Mr. RAYMOND:

I am very glad to

hear it. I know that as I journeyed on the train west one man I heard arguing most strongly against it was a Progressive.

Mr. CRERAR:

One, yes.

Mr. RAYMOND:

Those who voted in favour of the resolution were certainly arguing for the strongest kind of protection.

Mr. MARTELL:

I voted in this House to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada. I am not a protectionist.

Mr. RAYMOND:

Are you not, sir?

Mr. MARTELL:

So long as there is a tariff on anything that competes against the products of the dairymen, the dairymen have a right to be protected. If you are going to have free trade, then pull down the tariffs altogether and let everything be unprotected.

Mr. RAYMOND:

Perhaps I may refer to another article that receives a certain amount of protection. I mention these little things merely to show that protection is something that may be found on either side of the garden wall. I fancy that the Wheat Board was not altogether a free trade measure, was it?

Oh, oh.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

He is right there.

Mr. RAYMOND:

I listened to a most interesting argument that was delivered by one of the witnesses who testified before the Committee on Agriculture. He said that the Wheat Board would increase the purchasing power of the farmer of the West, and if the purchasing power of that farmer were increased it would benefit all the rest of the provinces. The farmer of the West would want more fruit, fish and lumber from British Columbia, more manufactured goods from (Ontario, and from the maritime provinces he would want, for instance, more steel from Nova Scotia. I daresay hon. gentlemen all recall the argument; it was a very interesting one and I listened quite attentively to it. The witness said that every man who farmed a half-section had from 12,000 to 15,000 pounds of steel and iron in use, the average life of the implements being twelve years. So that every man on every 320 acres in the West would be a consumer of no less than 1,000 pounds of iron and steel per annum; and that was cited as one reason why the Wheat Board would benefit Nova Scotia. Now, if that is the case, I should like to ask hon. gentlemen, if these goods were purchased in the United States, having been manufactured in Milwaukee, Chicago and other centres, how would Nova Scotia be benefited at all?

We should aim at producing a rounded out nation; and if hon. gentlemen think that the three prairie provinces constitute the whole of Canada, their ideas are just as erroneous as mine would be if I suggested that my constituency represented the Dominion. The best policy for Canada is to look to the future and build up a nation that will develop an attractive place for people to come to-a country that will not be devoted exclusively to any industry, or any particular line of business, and, especially, one that will not be merely a producer of raw material for shipment to other countries. We should have a country in which skilled labour

The Budget-Mr. Raymond

can produce the things that are needed by the people, thus adding to the wealth of the nation. In the little town of Paisley, in Scotland, there are 12,000 operatives employed in the manufacture of ordinary cotton yarn used by ladies in sewing. Think of the conditions that exist in those places from which the raw material is secured. Think of the conditions in the southern states and in Egypt, where the raw cotton is produced, and you will see that wherever there is wealth and advancement in civilization it is because of the existence of skilled labour and an economic system that protects that labour until it is fully developed and becomes an asset to the country, and becoming so produces such other things as a mercantile marine, and a great banking system by which capital is invested all over the world. We have been told that Great Britain has $2,500,000,000 invested in Canada. Well, that money did not originate in agriculture, or lumbering, or fisheries, or mining, but in the manufacturing industries. And if Canada is to prosper as she should, the Canadian people must, in their wisdom, adopt such a policy. If it is to be a protectionist to hold such a view*, I am one, whether the term is meant as one of compliment or of opprobrium. If it is a protectionist to hold the view that we should have a revenue tariff giving incidental protection to manufacturers, I am certainly a protectionist; and as to being a Liberal protectionist, sitting on this side of the House, holding such a view, and supporting the Government that has removed from the manufacturers 21 per cent of the protection they have enjoyed, there are strong reasons that are as deep as my very being why I could not be anything else.

Mr. NEILL:

How did the hon. member vote on the oleomargarine resolution?

Mr. RAYMOND:

As I said just now, if it had been for a duty on oleomargarine as against the article made in Chicago I would have voted for it. But I would not make it a crime for a man to make oleomargarine in Canada or to import it, and as I told one gentleman who spoke to me on the question, there are mechanics in our town who, during their long period of unemployment in the past year, had all they could do to keep their families without seeking charity, and they were obliged to buy oleomargarine, because they could not afford butter. If I went back to one

of these men who told me that he could not afford butter at 50 cents and therefore had to buy oleomargarine at 25 cents, he would naturally say to me: " Why did you vote for a law that took that substitute from my children's bread so that they have now to eat dry bread? Why did you do it? What answer could I make to such a query? I know that the hon. member (Mr. Neill) is a reasonable and rational man, and I ask him, how could I answer such a question? I simply could not. I would have voted for a duty, but not for the total prohibition of an article, thousands of tons of which were used in Great Britain as food during the war.

Mr. NEILL:

Does not that apply to binders also?

Mr. RAYMOND:

Yes, I think so. I would not vote for the total exclusion of binders. I never favoured the total exclusion of binders, and I never said it should be a crime in this country to make them. But I do say that a reasonable protection on binders is only rational and proper and right in order that we may have them made at our door and not be under the control of an American combine that could charge what price they choose, if those machines were not made in this country. Now, key industries are absolutely necessary, and hon. gentlemen must realize that they should be kept up. Not only for their own sake as well as for the sake of the country, but from their own selfish standpoint, they should cherish those industries.

Mr. BLACK (South Huron) :

Will the hon. gentleman allow a question?

Mr. RAYMOND:

Certainly-delighted.

Mr. BLACK (South Huron) :

You said a moment ago that with the duty taken off binder twine the manufacturers were all put out of business except three. How is it that the manufacturers of binders have all been put out of existence although the duty has been retained?

Mr. RAYMOND:

They have not all been put out of business.

Mr. BLACK (South Huron) :

Just as many as in the other case.

Mr. RAYMOND:

There is a very large concern in Hamilton called the International Harvester Company.

The Budget-Mr. Raymond