Mr. SPEAKER:

I would ask the hon. gentleman not to mention in the debate, mattters which are under consideration before a standing committee, the report of which is not yet before the House. That is one of the essential rules of debate.

Mr. MORRISON:

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The United States is to-day providing for farmers a service which land mortgage companies and banks cannot give. Banks require their money out on short-term loans, because they have big deposits of money that are due on demand. They are, therefore, obliged to keep their assets as liquid as possible, and they are not in a position to lend money on live stock for one or two years until the stock grows to maturity. Our land mortgage companies also cannot touch that business. There are many farmers who have plenty of feed, but who cannot use it on this account, and there is no margin for waste to-day in agriculture in Canada. Our country requires a system of intermediate credit, similar to the United States' system, to suit the requirements of our live stock men. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), in speaking the other day, scoffed at the idea of farmers consolidating their debts on the amortization plan. Why would that not be good business for farmers as well as for the British government? The British Government had their debts to the United States spread over a term of sixty years recently, and they are recognized as the best financiers in the world. What is our own government doing? It is not trying to pay off its debts in five years. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in fact all big companies, borrow money over a long term of years, and there is no possibility to-day of farmers being able to pay their debts off in a short term of years. Recently the Canadian Pacific set an example which shows some real appreciation of actual conditions in western Canada. They announced that they were calling in some 30,000 contracts outstanding with western fanners to whom they had sold land on a short term payment plan at 8 per cent interest. They are re-writing the contracts to extend over a period of thirty-four years on the amortization plan, where the interest and principle combined will not exceed 7 per cent. This is a lead for other big companies like the Hudson's Bay Company and many others that have made colossal fortunes out of Canada. Land mortgage companies and financial institutions that have big reserves, having put many people into a position out of which it is impossible for them to get, should compromise with them and make it possible for them to stay on their land. Most of this trouble has been caused by the aftermath of war, by uncontrollable conditions, and in war time we compromised with some of these companies and readjusted their bargains. Take the case of the Crowsnest pass agreement which was cancelled for a term.

The Budget-Mr. Morrison

The railways found out that they were up against uncontrollable, unexpected costs, and the position was compromised and rightly so. I do not know why the small man should not receive as fair treatment as the big corporation receives. I suggest that the government should take cognizance of the advice given recently by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), and put the fear of God into some of these companies, if they will not voluntarily compromise with these men, if, rather than compromise, they will drive men out of the country. The Shyloeks have had their day, and workmen and ordinary business men have had impossible conditions exacted of them. I hope the government will deal fairly and courageously with all sections and not permit these big corporations to jump on the farmers and reap the benefits of the compromise which the Canadian Pacific has made.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) told us the other day that he had faith in the intelligence and industry of our people; that he had faith in the people and faith in the resources of this Dominion. I would remind him that another authority said that "faith without works is dead." It is all right to have faith, but there has to be a little more than faith in order to get this mess cleaned up and things in working order again.

The Minister of Finance proposes to give bounties to companies manufacturing hemp and artifical silk, and also to the mining of copper. Non-resident capitalists can come into this country, get the ear of the government and secure big bounties. On the other hand, men who are resident in Canada and who have got into hard positions, cannot secure the ear of the government to receive any redress. These companies come into Canada, and without showing parliament that it is necessary for them to receive financial assistance in order that they may gain a footing, and make a success of their industry, they can secure a gift from the public treasury; they can get help. But we come here and present an irrefutable case, and yet we are not listened to. It is outrageous that this pernicious habit of doles to companies without their proving a good case before a committee of this House should continue. If an industry looks good to capital, capital will come and develop it. If it does not, capital will not come by bounties alone. This government proposes to put a bounty on copper of 9 per cent of the output. That would be equal to a bounty to of about 11 cents a bushel on wheat. Supposing we clamoured for a bounty of 11 cents a bushel on wheat,

what would our Conservative and Liberal friends think? They would think that we were unsound, and they would be right. We do not want a bounty for ourselves, and we do not want it for the other fellow. What right has the government, when parliament is in session, to grant such a favour to any company? A matter of that kind should be considered in this House. The hemp industry proposes to establish a factory somewhere near Winnipeg and it is to get a bounty of $200,000 a year, extending over five years, on an investment of $5,000,000. Take a $5,000,000 investment by settlers coming on to the land: they will not get a $200,000 bounty; they have a penalty of more than $200,000 imposed upon the necessaries of life which they have to purchase before they can start. This penalty is not sliding down; it is climbing up for five years, and there should be a reversal of this business. The bounty should be given to the actual men on the land. When we went out West and got free homesteads, we had to live on the land. A non-resident could not get a free homestead. Therefore, the actual settlers in this country, the actual citizens of Canada, should receive preference, if any preference is to be given. I do not ask for preference, but I do not want the other fellow to get it.

We Progressives have received lately from different quarters of the House a great deal of advice about how to manage our business. When men propose to give advice, they will surely be sporty enough to take a little. I wish to advise the hon gentlemen on the treasuo^ benches that their stock has gone down greatly in our estimation. Last year a plea was made for a little patience; we were asked to give the government a little time because they had undertaken a very intricate task, and new men were on the job who were faced with many difficulties. Last year's budget wras claimed to be a step in the right direction, the inference being, of course, that when this budget was brought down we could reasonably expect a further step along the same line. Alas, however, it has been a step backwards. To-day we are convinced that the grand old Liberal party is simply a replica of the party as it was constituted in 1911, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that grand old statesman attempted to give us a fair and generous reciprocity measure. At that time Sir Wilfrid and the country found that there were wolves in sheep's clothing in that party,-high protectionists, camouflaged Tories masquerading under false colours. The mask was torn off, and all the protectionists lined up in their own ranks, and defeated

2932 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Boss (Kingston)

that measure, which would have been of inestimable value to this country, to the banks, the railways, the manufacturers, the labourers, the farmers and the professional men. The interests of the citizens of this country are all bound up together. To-day we have hard times, and hon. gentlemen to my right are charged by the people with a fair share of responsibility for this condition. The onlp difference I see between the two parties i3 that the Conservative party is true to false principles while the Liberal party is false to true principles. The people are tired of public men who make fair promises at election time and then do as little as possible to carry out those promises, through fear of some powerful interest. Canada is looking to-day for men like Mr. E. C. Drury, who will fight public evils in and out of office, and who dares to do right, refusing to compromise with wrong. Many good Liberals believe that their platform of 1919 is treated by this goremmen; merely as a scrap of paper, and respect for public men and members of parliament has not been enhanced in the public mind by this last budget. In conclusion, I want to tell my hon. friends across the Floor that I believe their term of office will be brief, because of their failure to implement their pledges.

Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):

Knowing that there are quite a number of speakers to follow me and that this debate must terminate at a certain time, I shall make my remarks as short as possible and shall refer only to the budget. Following our principles as a party, we cannot support the amendment; therefore any remarks I have to offer will be confined to the budget. I have the same opinion as the last hon. member (Mr. Morrison) in regard to this statement of the Minister of Finance; I think it is altogether unsatisfactory and is not in keeping with the promises that his party has made. To me it seems to be nothing more than a political cenotaph of the party platform of 1919, The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), the Liberal member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) and the Liberal member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) have sealed the tomb of this old platform which is dead so far as the party is concerned. It is quite true that there is a voice, but it is only one lonely voice in the wilderness, preaching this old platform of 1919, and that comes from the distant land of Prince Edward Island. It is to be regretted that the budget has created a great gap, leaving I.O.U.'s for the future; we regret chat we cannot settle our own accounts but are leaving a large amount of these promis-

sory documents for the future generations to meet. The reasons given for this state of affairs have been general. It is perfectly true that conditions in Europe are largely responsible for business conditions throughout the world to-day. It is a matter for regret that peace does not exist between France and Germany and that the old struggle is still going on, so that the old spite will be aggravated and the dispute prolonged. In addition to this, Europe is to-day divided up into a large number of small states, and this policy can but protract the unrest and dissatisfaction that now exist. To my mind, we as a British race made a mistake in the peace that has been arrived at, for I think that we should have stuck to our policy of the supremacy of the British navy. I believe that the supremacy of the British navy is the best guarantee of peace that the world has ever had or will ever have, and we can only regret that to-day on the Pacific coast we have no authoritative voice. Chinese bandits may seize our citizens, detain them, and murder them, and we are speechless and even helpless, because, as a matter of fact, the British navy has no strength on the Pacific coast. Years ago, if such a thing had happened, Britain could have spoken with some authority, and a matter of this kind would have been settled very soon.

There is another matter of complaint which has been spoken of by many hon. members, and that is the present exodus of our citizens. We have passed through the Book of Genesis, built up the country, and made a confederation, and now it seems that we have reached the Book of Exodus. There is only one suggestion which appears to me to be practicable in this matter, and that is that the government should at once institute a bureau of information so that every settler going from Canada to the United States might be questioned as to his reasons for leaving the country. We should then know whether men were leaving on account of the lack of work or were going to the United States to secure higher wages. We might also secure information as to why men were coming to Canada from the United States. Our trade commissioners in other parts of the British Empire should be able to give us information as to why settlers from Great Britain and Ireland are going to Australia and New Zealand in preference to Canada. Knowing that these people are loyal to the Empire, and would not, except for some good reason, prefer one part of it to another, we naturally ask ourselves this question; is the practice which now prevails of moving motions in this House of Commons for the purposes of disbanding the

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)

Royal Canadian Mounted Police, of doing away with military training, and of curtailing our naval activities, having some effect on those people who would likely settle in this country? This question naturally suggests itself to our minds: Are we doing any good to the people who would like to come to Canada from the great heart of the Empire, by moving such motions in this House and having them appear on our order paper?

There is another cause of complaint which perhaps will have little weight with the government, and that is the matter of party pledges and promises to the people of this country. During the last election the workingman and the poor man were promised that they would have cheaper food. What has been the fact? Last year a reduction was made on cocoa and liquid medicines. This year, according to the member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) the government have gone one step further; they have reduced sugar somewhat, knowing that the price of sugar would jump away up beyond all expectation; but they have added to the liquid medicines. They have also given the workingmen and the poor people of the country an opportunity of buying brandy and sparkling wines at reduced prices. These fulfilments of the promises to the poor man are causing a great deal of complaint. There is no question that the prices of food to-day are not going down. In confirmation of this I may quote the prices of meats for 1921 and 1922 contained in tenders called for by a certain institution. In 1921 best breakfast bacon cost 30 cents; in 1922, 32 cents. In 1921 the best beef cost 16 cents; in 1922, 18 cents. In 1921 sausage cost 15 cents, and the same price prevailed in 1922. Smoked ham in 1921 cost 23 cents and in 1922, 28 cents. These prices are per pound, of course. These are merely a few instances; but if one goes through these lists it will be found that in nearly every case the price is up rather than down. So that the workingman has very little to be thankful for in last year's budget and in this. *

There is another cause of complaint. We do not usually grumble about the cost if a suitable service is given in return; but unfortunately the money taken from the pockets of the people is not being returned in the shape of suitable service. The first complaint I shall refer to is in regard to agriculture-the expense of the tuberculin test. Nobody seems to get any benefit from this expenditure. No encouragement is given to the farmer who has his herds regularly tested in order to keep them free of tuberculosis, for he gets no better price for his milk than the farmer who

does not trouble to have his cows tested. Money should be spent to ensure that every man who wishes to have his herd tested should get the benefit of this service.

Another source of complaint has already been referred to by a member from the government side, and that is the cost of special delivery of letters. I have many complaints in regard to this service. We pay heavy charges for the service and get very poor returns. When a man affixes a special delivery stamp on his letter he expects delivery will be made immediately the letter reaches the post office at the other end; but frequently delivery is not made for several hours afterwards, in many cases not much ahead of the regular delivery. These complaints are very general, and this service should be speeded up and be made what it purports to be- a special delivery service.

Complaint is also made regarding the large amount of money expended for military training. If we had adequate military training in return for this expenditure, well and good; but unfortunately we do not get anything like the proper equivalent, and I am surprised that the departmental officials informed the minister that last year's training was satisfactory.

I know for a fact that it was not, and I may add that under present conditions it never will be satisfactory. Military training, to be of any use, should have two objects in view: first, to train the rank and file, and, second, to train a staff. Now, there is only one way in which you can train a staff, and that is by having training camps where all branches of the service are assembled. A properly trained staff is indispensable and during the late war we had to have British staff officers attached to our brigades and divisions to supply our deficiency in this branch. I am not advocating an increased expenditure, but I do not think we gain very much from our present local system of military training-a squadron of cavalry here and a battalion of infantry there. We should have in certain parts of the Dominion central training camps where 4 p.m. all branches of the service would be brought together and where those of our officers who wish to go on staff service could get the necessary training. An efficient staff officer must have experience in every branch of the service, otherwise his training i incomplete and he cannot possibly measure up to the duties of his profession. We are certainly not getting an adequate return for the money we are spending to-day on military training, and I throw the suggestion out to the government that they should as soon as possible establish large camps where all

The Budget-Mr. Ross

(Kingston)

branches of the service may be assembled and where officers may be properly trained for etaff service.

I think the country is waking up to the fact that if we can do without cabinet ministers for three or four months while parliament is sitting, we can get along very well without them for the rest of the year. During the session cabinet ministers are required if at any time at all, and if we can go through a whole session without three or four cabinet ministers, surely the question must arise in the minds of the people: Are all these cabinet ministers required?

Changes in our income tax law have been suggested from time to time, and I propose to refer to one particular change which was suggested last session, but so far nothing has been done in the direction indicated. Under the income tax regulations a widow is granted exemption of SI,000 and a married woman $2,000. Why should such a difference exist? In many cases widows are continuing their homes and their household expenses are a heavy burden upon them, and there seems to be no reason why they should be discriminated against to the extent of $1,000. This matter was brought to the attention of the government last year, and I hope it will now be taken into consideration and both classes be placed on an equal basis.

Now, coming to reciprocity-

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

Hear, hear.

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

The hon. gentleman may not say "hear, hear" when he hears what I have to say, and that is that I am not at all in favour of reciprocity. I will tell you why. Reciprocity brings us into association with the United States in many ways, and I am going to point out how we have come under the influence of our neighbours to the south, and not always to our benefit. In our school system we have been dominated by the influence of the United States, and to-day the boy of poor parents is practically cut out from the technical courses. In my time a boy could take four years in medicine and graduate. In the past we have had some very, very successful physicians as the result of that four years' training. During the four years the boy was able to go out and earn money to put him through his course. Personally that was my experience. I had to put myself through college and earn the necessa'ry money to do so. To-day the course takes six or seven years. This is altogether due to the influence of the United States, to our trying to imitate their system. With the lengthened course the term

has also been extended so that the boy has veiy little opportunity of earning his expenses, and consequently the boys of poor parents are practically excluded from these branches of study-all because of the influence of the United States over our school system.

Then, too, we have come under the influence of the United States in the standardization of our hospitals. And what has it cost us? We have followed their advice under the Rockefeller Foundation and have built up hospitals according to their standardization. This has resulted in a very expensive system of hospitals, a system not at all intended for our use, a system where the poor man has to attend the public wards and take the doctors in those wards, and all simply to fulfil American ideas of standardization in hospitals.

In addition to that, our political and our social system have altogether been dominated by the United States, and to-day people are doing nothing else in towns but weighing and measuring babies to see if they come up to certain standards. This is a social service that is altogether due to the influence of the United States, and it is dominated by them. Lastly, I do not think that this country of ours is to be at all benefited by the moral influence which would come from the United States.

If you take eastern Ontario, for instance, they have had a great loss in their cheese and butter trade through the influence of the United States, and the high price which they at one time got for their cream has lately been cut down and the farmers are left drifting. In all these ways the United States has had an influence over us which has not been at all beneficial to us. I believe that we can go on by ourselves and build up our own trade without throwing our doors open to these people. Our position is not so bad as some people are crying it to be. The position of Canada to-day as a whole is not one that we need regret. If you look over the list of our products-I have taken only a few of them-in wheat, Canada is third in acreage, being headed by the United States and India only, and in production it takes the same place. In oats Canada is second in production, and the second in acreage. In potatoes we fall down a bit to seventh in acreage, and fifth in production. In live stock there are only three or four countries ahead of us in the number of horses raised, and the same with cattle. We have a field crop valued at over $1,400,000,000. Our manufactures amount each year to over $3,000,000,000. We have live stock amounting to over $1,000,000,000.

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud

That is a condition that we need not cry about. It is a very successful condition, and I do not know if our friends to my left- I am not offering any criticism of the group system; I do not go that far; if the group system will benefit us, well and good, let it come-but this is a general condition of the country that I do not think our friends to my left could improve on if they were in power. All told we have a condition that is very .favourable, and I have confidence in the future. Like the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond), my confidence is largely in the people that we have. We must have confidence in our people. The people who are building up this country have never failed in any crisis, neither has the stock they sprang from ever failed in the past. Even when almost hopelessly beaten, with their faces to the foe and their backs to the wall they determined never to give up but to go on. The blood stream of this people is coming, and has come, from the centre of the great Empire to which we belong. Their hopes in that Empire are ours; their ideals are ours, and the hope of the future lies in a strong connection with that same blood stream, no matter whether it is found in Great Britain or Ireland, in Australia or New Zealand, in India, Africa or the isles of the sea. We need no other reciprocity than a strong confidence in that race and a strong connection in the future with that race.

I have confidence also in that other great race in this country, the French-Canadian. I have just as strong a confidence in the courage and the bravery of that race. History has never shown them to be thoroughly beaten. They proved their patriotism at Chateauguay and other scenes of struggle. In the Great War it was my experience to have about fifty or sixty of these French-Cana-dians in my unit, and I well remember that Sunday night in the middle of the gas attack when these men who belonged to the transport column of my unit and had no reason whatever to place themselves in the front rank, came to me and said, "Here, all our stretcher bearers are about finished. Will you give us a chance?" Fifteen or sixteen of them went up to the front as stretcher bearers and before morning five of them were dead, two of them died within twelve hours, and the rest were shot to pieces. With an experience of that kind one can well have confidence in these two great races making a country of which we shall all some day be very proud.

Mr. J. G. ROBICHAUD (Gloucester):

In rising, Mr. Speaker, to continue this debate

it is not my intention to add very extensively to what has already been said. I am rath&r inclined to express the wish that we should end this long debate and get down to the real business of the country with all possible speed. For the past four months apart from look'ng after the best interests of my constituents, a task which in itself was not such an easy one, I have endeavoured to follow the debates of this House in detail. I have thus been more of a looker-on than a participant in our deliberations, and at times, Mr. Speaker, I was inclined to believe that from some sections of this House there was more talk than real action. It is for this reason that I shall refrain from any lengthy discussion at this stage.

I am very sorry that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is not in his seat for I wanted to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate him bn the great wisdom he has shown in the preparation of this budget. Few men in this country can command in the same degree the admiration and confidence of the nation. He is a man with long years of experience. He has had a long life which he has devoted to the best interests of this country, and I can only wish him a still long and happy career filled with all the joys and contentment that could be wished for him.

In sizing up the political situation in this country there is one movement which gives rise to a great deal of speculation, and that is the political movement of our friends directly opposite-the Progressives. As a new member of this House I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should be open to conviction in so far as the best interests of our country are concerned. To a young man brought up in the democratic atmosphere of Liberalism the prima facie evidence adduced by our highly educated friends has "been somewhat seductive But, Sir, the more I study the political policies enunciated by our friends the

more I become convinced of the futility of their efforts. I am ready to recognize the high and noble aspirations that prompt the efforts of our friends of the Progressive party. They certainly mean well; but unfortunately for themselves, and for the vast interests which they represent, it would appear to me that their actions are ill-advised and the manner in which they propose to carry out their object is somewhat inconsistent with the end in view. They have repeatedly told us of the conditions which prevail in me western provinces. Well, to a large extent we are ready to admit the truth of what they say, but the remedy does not lie in adopting the programme which they propose,

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud

but rather in adhering to sound national policies, policies thought out by the men who have seen the growth of this nation in all its phases. Sir, we want in this country of ours that spirit of nationhood which is so essential in the building up of a new country. We cannot permit class legislation. Whatever course we may pursue in our deliberations it must be one that is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. It is all very well to express an opinion on the present economic difficulties in Canada, but surely there is no reason for shouting from the housetops that blue ruin is at our door. Pessimists and quitters have been too free in their gloomy expressions. If I wanted to draw an exaggerated picture of the conditions in the Maritime provinces I would have no difficulty whatever in out-rivalling some of my extreme friends opposite. But, Sir, were I to do that I should be paying scant justice to the courage and the energy of the people of that part of Canada. The population of those provinces is endowed with more courage and more resourpe-fulness than any other people that I know of. Descending as they do from the pioneers who have experienced the hardships of primitive conditions in this country, that sturdy Scotch blood of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the industrious loyalists of New Brunswick, as well as that nucleus of the French race, the Acadians, of the Maritime provinces, would not flinch from the difficulties of the hour. We have confidence in the future of our country, we believe that its prosperity is sure. We may be mistaken but we feel that the time is not ripe for any drastic change in our national policv.

Our friends directly opposite have suggested b. great many reforms in order to relieve our national troubles which, if put into practice, would inevitably kill the very object they have in view. In other words, it seems to me that tho remedy they propose would be worse than the disease. It is not the first time in our history that conditions have been admittedly unsatisfactory. Prior to the year 1896 there existed in Canada a condition of affairs which was none too good. There was a distinct period of depression. The ship of state was grounded and its crew, many of whom were in the state of mutiny, were leisurely awaiting the rising tide to refloat it. Happily the people realized the seriousness of the situation and handed over the administration of national affairs to the Liberal party under the direction of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The change of government was soon followed by a change for the better

throughout the country. Throughout the length and breadth of Canada a revival of business took place and such an expansion of trade, such a growth of population and settlement that before long two new provinces had to be created. Soon after the late war conditions again changed for the worse. In 1921 Canada again experienced conditions similar to those which existed in 1896. Once more the ship of state was found to be badly equipped and its boatswain sleeping at the rudder. But to-day we are once more feeling the benefits of a change of government and under the Liberal regime we are proceeding again on the road to prosperity.

Sir, if the trade of the nation is in any way indicative of prosperity may I be permitted to quote a few figures showing that we are regaining our former prosperous position as a country. In the fiscal year ending March 31,

1922, largely in consequence of policies pursued by the Conservatives, our imports amounted to $747,804,300. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1923, however, those imports had increased to $802,465,000, an increase over the year 1922 of $54,660,700. For the year 1922 our exports amounted to $740,240,700 as against a total of $931,451,400 for 1923, an increase for the latter year of $191,210,700, oi a total increase in the business of the country for 1923 as compared with 1922 of some $245,871,400. In other words our trade has increased during the last year by almost twenty per ceDt as compared with the previous twelve months. The expansion of trade for the year

1923, over that of 1922, was larger than the total business of Canada for the year 1896-7 by some $15,000,000. Furthermore, taking the first month of the present fiscal year we find that our imports for that month, the month of April, reached the figure of $68,181,300, as against $47,695,400 for the same month of 1922, an increase of over $20,000,000. Our exports have increased in the same proportion. For the month of April 1922, our exports amounted to $31,917,500, and our exports for April last amounted to $53,642,250, or an increase for April 1923 over April 1922 of $21,724,750. Thus we see that the increase in Canada's external trade for the last month over the corresponding month of the previous year was some $42,210,650 or an increase of over fifty per cent. Furthermore it will be seen by these figures that in 1921 there was a balance of trade against us of sixty million dollars. In 1922 the balance of trade against us was reduced to seven million dollars, and in 1923, our last fiscal year, the balance of trade Was converted into a balance in our favour of some $131,000,000.

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud

Mr. Speaker, these figures of Canada's trade do not show any sign of hardship. There is no reason to be alarmed when we can present such a prospectus of the business of this country, when you can show that for the first month of our fiscal year the business of the country had increased by some 50 per cent. Now I want to show there is no reason for alarm and that, perhaps, we have been subjected to a little too much pessimism on the part of our friends. I wish to read a portion of an article from the Ottawa Journal of 4th May last. This article deals with the Banking and Commerce committee. As the report of this committee has not yet been presented, I shall refrain from dealing with it, but if the House will permit me, I will read a portion of this article. It says:

No good comes from ignoring facts. But what is the sense of magnifying evils, of arguing from the exceptional, of refusing to see things as a whole? It is true that we are passing through a depression. It is true that agriculture as being hit. But will anybody hold that we are not better off than most of the rest of the world, that labor and industry and agriculture in Canada are not as prosperous, as in most other countries? In Europe, nations are dogged by shadows; turbulence, economic dislocation, debt and impoverishment are their lot. In Canada we know little of such hardships. We have social and industrial tranquility our trade is reviving; our reconstruction problems diminish; there is a minimum of unemployment. Why, then, should we permit a few individuals, whom fortuitous circumstances have brought into Parliament, to keep shouting "wolf," or the summoning of witnesses before special committees to tell the world that our economic structure is trembling?

I believe, Air. Speaker, that this is only a fair statement to make on the present situation. I am not quite in love with the long deliberations of the committee on Banking and Commerce, I believe the generosity of the government in this respect has been abused by those of my hon. friends opposite who have been instrumental in all these long deliberations. I think after all we should trust to the wisdom and sagacity of the party of whom I am a supporter.

It affords a great deal of satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, to hear the announcement made in the budget speech of the reduction of the British preferential tariff, especially when we consider that, from this reduction, special preferment has been given to Canadian ports. This is a case of obtaining something for what we give. This was one of the fundamental principles underlying the reciprocity pact of 1911, and in my humble judgment this principle should form the very basis of our national policy. The announcement that negotiations were already on foot with a view to another reciprocity treaty with the United States has been received with a great

deal of satisfaction. Our friends opposite would like to have us tear down our tariff walls without getting anything in return. While it is true that by that policy some immediate relief would result in some sections of the country, we must not lose sight of the fact that Canada must have access to the markets of the world. This is the one essential point that must be borne in mind in the revision of our fiscal policy. Trade negotiations have become a factor of the greatest importance, and I sincerely express the hope that they will be adhered to for generations to come. Suppose, for instance, that one of our western farmers, or a farmer in this province, for example, woke up one morning to find the fences dividing his farm from that of his neighbour so constructed as to allow the neighbour's herds to pass to his farm and pasture, so that they could graze in his pasture with the farmer's own herd, and that there would be no possibility of the herds passing to the other farm and, of course, no chance of the farmer receiving reciprocal advantages; would not the farmer who was placed in that position consider it a very unjust state of affairs? I do not believe he would tolerate it. With this Canada of ours, with the large imaginary boundary between our country and the large country to the south of us. I believe that we must establish some sort of a treaty, or business arrangement, by which we can have access to the markets of the immense population of that country. Our geographical situation is a unique one. We cannot compare our situation, as has been done by my hon. friends at the other end of the room, with that of the British Empire. Others have tried to compare our situation with that of Australia. While our industries may resemble one another, yet there is this one inevitable reason why we should establish a different national policy; there is our geographical situation It has been known that the trade of a country can hardly move from east to west, but there is a natural tendency for traffic and immigration to move from north to south. Therefore, all those circumstances have to be overcome and we must adhere to the national policy of the country, a policy such as has been established in Canada.

I desire to crave the indulgence of this House in expressing my view in regard to Canadian sea ports on which I have already made some remarks in connection with the British preference. The hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Kellner) the other day had a dream. He undoubtedly was dreaming about an era of prosperity in Canada, and

:938

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud

in his dream he inquired of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) as to the possibility of opening up new ports in eastern Canada in view of the announcement made in the budget speech. There are times when dreams come true, and if there was the realization of one dream which would be for the benefit of the Canadian nation as a whole, it would be the realization of that part of my hon. friend's dream which conveyed his mind to the Atlantic seaboard of Canada.

We have on the Atlantic coast several natural ports awaiting development. We have at the entrance of the Bay of Fundy several ports which are still undeveloped. I was going to dwell quite extensively on those ports; but I was glad when I came to my seat the other day, to find that the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer) had discussed the very point which I had intended to bring before the House. I can assure my hon. friend that I heartily concur in everything he said. The development of ports on both the eastern and the western coasts of Canada should constitute a part of our national policy. There is in my constituency, the constituency of Gloucester one of the finest seaports on the Atlantic, situated as it is at the entrance to the Baie des Chaleurs and at the terminus of the Caraquet railway, a line that is now owned and operated by the state, the harbour of Shippigan offers splendid facilities for development.

Many hon. members have said that the Hudson Bay scheme should be adhered to. While I admit that the accomplishment of this scheme would be to the great benefit of the western farmer, provided always that this scheme could be made feasible, yet I must impress upon this government the importance of giving this matter all due consideration. In view of the fact that it would involve navigation in the icy waters of Hudson bay, I am of opinion that this scheme is too dangerous for our nation to indulge in. If the farmers of the West consider the disadvantages of the Hudson Bay scheme, they will soon find that they have nothing to gain, In the first place I am told that the expenditure of vast sums of money would be required to construct that part of the road which is not yet completed. If we consider the great amount of money which this country would have to invest in the building of such a road; if we reckon the interest on that amount; if we add to this the cost of equipment and maintenance, the cost of improving the harbours in Hudson bay, the extra cost of vessels specially built to navigate the icy

waters of Hudson bay, the extra ocean freight rates and-this is a most important item for our friends of the West-the extra insurance which they would have to pay on their shipments; if all these extra costs to be borne by our farmers and the extra expenditure of money which would be necessary on the part of the government are put together and given to the western farmer in the shape of a reduction in freight rates as against the high rates; if the farmers were to consider the expenses of the other route. I believe that, after all, it would be seen that it would pay the wheat grower of western Canada to ship by way of eastern harbours.

Someone may tell us that our harbours cannot handle the western wheat; that the equipment in eastern harbours will be inadequate to handle such immense quantities of wheat. As I have already said, we have on the Atlantic coast numerous harbours which are still undeveloped. Montreal and Quebec already have up-to-date equipment, and during the summer time they can handle a great deal of freight. Halifax and St. John also have splendid facilities for shipment. Why should we plunge into such a scheme as the establishment of a Hudson bay route?-a route, which, after all, could be used for only five or six weeks, possibly two months at the utmost with convenience, and perhaps, in the face of exceedingly uncontrollable difficulties, for three or four months of the year? As against this project, if our eastern harbours 'are inadequate, we can use some of our undeveloped harbours, and while I am speaking of these harbours, I want to put before this government the advantages offered by the port of Shippigan. In the first place, there would be very little if any construction of new railways; these would only consist of spur lines to deep water terminus. The road is already built and it is operated by the state. Little or no dredging is required. There will be found in that locality plenty of labour at a low rate; the insurance is not high, and this harbour offers the shortest possible route to the European coast.

To show this House that this scheme has been long thought of, I want to read an extract from the report of our famous national engineer Sir Sandford Fleming, a report which dates as far back as 1865 or two years prior to confederation. This report is a fairly lengthy one, and it deals very extensively with the diffeient proposed routes to the European market. As regards the port of Shippigan, Sir Sandford Fleming says in part:

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud

Under these circumstances, it is too apparent that the Intercolonial railway may find in the United States route a formidable rival for Canad'an passenger traffic to and from Europe, by way of Halifax.

It will be noted here that at that particular time the question of passenger transportation was one which was receiving the most careful attention of our statesmen, and there was speculation as to whether the port of Halifax would be used, or whether American ports would be resorted to. The report continues:

Fortunately, with a view to counteract this difficulty, a line by the Ray Chaleurs would offer special advantages, which may here be noticed. The chart which accompanies this will show that the entrance to the Bay Chaleurs is so situated, geographically, that while it is about as near Europe as the entrance to Halifax Harbour, it is, at the same time, several hundredt miles nearer Montreal and all points west of that city.

Some of the projected lines of railway touch the Bay Chaleurs at Dalhousie and at Bathurst; the latter place is not admitted to be suitable for the purposes of steam navigation, and the former, although in possession of a fine sheet of water, well sheltered and accessible at all conditions of the tide, is, nevertheless, from its position at the extreme westerly end of the Bay, farther inland than might be wished. In order to reduce the steamship passage to a minimum, it is desirable to have the point of embarkation as far easterly as possible, and, therefore, the existence of a commodious harbor near the entrance of the Bay is of no little importance. A place named Shippigan-

It will be recalled that in those days Shippigan was hardly on the map; to-day it is a fishing port with a population of some 5,300 persons.

A place named Shippigan, on the southerly side of the entrance of the Bay Chaleurs, appears to have many of the requisites of a good harbor. It is thus spoken of in the reports on the Sea and River Fisheries of New Brunswick, published under the authority of the legislature of that province.

Great Shippigan Harbor

This spacious harbor is formed between Shippigan and Pooksoudie Island and the mainland. It comprises three large and commodious harbors [DOT] first, the great inlet of Lameque, in Shippigan Island, the depth of water into which is from four to six fathoms; second, the extensive and well-sheltered sheet of water called St. Simon's Inlet, the channel leading to which, between Pookshoudie Island and the main is one mile in width, with seven fathoms water from side to side. The principal entrance from the Bay Chaleur has not less than five fathoms on the bar-

I may point out here that this is the only bar at the entrance of Shippigan harbour, at which at low tide there is five fathoms of water. To continue: ,

The principal entrance from the Bay Chaileurs has not less than five fathoms on the bar, inside which, within the harbor, there are six and seven fathoms, up to the usual loading place in front of Messrs Moore and Harding's steam saw mill at the village; from thence to the gully, there is about three fathoms of water only.

This is a small entrance to the eastern side [DOT]of Shippigan harbour and it is used only by

our fishermen with their small craft. The main entrance is on the western side, leading into the entrance of the Bay of Chaleur.

Vessels within the harbor of Shippigan have good anchorage, are quite safe with every wind, and can load in the strongest gale. The rise and fall of the tide is about seven feet.

"The noble haven called St. Simon's Inlet, the shores of which are almost wholly unsettled and in a wilderness state, runs several miles into the land, maintaining a good depth of water almost to its western extremity.

Duncan McNeil, an old pilot, frequently employed on the government steamers, when calling at New Brunswick ports, describes Shippigan as a good harbor, with plenty of water, regular soundings and tough blue clay holding ground, indeed where vessels would be perfectly secure in any storm. He says that he could take a ship of heavy draught into it in any weather, by night or by day; that in dirty or dark weather, he would go entirely by the lead.

Of course, these are the views of an oldtime mariner and it is not likely that the lead would be used nowadays; they follow gas buoys and other modem signals.

Others describe Shippigan Harbor as unobjectionable. The Admiralty Chart seems to agree in the main with the descriptions above given; it shows that the area of the basin, embracing only the water over the three-fathom line at low tide, is about two and a half square miles; a sheet about double the size of Halifax Harbor between St. George Island and the narrows to Bedford Basin. The only objectionable feature seems to be the channel at the entrance, which is about three miles long, to the basin, a little crooked, and at present without leading marks.

As I have po nted out, the engineers make mention of the eastern entrance, but that i.-used only by our fishermen.

It is, however, about half a mile in width, free from all obstructions, the depth varying from five to nine fathoms at low water. There is good warning by the lead in the channel and the approaches to it..

It would appear from the above, therefore, that Shippigan Sound presents a favourable opportunity for form ng a traffic connection between the Intercolonial Railway and Ocean Steamers.

As to the geographical situation of the harbour, I have already stated that it is situated at the terminus of the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway, which now forms a part of the Intercolonial. The distance from Shippigan to Liverpool via Belle Isle is 2,318 miles, whereas the distance from Halifax to the same point by Cape Race is 2,466 miles, or a difference in favour of Shippigan by the Strait of Belle Isle, of more than 148 miles; and via Cape Race from Shippigan, the distance being 2,493 miles, there is a difference of 27 miles in favour of Halifax. As against these ocean distances we find that Shippigan harbour is situated 419 miles from Quebec whereas Halifax is 685 miles from that point, or a difference of 256 miles. The report then goes on to show the distance between Halifax and points west via Bangor, Maine, but I do not

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud

believe that these routes are utilized at the present time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have adopted a national railway policy and I believe that we should observe its real intent and purpose. Our railways cannot be made to pay if they are used to divert traffic to other roads and to foreign ports.

This question of seaports suggests to my mind something else. It has been said that the Fordney-McCumber tariff has rendered the market of some 110,000,000 people inaccessible to our fishermen in regard to many varieties of fish. Furthermore, consequent upon the removal of certain war-time measures, our American friends have closed their ports tight to our fishing vessels, also as a direct result of the Fordney-McCumber tariff our dried fish are excluded from the Porto Rico market. We in the Maritime provinces have some $20,000,000 invested in the fishing industry, and many thousand families depend upon the industry for a livelihood. Our situation is somewhat abnormal at the present time, but if we are to outlive these difficulties we must guard our industries against protected competition. I have no desire to call for drastic measures against our American friends, but I feel that the time is now opportune for the revocation of the modus vivendi which was established in 1880.

Conditions in the Maritime provinces are ' not perhaps just as we would like them to be to-day. Of course we deprecate irresponsible talk of secession, but, after all, this talk is caused by unrest, and I believe we should adhere, in so far as the status of the Maritime provinces is concerned, to the provisions of the British North America Act; in other words, I believe the terms of confederation should be held sacred in the shrine of this nation. It is only in this way that we can hope to maintain the firmness of our aspirations, the integrity of our manners and customs, and joy and felicity of our social life.

Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (West Kootenay):

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to contribute a few remarks to this debate. First, because otherwise I would be remiss in my duty to my constituents; secondly, on account of several questions that have been disposed of by this House and to which I might be considered as tacitly assenting; and thirdly, on account of the geographical position of my constituency, I think a better understanding will result by my bringing to the notice of the House some of the local conditions, and thereby I shall be doing a duty not only to my constituency but to the Dominion at large.

I wish to associate myself with all the complimentary remarks that have been extended to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). As a young member of this House I can say that he commands the highest esteem and respect of every member, and I trust that he may be long spared to enjoy the comforts and pleasures of this life which he has so well earned and is so abundantly entitled to.

Since becoming a member of this House I have felt that there is perhaps a lack of knowledge in the eastern and central provinces regarding the westerly provinces. I am strongly of opinion that every member should have as intimate a knowledge as possible of the whole Dominion, but particularly of the far westerly provinces, because many times in

5 p.m. the course of debate in this House I have been struck by the fact that some members did not fully understand the conditions that exist in the far West. Perhaps this is because a good many people in the East have not had the opportunity of visiting the West; on the other hand, a large percentage of the population of British Columbia, for instance, is made up of those who originally lived in the East, and through business and holiday trips to their old homes they are fairly conversant with conditions in the other provinces. Therefore, I feel that it is the duty of every representative in this parliament to give the closest personal study to conditions throughout the whole Dominion.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps a few of the remarks I am about to make may be in a somewhat different tone from those of my good friends with whom I am associated, but in what I am going to say I believe I shall express the sentiments of my constituents. I shall speak in a somewhat optimistic vein, but this optimism I hope to demonstrate is well-founded and I trust my remarks will not be considered as in any way too provincial or too sectional. In reviewing for a moment a few of the assets and resources of British Columbia I wish to emphasize their diversity. It has been many times expressed in this corner of the House that the West is entirely a wheatgrowing country. This, of course, applies in great measure to the prairie provinces, and while we all recognize the vast importance of the wheat production of the West, we must also realize that the province of British Columbia contributes its share of the national wealth in other forms. We in British Co lumbia are fully aware of the unsatisfactory conditions existing in Canada to-day, particularly in respect to agriculture, and believing that the producer and the consumer have very much in common, it is the wish of the

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey

people in my constituency to co-operate as far as we possibly can to bring about legislation that will be beneficial to both, and at the same time develop our national resources for the benefit of the Dominion as a whole.

Let me review very briefly some of the assets of the province of British Columbia. We have a wonderful climate, fertile land, minerals, timber and fishing resources, water powers and many other assets that go to make up not only a farming but an industrial province-not forgetting the seaport of Vancouver that is available for shipping the year round. Although the per capita debt is very high I feel sure that 99 per cent of our population are looking forward to the future with every confidence and a spirit of hope, and they are ready and willing to co-operate with the other provinces of the Dominion with a view to making Canada more prosperous and a better country in every way.

I would like to touch on a few features oi national legislation. The statement has been made in this House that the British Columbia members are a unit on all questions that arise here pertaining to British Columbia. That is quite true in some cases, but not in all. The one topic on which the members for British Columbia are unanimous is the question of Asiatic immigration, or the exclusion of orientals. This is a question that has already been passed upon by this House, which has given assent to a bill affecting the immigration of Asiatics, and I know that that action will meet -with the approval of the people of British Columbia. I believe as do all other British Columbians that it is a step in the right direction, one that will lead eventually to the exclusion of Asiatics.

Before going on to discuss the budget, I should like to refer very briefly to some of the questions that pertain particularly to the province of British Columbia. There have been quite a number of questions discussed in this House and bills passed, and at times it has been impossible for the members from the different provinces to be present in the House and take part in all the discussions. In that way one may perhaps be taken as having given silent assent to the legislation that has been passed and to the disposal of these questions, whereas if one had been in the House he would have been able to explain the position he takes on any question on behalf of the district he represents. British Columbia, particularly the district I represent, . is a mountainous country, and our towns and cities and villages are situated at varying altitudes, some as high as five and six thousand feet, others at an altitude of one thousand or twelve hundred feet; but being

situated in the heart of the Rockies we are labouring under difficulties that differ from those of other parts of the Dominion, parti-cularlj' the prairie provinces. For the past few years the federal government have seen fit to give aid to the provinces in the building of highways, the aid being given in proportion to the population of the province. The aid that has been given in that respect has been welcomed by the province of British Columbia. It has been a means of opening up and developing the province, providing better communication perhaps than could be had by railways. It has enabled the province to build highways that will eventually connect up with our national highway. It has been of great advantage to the farming community, and particularly to those settled in the outlying districts. This federal aid has now been eliminated, and I wish to urge upon the government that every consideration possible should be given to assisting the province of British Columbia in this regard. I understand that some provinces have not used up their quota of money provided for this purpose, but British Columbia's quota was used up some time ago, and the federal aid that has been given has proved of great assistance particularly in opening up a southern international road extending to the boundary line and the state of Washington. This was referred to, I believe, last year bjr the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mc-Quarrie). In respect to the action taken by the electors in that district I can onfy say that although the plans and specifications for that particular highway were not sent on to Ottawa in time to receive the federal assistance, nevertheless the province has taken upon itself to go ahead and complete that highway. It is expected to be opened up this year and will connect up with many other roads in that district and provide communication into other parts of the province. While on this point I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for New Westminster in this connection last year. I am sorry he is not in his seat. In his remarks in the budget debate the hon. member for New Westminster referred to certain action taken by the electors of Revelstoke and Nelson and went on to say in Hansard, 1922, p. 2238:

They absolutely bribed the electors of that country. I do not like to go too far. There are a lot of other things I could say in this connection but I will let things go just as they are as to this particular matter.

I resent those words of the hon. member for New Westminster. As the representative of that district I feel that the electors in the vicinity of Nelson and in the vicinity of

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey

Revelstoke have not at any time been bribed upon any question. I believe they are perfectly capable of judging on the merits of each question as it arises, and that they are competent to judge for themselves. I resent the suggestion of the hon. member that they are capable of being bribed.

I would like to refer for a moment to Bill No. 43, an act to amend the Canada Temperance Act. I wish to dissociate myself from the views expressed upon that question by my hon. friends to my right. I was unable to be present when the discussion on this bill took place, a measure which affects the entire province of British Columbia, but speaking for my own particular district, I believe the people there will commend the action of this House in passing that measure. The people of British Columbia have already decided to place the handling of the liquor question in the hands of the provincial authorities; and the residents of my district, particularly the farmers and labouring classes, feel that any legislation that will assist in curtailing the illegitimate sale of intoxicating liquors will be a step in the right direction.

British Columbia is a young province and its population is, as yet, very small. Therefore I think public sentiment in that province favours a policy of immigration. I can only speak for my own district and public opinion there is in favour of immigration, because in that part of the province there is a great deal of fertile land available for settlement. In that connection I may be asked whether the present condition of the fruit growers of British Columbia is satisfactory. As far as my knowledge goes that condition is not as good as it might be but I believe that matters will right themselves shortly and that the fruit growers will work out a system that will be beneficial to themselves and to the consumers in other parts of the Dominion. In the district which I represent there is an abundance of good land available for settlement, and there are many openings and opportunities for settlers. I should explain that the fruit growers do not confine themselves exclusively to farming or fruit growing but extend their activities in other directions. They will, I think, before long be working under more settled conditions, and a sagacious policy of immigration will be welcomed by them as likely to promote the settlement of the vacant lands and aid in the further development of the province. The machinery necessary is already in existence in the Kootenay district. Railway communication has been provided, there are good opportunities for settlers, and a sane and sound policy of immigration

will undoutedly be productive of the best results.

It is unfortunate that in the discussions that have so far taken place here this session no reference, or very little, has been made to questions affecting our returned men. Last session a special committee was appointed by the House to deal with these matters, and I believe such action met with the approval of the country as a whole. During the recess a royal commission was appointed to investigate and report upon many complaints in regard to the treatment of the ex-service men. That commission has reported on certain phases of the inquiry, and has made a number of recommendations. Nevertheless a feeling of dissatisfaction exists throughout the country. I believe the case of the ex-service men should be seriously considered by this House and such action taken as the facts call for. In view of the prevailing discontent in the country, not only on the part of the ex-service men but in the mind of the public as a whole, I deem it desirable to place on record one or two resolutions. I deem this to be only an act of justice to the organizations that have forwarded them. Bor example I have here a resolution forwarded by The Canadian Legion, Victoria Post, No. 1, Victoria, B. C. which reads as follows:

Whereas since the sittings of the Royal Commission on Pensions, the Pension Board has, if possible, acted in a more arbitrary and unfair manner than ever before, and whereas many deserving cases have been refused pensions or other relief asked for:

And whereas it is creditably reported that it is the avowed intention of the Pension Board to challenge the re.port of the Royal Commission;

And whereas such an attitude shows a total failure to appreciate the extent of the wrongs being committed against ex-service men and further is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Pension Act;

Resolved that this meeting of the ex-service men do most strongly resent and protest against* the attitude of the Pension Board generally, and more particularly in regard to its avowed intention to challenge the report of the Royal Commission.

Resolved that the protest entered by the secretary of the Dominion Alliance at Ottawa against the present actions of the Pension Board be and is hereby fully endorsed.

Resolved further that in the opinion of this meeting the chairman and members of the Pension Board should resign and persons capable and willing to administer the act fairly and justly be appointed in their place subject to some proper control.

Resolved further that copies of this resolution be sent to the members of parliament for British Columbia at Ottawa, and to all federal cabinet ministers.

The foregoing resolution is dated Victoria, B. C., May 10, 1923. I believe it has been the desire of the people of Canada as a whole that the Pension Commissioners should consider honestly and fairly the cases of exservice men presented to them and that they

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey

should administer the Pension Act in a fair and equitable manner. From my own observations I conclude the returned men are justified in the protests they are making.

Speaking of those returned men from my own district, they want nothing but what is right and fair; they wish to be re-established under the provisions of the act passed by this parliament and to be given a fair show. But, on the other hand, if we find upon investigation that we have a board of pension commissioners who are not administering that act according to the intention of the members of this House and the members of the different committees that amended the act, I feel that it is the duty of the House to make thorough investigation and take whatever action is necessary to provide a board of pension commissioners that will administer the act honestly, fearlessly and according to the intentions of those who were instrumental in framing that act. I do not bring out that point with the intention of prejudicing the Board of Pension Commissioners, but in a spirit of absolute honesty and sincerity. I bring this point to the notice of the House with the view of impressing it upon the members in such a way that, after the results of this commission are brought to the attention of hon. members, they may understand the seriousness of the question and give it every consideration.

Passing on for a moment to a particular question that appertains to the district I represent, I ask, Mr. Speaker, the privilege of again referring to a sectional point. I wish to commend the government on the action taken in the district I represent in regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the past few months the government has seen fit to withdraw the mounted police from my district, and I believe I am voicing the sentiments of 95 per cent of the people of that district in expressing myself as I do. There have been one or two protests-one particular protest- entered against the action of the government in that connection, and I take this opportunity of explaining the position of the people I represent in that connection. It has only been in the last few years that it has seemed necessary to maintain a force of mounted police in that district. For many years, in fact since confederation, the point of having mounted police in the interior districts was not considered, and it was only within the last few years that they have been established at those points. The people of those districts have always considered, in common with many *others throughout the Dominion, that it was

Mr. L. J. LOVETT (Digby-Annapolis):

Mr. Speaker, representing as I do a constituency in the province of Nova Scotia, adds to my pleasure in associating myself with those who have already taken part in this debate in offering congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on this, his seventeenth budget, and also personally to express the hope that he may be spared to bring down many more budgets in this House.

I think it is a recognized fact that no matter how fair or moderate a budget may be, it will not always meet the wishes or be wholly acceptable to the many diversified interests in this country, nor will it satisfy each and every province in this Dominion. But

The Budget-Mr. Lovett

speaking generally, I think the people of this country, taking into consideration our present financial condition and the need of revenue, will look upon this budget as one admirably suited to the needs and aspirations of the Canadian people. True it is that Canada for the past few years has been labouring under a period of depression and things are not as we would like to have them. But if we, as loyal Canadian citizens, realizing as we should, the great heritage which is ours, with a country unsurpassed for its great natural resources, with an industrious and, in the main, a frugal people, maintaining and standing steadfast by that spirit of optimism which, I believe, is inherent in the people of Canada, we cannot help but emerge from these trying days of depression into the brighter days of renewed prosperity. If our trade returns are an index-and they certainly are-they indicate that we are again on the eve of more prosperous times. Perhaps prosperity will not blossom forth in a day; and better not, for if it comes gradually, we can congratulate ourselves that we are on solid ground, that we are not building on an artificial foundation which would destroy stability, but that we are laying the stable foundation for enduring national prosperity.

As I have already said, I believe this budget will be generally acceptable to the people of this country. If I had any criticism to offer, it would be a desire for further downward revision; but taking into consideraion the present financial condition of this country and the need of revenue, I fear such a step at this time would be attended by very grave consequences. I believe, Sir, one should consider all matters from the broadest possible viewpoint, not seeking to force his individual opinion in direct conflict to those whose wisdom, experience and legislative ability have made Canada what she is, but more in the spirit of suggestion, with a mind open to conviction, to the opinions of those who have had wider experience in guiding our national affairs. I do not wish it to be understood that one should sink his own individual opinions on any great national question; not at all I am only trying to convey the thought that our individual beliefs and opinions should not be adamant, but should be amenable to the arguments of those who, as I have said before, have had wider experience.

The member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) during the course of his remarks a few days ago, suggested the reduction of the postage rate as it affected British mails, and with that suggestion I am heartily in accord. But I would go further. I believe that a return to

the old 2 cent postage rate under the Laurier regime would find favour with the mass of the Canadian people. It may be thought that this reduction would seriously interfere with the revenue of the Post Office Department. But when we take into consideration the surpluses under the 2 cent rate of the Laurier administration and contrast them with the deficits of the 3 cent rate under Conservative rule we are bound to conclude that the reduction in the rate would not lessen the revenue but would on the contrary augment it through an increased volume of business. Let me illustrate. Many business concerns in this country, and in fact the people generally, would use the mails to a greater extent if the rates were reduced. A prominent business man who was in the habit of sending 40,000 letters to his customers annually informs me that he had abandoned the practice and was now reaching his patrons through other channels than the mails. I imagine that there are many other large business concerns that are doing the same thing. Can we not logically conclude that the reduction of the postage rate to 2 cents would at least not impair the revenue, while it would relieve the people of this country of a tax that bears equally on poor and rich? I would submit this matter to the government for their careful consideration.

Mr. Speaker, let me speak for a few moments in reference to the fisheries of the Maritime provinces, more particularly as they affect my constituency. At the same time I would take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the fishermen of that part of our Dominion who have proved themselves heroes in contributing a large share to the wealth of this country. We whose activities are confined to the land do not stop to realize what the fisherman endures in his hazardous and perilous calling. Day and night alike he has to venture forth to earn his bread, a prey to sudden storms which threaten life and property. But even all these difficulties and obstacles which he encounters cannot daunt that splendid courage and pluck which these people possess. Therefore, if there is any class of the people in Canada that deserves consideration and concessions of a government, it is the fishermen of the Maritime provinces. Never during forty years Mr. Speaker have the fishermen of the Maritime provinces encountered such extreme weather and ice conditions as they have done in the past year. Loss of gear and lack of fishing opportunities have put these men deep in debt; as they often buy their outfits on credit and this handicaps them for the following season. Impaired credit and loss of gear is

The Budget-Mr. Lovett

juMU om

a deadly combination, and it has placed tb fishermen of the Maritime provinces in serious financial straits. Surely some relief must be afforded these men. I therefore strongly urge upon the government not only the desirability but the necessity of granting the fishermen of the Maritime provinces a reduced freight rate in order that they may place their products in the markets of central Canada at a fair and reasonable profit. Why should the farmers of the West be granted reduced freight rates on wheat, which is not a perishable product, and the farmers and fishermen of the Maritime provinces be refused the same privilege, when their products are in the main of a perishable nature? Fuel, we find, has been granted a reduced freight rate, and with this I have no fault to find. But why should not the fishermen and the farmers of the Maritime provinces receive a like privilege? Surely whatever loss might be incurred by the reduction of their freight rates would be more than compensated for by an increased volume of business. Then again as has been alluded to before in the debate, the fishermen of the Maritime provinces are denied through the Fordney tariff the privilege of the United States market, which is their natural market. This increases the necessity of access to the central markets of Canada, and if they are not available these men will have to find a different means of livelihood, and the industry, one of Canada's greatest assets, will languish. I am trying to place before the government the facts as they actually exist. I do not want to leave the impression that the fishermen and farmers of the Maritime provinces are a lot of professional m or. Tiers Mice the farmers of the prairies. They recognize adverse conditions and ask for amelioration, but they go their way with courage and with an abiding faith in the future prosperity of this Dominion.

I want at this point to commend the provisions of the budget which permit free entry into Canada of machinery for the manufacture of fish waste into fertilizer and other products. This opens up a new avenue of profit to the fishermen; it provides for the establishment of new industries and the employment of more men-much desired results. I also strongly commend the reciprocity offer to the United States as embodied in the budget.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. LOVETT:

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned at six o'clock, I had finished presenting the claims of the fishermen of the

Maritime provinces for amelioration of their financial difficulties, and I urged upon the government reduced freight rates for their products in the central markets of Canada.

We people of the Maritime provinces are still optimistic concerning Canada's future and have no use for a pessimist-he is a blot on the landscape. I believe the spirit of pessimism that has been poured forth by the farmers of the prairies during this session has had the effect of seriously discounting Canada's resources in the eyes of the world, and defeating the objective which is of paramount importance to this Dominion-the attraction of desirable settlers. I am afraid, Sir, that Canada's enemies are as much within as without, none the less harmful because the damage done is not intentional. What is the use of our immigration department embarking on an immigration policy which holds out strong inducements to prospective settlers if those now living in that section of the Dominion most widely recommended to these settlers, the great Canadian West, is described by those already in possession of the land of promise as "the unhappy dwelling-place of the impoverished farmers" who "refuse to see the sunshine because it does not shine down in every way and every day on every blessed one of them." I fear it will take a long and expensive advertising campaign to reassure prospective settlers and offset the complaints that have been voiced in this House.

A number of criticisms of the budget have been voiced in the press. I shall refer to only two, one credited to the leader of the Progressive party in this House (Mr. Forke) and the other to Mr. H. W. Wood, president of the United Farmers of Alberta. The Ottawa Citizen of May 12 last contains the following:

Robert Forke, Progressive leader, questioned by a Canadian Press representative last night, declared that Progressives did not consider the budget satisfactory. "I do not think," he said, "that the tariff changes in the budget will be of any benefit to western farmers. Furthermore, the finality of the reductions as announced in the budget speech was extremely disappointing."

In the Ottawa Journal of the same date the following appeared:

Head of Alberta Farmers thinks Budget good one. Pleased With the Reference Made by Mr. Fielding to Reciprocity

Says removal of tariff would be great boon. United States the logical market for cattle from Canada.

Canadian Press by direct wire

Calgary, Alta., May 12.-General satisfaction with the 1923 budget brought down in the House of Commons yesterday by W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance, was expressed by H. W. Wood, president of the United Farmers of Alberta, in an interview here last night.

The Budget-Mr. Lovett

Looks pretty good to him

"It looks pretty good on the face of it, although I have not studied it carefully," Mr. Wood said. "I don't see anything the matter with it and, speaking generally, I am satisfied with the budget; it appears reasonable.

"I am pleased to note the first step towards reciprocity with the United States, which was mentioned by Mr. Fielding in his budget speech," the Alberta farmer leader said. "The removal of the tariff would be the greatest thing that ever happened to Canada, in my opinion, and I -wish heartily to commend Mr. Fielding on this step that has been taken.

The logical market

"I believe it would be more important and would have better results on the prosperity of the west as a whole to have the tariff on cattle removed rather than the tariff on wheat, for instance. The United States is our logical market; she is in a position to import our product.

"The United States grows wheat for export. On the other hand, I observe that there is a decided movement among farmers of the United States to obtain the removal of the tariff on cattle, for this would be of mutual benefit to both countries.

"However, it will come ultimately," Mr. Wood concluded.

Mr. Speaker, I have given you the views of the hon. leader of the Progressive party as outlined in the press, declaring his and also his followers dissatisfaction with the present budget; and this dissatisfaction has been further emphasized in the amendment which he has placed before this House. I have also quoted the views of Mr. H. W. Wood, president of the United Farmers of Alberta, which are exactly opposite to those expressed by the hon. leader of the Progressive party. Their respective views clearly indicate the divergency of opinion in western Canada regarding the budget.

I would ask my Progressive friends, particularly those from the province of Alberta, how they can support the amendment of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) against the opinion of their constituents as voiced by Mr. Wood, who presumably voices the opinion of one wing at least of the western Progressive party. If by supporting the amendment of the leader of the Progressive party they condemn the budget which has been declared by Mr. Wood as generally satisfactory, will they not incur the danger of a sharp reprimand from their constituents?-a reprimand which may focus its force in defeat when next they face the electorate? Is it not well to remember that we as elected representatives of the people are not here to voice our own personal views, but to present and urge the viewpoint of our constituents? For we should always consider ourselves servants, and not in any sense masters. It will be extremely interesting indeed to watch which horn of the dilemma our Alberta friends will take, whether they will

follow the Progressive leader of this House, who expects the millennium at once, or the saner opinion of Mr. Wood, a man who recognizes that changes must come gradually and appreciates all efforts in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the present government is doing everything possible in the interest of agriculture, particularly as it affects western Canada, without discriminating against other business interests, and yet in spite of the concessions made the attitude of our Progressive friends in this House is one of rank ingratitude, an ingratitude crueller than a serpent's tooth.

As to the criticisms made of the budget by the official opposition, they are undoubtedly within their rights as are all others, but as yet they have not made much headway. Fair and honest criticism is always appreciated, but when they undertake to play politics and descend to carping criticism and insinuations they will not find favour with the people of this country, who have an abiding faith in the masterly ability of the present Minister of Finance, and feel assured that he is the man who will eventually place Canada on her feet financially and restore the prosperity of days gone by.

There is one matter that I hoped the government would treat in a more comprehensive and direct way than is indicated in the budget.

I allude to forest conservation. To realize a->

we must from the exhaustive and conclusive data placed before the government and every member of this House that the great wealth of our forests is fast being dissipated through fire, insect pests, destructive lumbering and the exportation of large quantities of raw forest products, and that the time has arrived when positive steps must be taken or this great source of our wealth and national credit will be a thing of the past. True it is that both the Dominion and provincial governments are doing a wonderful work in extensive and improved methods of forest fire prevention and protection, but in spite of this thousands and thousands of acres of our best timber are being destroyed annually until wfe have reached the stage when it is incumbent upon the Canadian government, for they are the custodians of Canadian interests to realize that a further depletion of our forests from these causes I have already named will leave us barren of what was a great national inheritance. No matter what precautions are taken in regard to forest fire prevention and protection we can never entirely eliminate thi3. great menace, and it is a drain on our forest: areas that will have to be reckoned with foe

The Budget-Mr. Lovett

all time to come, and must be recognized as a constant factor in forest depletion.

It is a well-known fact that the United States has reached the stage where she has no longer sufficient pulpwood to supply her own demands An American forestry expert states as a positive fact that in ten years or less the great American pulp and paper plants will have to remove to Canada or else go out of business. Canada's forests are being robbed of thirty-five million trees annually in the export pulp trade, fifty per cent of which goes to the United States. American operators are already buying up our timber limits, corralling our supplies of pulp, and shipping them to their own mills there to be manufactured into the finished product, giving employment to their own workmen, and thus conserving their forest reserves. In proportion our Canadian workmen are deprived of employment. Our existing mills are feeling keenly the pinch of market competition in buying wood, and culminating disaster of all, our forest reserves are being rapidly depleted. I ask you, is this good business?

Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that you cannot build up a country if you allow her raw material to be shipped to a foreig.i country there to be manufactured into the finished products. It is not a narrow or selfish policy to restrict and conserve the use of our raw products 'to the upbuilding of our own industries and the employment of our own workmen, and I would earnestly urge the government to apply this policy of restricted export of pulpwood before our sources of supplies are further depleted. I know of no greater work that can be done to sustain the future financial credit of Canada than that which Mr. F. J. D. Barnjum, the apostle of forest conservation, is doing to-day. He is unsparingly devoting his wealth, his energy and his great business ability to the task of arousing the Canadian people to a recognition of the great forest wealth which is theirs-but which, alas, they are allowing to slip from their grasp. He is a prophet whose warning voice should be heeded, or Canadians unborn, and even those of this generation, will have to mourn the loss of one great source of wealth-the forests of Canada. It has been truly said, Mr. Speaker, "that every square mile of forest in the Dominion is an incubator of new industries, and new population. To kill the forest is to strike a death blow at our future development." I would earnestly and respectfully urge the government to take a more direct and quicker method for immediate conservation than that

foreshadowed in the budget by the proposed commission.

I am concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, without specially referring to many outstanding economically beneficial provisions of the budget such as the reduction of the stamp tax, the bounties to encourage struggling industries and the admission of free machinery to encourage the establishment of new ones, the reduction in sugar duty, the improved form of collecting the sales tax, increasing the British preference and the effort to divert more trade to Canadian ports, and the holding out of the open hand for reciprocity with the United States. I do not do so because these things have already been discussed before the House. The budget, I believe, is a credit to the financial genius who produced it, who was evidently guided in its framing by a stern sense of justice to all classes and conditions of Canadians and to Canada's present financial requirements.

Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John-Albert):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to take the opportunity of discussing some of the subjects that have been raised during the debate on the budget, and first I will refer to the subject of the British preference. The Minister of Finance proposes that there be a 10 per cent discount allowed on duty payable under the preference. There are two important qualifications of this reduction, one being that it shall not apply in the case of articles when the duty is not above 15 per cent and the other that the discount shall only apply when goods are brought to Canadian ports. To effect this change it is proposed that the customs tariff of 1907 be amended by repealing section 5. What is section 5 of the customs tariff? It reads in this way:

Preference to Canadian ports

On and after a date to be named by the Governor in Council, in a proclamation published in the Canada Gazette, the British preferential tariff shall apply only to goods brought into Canada by ship direct to a Canadian seaport.

The customs tariff was introduced by the present Minister of Finance in 1907, and section 5 was placed therein to enable the preference to apply only to Canadian seaports by order in council at any subsequent date. Section 5 has remained in the customs tariff for sixteen years without action having been taken upon it by any government until the past few days. The subject has frequently been discussed in parliament and out of parliament. Much public opinion has been expressed in its favour, and only last year a resolution was brought forward by the hon. member for

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren

Cumberland (Mr. Logan) urging that the provisions as contained in the section be brought into effect. What has happened? The proposed resolution restricts materially the powers made available under the present section. The British preference will still apply to goods brought through all ports but when they are passed directly through Canadian seaports they will have a 10 per cent discount if the duty exceeds 15 per cent. The essence of section 5 was the preference to Canadian ports, and the British preference would apply only when trade is through these ports. The proposed resolution, therefore, is a shadow of the ideal as presented in the customs tariff of 1907. But the minister has done something. No doubt he did the best he could. He has given vitality to the principle. Credit is cheerfully given him for what should be regarded as a very important step. And the consequences will be very considerable. No loss will be sustained by the country. Indeed, the increase to trade through our ports and over our railways will be found to be a gain. One looks forward to the time when the British preference will apply only when Canadian ports are used, and then the whole country will obtain the full benefit. It is more than a party matter; the principle which is involved is a national one. So far as the principle of preferential trade, as contained in the resolution to be brought down, is concerned it will receive my "support. It is fair to recognize that the severely criticized French treaty has a bright spot, in that it shall only apply when Canadian ports are used, and that will also include all favoured nations availing themselves of its provisions. The minister has stated that it will also apply to the Italian treaty, and while I trust it is a correct interpretation I do not feel fully convinced of this The Chairman of the National Railway Board recently said:

The truth is that we have too much mileage and not enough traffic, and that is what is wrong with the C.N.R.

Very well, the mileage may not be easily diminished, but the traffic can and should be increased. The British preference amendments will help to give it; the treaties which were just referred to will help to give it; the bringing of coal from east and west to central Canada would help to give it; the shipping of grain and goods over Canadian railways and through Canadian ports will give it. For the seven months ending March 31, of this year there were over 130,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain shipped overseas via United States seaports while 38,000,000 bushels of American grain went through Canadian ports. Whether

or not the government puts forward a general policy regarding transportation there will still remain the obligations regarding Canadian transportation taken over with the railways and they will need to be observed.

On the entrance to this building the words are carved:

The wholesome sea is at her gates. Her gates both East and West.

Gates which are wide open and ready to pass trade in increasing amounts outwards and inwards to the enormous advantage of our transportation service and our country. One may well exclaim "Wake up, Canada 1".

In reference to the subject of petroleum bounties it is proposed to amend the Petroleum Bounty Act of 1909 by providing that the bounty shall be payable only on crude petroleum now produced in Canada and that it shall apply at the present rate for one year. The next year it will be reduced one-half, and the following year cease. I have a telegram from the manager of the New Brunswick Gas and Oil Fields which says:-

With reference to Finance Minister's proposal pay present bounties crude oil during this year only cutt ng it in half next year, and thereafter d.scontmumg altogether urge you oppose this measure to the utmost as calculated to strangle the industry in Canada unless an equal or heavier tariff is imposed on all ima+.irm.

It may be wise to make provision in the event of large developments of oil wells as is proposed by the minister, so that enormous bounties would not be entailed. But this large development of oil wells has not yet happened, and in the meantime the prosperity of the oil industries now being operated will be seriously affected, and I urge upon the minister the propriety of extending this bounty as now proposed over a considerably longer period. . _

The subject of immigration has already been fully discussed during the present session, but I would again wish to emphasize that the immigration policy should be more comprehensive and more fully organized. The important officials in Great Britain should certainly be representative of different parts of the Dominion. I have an article which recently appeared in the public press calling attention to a report in the Isle of Man Weekly Times of an address on Canada delivered by Mr. F. W. Kerr, immigration official of the Dominion government. The article says:

The chairman of the meeting, which was very largely attended, was the Governor General of the island and the most important part of the whole address, so far as the Maritime provinces are concerned because of the effect which it would have on the audience

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren

among which were many prospective immigrants, is that the lecturer started at Quebec and went westward. So far as he was concerned, the Maritime provinces did not exist, and he left with that audience a wrong impression of Canada. At the conclusion of the address a show of hands was called of all those that had relations in Canada and the result shows that fully one-third of the large audience had relatives in this country. Yet there is one Manxman in New, Brunswick, and little wonder when the immigration agents of our country, whose salaries we help to pay, not only ignore our province, but described Canada as a place in which New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have no existence.

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):

What is the name of the person who made that statement? .

Mr. MacLAREN:

I am quoting from the Daily Journal of St. John. The name of the official is Mr. F. W. Kerr. The article goes on to say in reference to these Manxmen:

But they are told nothing of these provinces. Most of these prospective immigrants, who are just the kind of stock these provinces need, are hustled off to the West. The Maritime provinces should demand some explanation when a federal immigration official describes Canada by beginning at Quebec, as the report says he does.

Then the report goes on to describe a series of pictures which were shown of Niagara Falls and the Rocky Mountains and other thrilling scenery of the Dominion. Would it not be well to get down to some common-sense treatment of the subject and give information suitable for immigrants?

Mr. COOTE:

I did not catch the title of the article. I wondered whether the literature was designed to attract tourists or immigrants.

Mr. MacLAREN:

I am referring to an account of a large meeting held in the Isle of Man, at which meeting the Governor of that island presided, and the paragraph that I have partly read gives 'an account of the meeting. He describes Canada by beginning at Quebec and going west, and he gives beautiful pictures of Niagara Falls and the Rocky mountains as well as a description of the prairies and the West. The comment is that he has made no reference to the Maritime section of the country which was regarded as particularly important, in view of the class of immigrants which we might obtain from the isle of Man, such as men who are accustomed to small farming and fishing. My question was: Would it not be as well to come down to some commonsense treatment of such a subject and give to the immigrants information bearing on the occupation of suitable portions of the Dominion?

Recently a considerable number of people from the Hebrides have been brought to

Ontario and one of the prairie provinces. They are a most suitable class of immigrants and will no doubt be successful wherever their lot falls. They are a sturdy, frugal and industrious people who have been engaged in mL\ed farming and sea fishing. The salt air is the breath of their life and the roar of the sea is music to their souls, a class preeminently suited by their heredity and environment for settlement on the sea coast. A familiar poem speaks of the Hebrideans who previously came to Canada in this way:

From the lone shieling of the misty island Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas-

Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland, And we in dreams behold the Hebrides:

Fair these broad meads-these hoary woods are grand;

But we are exiles from our fathers' land.

Those who might dwell at the sea coast would not only behold the Hebrides in theii dreams but might see something like them in their daily life.

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

There are plenty of them in this House. I am one of them.

Mr. MacLAREN:

While it may not be

possible in some cases to place immigrants in Canada in surroundings similar to those they have lived in, it is submitted that this should be kept in view in determining our immigration policy.

The proposal to organize certain naval units throughout the interior of the country, however novel and weird it may be, I trust will not be regarded as a precedent in our reversing the order of nature, but let us have the people placed, as far as practicable, in surroundings suitable for them.

W'ith reference to forest conservation, it is ' noted that it is proposed that a commission shall investigate the subject of the exportation of pulp-wood. Let me urge that the matter be dealt with promptly, for, whether an embargo be placed upon pulp-wood or an export tax, the government has a powerful instrument in its hands to benefit the country, and I trust will exercise it. Forest conservation is now becoming of increased importance, and as it largely lies within provincial management, there is difficulty in obtaining general or concerted action regarding the many forestry problems. I would think that tne Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) might well constitute himself convener on the subject of forest conservation, and so facilitate general conference and co-operation amongst, provincial authorities.

A favourite subject of exhortation, but an unpopular one, is economy. We shall all agree that a very large sum is required to be

The Budget-Mr. Gould

spent to meet our obligations; but it is not agreed that so much money should be spent as is now being done. I do not think the general opinion of the House is that economy is being practised in a way that our present position demands. There is no evidence of a firm grasp being taken by the government to exercise economy. I do not mean economy that would interfere with or retard trade and the vital needs of the country; but surely non-essentials might be controlled or delayed. The civil government is so top-heavv that it needs revision and curtailment. Works of doubtful or problematical character, such as the Hudson Bay railway, might be deferred for an indefinite period. I do not suggest that the budget should have been balanced this year, but I do say that it should have been more nearly balanced than it is. I believe the feeling of the country is that economy should receive at the hands of the government greater attention than is now the case. Let the government put as much effort in controlling expenditure as is now exerted in raising revenue, and then a substantial improvement in the finances of the country will be obtained.