. I hold no brief to defend this court, I might say that it enjoys the esteem and the admiration of the public, but I cannot help .publicly expressing my disapproval of the Government's proceedings which constitute a denial of justice.

Another word and 1 conclude-in the motto " Produce and Save," fallen from the lips of the Minister of Finance, I find a most precious meaning, and inspiration for every patriot. What- I do wish, from the bottom of my heart, is that your Government be the first to be inspired with such a spirit. Its policy would thereby be improved in more than one department of public interest,

Mr. JOHN A. CAMPBELL (Nelson): Mr. Speaker, while I purpose making a few observations on certain of the Budget proposals, one of the main reasons for my taking part in this debate is to discuss briefly the problem of the development of the natural resources of Canada, or at any rate as far as those controlled by the Dominion Government are concerned, those being confined mainly to the Prairie Provinces and the territory north thereof! The hon. Minister of Finance, after setting out in his Budget speech that we were in debt to the

l"Mr. JTVjrtJftr.l

alarming extent of $1,950,000,000, and are responsible for an annual interest charge of $115,000,000, asked the question, how we were going to look after this immense amount. He said:

What are the resources upon which Canada must depend to carry this huge national debt and the annual charge for pensions and other services which I have mentioned?

And immediately afterwards he put the question:

What are our resources, actual and potential?

And then he made this statement:

We have a country of almost unlimited natural assets, vast stretches of cultivable lands, magnificent forests, regions abounding in mineral wealth, and fisheries the most valuable in

the world To develop our

natural resources there is required the application of enterprise, capital and labour.

The object, I take it, Mr. 'Speaker, of developing these natural resources is in the first place to create wealth to pay on this national debt; and, in the second place, to provide the raw materials for national industry, which will build up the country and thus indirectly result in providing the means for paying off more of the national debt. An incidental result of such development will be to rectify the trade balances with other countries, particularly with the United States. And, by the establishment of manufacturing industries in connection with the development of our natural resources in the West, it is quite possible that there might result some solution of the tariff problem.

Every one believes, Mr. Speaker, that we have this potential wealth, and all have thought about its being brought to bear in the reduction of our immense burden of debt. But it seems to me that it is necessary to have some definite policy in regard to our natural resources so that the people of Canada can benefit directly therefrom rather than in the indirect and remote manner of . the past. Throughout the whole country the cry arises for action. A short time ago Dr. McLaurin, connected with the Saskatchewan University, addressed a number of the members of this House, at the invitation of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), and he has discussed this matter before the Boards of Trade and elsewhere. He has this to say in one of his speeches:

As far as Canada is concerned the solution of many .problems confronting us to-day is greater production of mineral products and the establishment of essential industries. If Union Government fails to realize its responsibility for

inaugurating a policy lor the development of Canada's natural resources and provide for the establishment of basic national industries and thereby insure economic solidarity, posterity will justly censure it with neglect of duty at this critical time in Canada's history.

Another professor, this time from the Manitoba University, now commissioner of Northern Manitoba, Dr. R. C. Wallace, has made a comprehensive study of the subject. In an address before the Greater Winnipeg Board of Trade only a short time ago he discussed this topic. Canadian Finance in reporting this address said:

Professor Wallace very properly pointed out that two objectives are all important to the Canadian people at this time.

One of these objectives is stated by Prof. Wallace thus:

To transform into actual wealth the latent wealth of the Dominion and its provinces; in other words, to pursue a policy of developing our natural resources on a scale that this country has not yet witnessed.

And the Free Press of Winnipeg concludes a recent editorial as follows:

The need for speeding up the development of mineral resources is proportioned to the need of the Dominion Government for revenue and of the Canadian people for work and wealth. But the evils of haphazard methods can and ought to be avoided.

Various boards of trade and public bodies throughout the country have discussed this question and some have gone as far as to say that it is time to create a new department of the Government, or perhaps rejuvenate or reorganize the present Mines Department which is really only an adjunct of another department and does not get the attention which it. deserves. The Saskatoon Daily Star in setting out this idea a short time ago stated:

What is required is some cabinet officer whose whole time and thought would be devoted to realization of the potential wealth whioh the natural resources of this country confer upon it: the application of science to the job of bringing about development of our immense stores of the great prerequisites of economic strength. No branch of governmental activity in Canada has been so greatly neglected as this one. which should be considered of primary importance.

During the session, Mr. Speaker, a number of members of this House from the West have associated together in a committee to look into matters of this nature and to bring to the Government's attention the very great need of further development along the lines I have mentioned. The Canadian Chemical Journal, of Toronto, in its issue of May, 1919, referring to the

work of this committee or association, winds up an article as follows:

We are the simplest minded people in the world, and are worthy to be classed with the Chinese in the way in which we have allowed our natural heritage to be juggled in the hands of governments and capital over which we had no control. We owe little to the past, and the future generations will never praise us if we do not do our share in . inaugurating a scientific national policy which will not only place Canada in an independent position economically, hut which should reasonably result .in making Canada the seat of a British Empire.

The hon. Finance Minister has stated what some of these resources are. The agricultural products are easily of first importance. Governmental attention has been chiefly directed, and rightly so, to the increase of this vast production I said "chiefly," I might have said "practically altogether." We must recognize, and pay the same earnest and systematic attention to the better development of, our other natural resources; find out where they are located and investigate the extent thereof. It is well known that, with the exception of the three Prairie Provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the ownership of our natural resources is vested in the provinces themselves. In these three provinces the Dominion still owns these assets, except such as have already been alienated to private parties. In his speech yesterday the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) not only referred to the promises of the Prime Minister, but quoted specific statements which were made by him in the campaign of 1911 when 'travelling throughout Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, regarding the handing over to these provinces of their natural resources. I do not propose to go over the same ground again, but simply wish to emphasize the fact that these resources have not yet been handed over to the provinces. Nothing has been done in this respect, although these, promises were made clearly, plainly and distinctly as I understand it, quite a number of years ago.

The question now is: What is the policy of the Government with reference to the resources of these particular provinces? Are they to he handed over to be developed by the provinces, or is the Dominion going to develop them, or are they to be left, as in the present case, to look after themselves? These resources are still vested in the Dominion.' The provinces will make no move because they do not own them; the Dominion Government does not take any action because-of what may take place in the not-too-far-distant future as to trans-

until some time thereafter by those who were actively engaged in mining, the change being that the title to a mining property was changed from a free-hold to a lease-hold. I do not purpose discussing the relative merits of free-hold and lease-hold as applied to mining properties, but if we had a mining Act, this matter would have been thoroughly discussed in Parliament, and possibly the best results would have come from that, but the fact was that the change was made over night by an Order in Council. There are freehold titles in the United States and in Ontario and British Columbia; that is, the counties adjoining the three Prairie Provinces have one kind of title, whereas, by regulations' quickly passed, the Dominion provides for an entirely different title for mining claims. I urge that either these minerals be handed over to the provinces or the Dominion take the matter up definitely itself.

Recently, a scheme was evolved by the Great War Veterans' Association for prospecting mineral areas. I hold in my hand a copy of a resolution passed by that association in Winnipeg, and I will read a part of the resolution:

Now therefore he it resolved by this the Great War Veterans' Association of Canada (Winnipeg branch) that the Federal authorities ibe requested to take up this matter as quickly as possible with a view of tabulating the mineral and other resources' of the unexplored parts

of this country provision also

being made to see that those discovering valuable resources obtain a fair share of the profits by way of royalty or otherwise in addition to such salaries as they shall receive as Government prospectors.

I should have read also a paragraph preceding which sets out that the scheme is that the Government should arrange to send out prospecting parties which should be made up of qualified engineers and soldiers of whom many have had to do with mining matters hitherto. In this way, certain mineral districts would he covered by prospecting parties, it would be learned what really exists there, and benefits would thereby result not only to the country but to the soldiers whom we are endeavouring to help as far as possible at the present time. This proposition has been taken up by the Mining Institute, and recently gentlemen from this institute interviewed the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines in connection therewith, and it is hoped that action will be taken along the lines suggested. I do not intend to go into details; they might be varied considerably; but there is something about the whole scheme that certainly calls for attention

and earnest consideration, and, further than that, definite action. The Winnipeg Telegram recently had a long editorial in regard to the returned soldier and mineral development. I am not going to read as much as I had originally intended to do, but I will read just one sentence:

The two problems of developing the. mineral resources of Canada and of providing returned men with the means of breaking into a remunerative and pleasant profession are intimately related.

In connection with the development of these mineral resources, I have certain suggestions to make by way of recapitulation; in the first place, as I have already said, the Government should either carry out its promise to the province or definitely state that it is going to proceed with the development of these resources itself. If these resources are handed over to the provinces then there will be certain areas in the north that the Government will still have to take care of besides giving attention to the work generally throughout the whole of Canada. And in case these resources are not handed over to the provinces I would emphasize the fact that there should be a proper mining act passed forthwith. I would recommend here that in any event the Minister of Mines take into serious consideration, with a view to immediate action, the extending of the work of the Geological Survey. I have a great deal of praise for the work which that Survey has already done. It has mapped out areas in the north and various other parts of the Dominion, resulting in discoveries being made, but owing to the few men that have been engaged in this wor* and the time the work takes, very little of the country, comparatively speaking, has really been gone over, and it is very important if we are to have a comprehensive development along these lines that a much more extensive survey be made. I would strongly urge that more parties be sent out and also, incidentally in this connection, that the wages of those who are in charge of those parties be materially increased. Some of those gentlemen who have been doing such good work are men who have the degrees of Ph.D. from universities and who are highly qualified for this Work, and the salaries they are getting are not much more than some common labourers are receiving at the present time. I have already mentioned the idea of prospecting parties, and I shall not discuss that in detail further.

There is another idea which the Government might well consider in connection with the development of these natural re-

sources in order that it may get for the people of Canada some specific share of the results of such development. If I remember correctly, this matter was brought up before by the hon. member for Fort William and Kainy River (Mr. Manion) when he referred to the proposition of the Shell Transport Company. I do not purpose discussing this in detail at all; it would be rather out of order here, but this company made a proposition to go in with the Government on a share-and-share-alike basis, the company putting up the money. The proposition they made, when looked at in its details, may not be such as we could take up at the present time-I am not in a position to say-but the idea is worthy of consideration, and it might be worked out to the advantage of the country; that is a private corporation would do the work of exploration and development and the Government would share in the results on a fifty-fifty or perhaps still better basis.

There is a final method which the Government might adopt in matters of this kind to get results, and that is to develop the resources themselves so that the country would derive any advantage that might accrue therefrom.

Before leaving this question of natural resources, I might be permitted to mention briefly the proposition put forward by Mr. Stefansson, the Arctic explorer. You will recollect, Sir, presiding at a meeting not very long ago at which Mr. Stefansson addressed the members of this House. He pointed out that this North country has hitherto been looked upon as a barren waste, whereas, he said, the prairies of the North are similar in many ways to those of Manitoba and Dakota. I should like to quote a few of his statements in this connection. In referring to the country north of Churchill and up to and including the Arctic islands, he says:

But the main thing- is that vegetation is abundant; it is shown by the fatness of the animals that it is also nutritious.

Referring to the introduction of reindeer in Alaska, he said that in the period of between twenty-five and twenty years ago they introduced 1,280 reindeer into Alaska, and now these reindeer have developed into 170,000. Regarding reindeer meat, he - says:

It is excellent meat. Everybody who tries it likes it, and twenty years from now doubtless some of you will prefer reindeer meat to beef, while others will prefer beef to reindeer. It will be like mutton and beef. to-day ; opinions will vary, but it will be a standard meat.

Regarding the area over which these reindeer can be raised in Northern Canada, north of the Prairie Provinces, he says that this unoccupied territory of Canada amounts to 3,000,000 square miles.

If you allow 2,0'0'0,000 square miles for forest and rooky areas and for lakes, you have at a conservative estimate 1,000,000 square miles of grazing land. That would support, you see, 50,000,0l00 reindeer probably.

With reference to the musk-ox he says:

Just now It seems to me that the musk-ox is the most valuable animal in the world if domesticated. He needs no hay, and no barns to shelter him. He cannot be killed by blizzards, and hardly by wolves. He produces three times as much meat as the domestic sheep, and three times as much wool, and no one .could tell the meat from baef. The- wool is of an excellent quality, and one manufacturer is now engaged In making cloth from it.

As to the breeding of these animals, his suggestion is that a permanent experimental station be started on Melville island. He also suggests a sub-station just north of Churchill, where the musk-ox used to roam, and says:

I think it would be the best place because we know that it is a good musk-ox country. They have inhabited the vicinity within the past hundred years. It is convenient to the Hudson Bay railway, and I have a good deal of faith in Hudson strait. Temporarily I have not much sympathy with the defeatist sort of people who can always see objections to everything. Lord Shaughnessy said-and Senator Nicholls said the same thing, and many of you could repeat it-that he could remember the time when every argument that is advanced against these schemes was 'advanced against Manitoba. It was said that if wheat could be raised in Manitoba, it would be too expensive, and that the climate was too disagreeable. All those arguments are being repeated, and again they will be found to ibe equally wrong. Of course, wheat will not grow much farther north, but this is the coming great grazing country of the world, this and the tracts in the same latitude in 'Siberia. If we continue to be a meat-eating and wool-using people, the vast 'grazing lands of the north will have great value.

I refrain from further comment, and will only say that I am glad that by Order in Council dated the 20th of May, 1919, a special commission was named, composed of Dr. J. G. Rutherford, Mr. James Stanley McLean, Mr. James Bernard Harkin, and Mr. Stefansson, to investigate thoroughly this proposition. It is to be hoped that these gentlemen will get- down to business at once, and that the result of their deliberations will be favourable. Just a word in ithis connection^ and this must pot be overlooked. The effect of the development of these natural resources in this North country will be to give extra work and

calls for the freeing of the tools of production at the same time that the raw materials which go into the making of those tools shall also be free. This, in the light of the oftrrepeated statement that agriculture is a national basic industry, is a sound national policy. The other alternative in order that the farmer may not be differentiated against, is to protect him also. How? A fixed price on grain is suggested! and that the price be such as will ensure a fair profit. All the arguments advanced for the protection of manufacturers are good here. "Such action would stabilize the industry"-[DOT] and remember this is the most important industry; "it would give employment to more men, and pay them better wages, and altogether ensure prosperity." Of course it is probable that some one would have to pay-the other fellow always has to pay for this kind of-policy, and the consumer will surely be the goat.

I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not in favour of making both the reductions called for by the farmers' platform, and also protecting that producer by a fixed price on wheat, or otherwise. The platform in question does not even hint at such a thing. The logical and simplest method is freedom all around, but if protection, then make it general. In that case the unfortunate consumer is in the position of the innocent bystander. He gets it from all sides.

It was the intention of the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) to move an amendment setting out as definitely as might be, within reasonable compass, the attitude of himself and of certain western members on the tariff, and particularly as to what changes should be made at the present time, but I have been advised that such an amendment cannot be presented. It runs counter to precedent. The precedent I am informed was founded on an error, and is ridiculous on the face of it, in that it presupposes that there can be only two opinions on any Budget proposal. The House or the Speaker, or whoever has the authority, should speedily rectify this anomaly.

The only proposition that is before the House therefore, outside of the proposals of the hon. the Minister of Finance is the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I have read this over carefully. It is expressed in very general language. Certain criticism of this amendment has been made by my hon. friend from Red Deer and my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan). In the main, I agree with this criticism and I shall not de-

lay matters by' going over it again. The clause which was referred to specifically is the third clause. In my opinion, it does not mean anything. It should be redrafted or withdrawn altogether. There is no reference in this amendment to the income tax.

I would conclude from that, that the proposals regarding the income tax were acceptable to the hon. member for Brome and that he did not think it necessary to make any reference to it -whatever in his amendment,

With the first, second and fourth clauses of the amendment, I find myself quite in accord, especially with the second clause declaring:

-that the tariff should toe so framed as to free the food of the people and the machinery used in the development of the natural resources of Canada, together with the raw material entering into the manufacture thereof.

There can be no question as to the wisdom of that. Regarding the matter of reciprocity, which is referred to in the last clause of the amendment, certain hon. gentlemen have argued that in view of the fact that the claims of those who supported the reciprocity pact of 1911 have now been conceded, therefore those supporters of reciprocity should be in entire accord with the Budget proposals of the Finance Minister. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that this is a tacit acknowledgment from those who so argue that we who supported the reciprocity pact in 1911 were in the right, because apparently they themselves are now in entire harmony with the proposals in that regard which were recently submitted to the House. It may be, therefore, that in the course of another year or two we shall have these same gentlemen coming back here and telling us that we were right in the stand which we are now taking.

The Government is now embarking upon a measure of tariff reform, and I regret that it has not seen its way clear to make more substantial changes, particularly in regard to the necessities of life, and to intimate more definitely what its future programme in this respect will be; that is the general trend of the revision which it is proposed to make -whether it shall be upward or downward, whether it shall be more protectionist or lower tariff-I wish at this time to emphasize my contention that while under normal conditions it would be in the interests of the country to nyike the suggested changes, the faet that conditions are not normal, but very much disturbed, make it still the more imperative that additional relief along the lines mentioned be given

forthwith.

I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to refer to some of the statements made during the course of the debate this afternoon, but I have already occupied longer time than I anticipated, and as there is a laudable endeavour to shorten the present discussion,

I shall refrain from making any further comments.

Mr. THOMAS EDWARD SI'MPSON (Al-goma West): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the House by any lengthy remarks of mine at this particular time, as I appreciate the fact that both sides are anxious to bring the debate to a close, and I join with them in that desire.

I have listened with considerable interest to the debate as it has progressed, and I have noticed that some hon. gentlemen opposite have criticised the Government for the large increase in our national debt, apparently endeavouring to convey the impression that this increase is due to extravagance on the Government's. part, whereas I think it is only fair ,to say that practically every dollar of such increase is due directly to the enormous expenditure which Canada was called upon to make in order to bring to a successful conclusion the splendid part which we took in the war. Naturally, some mistakes have been made, hut I venture to say that no government since Confederation, and no finance minister in the history of Canada have had tc contend with such difficult problems, as to which, perhaps, they had no former experience, than the present Government and Finance Minister, or applied themselves to the task more faithfully.

The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master), in referring to our national debt, and particularly as to where we had borrowed the money, endeavoured h>

make light of the fact that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House applauded the statement made by the Minister of Finance that no less a sum than $1,500,000,000, or about three-quarters of our total debt, was held by our own citizens. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit this is an achievement of which every citizen may feel justly proud. Canada had raised an army of such numbers as the most optimistic would have considered impossible at the commencement of the war.

The men of this army had already distinguished themselves on the field of battle, and were daily adding fresh laurels to their splendid record, and giving to Canada a place among the nations of the world which she had not hitherto enjoyed. But in order to carry on this huge war effort large sums of money were required. The

financial markets in which we had formerly floated our bond issues were practically closed, and the Minister of Finance decided to appeal to the citizens of our own country to provide the money necessary to carry on our war activities, with the result that every appeal met a ready response, every issue was oversubscribed, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have very good reason to feel proud of the loyal and patriotic efforts of our civilian population, in this regard. Compare our financial standing with what it would be if the securities for those large bond issues were held by foreign interests. But that is not all. Consider for a moment what it means to this country to have the interest on this large sum, which will amount to upwards of $80,000,000 annually, distributed among our own citizens, stimulating industry, and assisting in no small measure to tide this country through the trying periods of reconstruction.

My hon. friend says that these bonds are held by the wealthy classes, the speculators, profiteers, etc. It may unfortunately be true that some of the bonds are finding their way into the hands of the wealthy, but an examination of the record of the last Victory Loan will disclose the fact that the number of subscribers to that loan exceeded 1,067,000, which unquestionably includes all classes of our citizens. Let me give him one concrete example which came under my own personal observation. Of the employees of the Algoma Steel Corporation at Sault Ste. Marie, over 2,500 or approximately 80 per cent of the total number, subscribed to the last Victory Loan to the extent of $750,000 or an average of $300 each.

I am told, and I think my information is fairly reliable, that the majority of these subscribers are still holding their bonds and have no desire to dispose of them. So I think that the argument advanced by my hon. friend is based on supposition rather than on fact.

The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin) in speaking of the amount required to be raised for pensions, seemed to think that it was very large, and that instead of adopting the pension scheme we should have adopted the policy of insuring our soldiers, taking the premiums for that insurance out of their pay. Well, there may be many good arguments in favour of insurance, but I venture to say that my' hon. friend will not get very much support either in this House or in the country, when he suggests that out of his small allowance of $1.10 a day the Canadian sol-

-J566

dier should be called on to pay a premium for life insurance to provide for his needs in case of disability, or for his dependents in case of his death. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the people do not desire that any deduction should be made from our soldiers' pay, and that they will cheerfully and willingly contribute the amount required to provide adequate pensions for those who were disabled and for the dependents of those who fell on the field of battle.

It is not my intention to enter into a discussion of the tariff, because I do not believe there is any general demand at the present time for a tariff revision. It is true that some hon. gentlemen from the West think the time is opportune for a general tariff revision; but I believe that the majority of the people are prepared to let the matter rest until after a thorough and scientific inquiry has been made, such as tl]e hon. Finance Minister has promised will be made as soon as conditions warrant. But there have been one or two points raised which I should like to refer to briefly.

First, much has been said with reference to the high cost of living. This condition is not peculiar to Canada, but prevails all over the world, and is naturally an aftermath of the war. It is no doubt caused by a world shortage of foodstuffs on account of the millions of men taken out of production, and it will doubtless continue to a greater or less degree until the supply again equals the demand. Here is an article in connection with the situation as it exists in England:

Anxiety in regard to -price of food and other costs of living, which ceased to 'be grave following the signing of the armistice has revived, and is spreading all over England.

Enquiries by the Daily News show that while practically everything costs at least 100 per cent more than in peace times, many necessaries of life have advanced to more than three times their former prices.

That, Mr. Speaker, is very evident, and goes to show that the high cost of living is not confined within the boundaries o) Canada. But it has been stated by .some hon. gentleman that if you reduced the tariff on foodstuffs you would reduce the cost of living. That would only be a sound argument provided the prices of foodstuffs in the countries from which you would have to import were lower than the prices prevailing in our own country, and as the [DOT]United States is the only country from which we might expect to get cheaper food, a comparison of prices oh a few articles might be interesting,. When home last Saturday I took occasion to interview one

of the leading wholesale produce merchants in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and also one of the leading wholesale produce merchants in the city of Sault Ste Marie, Mich. As hon. gentlemen are aware, these cities are -situated on the St. Mary's river, one being in Canada and the other in the United States, and both are situated very similarly as regards sources of supply, but if anything, the Michigan city has the preference in that regard. So I think a comparison of the prices prevailing in these two cities .should be some indication, at least, as to whether a reduction of the tariff would materially reduce the price of foodstuffs.

Flour, which is one of the prime necessities of life, I found was quoted wholesale in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., at $5.75 per bag for No. 1, while in Sault Ste. Marie Mich., the price was $6.75. Potatoes in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., were quoted at $1.5C a bag; in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., at $1.80. No. 1 creamery butter was quoteS at 55 cents a pound in the Soo, Ont.; at 52 cents a pound in the Soo, Mich. Cheese was quoted at 35 cents a pound in the Ontark city, and 34 cents a pound in the Michigan city-Canadian cheese is of better quality, of course. Pure lard was quoted at 384 cents a pound in the Ontario city, -and 37] cents a pound in the Michigan city. Eggs were 48 cents a dozen on the Ontario side and 47 cents a dozen on the Michigan side. So hon. gentlemen will observe that if the tariff were eliminated altogether, it would not materially affect the cost of living in Canada, if those prices prevail throughout the United States, and, as I have stated, 1 have no reason to doubt that, the comparison is a fair one.

My hon. (friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), whose speeches during the past two sessions I have listened to with a great deal of interest and profit, is a free trader first, last, and all the time. He not only would have the tariff removed with regard to foodstuffs, but he would also remove the small amount of protection afforded the iron and steel industry. I must say I cannot agree with him. Onr basic industries, manufacturing our own raw material, should be encouraged and assisted until such time as they can by increased efficiency lower their cost of production to meet the markets of the world. The'hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in 1907, the Minister of Finance in the late Liberal Government, when the question of iron and steel bounties was under consideration, spoke as follows:

I think it will he generally admitted that ii there is any industry in the country which deserves encouragement-if we are to adopt the principle of aiding any industry by protection in the form of bounties or of customs duties or in any other form-it will hardly be questioned that the iron and steel industry should receive the favourable consideration of the House. A country which possesses large resources and fails to develop them -would certainly not be a progressive country.

There is. I think, an erroneous impression that the iron and steel industries are protected to a particularly large degree. I think that is a mistake. I have no doubt that some of our farming friends will be surprised if I tell them that the protection afforded to the iron and steel industry is not so great as the protection afforded to some line of agricultural products, but such is the case.

The hon. gentleman closed that part of his argument by stating that he believed that the bounties which had been advanced on iron and steel would all be returned to the treasury. He said:-

In view of the results which have been accomplished by the continuance of this policy for many years, first under one Government and then under another, even if It had cost the country a very considerable sum of money, I think a good case can be made out to justify the outlay having regard to the importance which the iron and steel industry will always bear to the development of the business of the country. But, I think it is as capable of proof as most things are capable of proof in an argument of this character, that every dollar which has been paid out of the treasury for some years past in connection with the development of the iron and steel industry has come, back to the treasury from the general development of the country in connection with the establishment of these great industries.

I entirely concur with the opinion expressed at, that time by the hon. gentleman, that the expansion and development of this important industry is due to the encouragement and protection afforded by both parties in the past. Let us see what this has meant to Canada. We shall never forget the early days of the war, when the Allies were short of munitions and the Germans were keeping up an almost continuous shelling of our lines-how the urgent call went forth for munitions, and what splendid efforts were made by 'Mr. ILloyd George to encourage the ever-increasing output; and how at that time Canada, without any previous experience in munition making, decided to assist. Many factories were soon busy running twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week turning out munitions of the highest *order, with the result that 'Canada supplied approximately 65,000.000 shells of all kinds, representing about 1,125,000 tons of steel. It was because the steel-producing capacity of thecountry was immediately available that Canada was able to assist by supplying this

vast quantity of munitions. If the steel industry had not been protected by the tariff and had not expanded under that protection, no shells would have gone from Canada. The prosperity enjoyed by Canada during the past few years is due to the fact that every available man and thousands of women in the country were engaged in the manufacture of shell steel and munitions at the highest wages they had eyer earned.

I have some figures with regard to the four large steel companies, the Algoma Steel Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie, the Steel Company of Canada, the Dominion Iron and IS'teel Cbmpany, and the Nova Scotia Steel Company. In 1918 the number of employees in these four institutions was about 20,000 and the total wages paid $26,706,451, or an average of $1,403 for each person employed. The total wages paid by these companies for the three years 1916 to 1918, both inclusive, amounted to about $71,775,000. They paid in duties and war taxes during the same period Approximately $7,793,000, and they paid in freights during the same period no less a sum than $25,890,000. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an industry which has proved so vitally essential in times of war as well as in normal times, and which has contributed no small share towards the prosperity of our country, should not be subjected to any tariff changes, but should rather be encouraged to extend its scope so as to provide the iron and steel products which are now imported and which amounted, in 1918 to the large sum of $186,538,000 If this was done, it would not only mean the distribution among labouring men and mechanics in Canada of millions that are now going to the United States, but would go a long way towards correcting the trade balance now standing against us and in favour of United States.

I heartily concur in the Budget proposals. This is a time when the people should unite in their efforts to meet conditions confronting us . during the period of reconstruction, and I hope that all provincial or sectional differences may be cast aside and that the people of Canada will'unite to cope with these difficulties.

Mr. THOMAS MaoNUTT (Saltcoats): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of unduly detaining the House, hut as the Budget deals with questions upon which I have always held strong views, I desire, as briefly as possible, to give some reasons for the vote that I intend to register on this occasion.

Previous to the election of 1917, the so-called Laurier Liberal party offered, if re-

turned, a low tariff, but coupled with a method for obtaining military reinforcements which, in my opinion, would have been without results. As the carrying on of the war superseded all other issues, the low tariff offer was, for the time being, rejected by the great majority of the people, although under ordinary conditions it would, in the West, at all events, have been accepted.

As a result of the action taken by all the Allies in calling upon every available man, as well as of the great gallantry of those men, including the Canadians, the war is over so far as Canada is concerned; otherwise the military authorities would not have released the Canadian forces. While it is quite true that the Government have many serious problems to contend with which are directly consequent upon the war, it is now time to deal with domestic matters which have become disjointed as a result of the war. Two important obligations which are largely a legacy of the war should now be attended to. One is to encourage increased production with a view to reducing the cost of the necessaries of life and bringing more wealth to the country, and the other is to raise sufficient revenue from the people to pay the country's very large debts. Each of these obligations, in fact, is a complement of the other.

The question is, will the Budget attain either of these objects; or will the amendment accomplish more in this direction? In my opinion, one of the obstacles to greater production is the cost of farm and other machinery, which is much increased by the tariff. It has been stated that the duties have been materially reduced on these articles, but I can only admit that the reduction is from two and one-half to five per cent, because the seven and one-half per cent was a special tax. Such decreases could easily be made simply by putting a duty on at one session and taking it off at the next, and then claiming a decrease. It is not inappropriate to institute a comparison between the normal tariff of 1914 and the present Budget. The reductions of two and one-half and five per cent are welcome so far as they go, but they will not affect prices materially; and they are made up to the manufacturers by a decrease in freight rates to them, and to the railway companies by a special reduction of seven and one-half per cent on bituminous coal [DOT]-a reduction which should have been general.

Any reduction of the cost of the necessaries of life is closely allied with the reduction of the cost of farm implements,

because to reduce the cost of the latter would reduce, to some extent, the " cost of living," as it is popularly called, to all consumers by encouraging greater production.

The question has been asked, if the tariff is abolished how is the Government to raise a revenue? I do not think there is any obligation on the part of the people to raise a revenue for the manufacturers under the shelter of a tariff, without receiving any adequate value in return. The people of Canada must provide the revenue, but it should be adjusted proportionately. For instance, that part provided by the tariff which the consumer must pay means that the man with a family pays more than the man without, and the former is less able to pay having more to provide for, and generally speaking, the former is the best citizen. The revenue should be obtained from each citizen in a businesslike way according to his financial stake in the country.

Under the tariff plan, the Government receives only about one-quarter or one-third of the money paid by the people, the Canadian manufacturers getting the rest, and this is not offset by any sufficient advantages given by the manufacturers. It is claimed that $45,000,000 was received by the Government through the imposition of the per cent special war tax. This, however, represented at least double that amount received by the manufacturers, in round numbers, say, $100,000,000, which would have remained in the pockets of the consumers had this increase not been made. Supposing that the Government had by direct means collected this money, the treasury would have received $145,000,000, and the people would be no worse off; had $100,000,000 been collected instead of $45,000,000 the people would still retain $45,000,000, and the same principle would govern with regard to the tariff generally.

Revenue and protection should not be mixed up. The people owe the money necessary for the country's needs and must pay it. I wish, however, to commend the Government for accepting the principle of obtaining a part of the revenue by a direct tax on incomes and business profits. This is a recognition, even if only temporary, of direct taxation as a proper means of raising the revenue, and should be supplemented by a tax on land values, both urban and rural, and all natural resources in private hands, of course, by using proper methods of collection.

An example of the ease and economy by which a land tax can be collected is furnished by the supplementary revenue tax of one cent an acre on farm property imposed principally for the benefit of Tural schools in Saskatchewan. The collection was handed over to the secretaries or other officials of the local districts and municipalities. The local improvement and municipal collectors had an extra column headed, "Supplementary Revenue" in their rolls and they collected the tax along with the general tax, forwarding it to the provincial treasury at a cost of only five per cent commission. Unorganized districts were handled by the Government direct. As we have a complete municipal system extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the federal tax could be collected very much along these lines, and the customs taxes gradually decreased . until they were entirely eliminated, all incomes not derived from land to be assessed proportionately.

It is sometimes claimed that the tariff is not taken advantage of by the manufacturers to raise their prices but that it only gives them the home market, and that their profits are not increased by the tariff. I will give an instance that recently occurred to myself disproving this assertion. I do not care to discuss my private affairs on the floor of this House, but this is a striking instance. In 1917, I de

cided to purchase a small tractor which I would not require until the spring of 1918. I found, however, that the price would increase by over $200 after the 1st of November, and, therefore I purchased one for, I think, $1,500, in order to save the rise in price. After 1st November the price for the same tractor was advanced to over $1,700, but as an Order in Council was passed in January or February making small tractors free, the price was reduced to less than $1,500 which more than counterbalanced the former increased price, so that on account of the change in tariff, had I waited, I could have obtained this machine at a lower figure and saved the interest on the amount paid down between the date of purchase and say the first of April. This is an instance to show that the duty has a great influence on the cost of farm implements as well as of other articles. The tariff is protective, it increases the cost to the consumer and adds to the profits of the manufacturers, or why should they be so anxious to retain it?

I will now refer for a few minutes to the amendment. I agree with the first two

clauses, but the third is objectionable. It reads:

To take off or substantially reduce as speedily as may be expedient or just to all interests, the duties on all other necessaries of life.

I believe the time is "expedient" and "just" to take off or substantially reduce the duties on other necessaries of life now. It might not be satisfactory to all interested to do so at any time, but it would be just and certainly expedient when we consider that the unrest throughout the country is partly directly attributable to the cost of the necessaries of life which is increased by means of the tariff.

I regret that the rule of the House do not permit a sub-amendment or a second amendment, provided the first is defeated on the present motion.

A feature that is absent from both the Budget proposals and the amendment is the increase in the British preference which would do much to lower the cost to the Canadian consumer, of certain foodstuffs, clothing, hardware and other imports from Great Britain. I intend, by my vote, to register a protest against the Budget proposals, not so much for what it contains as for what it does not contain. I would have been glad to support an amendment that would cover a substantial immediate reduction on all the necessaries of life, but as such an amendment cannot be introduced under the rules of the House, I intend, Mr. Speaker, to vote for the amendment as it goes further than the Budget along what I consider is the right line.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
UNION

Simon Fraser Tolmie

Unionist

Mr. SIMON FRASER TOLMIE (Victoria city):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened

with a great deal of interest to the discussions regarding the Budget speech, and particularly to the different arguments in favour of and against free trade. As one who has attended only for the second session, I must admit that the debate has been rather bewildering to me. After listening to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) and then listening afterwards to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) I feel that I shall have to learn a great deal more concerning the tariff before I am able to form a fair opinion upon it. I do not, therefore, purpose taking up any of the attention of the House discussing this particular phase of the question as it has been gone over very carefully already. I will say however, that while the discussion has taken into consideration the possible competition from the United States and from Europe it has

almost entirely overlooked that great competition which we might expect from the Asiatic side of the Pacific in the event of the tariff wall being taken down. The Asiatic countries, particularly Japan, have been making wonderful progress- within recent years. Japan a few years ago did not possess a mercantile marine that amounted to anything, and the ships she did own were constructed by either British or foreign yards, and were officered by Britishers. A few years ago, however, she introduced a policy whereby her ships were subsidized on condition that they were officered by Japanese entirely, and now Japan has a splendid mercantile marine in addition to a very strong navy. It was only last summer that I had the opportunity of stepping on board the 20,000-ton Japanese steamer at Victoria, the Fushima Maru. The ship was constructed and officered and manned entirely by Japanese. Even the engine room did not boast a Scotchman, although it has been usual to find one Scotchman on board, and he was generally in the engine room. This ship was splendidly equipped for carrying freight and doing a first-class passenger service. It possessed a fine library, and the decorations were just as fine as on'any European ship. In addition there was a Japanese orchastra, which to my astonishment played Scotch music. This is just an indication of what we have to expect from these very energetic people on the other side of the Pacific. An ordinary labourer over there will do his work at the rate of 50 cents a day and board himself. In addition to that they have sweat shops, employ child labour, and use women to a very great extent. in their factories. This will enable them in the event of our lowering our tariff to bring to Canada a competition that we cannot possibly meet. Possibly this might be considered a little exaggeration, but I base these views on an experience of many years spent in British Columbia, where I have had the opportunity of watching the Asiatic in competition with the Canadian. I remember when we had but one Chinese store in the city of Victoria. Since that time they have occupied a large area of the city and are now scattering their stores in the outlying residential districts. They have taken up and practically captured the truck farming business, and are engaged in various lines of manufacturing. We have noticed that the Japanese are now controlling about ninety per cent of our fishing on the Fraser river and other parts of the Pacific coast. We have noticed the Asiatics travelling up into the interior of British Columbia taking [Mr Tolmle.]

up the irrigated lands on the big cattle ranches, and working their way down the Okanagan Valley and putting up a competition the Canadian cannot possibly meet. So in British Columbia we are thoroughly imbued with the feeling that before lowering the tariff the Asiatic competition should be taken into very serious consideration.

The mere fact that we differ so much in what we want regarding the tariff is but an indication of the vast extent of this great country and the varied conditions that are to be found in it, and I feel that we will have to come together and establish a better feeling between the East and the West-, and that in deciding upon a tariff policy it will have to be one of compromise, so that we can meet the wishes as nearly as possible of all the people in this country.

I was very much impressed with the statement made in the Budget speech by the Minister of Finance with reference to the development of our natural resources. I think this is most important. We should immediately look into our natural resources, find what we have on hand, and then adopt the very best possible method for placing them on the market. In this connection, I think it advisable that we should secure the services of the very best experts to be obtained in the world on market matters. Our Boards of Trade, our business men, and our farmers, should be provided with the most up-to-date information in connection with market matters, so that Canadian products can be placed on the market to the very best advantage. We should also carefully study the methods adopted by our successful competitors, and in that way we might secure very valuable information. We have a very large home market here, and when looking into market matters we must not forget this: The more of our resources that are developed in British Columbia, for instance, the greater the market for the products of the farms of the prairies. Every time we develop a saw-mill outfit or a logging camp or mine, we immediately establish a new market for prairie products. We might also look forward to the further development of the market to the south of us in the United States, a market with which we are in very close touch. But I do not. believe it is a safe proposition to leave all our eggs in one basket. We should develop the market across the sea in Great Britain, and then we will have a safeguard in the event of tariff regulations being placed in force in the United

States at some time that might interfere with the sale of our goods. Looking across to the other side of the Pacific, we find that there are large markets in that direction that have not been developed to any great extent. First of all, there is Australia, which will take a large amount of our lumber, fish, fruit, and so forth. Then we have Mexico, to which we can ship a certain amount of our goods. In the past we have been accustomed to export to that country paper, lumber and a certain amount of wheat, and have imported from that country hides, fruits, nuts, sulphur, and so forth. This trade can be extended to a considerable extent, but owing to the unsettled conditions prevailing in Mexico we will not make progress as rapidly as might otherwise be expected.

Then we have a market in Japan, in India, and China. Perhaps it will give the House some idea of what the United States is doing in this direction and what great value she puts on the prospects of this trade when I say that for some time past they have bedn educating their young men in the languages of the other side of the Pacific and teaching them about the currency that is in use there, so that the United States will be able to trade successfully with these countries. At the present time they are doing a business with these countries oi something over one billion dollars a year. They think so much of this business that at the present time they are considering the construction of a new cable across the Pacific to facilitate this trade.

On making an analysis of the articles that are shipped back and forth across the Pacific we find that the balance of trade is in our favour. We export between 220 and 230 different articles, while we import only about 180. But even though we have the finest articles in the world to sell, just as long as we depend upon some other country to furnish our ships we can never hope ,tc get a full measure of success. In 1915 we sent away fifty-two cargoes of lumber from the Pacific coast during a period of nine months, and fifty of these cargoes went from the United States. Much of it was lumber cut out of British Columbia logs which were sawn in American mills. The Americans controlled the shipping; the ships they do not own they control by charter; and we could not secure vessels under any conditions whatever to get rid of our product. By adopting a system whereby we shall establish a Canadian mercantile marine, the Government is moving in the right direction, and I wish to congratulate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the action he has taken in this direction. Furthermore, we shall be establishing a valuable industry when we embark upon a policy of shipbuilding. Conditions are particularly favourable for ship building on the Pacific coast. In the city of Victoria, for instance, the average temperature in winter is only 40 degrees and in summer 60 degrees.

We have an average bright sunshine throughout the year of five and a half hours per day, and a rainfall of only 27 inches annually. Shipbuilders can work outside practically every day of the year. We can launch a ship every day in the year; our harbours are always open and never closed by ice as they are in the colder parts of the country. If we establish a first-class merchant marine we will place the Canadian trade in an independent position so that we can take advantage of the markets when we are ready to sell the goods. But there is one point in connection with shipbuilding which is rather disappointing and that is that we are compelled to import our ships' plates and other materials for the building of these ships from the Atlantic coast. We have to pay on this material $27 a ton for freight alone. This is in face of the fact that on many parts of the coast of British Columbia we have very large iron deposits, first-class coal for coking purposes, and large supplies of limestone for fluxing purposes in . the manufacture of iron and steel. We have water-powers for electrical smelting also. I feel that the Government at no distant date should look into this matter very thoroughly with a view to giving certain bonuses to assist in developing these iron properties out there so that we can make our own pig iron and steel plates for shipbuilding and manufacturing purposes.

I cannot understand how it is good business to buy sixty per cent of our manufactured plates from the United States when we possess such immense quantities of raw material of first-class quality. I feel that if we spend a certain amount of time and money in developing that industry we will soon have it well established and we will build up homes in our own country instead of building them up in the state of Pennsylvania. I would go a little bit farther and suggest the subsidizing of ships to open up new markets if the prospects of trade are good.

With regard to the labour unrest, that is a condition that is prevailing all over the world, not peculiar to any country at

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
L LIB

William Henry White

Laurier Liberal

Mr. WILLIAM HENRY WHITE (Victoria, Alta.):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat will pardon me if I do not in any way comment upon or attempt to reply to the first part of his speech. The conditions that he then spoke of are conditions that prevail in his own province only, and of which I have no knowledge. There was one thing which impressed me, however, and made me curious, and I think I would be justified in questioning him with regard to it. If trouble exists in British Columbia owing to yellow or Asiatic labour, what is the cause of it? I would imagine that any difficulty of that kind could be settled very easily by the employers of labour in that province. If those people do not wish to employ yellow labour the difficulty would vanish if they ceased to employ it. That was the idea which occurred to me while the hon. gentleman was speaking.

The hon. gentleman referred to the cattle industry and urged in particular that the embargo should be removed from Canadian cattle entering Great Britain. I entirely

agree with him on that point. I also concur in his view that care should be exercised in the matter of improving the live stock industry, which will some day reach great proportions in this country and is at present in our western country perhaps the most considerable of all.

I do not purpose on the present occasion to discuss the tariff question at any great length, as I expressed myself fully on the subject when a resolution was introduced here over a month ago, on which occasion I explained what my attitude was. 1 have risen to-night more with the object of complaining that some people who hold a higher position in federal affairs and in the West than I do', did not deem it worth while when discussing the Budget to offer any remarks upon that subject. I refer particularly to the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton), a gentleman who at one time had the honour of holding the exalted position of Premier of our province-a man who was looked upon as a leader in the West, and who certainly assumed the full responsibility of that position and did not care to share it with any one else. Although the minister has been charged with being a little shifty on the tariff question-which is not worth while talking about to-night, and therefore I am not going to comment on it- he did not once during his speech the othei evening use the word "Budget'' or refer to the province of Alberta from which he comes. That was a disappointment to the people of that province, and particularly to an organization upon which he depended more than anything else for his support while leading the Provincial Government in Alberta, at a time when the farmers' organizations of Alberta were eaid to be dictating the policy of the Liberal party. To-day, the'hon. gentleman knows as well as I do, considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst that organization, so much so that since they have become convinced that the Union Government does not intend to do anything for them they have decided to take the responsibility on themselves of forming a party of their own to elect representatives to Parliament. They were not satisfied with the Liberal party, although they appreciate what was done by that party when they were in power. On the other hand, they had the promises of the Conservative party before that party came into office that there were to be certain changes in the tariff, but those pledges have not been kept. Then, when winning the war was the slogan of the party, they had the pledge from the leaders of the

[Mr. W. H. White. 1

three Prairie Provinces that they stood on a free trade platform and became supporters of Union Government on its war measures. Such a pledge was given by the former Premier of Alberta, the present Minister of Customs, That pledge was also given by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) in Saskatchewan.

It was the pledge given by the leader in the province of 'Manitoba, but he, at least, redeemed it. I might say that a few days ago, while in Alberta, I found nothing but dissatisfaction with the way the Government was carrying on the affairs of this country. We find the cities crowded with people, who are so dissatisfied that they are striking. Strikes have resulted because the people think they have been unjustly dealt with; profiteering has been carried to such an extent in that country that the labourers are disheartened and do not feel like working and creating more wealth for those who are getting the larger share of it.

The Minister of Customs, since coming to this House, has made two speeches. He spoke last year when the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) charged the officials of the Government, or those in charge of the elections, with the most serious offences that a government could be charged with. The hon. minister rose to speak from the other side of the House, told a little story, made a little joke, and sat down. I remember he said that he was informed that three men who had voted for the Liberal party had to be put in the guard room for fear that their comrades would mob them. He did not explain why or how they came to know that the three men voted for the Liberal candidate. The Government must have had pretty good control of the ballot boxes to know how* those three Liberals had voted so that they needed protection. I have no doubt the Government knew pretty well how all the ballots were marked, but they did not take much time to ascertain how those three individuals voted when they put them in the guard room the, same night.

When coming through the province of Saskatchewan the other day, I -found that considerable interest was taken in the actions of a gentleman who at one time was director-general of the Liberal forces in that province, and I found a good deal of amusement was caused by some references the Minister of Immigration (Air. Calder) had made in his speech as to how he might have become a hero. Those acquainted with the hon. gentleman were surprised, and became curious to know how it was possible

that he could ever be a hero. Like myself, they had known him for a great many years, and they believed, perhaps, as I do, that a hero is a bold kind of man, the *manwho comes out in the open and fights.In the old days, I understand, they used to have a trumpeter to warn the people that the hero was about todo something very brave. I do not think that the hon. Minister of Immigration, although he has won, perhaps, as many

victories in a political way as most men who sit dn this House, ever sent out any herald to tell when he was coming or how he was coming. No one knew when he was coming, not even his victim, until it was all over. Many met political death at the hands of this man who tells us that he might have been a hero. Unfortunately for those on this side of the House there may be found pretty nearly as many Liberal scalps in his belt as those of his natural enemies, the Tories. I can understand my hon. friend in any other capacity but that of a hero.

A- few years ago, I think it was in the year 1912, the most interesting election that ever took place in the Western country was fought out between two great political gladiators, one at that time Minister of Elections in Manitoba-a man well known in this House-who never had been unhorsed or "trimmed" up to that time. Tired, no doubt, of his conquests in Manitoba, he looked for wider fields to conquer, he looked for someone worthy of his steel. He found him in the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan. There was a great deal of advertising and a great deal of talk. Everyone knew how the Manitoba knight was going to fight, everyone knew the forces he bad brought into the province. But the still, mysterious champion of Saskatchewan said nothing-he waited. The other came, met the mysterious champion in battle, and passed quietly away. Since that time the great Conservative leaders of this country have not had much use for the defeated champion, and I think it must have been suggested that he had better be supplanted by somebody who had shown himself his superior in political strategy. Consequently we find the hon. the Minister of Immigration, who might have been a hero, holding one of the highest positions in this Union Government. I want to say to my hon. friend that possibly he might become a hero if he would change his tactics, and I would suggest something to him. If he wants to become a hero, let him go out into Saskatchewan and contest a seat. The

people will look on him then as "some" hero, "some" champion, and will admire him. But I think that even those who now admire him would never have suspected that he possessed that form of courage. Looking over a paper called the Moose-jaw Times, which knows my hon. friend better than we do, I find that it makes some comments on his attitude in this House. The reason I am bringing this forward is not-

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. gentleman is not in order in introducing any newspaper article commenting on or dealing with any matter or statement made by an hon. member in this House.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
L LIB

William Henry White

Laurier Liberal

Mr. W. H. WHITE:

What I was going to read was rather of a complimentary nature.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. My ruling had

no reference whatever to the circumstance that the article is complimentary or otherwise. The rule is very clear.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
L LIB

William Henry White

Laurier Liberal

Mr. W. H. WHITE:

Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps a reason for bringing this forward was the newspaper reports that appear in the Eastern papers. They describe the little controversy the other day between the ex-Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Immigration as a duel between two Western leaders, and they go on to describe their attitude and their methods of fighting. It was on that account that I wanted to take my hon. friend's local paper to prove that the hon. minister, at the present time at least, has no right to be considered a political leader in that country. We Western men that are a unit on tariff and other questions take an interest in the hon. minister (Mr. Calder) and when he gets up and says that he does not believe any changes should be made in the tariff, we do not want the people of any part of Canada to believe that he is representing the sentiment of the West. The hon. minister knows as well as we do what the West is standing for. The West is standing on a low-tariff platform, the platform that the hon. gentleman himself framed in 1917, a month before he went to the elections.

That year was a busy one for my hon. friend; there was-if I am in order, Mr. Speaker-some trimming and some fast turning. The campaign of 1917 began by the presentation of a free trade platform, but the real "Big Bertha" of the campaign was a resolution placed on the Order Paper of this House by the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), concerning aliens, and

particularly affecting the province in which the present Minister of Immigration was then in charge of political affairs. Many members may not know what this resolution was; some hon. gentlemen have, perhaps, never heard of it. But the Minister of Immigration knows it very well, because copies of it were printed and distributed throughout his province and the election was won chiefly through that resolution to disfranchise alien enemies. The resolution reads:

A. Any person who votes for any person, for any public office, or who takes'any active part in any election for any public office by becoming a candidate, speaking, writing, canvassing or driving voters to the poll, who was or is a citizen of any country, now or at any time during the past five years at war with Great Britain or her Allies; or who was a subject of any country not allied with Great Britain or her Allies, which does not permit its citizens the rights of expatriation, or holds the doctrine of dual citizenship or who was exiled or banished from any allied country, even though such person may have been granted naturalization in Canada or Great Britain, or may have his or her name on the Voters' List; shall be deemed guilty of an offence under this Act, and on conviction before a court of competent jurisdiction shall be liable to Imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, together with forfeiture of civil rights and all property to the Crown.

B. The above provisions shall not apply to any person who is serving or has served in His Majesty's Forces, or has been a naturalized British subject resident in Canada for twenty-five years. The burden of proof as to such exception shall rest upon the Voter.

C. Any person giving such information as will lead to the conviction of any such person shall he entitled to one-third of all fines and forfeitures.

Prior to the provincial election of 1917 an Act was passed in the Provincial House under which women were given the vote, many being of alien birth. Everything was staged for the election, and my hon. friends carried it; they had the advantage of the alien vote, and they had the female vote as well. But that was not all. When the aliens found that the Conservative Government was making an attempt to take away their franchise and their rights of citizenship, they naturally resented it and supported the Liberal Provincial Government. These unfortunate people were deluded. They thought the Liberal party would protect their rights. But the 'Conservative Government at Ottawa disfranchised them in the autumn of 1917 in order to win the federal election. First, they were offered a low tariff platform, so that a provincial election in Saskatchewan might be won; then they were disfranchised before the federal election came on so that they should not be able to vote. And now the Minister

of Immigration has gone back on his friends, the farmers, and the organized grain growers, and declines to stand behind then! on the platform that he himself framed. I make this statement not because I want to do injury, political or otherwise, to my hon. friend-he is well able to do that himself. I have told him how to become a hero; how to appear before the country as one of the bravest of men in political life and how to regain the confidence of the people. But the minister no longer stands in the position of western leader; his attitude in this House is no longer supported by the people of the West. He is feting on his own initiative; he has no supporters out there. I could read a resolution passed at Moosejaw by a body of farmers who condemn his action in this House and say that he is no longer entitled to their support and does not express the sentiments of the people whom he represents in that country. I have nothing to say against the minister personally; I simply want to make it clear that in the position which he takes he does not represent public opinion in the West. The position taken by the ex-Minister of Agriculture' (Mr. Crerar) is one which expresses the views of the people in the West, and it was expected that each of the three western ministers would do as the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) did. It has been said that the Minister of Immigration and the ex-Minister of Agriculture, the two western leaders, have been matched in a duel. But there was no duel; it was simply a case of one man standing up for his principles, keeping a pledge, and the other standing on the defensive and making an excuse for not fulfilling his pledge.

The Minister of Immigration says that this is not the time to deal with the tariff; that we have bigger things to do. Why then, did the Government touch the tariff at all? Why do they make a few little reductions that do not cut any figure? Why-do they merely try to satisfy certain members of the Union Government by cutting off a little here and there? If this is not a time to deal with the tariff, why did hon. gentlemen not leave it alone until the proper time should come? When the famous resolution was put through the Provincial House in Saskatchewan in March and drafted, no doubt, by the Minister of Elections at that time-we were in the midst of the war, and if this is not the time to deal with the tariff, then certainly that was not the time to deal with the subject matter of that resolution. The minister may

say that he has changed his mind. But he owes something to the western farmers. He owes his political prominence in the West and in this fHfouse to the farmers; he owes his position to them. I tell my hon. friend that many political victims have fallen without warning by the same hand and the farmers of the West have "got it" surely, but silently, and when they least expected it. Moreover, they got it in such a manner that I do not think they will ever forget it.

I wish to congratulate Manitoba and the grain growers of that province on having at least a leader in their grain growers' and farmers' organizations who has sufficient honour to keep his pledge. I can look any day upon those seats in front of us and see amongst the front benches many men who have sacrificed principles for position, but I have to turn to-day to the cross benches to see the single individual who has sacrificed his position for a principle. There is the difference between men. There have been unfavourable comments by the press supporting the Union Government, speaking about that hon. gentleman's clumsiness in debate and saying that he was not as skilful or as experienced as the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). I thank God he was not, and I hope he never will have the experience that makes a man a party politician, that leads a man to trim his sails both ways, to step into a Government on a solemn pledge given to the people that he has been amongst, and then to turn down those people. If that is what they call experience, then the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) was lacking in political tactics and experience, and he will do very well without it. The hon. gentleman has served his purpose in this House; he has served his purpose in the country; he has done something that has proved that he was one man who adhered to his principles when he went into the Union Government, when he stepped away from his party- 1 had never any faith in any one who did so. but I am wrong in one particular, and I am pleased to know that there was one man who conscientiously stepped out and took the position he thought he should take and who, when he considered that his work was done, stepped down and went back. He had finished his work nobly, and every western man, no matter whether he comes from Alberta, Saskatchewan or any other province, will remember with pride that there was one western leader who came 227

down from the West, who joined forces with the Union Government, who did what he conscientiously thought was right and did it to the end, and who, when he found he could not agree any longer with the Government, stepped away from that organization. I say that we have nothing but respect and honour for him. I thank him particularly in the name of the West; I thank him on behalf of the farmers' organizations. and I thank him as a loyal citizen of this country, that when the time caiiie he was big enough to go out and give his best efforts to his country, and that when his work was done and when he found he could no longer keep his pledge and retain his honour, would rather sacrifice the high position he held in this country than sacrifice his principles.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
UNION

Ira Eugene Argue

Unionist

Mr. IRA EUGENE ARGUE (Swift .Current) :

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to

occupy many minutes to-night discussing the Budget question. I was surprised tonight that the hon. member (Mr. W H. White) seemed to be extremely anxious about the welfare of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). He was also very anxious about Saskatchewan, and I should like him to understand that there are fifteen representatives here from Saskatchewan, and they feel they are quite capable of speaking for that province, and I think when the vote is taken on the Budget proposal that possibly there will be as many standing behind the Minister of Immigration and Colonization as there will be supporting the amendment. The hon. member has made the assertion that he has no faith in the Liberals who crossed over to this side of the House.

Mr. W- H. WHITE (Victoria, Alberta): I beg your pardon, I made no such statement.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
UNION
L LIB

William Henry White

Laurier Liberal

Mr. W. H. WHITE (Victoria, Alberta):

I was referring to those who had taken positions in the Government My hon. friend must not think that I had any one else in mind at all, although the seat of the ex-Minister of Agriculture was vacant.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
UNION

Ira Eugene Argue

Unionist

Mr. ARGUE:

I will accept the hon.

member's statement, but as regards Liberalism, some of us who are standing on this side of the House, who left that side of the House, are just as true Liberals as ever sat in this House. I want to tell the hon. member that I held the Liberal nomination for two years and one-half in

my constituency, and I resigned it because I could not follow the late leader of the Liberal party. I handed in my resignation before the Union Government was formed, and I informed the Liberal Association that, so far as I was concerned, the coast was clear and they could do just as they pleased. When the nominations for the Union Government were called, mine was the only name that was put forward at the convention, and I carried the constituency with about 2,800 of a majority.

I believe I have some right to speak for the West on this Budget question, as I have lived in the West for thirty years, and I know the feelings of the Western people probably as well as most of the members from that part of the country. I want to say frankly that this Budget will not suit the West because it does not go far enough. I do not believe it goes far enough in the direction of relieving the high cost of the necessaries of life. The high cost of living is pressing very heavily on the Western Provinces, and, rightly or wrongly, we believe that during the last number of years we have been paying more than our fair share of the tariff revenue that has been raised in this country. I have seen settlers coming into the West for the last thirty years under the two different forms of government, Liberal and Conservative, and I have never seen any difference between the two Governments. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to bring immigrants into the West; we dumped them down on the prairies; we gave them 160 acres of land, and we left them to sink or swim, instead of having a fatherly care over them and helping them for two or three years to get onto their feet. We built a tariff wall around them and allowed them to be bled by every manufacturer in the country. That is the way we treated them, and one Government was not any more to blame than the other. The consequence was that hundreds, aye thousands of them, moved out before they had spent two years there, and thousands of them, when they got their papers, mortgaged everything they had, went across the line and became American citizens. For those of us who are left behind, I want to say that ninety per cent of the people who live in Saskatchewan, regardless of politics, deep down in their hearts, have the feeling that they have been unjustly dealt with as regards the tariff. We are not all free traders; we are reasonable people; but we are determined to have a revision of the tariff, and all we ask is for the eastern people to meet us on a fair, square basis. We are willing to meet them [Mr. Argue.l

around any table; we are willing to discuss the question with the manufacturers of the East,, and see if we cannot come to some satisfactory conclusion. That is the only way in which this country is ever going to be built up. When you speak to the man in the West about your home markets and building up your cities and home markets here, that does not appeal to us because eighty per cent of the products we raise on the farm go out of the country; our market is the foreign market, and when you talk about home consumption, it does not appeal to us.

Another question to which I wish to refer to-night is with reference to our wheat. I want to add one word to what has been ably put before the House with reference to the 1919 crop of wheat. In the three western provinces we have under cultivation today 18,000,000 acres of wheat, there being 9,250,000 acres of wheat under cultivation in Saskatchewan alone, and if we get a fair yield we should have in the neighbourhood of 360,000,000 bushels in the three western provinces. That would mean 300,000,000 bushels to ship out, and the thing that is bothering us is to find a market for that wheat, and how to get it out. In past years sixty per cent of our wheat went through American ports, but to-day those ports are closed, and in all probability will remain closed during the season. In that event, when we are pouring our wheat on the market at the rate of 3,000,000 or 5,000,000 bushels a day in the months of November and December, the price will sag down probably to 60 cents a bushel, and then when it is out of the farmers' hands and into the hands of the speculators we shall be in the same position we were in in 1915, when the great bulk of the wheat went into the market at 70 cents a bushel and the following June was sold at $3.40. Those are the conditions we are anxious about, and we want the Government to do something.

I do not care whether the price is fixed, oi what is done, so long as the Government controls the market in some way, in order that we can get a fair average price for our wheat.

There is one more thing I wish to say with reference to the grain growers of the West. We are working and striving to build up in Saskatchewan one of the grandest provinces in the Dominion, and there are concessions that we want. The other day a convention was held in my city, attended by something like 700 delegates. They sent me a wire asking me to keep up the fight for tariff revision. I have fought

all my life for low tariff, and I am not going to quit now. I am going to stay on this job till we get a revision of the tariff, till the load we are carrying is adjusted, and till a fair proposition is put before us so that we can carry on and make good in that country.

I am going to support the Government for three reasons. Something happened the other afternoon in this House when the hon. President of the Privy Council was describing this as a war year. He said that if the Minister of Finance had also taken that stand, and that if had not meddled with or touched the tariff at all every member of the Cabinet would have stood by his side. I noticed when he made that statement the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was in his seat on the cross benches and made no objection to it. We must therefore assume that the statement was correct, and if it was correct why quarrel with the Minister of Finance because he did make some reductions in the tariff? The Minister of Finance knew the sentiment of the Western members. We had expressed our wishes to him; he knew that we were asking for a revision of the tariff, and he came part way to meet us, and I am not prepared to quarrel with him because he did. Another reason why I am going to support the Government is that the Minister of Finance has promised to give us a revision of the tariff. He has promised that during recess a commission will be appointed to go from Halifax to Vancouver, and that every industry will have an opportunity of appearing before the commission and stating their views. The farmer and the labouring man, the consumer and the manufacturer, are all to appear before the commission. But there is one thing 1 want the 'Minister of Finance to do, and one thing we in the WTest- will insist on, and that is that everything shall be free and above board, that every man who asks for assistance by way of the tariff shall be compelled to lay his books on the table and show the reason why. More than that, I want them to squeeze every drop of water out of their stock. Let there be protection or a bounty, or whatever you want to call it, on the capital invested in these industries, but not on watered stock. I believe that the commission will go a long way towards solving the problem that is troubling us to-day. The other reason why I shall support the Government is because I see no alternative. I see nothing in the amendment which recommends itself to me, and I see no reason why I should support it. I noticed 2274

the other day that when the leader of the Opposition was discussing the question he qualified his support of the amendment by saying that he would go as far as he possibly could in support of it. I am prepared to stand by the Government and give them one more opportunity to make good their promise. If they do not, then in the next session of this House we will have our fight on the tariff question..

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
UNION

Levi Thomson

Unionist

Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):

The proposals of the Budget under discussion are far from satisfactory to me. On the other hand, I am not desirous of an election or a change of Government with matters in their present position. I am told that such being my views I have no right to vote for the amendment under consideration, that I must be either for or against the Government, that if I wish the Government to retain office I must vote for all its measures whether I like them or not, whether I believe them to be right or wrong. The acceptance of that doctrine would certainly relieve a representative of an unpleasant responsibility. It would reduce our duties to that of rubber stamps, or at the outside of being ready to consult with the Government whenever the members of the Government wished to consult us. But I must confess that pleasant as that doctrine is, it does not look sound to me. If the doctrine is to be accepted, I fail to see the need for members remaining here for from three to seven months each year. All that would be needed would be for the Government to call us together for a few days during each year for consultation, or better still we might arrange that a vote be taken, every five years to decide what party or what set of public men should have charge of the affairs of the country. That would do away with the great expense of holding yearly sessions.

But so long as we are elected to represent the people of the country, so long as our constituents select us to voice their views, and we are called here for the purpose of considering and discussing public measures, it seems to me w.e are bound by our voices and votes to give effect so far as we are able to the desires of our constituents, at least in so far as w*e are able to understand those desires and can conscientiously support them; and when we reach the stage where we feel that our own views and convictions are so far from being in accord with those of the majority of our constituents that we cannot properly represent them, we should resign and allow our constituents

to select representatives who can represent them.

The threat has been held out that if we insist on voting against the Government proposals or in favour of the amendment, the Government will resign. Let me read the following extract from the Toronto World:

Premier to resign if Westerners Bolt. Commons Will hear Startling Announcement if Dissenters-Persist.

Special to the "Toronto World''-Ottawa, June 10th.'-The political situation precipitated by the Budget speech, and threatened bolt of Western Unionist members is receiving careful consideration, and may soon receive decisive treatment from 'he Government. Every effort is being made to bring the dissenters into line. If, however, these efforts prove unsuccessful an announcement may be made in the House that will carry something like consternation to the insurgents. It is rumoured that before the debate closes the House will be plainly told that any considerable defection from the Government on the Budget will necessitate the resignation of the Prime Minister.

Few members on either side of the House desire an election and few Unionist members would care to take the responsibility of overthrowing the Union Government. It is believed that a formal announcement by the Prime Minister that this Government will be unwilling to "carry on", unless it can command practically the united support of its followers in the House, will cause the great majority of the Western Unionists to vote against the McMaster amendment and accept the assurance of the Government that a general revision of the tariff will be made in the near future.

Talk about autocratic rule! I don't wish the Government to resign but after all there is no good reason why this should happen unless a majority of the members of this House believes that a greater reduction should have been made, and if a majority takes that view there seems no other course left but one of two-the Government should either meet the views of the majority or give way to a Government that will meet those views. It is not fair to insist that the minority must rule or that the elected representatives of the people must by their vote give the lie to their own views or those of their constituents. That is what is being demanded. But, if I rightly understand the situation the threat in the Toronto World, and the threats we hear around this House, are not made from fear of an adverse majority but in order to frighten us from taking such action as shall reduce the Government majority.

The threat is made that if things are not exactly to its liking, the Government will not "carry on" as the Toronto World puts it. I wonder what the people making those threats would have thought, were our boys in the front trenches during the war, to

refuse to "carry on" unless everything were to their liking, and what would nave been the result had the Allied soldiers generally adopted the policy which we are told our Government may adopt, unless it can command practically the united support of its followers. If such policy is adopted the responsibility must rest on the Government. And if there should be a majority of the members of this House who believe the reductions are not such as should have been made, the Government must take the responsibility for introducing a Budget not commanding the support of a majority. We did not introduce the Budget and I for one refuse to accept the responsibility for it.

The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), on this question said:

The real question at issue that underlies the situation that we have at present is, as to whether or not this* Parliament is desirous that this Government should continue in office and carry on.

No doubt the minister sincerely believes that is the real question at issue and that this belief justifies him in supporting the financial proposals, but I am unable to come to the same conclusion. The minister says, "Every member of the House is the keeper of his own conscience." I agree with him in that, though I cannot agree with him as to what the real question at issue is.

It seems to me we are now asked to show by our votes, which wre prefer, the principles laid down in the Budget proposals before us or those enunciated in the amendment. This question is raised at a time when it can be properly raised and should be raised. The main objection raised against the previous amendment of my honourable friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) cannot apply in this case. On the debate on that previous amendment when I objected to the time at which that amendment was brought forward I was asked by my honourable friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) to suggest any other way by which the matter might be brought before the House. I then suggested that it might better be done when the Budget is brought down. That has been done. I cannot conscientiously support the Budget proposals and I can support the amendment though were I drawing it I would prefer the wording suggested by my honourable friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). But, as has been explained, an amendment to the amendment cannot be moved on this occasion; so we are limited to a choice between the Budget proposals and the amendment, and following the rule laid down by

.TUNE 17, 1919

*3581

the Minister of Immigration, that each member must be gulled by the dictates of his own conscience, I must cast my vote for the amendment.

There are reasons for this that appeal very strongly to me. One is that, though I do not believe free trade is a sure cure for all our political ills, I believe it would at least alleviate many of them and I believe that the so-called protective system is the chief cause of many of those ills. It appeals to all that is selfish and cowardly in human nature, while free trade develops manliness, self-reliance and courage, all qualities sorely needed at this time. We are told that the tariff is not in issue at this time. Still the Manufacturers' Association is spending fortunes in trying to build up protectionist sentiment. Naturally, the friends of free trade have tried to keep up their end of the fight, and they feel that the representatives of agricultural constituencies should be working in their interest in this House. If we fail them now, if we let our desires for partisan, or political advantage stand in the way of desire to promote sound fiscal principles, it will mean a serious set-back to the advancement of those principles.

T lunderstand that the Manufacturers' Association has been sending a document around to the different manufacturing concerns in the country and I propose to read the heading of it as follows:

Whereas employment must be found for our returning soldiers, in addition to the large number of employees who have been engaged. in the manufacture of war munitions,

And whereas In order to furnish the maximum employment for our workmen it is necessary to stimulate the activity of industrial enterprises of every description,

And whereas values of all commodities are in process of adjustment and any changes in the present fiscal policy would tend to delay the return to normal conditions,

And whereas the present demand for tariff revision is creating uncertainty, retarding initiative and will result in serious conditions of unemployment,

And whereas Great Britain, France and other countries are restricting imports to conserve their own resources for the employment of their own people.

We, the undersigned employees of

hereby request that, as our representative in Parliament, you will protect the interests of Canadian labour by the use of your influence in preventing, at this critical period, any change in the present fiscal policy under which the country has progressed and prospered.

There is a blank left, I suppose, for the signatures of the employees of the manufacturing institution but the particular firm and employees from whom I received this instead of attaching their signatures to it,

filled up the space with the following typewritten comments:

We think industrial activity would be better stimulated by lowering the price than by raising it.

If values are in process of adjustment downwards the lowering of the tariff would assist instead of delay the return to normal conditions.

Terminate the uncertainty regarding the tariff by lowering it and take the initiative -in doing so and encourage initiative in others along this most worthy line as well as increase employment and abolish unemployment.

And since Germany was the worst protected country in the world and look at the hell of one mess she is in now, let us avoid same by finding employment for our returned soldiers and war munition hands by cutting the ''fit" out of the profiteer, and enlarge trade by taking smaller profits, for the employment of cur own people and the opening up of the resources ol our own land.

And whereas Russia is introducing a system at variance with our practice it behooves us to meet it by reducing prices and profits and increasing employments and production.

And whereas production exceed consumption in home industries right now due to the high price and consequent constriction of trade, and the most legitimate way to increase production is to enlarge consumption, and the easiest and safest and best way to enlarge consumption is to reduce prices, and whereas the price of home manufactured goods at the present time is based on the addition of the duty to the cost price, therefore if a revenue is required it would be advisable to charge on home manufactures an excise duty equal to the customs duty on Imported goods of similar natures and devote the money thus acquired to establishing returned soldiers on prairie farms- otherwise the best interests of the home manufacturers would be best conserved by increasing home consumption of home manufactured goods by reducing the prices, which can be achieved by cutting out the addition of the tariff to the cost price, by reducing the tariff 10% per annum until a duty of 7J% was reached.

And whereas the views typewritten here are preferable to those printed thereon your petitioners pray you to wake up and act and get a hunch that move is required before the Bolshevists expose the manufacturers.

You will see 'that all our manufacturers, are not protectionists.

. Mr. COCKSHUTT: Who is that signed by?

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
UNION

Levi Thomson

Unionist

Mr. L. THOMSON:

I presume the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cockshutt) wants to get after these people but surely they have a Tight to express their own views.

It is rather amusing to hear protectionists accusing free traders of being sectional. I think it was Sam Slick who said he hated to hear an everlasting almighty sinner quoting Scripture. It seems to me quite as objectionable to hear protectionists condemning sectionalism. What is tariff protection but sectionalism?-each section trying to get all the assistance it can from the public. Free trade is just the op-

posite, it asks that all interests shall have a fair field and no favours. Surely this is not sectionalism. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) evidently thinks tariff protection is in the same class as the protection we owe to our families. It is our duty to protect our families from things that are harmful to them, but is trading with our neighbours harmful? If it is we should shut it out. If it is good for us we should encourage it, and interference with it should not be called protec tion, but obstruction. The hon. gentleman condemns the "open door" and thinks we should close our doors against our neighbours. But perhaps he will ask, like one of old, "Who is my neighbour"? The Divine answer to that question is very hard on the tariff protection doctrine. My hon. friend who spoke the other evening on the question of western sentiment, claims the majority in Manitoba in 1911 against reciprocity to have been over 5,000, and that what obtained in Manitoba also obtained to a lesser extent in both the other western provinces, by which I suppose he meant Alberta and Saskatchewan. His figures as to Manitoba are, I believe, correct, except that he ignores the vote cast for independent candidates. I believe that all independent candidates in the Prairie Provinces were supporters of reciprocity, only they wanted to go further. In any case, he is all wrong as to Alberta and Saskatchewan. Even if we ignore the votes cast for independents, there was according to the Parliamentary Guide, a majority for reciprocity in Alberta of 7,533, and in Saskatchewan of 17,224. I believe my honourable friend, the Minister of Finance, made an honest effort to frame a tariff which could be accepted as a compromise by his protectionist and low tariff supporters, but he has apparently failed. And when he fails, I fear the task is hopeless. It looks as though sooner or later the people of Canada must divide into at least two parties on this issue, but when the cleavage does come, I hope it will not be on the old party lines, but that, we will have the real low tariff men on one side, and protectionists on the other.

I wish briefly to notice a subject referred to in this debate, that, is the question of taxation on incomes from Government bonds. If I correctly understand the way in which the exemption operates, it will cause a much more serious loss to the revenue of the country than is apparent at first glance. A citizen with sufficient money to have an income of 120,000 a year

would pay under the new proposal, an income tax of $1,990. But if he invests sufficient money in Government bonds to bring him an income from that source of $10,000, his income tax will be reduced to $590, making a saving to him and a loss to the country of $1,400. So that while the poor man, not being subject to income tax, only receives 5J per cent on his investment, the rich man would receive either by way of exemption or otherwise, nearly 6| per cent. Under the circumstances if I am correct in my understanding of the facts of this exemption, it seems to me to be utter nonsense to suppose that the rich man will not in a very short time, get in his hands a very large portion of the Victory Bonds that are issued, for they are of much greater value to him than to the man who is exempt from taxation on income. If it is possible I think the minister should still make provision that the bonds already issued shall only be exempt from taxation in the hands of the original purchaser or his personal representatives, and I hope we will have no more issue of Government bonds exempt from taxation.

I have been told that we should not oppose the Government on any measure until not only the war is over but reconstruction has been completed, or in a fair way to completion. Speaking for myself personally, when my name was suggested as a Government candidate, I frankly told the hon. Minister of Immigration what my position would be. I told him I was prepared to give an honest support to the Government, but that I would not give a slavish support to any person or any Government. Now in view of my fixed opinion on fiscal questions, and in view of the fact that I believe the greatest possible aid to reconstruction would be the elimination or great reduction of protection, I feel that I w'ould be giving a slavish support, not an honest support, were I to vote against the present amendment.

Mr. HOWARD H. HADLADAY (Bow River): Mr Speaker, I do not purpose to make a speech to-night, but merely to offer a few observations. The first thing I have to announce is that I am going bo support the Government when the division takes place, and in the next place that I make po apologies for the stand I am taking. I have been in my day a red-hot Grit and I have not changed my views on the tariff question in any respect. The question for me to decide now is where I am going to get the benefit which I desire. I am between the devil and the deep sea in

. deciding: I find the high tariff party on

one side of this House, and a higher tariff party on the other side.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
L LIB
UNION

Howard Hadden Halladay

Unionist

Mr. HALLADAY:

The leader of the Opposition spoke of his programme, but with me performances count more than programmes. I followed him and his late leader for a number of years, and I obtained no relief. On the other hand I see a shadow of relief coming from this side of the House. The Finance Minister has made a few reductions in his Budget. They do not satisfy me. But he has gone a little further and has told us that a scientific revision of the tariff will be made next session. That is what my people want- a scientific reduction of the tariff. That is why they sent me down to plead for their interests and that is what I am going to do. If the findings of the Tariff Commission show that any industry in the country needs more protection than, it is getting to-day, my people are big enough to realize the fact-they are pure Canadians and they are going to stand behind me when I vote for that proposition There are a good many topics that could he rehashed-II have heard them discussed some four or five times already-but I do not intend to take up the time of the House by any re-hashing. I have already stated my views and I believe the House thoroughly understands them.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Murray Shaw

Unionist

Mr. HUGH MURRAY SHAW (Macleod):

I desire but to make a brief contribution to this debate. When I accepted the Unionist nomination for my constituency, I stated that on all questions other than the prosecution of the war I intended to use my own judgment, and I propose to do so. My judgment on the present occasion is that I am justified in voting against the amendment and giving the Budget my support. I am taking that course because I have confidence in the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet. I believe they are honest and sincere and that they are governing, as they see, in the best interests of the people of Canada as a whole. As -long as I have confidence in the Government I intend to support it.

Topic:   TUNE 17, 1919 .1537
Permalink

June 17, 1919