Mr. CRERAR:

First I will take Gladstone. Was Gladstone a protectionist? Did he believe in protection? Did Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith and Lloyd George believe in protection? My hon. friends opposite may say, "These were Liberals and nothing else was to be expected of them." Well, we will take Conservative statesmen in Great Britain, and with the exception of Joseph Chamberlain, and even-he made it clear, in his tariff reform propaganda in Great Britain about seventeen or eighteen years ago, that he had no use for protection as protection; his campaign and arguments were based altogether on creating Imperial preferences in order to hold the Empire together. I think he was mistaken in that, but nevertheless he is on record as saying that he did not believe in protection for protection's sake. What about Peel, the Duke of Devonshire, and Lord St. Aldwyn. The last named, as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, was one of the great English chancellors. What about Lord Salisbury and Lord Robert Cecil and Lord Hugh Cecil? Were these men carried away by the glamour of protection? No, they were absolutely against it. What about the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour, perhaps the

brightest intellect in the Conservative party in Great Britain? He refused to follow Chamberlain in his protectionist propaganda and policy. What about Disraeli, the creator of the modern Tory party in Great Britain? His judgment on protection was that so far as Great Britain was concerned it was not only dead but damned.

Order.

Mr. CRERAR:

I hope I have not offended the tender susceptibilities, of hon. gentlemen opposite.

Mr. MORPHY:

The hon. gentleman has been quoting authorities in favour of free trade, but is he himself in favour of free trade for Canada?

Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:

Make an argument.

Mr. MORPHY:

It is all very well for my hon. friend from Red Deer to say, "make an argument."

Mr. CRERAR:

I will say this, that the fiscal policy for Great Britain, in my judgment, would be a very admirable one for Canada.

Mr. MORPHY:

Will the hon. gentleman answer my question? I want an answer to the question, from my hon. friend, if he pleases.

Mr. CRERAR:

The tariff policy of the Canadian Council of Agriculture does not call for absolute free trade, as some hon. gentlemen opposite have stated. As I have previously stated in the House its policy is that the tools and implements of production should be made free, and the cost of the necessaries of life should be reduced.

Mr. MORPHY:

That is being done to-day under this very Budget.

Mr. CRERAR:

In Great Britain, the Minister of the Interior tells us, they are raising a billion and a half dollars this year from customs taxation. I think he is mistaken in the figures, but at any rate they are raising a very large amount in customs taxes. We can still get a great deal of revenue from the tariff in Canada, and at the same time eliminate the principle of protection in industry, which is bad. That is the thing we should do. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have continued at much greater length than I intended, but I have yet a few further observations to make.

Mr. CALDWELL:

Give them more of it.

Mr. CRERAR:

I submit -that the whole argument, as far as the fiscal policy of Great Britain is concerned, confirms absolutely, unequivocally, and beyond successful contradiction, that that policy has been in the interests of the United Kingdom, and I submit that a similar policy in Canada could do nothing but redound to the benefit of this Dominion. What have been the effects of protection in Canada? We have a perfect right to ask what benefit has it been to the country? Is it a sensible thing to develop artificial industries and make it difficult for the natural industries of the country to develop? We say we want to develop agriculture. Would my hon. friends opposite say that we should protect agriculture by way of giving a bounty to the wheat producers of Western Canada?

Mr. MORPHY:

Yes, if it needs it.

Mr. CRERAR:

I do not know where, in the end, my hon. friend would get the money. Agriculture is the basic industry of this country, and it is the part of wisdom to free the tools of production that are necessary for the development of this great industry, and the development of our forests, our mines, and our fisheries as well. I have never been able to see the sense of creating, for instance, a cotton industry in Canada-which I shall refer to in a moment-and which is entirely an artificial industry in this country We do not produce the raw material that enters into the manufacture of textiles in this country, but we have to import every ounce of that raw material. Is it not in every sense a better thing to produce the articles that we can best produce in this country, and that are natural to the country, and trade them off to others for things they can produce better than we can? That is the sensible policy to follow.

Now, what is the position of agriculture in this country? The farmers of Western Canada are producing two staple commodities, grain and livestock, and the basis of value upon which they sell their productions is fixed in the markets of the world. You will have to have protection in Canada for a long time before you can have a market capable of consuming all the wheat our farmers produce. But they are not afraid to sell their wheat against all comers; and the same holds good in regard to livestock.

Mr. MORPHY:

Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question?

Mr. CRERAR:

I am sorry, but I do not wish to be interrupted. You are putting a

penalty on agriculture when you say to the farmers: "You must have the cost of your implements of production increased by the operation of this Customs tariff." You are making it more difficult for agriculture to succeed, and to that extent you are hampering and handicapping an industry that is natural to the country. We talk of Canada being an agricultural country. Of course it is. And eventually it will become a great manufacturing country; there is not any question about that. But if we develop agriculture, if we can put 2,000,000 farmers on the land, will not that be a good thing for our manufacturers? I can conceive of nothing better for creating a home market.

But the fact is that to-day agriculture is carried on under conditions of disadvantage. I will admit that during the last few years where farmers have secured good crops they have made money. But go out and speak to the farmers of Southern Alberta, who have had three successive crop failures; go out and speak to the farmers of Southern Saskatchewan, who have had the same misfortune; go out and speak to the farmers of Eastern Canada who have been handicapped by bad crops, and ask them what their opinion is of having the cost of the tools and implements of their industry added to by the operation of the Customs tariff; it will not take you long to get a reply.

During this debate we have heard some comment on our textile industry, and my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) placed upon Hansard some figures in connection with the development of that industry in this country. But he did not supply all the information on the subject at that time. The Dominion Textile Company, Limited, is our leading concern manufacturing cotton goods, and is a combination of four textile companies that were merged in 1905. At that time-and this is taken from the evidence given by the General Manager of the Dominion Textile Company, Limited before the Cost of Living Commission a year ago-his company issued $5,000,000 of common stock for which they paid $500,000, or $10 a share, thus four and a half millions of that common stock was pure water. What happened? Under the shelter of the tariff, enjoying protective duties ranging from 30 to 40 per cent, the Dominion Textile Company, Limited, was able to so extract profits from the people of this country that this stock last year was quoted as high as $125 a share. I ask my hon. friend the Minister

of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), who, I believe, stated at Quebec that the tariff should not be used as a place of shelter by industries that could stand on their own feet, what he thinks of that condition of affairs?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Does the hon. gentleman want an answer? I understand that in that case the profits were made largely out of export trade as a result of the war.

Mr. CRERAR:

Well, we can go back to 1914, before the war, and we shall find that this $5,000,000 of common stock, or rather $4,500,000, that in 1905 had no value whatever, in 1914 was selling as high as $86 a share. If my hon. friend will study the figures of our exports at that time he will find that very litle business was done in Canadian textiles. And yet that $4,500,000 of common stock, of pure unadulterated water, had attained a value of over $3,000,000! Is that building up useful industry in this country, or is it not enriching the few at the expense of the many? But by way of contrast, what are the wages paid to our textile workers in Canada? According to figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics 7,946 males and 7,654 females, or a total of 15,618, are engaged in the cotton textile industry in this country. Now I wish' to direct the attention of the House to this illuminating fact, that the average yearly wage of those 15,000 employees is only $538.23. Is that what protection has done for the workers of our textile industry?

Mr. STEVENS:

What is your authority for those figures?