Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I would like to draw the attention of hon. members of this House to a despatch from Montreal, which appears on the front page of this morning's Ottawa Journal, giving a report of a speech I made there last evening. This report represents me as saying:

Canada's government is like a Ford automobile, and the opposition is like a spare tire, all blown up with wind.

Further on the report says:

We have enough ignoramuses in parliament, and if we cannot send any better we might as well not send any at all.

I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that while I do not charge this reputable newspaper with wilful misrepresentation, nor do I wish to impute any malicious intent to the report, yet I do wish to say that I have never on any occasion discussed the personnel of this House; and I wish to say also with regard to the illustration which I gave, that it is perfectly correct; but it was not applied to this government, nor to this opposition, it was applied to party government in general.

GRAND TRUNK GRATUITIES On the Orders of the Day:

Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):

I should like

to ask the government whether a commission has been appointed, as promised by the Prime Minister at the last session of this House, to investigate all the circumstances and conditions connected with the payment to certain officials of the Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern railways of sums amounting to some $400,000, these gratuities being voted by the officials concerned to themselves just previous to their transference to the National railways on retirement; and if such commission was appointed, whether its findings have been communicated to the government; and, if so, what its conclusions were.

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): In reply to the question of my hon. friend, I may say that I did not catch all that he said, but a commission was appointed to investigate certain matters relating to the gratuities to employees of the Grand Trunk, and other matters. That commission has reported, and I shall have the pleasure in a few days of laying that report on the Table of the House.

The Address-Mr. Raymond

Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):

Mr. Speaker, the ground of this debate has been pretty well covered and anything I may have to say will probably be a repetition of what has been said. However, there is a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne that appears to me rather ominous and threatening to the industrial interests of the constituency that I represent. One reason why I delayed speaking was that I had hoped that there might be some word of explanation from the government which would make the situation appear a little more definite. However, this phrase has been translated to mean-not only in my constituency, but over this country generally- that it is the intention of the government to remove the tariff duty on agricultural implements. I wish to say in this connection that, whatever else may be my duty in this House, I esteem it my first and most particular duty to represent faithfully the views of my constituents, and in doing that, Mr. Speaker,

I must take a firm stand against any further reduction of the duty on agricultural implements, considering the fact that that duty has been reduced several times. A little later we will go into the question of what the duty has been in the past, and we shall find that it is lower now than it has ever been; and I take it. that the present duty should be considered an irreducible minimum; I shall be firmly opposed to any further reduction. I wish to say-and I hope I make it plain enough-that no personal or party reasons will cause me to swerve from that determination. My constituency of Brantford is one that is perhaps not known to many hon. members of the House. But I know that those who know it, love it. When the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) waxed eloquent regarding the beauties of Nova Scotia and made this House resound with his eloquence in praising the Annapolis valley and Acadia, I said to myself: What would he say if he had ever seen Brantford? There are certain things with which each town or city is apt to become identified. We know that wThen, for instance, cotton is mentioned, the mind at once turns to Manchester; if silk or velvet, to Lyons; if lace, to the capital of little Belgium; if cutlery, we think of Sheffield; but when agricultural implements

are mentioned the world over, the eye and mind naturally turn to Brantford. Brantford has been the home of the farmer's toolmaker for more than half a century, and it has produced for the farmer those implements with which he has been able to carry on his business. That is why I said, in a former address in this House, that I think the manufacture of agricultural implements should be considered a key industry in this country and so treated by any and every government. The fertile soil of our far flung, fenceless prairies, the stubborn veldt of South Africa and the distant pampas of Argentine, are all ploughed with plough's manufactured in Brantford. The harvests of Australia, India and sunny France, as well as of this country, are reaped by harvesting machines made in Brantford. Wherever agricultural implements manufactured in Brantford have gone, they have carried the name of Canada honourably and nobly to every part of the world. So that naturally one can understand that any, and I believe every resident of Brantford, when he sees an attempt made to destroy the vital industry, the industrial life of that community, feels rather sensitive on the point, and is willing to do everything in his power to resist such an attempt. From the time of the publication of the Speech from the Throne, the city council of Brantford have passed strong resolutions. I will not take up the time of this House by reading long extracts from newspapers, although I could spend a considerable time in that way if such was the desire of hon. members. The chamber of commerce and the trades and labour council have also passed very strong resolutions, all expressing the hope that no further reduction will be made in the duty on agricultural implements.

When His Excellency uttered those words,

1 was unable to catch his eye, or he might, perhaps have given me a word of explanation. But I know he has been to Brantford and I know he loves Brantford; I know he would not do anything to injure Brantford. Moreover, he graciously deigned to spend a few days in the homely dwelling of one of our plough-makers, and I do not think he would return his hospitality in the way suggested in the Speech from the Throne. You may have noticed that he said that it was the government. I am loath to think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would do anything against the interests of Brantford. In this resolution that was brought before the city council, it is stated that when the Prime Minister was in Brantford before the election, he made a promise and a pledge to the people that if he were returned to power, no legitimate industry should suffer. Consequently,

The Address*-Mr. Raymond

we cannot, upon present evidence, condemn the Prime Minister but we shall not forget his promise. The government, as I understand the matter, is responsible; but I do not wash, until the budget is brought down and the exact condition is before us, to condemn the government, nor to take it for granted that it is going to enact any legislation that will injure Brantford. The government has often been likened to the Ship of state, the chart and compass, and so forth, and I have always had rather a liking for nautical terms and similes; hence I cannot help thinking that, perhaps, on this occasion, when the ship of state is sailing and choosing the middle way between Scylla, the rock of high protection on the one side, and Charybdis, the whirlpool of free trade on the other, it seems as though it had on board a pilot who was taking it just a little too near to Charybdis. It is the pilot I am going to blame, and I say that if the government have on board a false or a wrong pilot, if they are taking advice from a man who really does not know the coast they are on, they had better drop him, get rid of him, and strike for the open water, if they want to be safe. I utter this remark in the most friendly spirit to those hon. gentlemen who are on the ship of state; but I would say this: When vessels are sailing in a convoy,

if it so happens that the leading ship should drift into the whirlpool or upon a lee shore and, therefore, be wrecked, is it, in such a case, toe necessary duty of every little vessel that is sailing in the convoy or squadron to follow her to destruction? I think it would seem rather that discretion should be used by each captain for the safety of his own ship. As regards my constituency of Brantford, I cannot make you understand, Mr. Speaker, because that would take too much time and I have not language at my command; but there exists between me and that constituency a different kind of feeling from that which exists between any other hon. member in this House and the place which he represents, a feeling of grateful affection that makes me feel I should be doing a wrong, an indescribable wrong, if I did not stand here four square for the interests of Brantford, and that is what I intend to do under the circumstances.

TVith regard to the constant changing of duties, the constant moving of the tariff, the people of Brantford, * the manufacturers throughout this country, have not forgotten that we were told last year by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), that there was some hope of stabilising the tariff; that he said that instead of having it going up and down and changing, a little off this one year

and a little on that the next, it was his object to make it more stable, and that it would be more satisfactory under that condition to the business interests of this country. We know that would be more satisfactory to the business interests of this country, and we know that now even this hint that has been passed out in the Speech from the Throne has had the effect of paralyzing business and discouraging capital, it has thrown many places, besides that from which I come from, into a turmoil of apprehension at what may come down in the budget. Just exactly why agricultural implements should be again singled out passes my comprehension. Some say there is a political reason, and that suggestion has been discussed generally throughout the country by the newspapers. It is said that for certain reasons that particular industry should be sacrificed to the good, at all events, of a large section of the community. In this connection I thought it was refreshing to hear the words of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party. I hope they impressed themselves on the mind of every one of his followers and indeed of every hon. gentleman in this House. The hon. member .said that the only sure basis of national unity was equal justice to all, and I would ask him never to forget that.

Hear, hear.

Mr. RAYMOND:

Those gentlemen who

applaud that statement will, I hope, bear it in mind. I am always glad when Britons applaud the name of justice, for I think it is the main thing; and if those gentlemen mean anything by the words they use they must mean that they will never destroy one industry for the benefit of another. The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), in his first session in the House two years ago, uttered a similar sentiment, and I was glad that he did, he said he believed in special privileges for none and equal justice for all.

Hear, hear.

Mr. RAYMOND:

I am glad to hear hon. gentlemen applaud again, and I should like them to explain, when it comes to their turn-

I do not want them to explain it exactly at this moment-what kind of equal justice they think it would be if one section of the country enjoyed free trade while the rest of the country was under the bonds of protection. I want to be consistent and I want to see hon. members consistent, and in endeavouring to be so I hope I shall be at least as consistent as that free trader who wants to have

The Address-Mr. Raymond

agricultural implements on the free list while at the same time he will not allow the workmen of the country, the mechanics and the labourers who are toiling in production, to use oleomargarine. Hon. gentlemen would prohibit the import and sale of this article and they would make its manufacture in this country an offence. And they try to excuse this attitude by their adoration for the cow. I have heard gentlemen express themselves, in veneration of the cow, in terms that would have done credit to a Hindoo worshipper of that animal; but I do want to put a plain proposition to those gentlemen: What would they think if they heard David excusing his cowardly murder of Uriah by pleading his passionate love for Bathsheba? Believing however, as they do, in equal justice, I hope that justice will characterize the legislation that they will support.

Now,, the agricultural implement industry is one that has not been profitable. It has been shown, and I think it has been stated on the floor of the House, that one of our largest firms in Canada, the Massey-Harris Company lost some three years ago, $1,200,000, two years ago, some $640,000, and this year $370,000. So that if that is a legitimate industry it can hardly be claimed to be making a profit at the present time. And when farmers tell us that they are not in a position to purchase agricultural implements, I ask, what benefit will anyone derive from taking off the duty and letting more American implements come in? There is another great industry situated in Hamilton. While, of course, Brantford is the chief centre of the agricultural implement business, there are agricultural implements made in some fifty other places in Canada, and there is a large factory in Hamilton which has been established there for some years. During the last ten years, taking an average one year with another, beginning with the year 1913 and running up to 1922, both inclusive, the profit they have shown on their capital invested has been less than three per cent, per annum. In view of these facts, therefore, I do not think it can be claimed that any exorbitant profits are being made to-day or have been made within the last few years by the agricultural implement industry in Canada. As a matter of fact, our factories in Brantford have largely been closed; they have been running on very short time for the last three years. Some of them have been running lately, and I am glad to say that the factory of the Massey-Harris Company, which has not been going steadily for

the last year, has benefited by the French Treaty that was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) last year. By means of this treaty these manufacturers were able to get favourable treatment for their implements in France, and they have employed in the last year some nine hundred men, although regular!}' they should be employing fifteen hundred.

Now, I do not think that it is either necessary or advisable to go into the whole list of the losses of these industries. The fact is that they have suffered serious losses, and the men whom they have not been able to employ have naturally gone over to the other side. And the danger of that is that when our mechanics go across the line-and thousands have gone, not only from Brantford but from other cities as well-when hard times overtake the industries in the United States there is a return of workmen to Canada, and it is not the most skilled mechanics that return. The artisans that work in our factories, in other words, are combed out to supply the labour market in the United States, and when any workmen are to be laid off there it is the unskilled class who are dismissed; for the American manufacturers know a skilful man when they find him, and they keep him. The skilful men are not apt to come back. I do not think it is fair to give all the experiments, if we may use that term, in free trade to one industry or one town. I do not regard this as a question exactly of free trade or protection; I do not look upon it in that way. The question of free trade and protection has been argued in this House for fifty years. It began some fifty years ago when the government-then a Liberal government -raised the tariff, which was 15 per cent, to 17i per cent, and they were accused by the Conservative party of that day of being protectionists. When the tariff was raised in 1874 from 15 per cent to 17| per cent there was this about it: it was levied fairly, honestly and equitably as a revenue tariff on the goods imported into Canada. It was not a lopsided tariff that admitted some goods free while putting a duty on others, there was no class favoured in the levying of that tariff; whereas the intention now seems to be to favour a certain class m the levying of the present tariff. All goods came in on a revenue basis and paid alike.

Now, let me tell the House a little of our history in Brantford during the last few years with regard to the duty on agricultural im-

282 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Raymond

plements. Just before the slump came in the price of agricultural products, 5 per cent was taken off the duty on ploughs and binders. This reduction was made for the benefit of the farming population, and naturally it was opposed by the manufacturers, but without effect. At the same time tractors were made absolutely free. As a result two tractor factories went out of business in our city. Since that time a cream separator factory has also gone out of business. When, some two years ago, there was a further tariff reduction of 2i per cent it was felt to be very serious at a time when the farmers were not buying, when business was not good, when the agricultural population of the West said they were not in a condition to buy, and it was very difficult to see whom it was expected to benefit by the removal of the duty. It was hoped then that that would be the last slice taken off the tariff. To-day agricultural implements stand at the very bottom of the list, having the least tariff duty of any manufactured article in this country, averaging between 10 per cent on harvesting machinery and 15 per cent on plows. When that is the case can any further reduction be justified? Would it not be a fatal blow to the industry? Before that blow is struck I feel it my duty as the representative of Brantford-and I hope the representatives of other constituencies where agricultural implements are made will join with me-to resist to the extent of my power any further cut in this duty.

I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the condition of the western farmer is always attributable to the price of agricultural implements or the duty thereon. I am sure there is no man in this House, I do not care what his business is or where he comes from, that has a stronger or more active sympathy for the farmers in the West than I have.

Oh, oh.

Mr. RAYMOND:

Well, it seems odd that some hon. gentlemen by the slight noise they make should doubt my word. I hope, however, that as time goes on they will see that I really believe in what their leader says, that the basis of national unity is equal justice; and I say that those who claim more than equal justice-mind you, those who claim for themselves through a selfish interest, or any other interest, more than equal justice to themselves-are doing an injury to our national unity. Yes, I have always felt my heart touched when I have heard of the hardships of the western farmer. When I have heard of a farmer being hailed out until there was positively nothing left upon the land

for him to reap, the only thing standing there being his harvesting machinery, it has occurred to me: What a great benefit it would be to

him to take the duty off agricultural implements. When I have heard of a grasshopper plague in the West that has stripped the land of vegetation, I have thought at once: What a panacea it would be for getting rid of them, to take the duty off agricultural implements. When whole sections have suffered from drought, the answer has always been: Take

the duty off agricultural implements-the one panacea for all the farmers' troubles is: Take the duty off agricultural implements! Now, Sir, do you think it would be effective? Do you think that if that duty were taken off the farmer would be satisfied? I remember one experiment when the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) made tractors free just a little before the last election. I think the result ought to show the gratitude of the farmer.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The hon. gentleman is a little out in his time. The duty was taken off tractors just a little after the election, not before.

Mr. RAYMOND:

I beg your pardon, Sir, but I referred to the election of 1921. The duty was taken off just before that election.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

It was about four years before.

Mr. RAYMOND:

It was in 1919; that

would be two years before.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

It was in 1918.

Mr. RAYMOND:

I think most farmers

would remember for two years. If they have any gratitude at all it should last that length of time.