Mr. GRAHAM:

I have not the existing

tariff with me. I was reading that quotation from the memorandum to show that the British preference was 01 some use to us and that it undoubtedly might be of further use to us.

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

May I as!

whether the regulations defining the percentage of manufacture i.] Canada required in the case of automobiles exported from this country to Great Britain have been somewhat modified, and whether greater freedom is allowed in the bringing of parts of automobiles from outside into Canada and the shipping of them across as Canadian made?

Mr. GRAHAM:

The percentage of Canadian labour and manufacture that must enter into the exported product is still necessary to entitle it to the preference in the British market.

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

Is it defined to

w-hat it must be in regard to automobiles?

Mr. GRAHAM:

It must be 25 per cent,

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

And 75 per cent is made up in Canada, is that, the idea?

Mr. GRAHAM:

The law in Great Britain is that at least 25 per cent of Canadian labour or raw material must be included in any imports that get the benefit of the preferential tariff, and the same applies in Canada in the case of goods coming from Great Britain. As a ^matter of fact, as I tried to point out a few moments ago, in the automobile industry of Canada the amount of Canadian labour and raw material included is far in excess of 25 per cent. In the case of one factory it is,

I think, 85 per cent, and in the case of another, 60. I doubt whether any of them run as low as 25 per cent. Year by year the

The Address-Mr. Graham

Canadian manufacturers are including in their products a greater percentage of Canadian labour and Canadian raw material.

Now, if I may be permitted to go on, I was coming to a very interesting part of these proposals. The next reference is to raw apples, which were not included in the first proposals made. The memorandum says:

Raw Apples.

U is proposed to levy a duty of 5s. per cwt. on raw apples of foreign origin and to admit raw apples from the Empire free of duty as at present.

Canned Salmon and Canned Lobster, Cray Fish and Crabs.

It is proposed that a duty of 10s. per cwt. shall be imposed on foreign canned salmon and canned lobster, Cray fish and crabs, and that these goods shall be admitted free of duty from the Empire.

Honey. .

It is proposed that a duty of 10s. per cwt shall be imposed on foreign honey, and that honey of Empire origin shall continue to be admitted free of duty.

Lime, Lemon and other Fruit Juices.

The proposal of His Majesty's government is that a duty at the rate of 6d. per gallon shall be imposed on foreign lime and lemon juices and His Majesty's government would consider a list of other fruit juices which the dominions regarded as of interest to their trade: Fruit juices from the Empire will continue to be admitted free of duty.

I must apologize to the House for reading these extracts, but I did not see how otherwise I could possibly place the case of Canada before the House as it was presented at thf Imperial Economic Conference.

Now, I come to a questipn which is of vital importance to the Dominion of Canada, and that is the cattle embargo. I trust that the stock raisers of Canada will not consider me bumptious in attempting to deal with this question. Let me say at this juncture, lest I forget, that the representatives of the Canadian Civil Service and others who accompanied the delegation to London need not take second place to similar representatives of any country in the world. I think it is only just to the Civil Service of this country to say that every man behind us giving us the necessary information w'as the equal, at least, of his counterpart in the British Civil Service and in the service of the other dominions. We prized their work. Without their aid nothing could have been accomplished of any consequence, and what would have been accomplished would have been done in a rather slovenly manner.

The cattle embargo is not a new thing. For thirty years, except in one or two instances, Great Britain has kept her markets closed to the cattle of the Dominion of Canada. Time and again it has been pointed out by representatives of the Canadian government that this embargo was merely a subterfuge,

and I use the word with its full meaning. The reason given for keeping our cattle out of the British market was the fear of contagion, while as a matter of fact, Canadian cattle have been free from any disease that w'ould bar them out from the British market for many, many years. That was admitted long years ago, and in 1917 an effort was made by the Canadian government and, I think I can safely say, a pledge was given-by the British government, to have the embargo removed; but is was not brought about. In 1922 the Finance Minister and the present Minister of Justice in this government while in London came to a distinct understanding with members of the British government that an act would be introduced to provide for the admission of Canadian cattle into the British market. The terms of the act were agreed upon. There were, as a matter of fact, two acts. One provided as I have just intimated, and the other act, which was to "be brought into force by proclamation or by order in council, provided for the admission of Canadian breeding cattle into the Old Land.

The first act was introduced in the British House of Commons, but an amendment was made to it while it was passing through parliament which nullified to a great extent its provisions. This amendment made it possible for an inspection to be held, and nullified to a certain extent the provisions of the act. In addition to that, the act which was to be brought into force by proclamation or by order in council never was so brought into force. As a matter of fact, we found when in Great Britain that the Minister of Agriculture in the Baldwin government was in our opinion, unalterably opposed to the admission of Canadian cattle into the British market; we may as well use plain language. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and myself were accused of being brutal in our frankness in dealing with this matter. I shall not trespass on the time of the House to read what we said in the Economic Conference but we were both roundly thumped in the London press for talking so strongly. We placed the viewpoint of the Canadian stock raiser before them in no uncertain way. Now the act is amended, providing for inspection that was never anticipated when the act was introduced or when the arrangement was made between the Finance Minister and the present Minister of Justice. And how was this inspection carried on? It was pointed out by your representatives at the Economic Conference, as a sample, that a load of cattle, of one hundred head, if I remember correctly, were shipped across the ocean, half of them

The Address-Mr. Graham

being landed at one British port and the other half at another. One-half of the cargo was admitted as stockers and the other half were nearly all rejected as being too fat. Thus by inspection the British government took into its own hands the power to tell the farmers of the Old Land that they could not buy the Canadian cattle they wanted to buy, although the British government had agreed with the Canadian representatives that they should be able to buy them. At the conference I had a number of photographs in my hand, and to my surprise some of these photographs showed that some of our Canadian cattle were rejected because they were too thin. That was the reason given in that case-these Canadian cattle that the British farmers wanted to fatten were rejected because they were too thin. It made a clear case that what the British government had in the back of its head was the protection of the cattle industry in Great Britain and the prevention of our cattle entering that market.

The injustice to the Canadian cattle producer was two-fold. Not only was there an injustice to the cattle raiser who sold his stock to be sent across the ocean, in that they might be slaughtered when they got there and he get only half price for them, involving a great loss on every head, but another injustice was done. The cattle that were considered stockers here, only partially fat and capable of being finished for a month on the other side, were slaughtered on the dock without being allowed to go to an abattoir, and this half-fed beef rvas sold on the British market as Canadian beef. Thus the reputation of our beef wras injured, and a monetary loss caused in the slaughter of cattle that should have been still further fed. Remember too that Canadian cattle slaughtered bore the official stigma of disease although they had no disease.

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

What number of cattle were shipped from Canada during the year the embargo was off, and what number the year previously?

Mr. GRAHAM:

The Minister of Agriculture will give me that information in a moment. I also want to point this out in connection with the cattle embargo. When the question was introduced at the conference, no progress was made. I am afraid we were not in a temper to take excuses on this cattle embargo question. The case was compared by the Minister of Agriculture to a license given to a picture show, that it really did not mean what it said, that while the language of the act was quite plain to us and meant a certain definite thing, it was never intended to be

enforced in that manner. As a matter of fact if the regulations had remained as they were when the Economic Conference met, Canadian cattle, stockers and all, would probably have been shut out of the British market.

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Slaughtered when they got there.

Mr. GRAHAM:

They would slaughter them on the dock. They would not even go to the abattoir. We met in several subsidiary conferences, which were found to be much more helpful in straightening out some of the difficulties than discussion in the open conference. Let me say this in passing-and I am not passing nearly rapidly enough- that our former Governor General, the Duke of Devonshire, was a friend of Canada every inch of the way, and we owe a great deal to him for his efforts in straightening out this difficulty. We met in conference on several occasions and it was finally decided, after plain talk had been indulged in across the table, that the Minister of Agriculture was to place in writing with the Prime Minister of Canada what had been agreed on. I am afraid I will have to weary the House over this correspondence because it is not as yet on record, but this is really what was agreed on between the Minister of Agriculture of Great Britain and the Canadian representatives. Here is a letter, which was written by the Prime Minister of Canada:

The Ritz Hotel,

London, November 8, 1923.

Dear Sir Robert:

I am in receipt of your note of November 5th including memorandum re your proposed administration of the Importation of Animals Act 1922, insofa! as it affects the admission of stores from Canada.

Your memorandum sets forth substantially the conclusions reached at the meeting in the Colonial office on October 31st. If your inspectors carry out the instructions contained in sub-clauses 1 and 2 of clause (b) of section three of your memorandum, we believe the export of store cattle from Canada to Great Britain can be carried on with quite a measure of success, and we wish to express our appreciation of the proposed changes in administration of the act.

In view of your Government's definite decision not to amend the law, or place the order for breeding cattle before parliament, in accepting the proposed changes outlined in your memorandum, and the proposal for reciprocal trade in pure bred cattle, we would like to have it clearly understood that Canada does not in any way abate her claim for the complete removal of the embargo against any of her cattle, and she will from time to time continue to press for the same treatment, in the matter of " Diseases of Animals," as she is accorded by other countries.

Yours sincerely,

W. L. Mackenzie King.

Sir Robert Sanders, M.P.,

Minister of Agriculture,

Whitehall Place, S.W.I.

The Address-Mr. Graham

The memorandum follows. I think I ought to place it on Hansard because it is really an agreement with us that was arrived at by conference, and this letter of the Prime Minister of Canada confirming it, with the warning, mark you, that Canada did not accept it as a final solution, but would from time to time press her claim to have her cattle, and all her cattle, admitted into the British market:

Canadian Store Cattle

Memorandum by the Minister of Agriculture

1. At the meeting at the Colonial Office on the 31st ultimo I promised to put into writing the proposals I made to meet the points raised by the Canadian representatives as to the interpretation and administration of the words in section 1 (8) of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, which inter alia define store cattle as castrated or spayed animals " which are intended for feeding purposes and not for immediate slaughter."

2. It was made clear that the British Government are not prepared to propose any amendment of the Act in this respect, but they are ready and anxious to co-operate in arriving at a satisfactory settlement of the manner in which the definition should be interpreted and administered, having regard always to their responsibility to Parliament to see that the law is observed.

3. In view of that responsibility the Ministry of Agriculture cannot surrender the final word in deciding whether any particular animals come within the facilities afforded by the Act and as to the conditions under which their movement should be licensed out of the landing place. But subject to this I am prepared to give instructions to the Ministry's Inspectors as follows:-

(a) In the case of any cattle which the Inspector is satisfied can reasonably be regarded as suitable for feeding for a further period of not less than 28 days before slaughter, the inspector will on application grant a license for their removal from the landing place to any special authorized market or other premises, subject only to the conditions embodied in the Schedule to the Importation of Animals Act, 1922.

(b) In the case of cattle where the Inspector is not so satisfied, the Inspector will on application either

(1) Grant a license for their removal to a slaughterhouse for slaughter with such conditions as may be considered necessary to secure their slaughter thereat and will not, as at present, require them to be slaughtered at the landing place, or,

(2) If the owner of the cattle is prepared to undertake that they will be fed for not less than 28 days before slaughter, the inspector will grant a license for their removal to premises other than a slaughter-house subject to such conditions as may be considered necessary to secure that the undertaking will be observed.

In either case the additional conditions imposed by the Schedule will necessarily apply.

4. Cattle for which a license is not applied for or in respect of which a license cannot be granted in accordance with these instructions will have to be slaughtered at the landing place as heretofore.

5. It must be understood that cattle which have not complied with the conditions applicable to stores, i.e. three days isolation and supervision in Canada and supervision by a veterinary surgeon on the ship, must continue to be landed at an imported animals wharf and not at an imported animals landing place and will accordingly be slaughtered in the wharf. The ministry

has no power to allow such cattle to be moved from the wharf to a slaughter-house.

6. I make this offer with the desire of meeting as far as possible the case made by the Canadian representatives, consistently with my primary duty to safeguard the interests of British agriculturists, but I couple it with the request to the Canadian Government that they on their part will co-operate with us in carrying out the provisions of the Act and that they will give instructions to their officers not to certify as store cattle animals which cannot reasonably be regarded as suitable for feeding for the period above referred to.

7. The Ministry of Agriculture has no desire whatever to whittle away by administrative means the privileges granted by Parliament to Canada for the importation of her store cattle, and the Ministry is confident that with goodwill on both sides the provisions of the Act can be carried out satisfactorily. It was inevitable that some difficulties would arise in the early stages, but there is every reason to hope that the trade will soon adapt itself to the conditions so that it can be carried on to the mutual advantage of both countries. The Ministry of Agriculture will spare no effort to secure this result, and I am confident that the Canadian Department of Agriculture will do the same.

R. L. Sanders.

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

November. 1923.

Mr. WHITE:

Mr. Manning Doherty was credited last year with being the means of the removal of the cattle embargo. Just where did his activities end?

Mr. GRAHAM:

I do not know what effect his activity had on the minds of the British people. We did not encounter it over there.

There is only one other point to which I will refer in connection with the Economic Conference, although there are many questions of interest, and that is this: The Canadian representatives declined to become a party to the establishment of a permanent Economic Committee. I think the same thing was proposed in 1921, and was not then adhered to by Canada. The position that Canada's representative took, and I think it was right in both cases, is that a conference is a conference and nothing else. We were there from different parts of the Empire to discuss problems of mutual interest; the conference is not an executive body at all. It makes no laws, it makes suggestions, an economic committee would have to have something to do. And something that the Economic Committee might attempt to carry out might be altogether at variance with what people throughout the Dominion wanted such a body to look after. It is said that if you get one live man, and give him a chair, a desk, and a pencil, he will soon surround himself with a staff and some work, but there was nothing which Canada wished to refer to such a body as an economic committee. We were further established in this view during the discussion because the representatives from one of the overseas dominions when asked by myself "What subject would

The Address-Mr. Graham

you refer to this body" replied "Well, the effects, for example, of the dumping clause in tariffs might be referred". Of course, when that suggestion was made it began to get into the minds of Canada's representatives what possibly might be meant. There might be, perhaps not in the mind of any person except ourselves, the thought that it might prove the introduction of the thin end of the wedge of having other people interfere with our fiscal property.

So far as Canada is concerned, whether she is right or wrong Canada proposes to manage her own affairs, and make her own fiscal policy. The government in charge of Canada's affairs is subject only to the electors of the Dominion of Canada. That being the case, we saw nothing for the economic committee to do that would be a benefit to us. All the other overseas committees of the British Empire approved of the establishment of such a committee. However, the new government, giving the reason which Canada gave for not establishing such a committee, has declined to establish an economic committee.

I will not deal with this matter any longer. I hate to acknowledge that I have got to the time when my age is referred to. Coming into the House to-day I heard two of the younger members say "the Old Man is going to talk to-day." Being in that category, without scolding or lecturing, perhaps the young men of this House will allow me to say a few words from a long experience. I have been in public life a great many years, and I am not making any insinuations that I intend to quit. I want to take this opportunity of saying two or three words. It is a wholesome sign to see the young men taking part in public life. We are not, or at least we should not be, in the. frame of mind in which we were in before the war. If the war accomplished anything, it has taught us to have a broader view and an outlook that includes others besides ourselves. One word of advice I would give to the younger men in this House is this. Do not be too pessimistic. That feeling grows on one just as rapidly as the measles at high tide. You may allow yourselves to get into a groove where everything seems to threaten danger and there is no way out of the difficulty, because the rut gets deeper the further you go. As I said, the war taught us some lessons, and one of them is this: that bravery and courage are needed; they are needed now by us as much as they were needed a few years ago in Europe. We should not shirk our responsibilities but should bear them, as I know we will. There are so many

more things in life that have a bright side and a golden tinge than those that have a sombre side If you can-and I am speaking now to the younger men-turn your attention more to the bright things in life, cultivate the spirit of optimism, even under great difficulties, and you will be suprised to find how this will grow on you.

Every day as we rise in the morning we will find that life is full of brightness and there is no burden cast upon us that we are not able to bear. There is another thing I would like to say to young men just entering public life. Do not, under any consideration, either for party's sake or personal vengeance, allow yourself in your public duties to handle the muck rake. I have been in public life a great many years. I see the pathway strewn with the wrecks of men who tried to climb into power and prominence over the ruined reputations of men whom they attempted to assassinate. Sometimes that kind of thing will succeed temporarily, but eventually it recoils on the men who handles the muck far more seriously than the man for whom the muck was intended. We in Canada have no need to despair. If we value our assets and liabilities as any business man does, we have no right to complain. The liabilities of the Dominion of Canada all told are something over three billion dollars, while the wealth of Canada is estimated at twenty-three billions. If any man in business life could show such a balance sheet as that to his bank, he would be given all the credit imaginable, up to the limit of his wealth. True, we cannot count Canada's assets in the same way, but that is one of the bright sides of life and one of the bright pictures. Our taxes are high. We are going through a time of depression. But our fathers went through times of depression. The men who made the Dominion of Canada in years gone by came to this country, cut down the trees, built their little log cabins, clearing half an acre, then an acre, two acres, three acres, four acres, until they got a hundred acres cleared, and the families they raised are now among those who are aged, or are gone. But they left stock able and sufficiently courageous to face any difficulty that ever can confront them in this country. Then, with reference to the young men who have come to us, I may be allowed to say a word that may be personal. Notwithstanding all the discouragements, there is not a young man or a comparatively young man in this House who came to Canada from elsewhere who to-day would return to the country from which he came. That is a fairly good test, I imagine. There are opportunities here. We must buckle on our

The Address-Mr. Brown

armour, and refuse to become members of the Ancient Order of United Gravediggers. We must stand erect, look to the future, take lessons from the past. As strong Canadians, members of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, let us march forward as men worthy of our fathers, realizing that the Creator has given to us in this country of ours a heritage second to none in the whole world.

Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):

I am sure

we are all inspired by the words we have just listened to from one of the elder members of the House. I wondered, however, if he has not made a mistake in thinking it was he who was referred to as "the Old Man." I do not know, but I am inclined to think that some of the younger members who sit behind me might have referred to myself as the old man who was to speak to-day. I remember that on one occasion, when visiting some of my French friends, one of them spoke of me as an old man. "Why," I said, "I am only a boy." "Well," he said, "your hair he lie on you."

I desire to call attention for a short time to some of the remarks made in this House and some of the opinions expressed to which I think sufficient consideration has not been given. I desire, first of all, to direct a few remarks to the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) who spoke last night. He was wonderfully jubilant, evidently expressing the sentiments of the group to which he is attached. His jubilance seems to result from the Ontario elections held last summer. I am not disposed to minimize the significance of by-elections, or any elections. I recognize that sometimes straw's show the way the wind blows. But perhaps we do not get any great distance in discussing these matters. However, just in order to throw a little cold water on the hon. gentleman, I wish to call attention to the fact that there were elections held somewhere else. It will be remembered that there is a Progressive government in Manitoba, and some cabinet reconstruction last fall necessitated two constituencies being opened and by-elections held. The Conservative party in that province had been carrying on a campaign, all through the summer, trying to bring together its shattered remnants; for in no place is it more shattered than in Manitoba. They carried on a campaign of misrepresentation such as they did against the Drury government, and they hoped to meet with an equal degree of success. The time came when two constituencies w'ere opened and ministers were to be returned. Instead of following what is now the generally accepted custom and allowing these ministers to be returned by acclamation, 27

they considered it a good time to put the matter to the test and see whether the campaign had had any effect. I can speak for one of those provincial constituencies, the one in which I live, and I can say that never was a more determined effort mhde to capture a by-election than was made at that time. The results, however, were undoubtedly most disappointing to the men who were looking forward to them. In one constituency the Conservative candidate lost his deposit, while in the other the candidate saved it only by a small handful of votes. The result was in a large measure attributable to the fact that in Manitoba the people have long memories and they connected these things with what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) spoke of the other day as a love feast that was being held at Saskatoon. Perhaps I might issue a word of warning to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in the words that were once used in a warning that was given a king of Israel:

Lo thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it.

I think the application is very obvious. So that there are indications that seem to point in the other direction. There is a story I heard last summer from the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) that seems to illustrate the situation. A traveller was in the state of Texas and it was one of those periods to which the prairie countries also seem to be subject. There were great winds blowing and there were storms of dust in the air. This traveller inquired whether there were any cyclones in Texas. "No," said the man to whom he asked the question; "two or three came along one time and tried to start something, but these steady winds blew Hades out of them." Now, what hon. gentleman have taken for the steady wind is simply the little whirlwind that passes over the prairies; they forgot about the great wind that is still blowing in the direction of progress, and will continue to blow.

The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) made another unfortunate allusion: he introduced at this stage the subject of church union. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a subject that will engage the most serious attention of this House at the proper time, and it will call for all the sane judgment we possess. We shall require to approach it with all the Christian tolerance and charity that we can command; and by this time the hon. member, I think, will recognize that it was a piece of gross impropriety to bring forward a matter on which parties will necessarily be divided

The Address-Mr. Brown

and make it the subject of an attack on the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party.

I desire to direct a few remarks to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr, Marler) in connection with some of the subjects he discussed. With some of his opinions I am entirely in accord; with others I must differ. With the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), I think that the country owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George for the clear analysis he made of our present financial position. We are greatly indebted to him, and I say this because I wish to point out later the particular field in which I think the hon. member will find great scope for the ability he undoubtedly possesses to handle large problems and discuss large matters. He made one reference to. the fact that there are still outstanding some $915,000,000 of tax-free war bonds. In my judgment that was one of the worst iniquities ever perpetrated on the people of Canada. I quote here a short extract from an editorial that appeared in the Citizen of last week:

During the war, people were urged in many patriotic orations to give, or to save, till it hurt. Most people responded earnestly: usually, the people who could least afford it imposed the severest privation upon themselves. Some bought war bonds sincerely under the stimulus of patriotism. Upwards of 1,000 million dollars in tax-free war bonds passed into the hands ultimately of a comparatively small number of investors who enjoyed the double thrill of patriotism and profit.

Put side by side with that the sacrifices of those men who, as the Minister of Railways pointed out, took the field in

5 p.m. our defence. It is not yet too late in the day to indicate the contrast which we have frequently found in this connection. I had something to do with selling some of these war bonds and I have dis-tictly in mind one man who borrowed $500 at eight per cent interest and invested it in war bonds. Put that side by side with the horse-buying scandals and the scandals connected with the purchasing of drugs and surgical supplies, in which people of Ottawa were in some degree interested. Put these two things side by side and then let us remember that those people who profited during those times, largely the people who made money out of war contracts, are now coming out in opposition to the income tax. In my judgment the income tax must be retained. I have no patience with those who advocate that we should discard that system of taxation. It is at least an attempt to get money from those who have it and not from the people who have it not; for upon the people who have had little in the past the great burden has

lain. It is true the Income Tax Act must be revised. Certain amendments have been suggested since this parliament met and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has refused to accept them under the plea that the entire act must be revised. I agree that it needs revision. We must retain it, but there are some points in which it can be improved. Let me suggest one or two. More consideration must be given than at present to the source of income. A distinction must be made between salaries and investments. My present disposition is to agree with what was said by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), that industry might be freed from that particular tax, but that personal incomes must be made the subject of taxation. One of the grossest inequalities that we find in the system as at present administered-and I have talked this matter over with some of the officials who are now administering the act -is found in the fact that in some cases husband and wife are classed as having a joint income while in other cases their incomes are treated separately. In one case they can claim only the individual statutory exemption, and in the other case they can claim exemption both for husband and wife. Take an illustration. A farmer and his wife-and sometimes all the family-are engaged in work on the farm, and their income is considered as joint. They have an income estimated at $2,500. If there are no other exemptions claimed than the statutory $2,000, they will pay income tax on $500. On the other hand, I have cases in mind-cases brought to my attention by one of the heads of the department that came under his notice-one, for instance of a man and his wife living in Winnipeg. They have no family. They live in a little suite and are able to take in all the city amusements. He is earning $2,500, and his wife is earning another $1,800 as a stenographer. They can both claim exemption up to $2,000 because they are married. If we accept the words in our marriage ritual, "Whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder", and "With all my wordly goods I thee endow", then I think for taxation purposes we must accept the principle that the income of both husband and wife must under all circumstances be considered as joint income.

The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) drew attention to the fact-and I do not dispute it for a moment-that our farmers are paying only 2 per cent of the $46,000,000 income tax collections. I do not know why the hon. member introduced this into his speech. I think he is too much of a gentleman

The Address-Mr. Brown

to insinuate that the farmers are evading the tax. I do not think he meant to imply that at all. Then why did he introduce it? It seems to me it does nothing to strengthen his case, while it does a great deal to strengthen ours, when we submit that you can offer no better proof of the things for which we have been contending than just that fact, that we are not in a position to pay any bigger share of the income tax.

Now I come to the National Railway System, and it is on this particular matter that I see fit to differ with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) this afternoon placed before us in a very clear way certain facts relating to our National railways. I wish to present the subject to the House from the standpoint of the common people throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and in speaking as I propose to do I believe I shall be voicing the views of the great majority of our people. I regret that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George marred his speech, as I thought, by his reference to the government ownership of railways. Of course, he has the right to express his opinion on this subject as on any other. But it is frequently urged upon us that we should consider facts and not theories, and in this particular matter we have passed the academic stage of discussion and must consider the position simply as it is. During his speech a question was asked by some hon. gentleman behind me, "How did we get the railways?" Perhaps that was not a pertinent question at the time, but a perfectly pertinent question would have been: How does the hon. member propose to get rid of the National railways? On that particular subject we have not yet been given any light, and I think his address is weak in that particular, as is everything that is said by those who oppose government ownership of railways, simply because they have not offered us any alternative. Let me illustrate the point by another story. Two Irishmen, Pat and Mike, were out in the bush. They were some distance apart, and Mike heard a great row going on. He ran towards the noise and found Pat wrestling with a wildcat. "Hold on Pat! Hold on Pat!" "Bedad!" exclaimed Pat, "I can't let him go!" That seems to be somewhat the situation in which we find ourselves in regard to our government railways. We have not had indicated to us any plan by which we can let them go without finding ourselves in a position where our last state would be worse than our first. Are we asking too much then when we request hon. gentle-27i

men who are opposed to government ownership of railways to present to us some reasonable proposition as to how we are to get rid of them, and on what terms? There is another story going the rounds of the press which I think is quite apropos in this connection. A coloured preacher was in the habit of using big words. His congregation disapproved of the practice, and they sent a delegation to remonstrate with.him. In his defence the preacher said, "Don't I argify and sputify?" "Yes," replied the delegation, "you do argify and sputify, but you don't show wherein." Now, in my judgment, we have a right to put that proposition up to the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and all others who take a similar position, that they at least should "show us wherein." Let us suppose, for instance, that we went to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or to any other corporation or syndicate, with a proposition that they should take over national railroads with all their encumbrances. They would very likely regard it somewhat as a man would regard a leap-year proposal from a widow with ten children. But even if they did consent to talk the proposition over, what is the first thing they would do? They would probably go to the Railway Commission and ask for an increase of rates to enable them to carry the burden, and that benevolent body would very likely grant the request. What would that mean? It would mean if we are to have uniform rates-all over Canada, that we would have the same rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the situation for the railways would be lovely. But supposing they agreed to take over our system at a fair valuation, then we would certainly have to meet the problem which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) says is so difficult-the problem of capitalization. Some figure would have to be arrived at to represent the value of our national railways, and the difference between this figure and the original capitalization would have to be put over to the general debt of the country, where I think it should be. There has been a good deal of controversy in the past as to who is responsible for our present railway situation. Let us suppose that former governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have been guilty of bad railroad financing. The consequences of that mistaken policy ought not to be borne by the users of the road; it ought to be borne by all the people of Canada. And so I say again to those who condemn government ownership of railways, let them show wherein.

Now, do we want to get rid of our National Railway system? The hon. member for South

The Address-Mr. Brown

York (Mr. Maclean) I am sure would say, No, most emphatically, and what he says I am certain the people of Canada would say. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) told the House last night that during the recess he had attended a conference in Kansas City. I remember that on his return to Winnipeg he met a group of the organized farmers who were gathered together there and made an informal report respecting the conference. I was very much interested in what he said. He reported that during his visit he had come in contact with a great many of the leading business men of that part of the United States, bankers and others standing high in all departments of big business. They told him that they were greatly interested in watching the railroad situation in Canada. They put it this way: "We believe you have the ideal system. You have forty-five per cent of your roads under private ownership and fifty-five per cent under government ownership. We think that is better than if they were all under government ownership, because no matter how efficiently the railroads were operated there would be no standard of comparison, and it would therefore be easy to raise prejudice against the system and convince the people that the enterprises were not being efficiently managed. But when the government-owned road is placed side by side with such a system as the Canadian Pacific Railway there is an incentive to good work and to efficient management on the part of both institutions." It seemed to me that there was much food for thought in that statement of view. On the other hand they said: "If the railroads were all under private ownership you would be in the grip of a monopoly just as we are." It may be interesting to know that there are about 150 different railway systems in the United States under private ownership, and their rates are higher than ours. I thought I had brought with me a clipping from a New York paper which indicated the keen interest that the United States financial people were taking in our roads, but I find that I have not got it among my papers.

We are glad to know that the national railways are prosperous. We are glad to know that there is improvement in the whole system.-We are glad to believe that we have at the head of the system a man of outstanding ability. Sometimes people say, "You are treating and speaking of Sir Henry Thornton as if he were a superman." Not at all; we are thinking of him as the equal of the men who have "been at the head of the great Canadian Pacific Railway system-Van Home, Shaughnessy and Beatty-of the men who are making an outstanding success of that en-

.

terprise; we are thinking of him simply as their equal and nothing more. As I said in speaking on this matter last session, we have given Sir Henry Thornton the biggest job that ever has been given to any man in the business world. I think he recognizes that, and I believe he is big enough to rise to his opportunity and to make a success of these roads, with resulting enhancement of his own reputation and general benefit to the whole of our country. Let me say to the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanc-tot), I think it was, who wanted to sell the National Railways for a dollar, and to other members who are opposed to government ownership of railways-and I know I can speak most emphatically for all this group and for the people we represent in the prairie provinces-that the people of Canada are not going to put the National Railways on the bargain counter.

Mr. LANCTOT:

That may be the case

for your part of the country, but it is not the case for my people.

Mr. BROWN:

Well, a little education

will perhaps change their point of view.

Mr. LANCTOT:

lou may come to my

constituency of you like, and I wish you all the success that you may get.

Mr. BROWN:

Mr. CALDWELL:

When was the reduction made?

Mr. BROWN:

The reduction complained of was made in 1922 so that the mill in question had been burned down fully five years before the budget effecting that reduction was presented to the House. Can you blame us when we sometimes question the statements made in the literature that we receive? We want to know the facts; we want to deal fairly with the people, and we insist that they deal fairly with us.

Here is another. I have a clipping here from a little paper published in Winnipeg called Canadian Farm Implements. This article from which I quote was written in reply to an address given by President J. B. Reynolds of the Ontario Agricultural College, at a meeting of the Canadian Society of Technical Agriculturists. He made some reference to farm implements to which the writer of this article took exception, and here is what he said:

Despite this fact, and the professor did not tell this to the technicians, at the present time the cost of all the necessary implements for a half-section farm are four per cent lower in price than they were in October, 1914. True, some implements cost more than they did then, but this is offset by the fact that other implements cost a great deal less.

When I read that statement first in the Farmers' Sun, which quoted it, I was'amazed knowing the facts as I knew them, that such a statement should be made anywhere. I wrote a letter to the Farmers' Sun asking for an explanation of those figures, but I was not satisfied, so I found out where this paper was published, and I went to the editor and got from him the sources of his information, and my intention was at one time, on the basis of the figures that were put into my hands by the man who was responsible for that statement, to have those figures put on Hansard. I have them here, but since the editor of that paper and the man who is responsible for such a statement being made admitted to me that it gave an entirely wrong impression to the country, and since I am told that he admitted it later to a meeting of his own salesmen that he gathered together, I shall not go any further with the matter unless some person wishes to assume responsibility and stand behind the statement I have just quoted. In that case I shall be most happy to discuss the matter with him and show wherein the whole statement is absolutely absurd. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, that we consider we have a right when manufacturers or any other set of business men undertake to place any of the details of their business before us or give any reasons why they take the position they do, to ask that, they treat us with absolute fairness and not

The Address-Mr. Brown

make as was done in this one case an absolutely false, and in the other case a misleading statement.

I want now to turn my attention for a short time to the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). I do not wish to accuse that hon. gentleman of making deliberate misstatements of fact. I do not wish it for a moment to be thought I am doing so, but I do wish to point out that his error in discussing his own amendment, which so far has received very little attention, was not in giving wrong facts but in dragging facts into the discussion which had absolutely no place in it, and cluttering up the records with a lot of superfluous material. You will remember that in the course of his argument, after pointing out the amount of animal and vegetable products imported into Canada for food purposes, thinking to strengthen his argument, no doubt, but as a matter of fact it only weakened it, just as any argument is weakened when unnecessary material is drawn in, he mentioned some $43,000,000 of vegetable products other than foods that were imported, and a question came from this corner of the House, what was included in that list? "I do not know", he said. Evidently he did not think it was worth his while to find out. Some suggested that it would be very desirable to find out just what was included, and on the spur of the mement I asked the hon. member if it included rubber. He ,did not know. Well, the force which his total had in the discussion depended very largely, if not altogether, upon the particular items which it included. I do not know whether he has since taken our advice and found out what is included in that list, but here is his opportunity.