Hon. EDMUND BRISTOL (Toronto East Centre):

I wish to call the attention of the

House to an article which appears in to-day's Gazette, headed "Settle with Chicago." It contains a statement with reference to myself and a statement which Mr. Magrath is reported to have made. It also indicates generally that Mr. Magrath and the commission were not backing up this motion. As far as I know, Mr. Magrath is personally backing up the motion which appears in my name. Then they want to know on whose behalf it is made. Well it is made on behalf of the province of Ontario, with the full knowledge, approval and co-operation of the premier of that province, who claims that one-half of the property at Niagara Falls affected by section 5 of this treaty, belongs, to the province of Ontario, and the other half to the state of New York. Objection is taken that we should not discuss this matter or deal with it, or speak to the people of the United States on it, so long as the Chicago matter is unsettled. When I make the motion I will take up this matter, but I wish to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that this motion is made with the approval of the Premier of Ontario and with his full knowledge and assistance.

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):

I am' glad of the opportunity which is furnished me to-day of congratulating the

The Budget-Mr. Marcil

I am sure that announcement was well received by the buyers of automobiles throughout Canada.

The reductions vary from $15 on the runabout, without a self-starter, to $45 on the Tudor, Fordor and truck, with starter models. The complete price list compared with the old is as follows:

And then the list is given. I think that is a pretty good start. It shows the people are not at all displeased with that cut in the tariff. I am glad to be able to give an appendix to this statement in the form of an extract from an article written during the past year by Mr. R. S. McLaughlin, president of General Motors of Canada, Limited'-Who at the present time is very much in the public eye -entitled "Automobile Industry has Record Year." In this article he does not condemn any of the trade arrangements made by this government. He concludes with this statement:

Export business has shown a good margin of increase over the previous year, as well as domestic sales. The very timely action of the Baldwin administration in effecting the restoration of the McKenna duties in Great Britain has been of immediate benefit to the industry, as well as an encouraging factor in regard to future trading.

Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):

Do you take

credit for that?

Mr. MARCIL:

This is what Mr. Mc-

Laughlin says, the president of General Motors of Canada. He says that the automobile export trade in this country has been on the increase. We do not claim any credit for any action taken by the Baldwin government, but I think we may claim some credit for what follows:

The ratification of the Australian preferential agreement by the Canadian/ (parliament is also taken by the industry as a good omen for the future of Canadian export business in the Antipodes, where markets have been expanding rapidly of late. Canadian automobile manufacturers should be enabled to strengthen their hold on the Australian market as a result of the preferential agreement, especially if Australia sees its way clear to modify the regulation which requires motor vehicles to foe valued for duty purposes on the basis of price in the home market. The application of this rule at present works to the detriment of the Canadian manufacturer for .the reason that it costs considerably more to build motor cars in Canada than in the United States, even after taking into consideration the customs drawback allowed on exported material, and in consequence, higher duties are collected on cars made in Canada, than on cars made in the United States, even though the price to the Australian consumer be the same.

The way the matter strikes me, and as I think it strikes the average man on the street who is not familiar with the ins and outs of the automobile trade, is this: Why should the same automobile sell cheaper in the United (States than it sells in Canada? That is a point I have never been able to understand,

and that is what catches the fancy, I believe, of the Canadian people. The nearer we get to the prices that prevail in the United States, the nearer we shall get to ensuring the prosperity of the automobile industryYn this country, because it must not be forgotten that the more cars that are sold in Canada, the greater .will be the prosperity of the automobile industry in this country. It was prophesied in the old days when tariff cuts were made on this article, on that and the other, that different industries would be ruined, but the very reverse has taken place, and these different businesses have gone on improving very satisfactorily.

I had intended to speak of the pulp and .paper industry, but I shall leave that for another occasion, as well as many other extracts I had intended quoting, because I do not want to fatigue the House, and I know that our friends do not want to have this debate unduly prolonged.

Now I will go outside the House and quote a few lines from some of the leading newspapers of Canada, on both sides of the fence, to show how this budget was received the day after it was delivered, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall give these extracts as briefly as possible. Let us begin with the Morning Chronicle of Halifax, which says:

The budget, we believe, will be welcomed by the people of Canada as a great step forward in the fulfilment of the policy of progressive Liberal ism and equally for the promise it offers that the government has set i-ts face definitely in the direction o*f lightening the burdens of consumers and taxpayers and of freeing trade and business from hampering restrictions and burdensome exactions. The King government has given the country a real Liberal budget. It is of good augury for the future prosperity of the whole country.

The Sydney Record says: [DOT]

Canada is winning through. This country, like all other countries, has had a hard time in recent years, though it is always rightly to be remembered that Canadians have been better off than the people of most countries. The pessimists have talked a great deal of the sore plight of the nation and have shaken their heads dubiously as to the future. Some politicians, for unworthy partisan reasons, have magnified the difficulties and exaggerated the facts. The truth is that Canada has been winning through in fine style. There has been gradual but steady progress. In the last year or two progress has become swifter. The country is now entering upon a period that promises to be a period of general prosperity. Trade is expanding, immigration is increasing, business is improving in the Dominion as a whole, and now federal taxation is coming down. Canada is a place for optimists and no place for pessimists. And Canadians should be standing up for their country each day and all the days.

Now I ipass to the Inland province and give a short- extract from the Patriot of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island:

The note struck by the Finance minister in his budget speech will resound throughout Canada; it will

The Budget-Mr. Marcil

inspire confidence, and enlarge hope. It relieves the people to a considerable extent of the burden of taxation. This in itself is a great achievement; but the greatest emphasis is to be placed upon the fact that the government has been enabled to accomplish this because of the increasing prosperity of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Let me. pass to St. John, New Brunswick. The St. John Telegraiph-Journal says:

The budget speech is a surprise both financially and politically. It has several welcome features, and perhaps the best of these is that it not only lessens materially the general burden of taxation but gives the country at large a measure of encouragement which is particularly timely.

Now I will give a word from a French-Canadian newspaper published in Montreal, and edited by one of the members of this House, a paper that is generally regarded as independent in politics. Le Devoir says:

(Translation): From every angle, the Robb budget shows a marked improvement over those which preceded it. The budgets of Sir Thomas White, during the war, taxed more and more the rate-payers. Those during the period of demobilization, from Sir Henry Drayton's advent up to Mr. Fielding's time, further burdened the rate-payers. Mr. Fielding relieved but little the situation. For the first time since 1915, a Finance minister, instead of seeking from rate-payers more money, more taxes or advising them to be patient and wait, tells them: "The worst is over, the summit of the hill has been reached, we are now on the downward slope, breathe more freely, I have less need of you."

La Presse, of Montreal, says that the rubicon has been passed, that is, the rubicon between the days of heavy taxation, war nightmares and the other evils of the past and the present days of full sunshine and prosperity, the prosperity the Liberal party gave to this country in the old days. La Presse says:

(Translation) The Budget speech delivered yesterday by the hon. Mr. Robb is indeed an event of importance: in fact, it ends an epoch and opens up a new era in the history of Canada. ,

For the first time since too many long years, the Canadian rate-payer, in the habit of seeing new taxes grafted upon him each tune the budget was introduced, witnesses, to his astonishment and great joy that, on the contrary, this year, the benefits by a reduction in taxes: a real and very substantial reduction.

Even the Montreal Star was unable on its first impression on the 16th of April to refrain from opening its editorial headed, "An Election Budget," as follows:

Canada is to be warmly congratulated on the changed conditions which liave made Mr. Robb's optimistic budget possible. If nature had not been kind, if th*e inevitable and yet long-delayed recovery from the wounds of the war had not really begun, Mr. Robb would never have been able to deflight his partisans and gratify the country with what is, perhaps, the best pre-election budget ever delivered in parliament.

That is a pretty good statement from that authority. The Recorder and Times, of

Brockville, concludes its editorial of the 16th of April as follows:

The reduction in taxation has been made possible through the greatly improved state of the federal finances. Receipts have been increased and the national debt decreased. As these finances may be expected to grow even more satisfactory from year ito year, still further reductions are in prospect. Gradually but surely Canada is overcoming the economic difficulties which followed in the wake of the war and returning to the very pleasant state of affairs which existed before 1914. Mr. Robb and the government of which he is a member are entitled to a cordial and unanimous vote of thanks. They have done well, even better than was expected.

The British Whig of Kingston, Ontario, makes the following statement:

The 1926 Robb budget will be hailed by business men and other workers all over the country as the best news from Ottawa since Armistice day.

The Mail and Empire begins an editorial in the following manner:

The very substantial reduction made in the burden of income taxation will not be the less welcome to thousands of Canadians because it is announced within a fortnight of the day when the care-wearing task of preparing the returns and finding the money for the first instalment must be completed.

The Toronto Globe has this to say:

In a budget, which proclaims the business renascence of Canada, emergence from long post-war depression, the Minister of Finance yesterday presented the country with $25,000,000 by way of annual relief from various imposts. Such extensive reductions were unexpected. Canada had become rather reconciled to the burden of war debt, seeing relief only in the future with increased population and greatly enlarged business. That the burden is being lifted in a substantial measure at this date brings the welcome conviction that we are definitely on the upward trend.

The Hamilton Herald says:

Whether or not Finance Minister Robb has done a wise thing in cutting down taxes and thus dispensing with many millions of revenue, it is certain that he has done a very popular thing. He has perhaps made it harder for the government; but he has made things easier for thousands of Canadian taxpayers. In the end, probably, it will be found that he has done a wise as well as a popular thing, for the measure of relief from taxation will act as a stimulus to some branches of industry and serve to allay widespread discontent.

The St. Thomas Times-Journal expresses itself as follows:

Evidently, Mr. Robb fully appreciated the responsibility of preparing his first individual budget, and was no less anxious to frame proposals that would prove widely acceptable and provoke as small a measure of dissent as humanly possible. That he made a careful study of the taxation system as it existed is plain, and in deciding what and where to change or modify, his aim has clearly been to do the greatest good to the greatest number, especially those whose moderate incomes and means make taxation, however limited, a relatively heavy burden.

The. Budget-Mr. Marcil

I quote the following from the Border Cities Star:

Hon. J. A. Robb's budget, brought down in the House yesterday, is the most important since the war. And, in some aspects, it is the most encouraging. Details which were published in the Border Cities Star yesterday within the same hour as their delivery in the House, reveal a genuine effort to make a good showing. Surpluses are produced, revenue is shown higher than expenditures, taxes are reduced, and tariffs are changed with a rather sweeping motion.

The Border Cities Star goes on to comment in a favourable manner on the features of the budget, except as to the automobile duties which of course is a live issue in that particular locality. The Winnipeg Tribune has the following to say:

None of the reductions, apart from the cut in income taxes, will substantially affect the revenues of the government, and even in the case of the income tax the indirect benefits may shortly bring greater returns to the treasury. Next year the people will expect as many and as great slashes at taxation. With increasing prosperity, and .the opportunity o.f reducing the national expenditures substantially, there are still possibilities of immense reductions in taxation.

The Winnipeg Free Press has an editorial under the caption "A People's Budget." In the editorial itself the following comment is made: .

The budget brought down to parliament yesterday by the Minister of Finance will give widespread satisfaction. It shows the country to be in a soundly prosperous condition, with the certain prospect of further improvement; and at brings to the individual taxpayer not the promise, but the actuality of a substantial reduction in taxation that will be felt immediately in every household in the country.

I quote the following from the IMorning Leader of Regina:

The budget presented yesterday by Hon. James A. Robb, Minister of Finance, is one that reflects prosperity and that will mean still more prosperity. It is a budget of the famous Fielding type; it tells of great strides in Canadian trade, and it spells action, also, in the very important tax reductions that have been announced.

I find the following in the Halifax Herald:

The taxpayers of Canada get long-delayed but none the less welcome relief under the proposals of the budget, opened at Ottawa by the Minister of Finance an Thursday afternoon.

And so on. I might quote opinions from many other newspapers, 'but I shall not further trespass upon the patience of the House. I t'hink I have demonstrated 'beyond perad-venture that, although nothing is perfect in this world-and a budget could not be perfect any more than any other human creation- this particular budget meets with the hearty approval of reasonably-minded men, and I am quite willing to defend it. It is an exhilarating budget as compared with some of the depressing financial statements presented

during the days of trial and stress. Old Liberal members of this House will remember how we cheered the budgets brought down in pre-war days, and how we submitted from a strict sense of duty to the obligations imposed in budgets during the war period. Happily that period has passed, and I think it has passed forever. Canada is now on the highway to prosperity. We have in this country all the things required for the .building up of a great nation, and we intend to remain Canadian first, last and ail the time. Our differences at the present time relate to economic questions, but it is right and proper that we should differ because as the French say, du choc des idees jaillit la lumiere. It is from such discussions that we will be able to solve our problems. Our problems are of an economic character, and as long as they remain within that realm there c.ln be no doubt as to the future of Canada. The old idea that we had a western Canada and an eastern Canada is fast passing away: There must be but one

.United Canada. There used to be Borne years ago a French Canada and an English Canada. That era is also disappearing. We French Canadians of the province of Quebec are learning the English language, and I must say to their credit that some of the outstanding men who came to this parliament many years ago unable to speak a single word in the English tongue have mastered that language and deliver to-day some of the most eloquent speeches heard in this chamber. That is a good example which I hope our English speaking Canadians will imitate, because they know as wdll as I do the tremendous advantage it is for a man to be master of two and even three 'languages.

In this country we shall reach the solution of many of our difficulties if the people can only understand each other, if they can only meet together in mutual intercourse. Because our common aim is the same, that of building up on the North American continent the civilization of Great Britain and the civilization of France, to further the advance of humanity and of civilization in all its forms. The French Canadian has his merits, 'the Anglo Saxon has his; those who come from other countries 'have theirs also. Let us unite in seeking to realize one common aim, and we shall create on this North American continent a nation of which the British Empire will be proud for all time to come.

The Budget-Mr. Dickie

Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):

I have

listened with great attention to the address of the last speaker and with many of his remarks, certainly with his concluding words, I thoroughly agree. I also agree with the hon. member that a certain degree of prosperity has come to Canada; but in all the extracts from newspaper editorials read by the hon. gentleman very little credit was given to the present government for that prosperity. That prosperity has come because Providence has been kind to us.

The hon. gentleman eulogized the Minister of Finance. I think we all agree as to the splendid personality and the ability of that gentleman. We are very glad indeed that we can compliment him upon being able to bring down such a favourable budget. With all the features of that budget, of course, we are not in agreement. It is not my intention to take up much of the time of the House on this occasion, but I will just deal with one or two of what I conceive to be errors, either of commission or omission, in the budget.

The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Donaghy) gave us an interesting address last night. It was his maiden speech and I compliment him upon it. He made a deliverance which rang true on the subject of the manufacturing of our raw materials in this country. He said nothing that would indicate that he had views along the lines of free trade for Canada.

With respect to the problem of the raw resources of Canada, this has been a tale thrice told by me in this House and I will not reiterate views I have already expressed. I think this problem is one of the most important factors in the economic life of Canada. Still we have no word from the government opposite in regard to any relief being granted or anything being done which will enable this country to retain more of her men. The hon. member who has just addressed the House (Mr. Marcil) spoke of the wonderful progress Canada was making. I fail to see where there is any congestion of passenger traffic due to Canadians coming back to Canada; in fact I know of very few of them coming back. With respect to the stock market, since the first of January stocks have been falling almost as much as they rose during the whole of last year. That i3 no indication of prosperity in Canada.

Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):

What

about the New York stock markets?

Mr. DICKIE:

I am speaking of that market. You know quite well, Mr. Speaker, that since the first of January Stocks have dropped very greatly. LaH year they rose until the

1st of January, and since then they have been going down, although lately there has been a slight recovery. Placing the Speech from the Throne and the budget side by side and comparing them, they reminded me of a speech of an American politician, at the conclusion of which he said: "Fellow citizens, them is my sentiments; if you do not agree with them, they may be changed." That appears to be pretty well the attitude of the government. In the Speech from the Throne they gave us to understand that the tariff would not be tinkered with until consideration was given to it by the commission qualified to deal with it. In the budget speech they come down . like a thunderbolt with this change in the policy, making a reduction of the customs tariff on automobiles. We all know why it was. The government said, in effect, "Providence has been kind to us and has been kind to Canada, The province of Saskatchewan has been kind to us and therefore we must bow to their will. They stand like a Colossus astride the people of Quebec. They say, as Caesar said, " ' Do this,' and 'tis accomplished." The government has given way to them, and has said in effect: "We will send more money and more of our men across the line to swell the population and prosperity of that country."

We expected that through the newly-created tariff board we would be educated as to the rights and wrongs of the automobile industry. Many of us feel quite strongly that we have been charged too much for automobiles, but we do not know; we are not quite sure in the absence of expert advice on the subject. I might, however, perhaps make an exception of the great Ford companj'; it appears that they have been making excessive profits. However, we were quite willing to await the report and did await the report of the tariff board with respect to that industry. This provision in the budget came, I say, like a thunderbolt, and automobile people were appalled. We do not know where we stand; we do not know next where the blow will fall, and this is all done in deference to our friends from Saskatchewan and the Progressive party. It is pitiful to think of the once great Liberal party getting down on its knees to the Progressive party and to the province of 'Saskatchewan at this time.

We must be an industrial country or we must fail. No country can succeed by agriculture alone. We must industrialize this country. We realize that, and the people of Quebec must realize it, just as do the people of British Columbia and of the other prov-

The Budget-Mr. Dickie

inces. Many of these people are protectionists, Still they are lining up with those interests which are advocating 'free trade-all in order that the government of the right hon. Prime Minister may have a further short lease of power. I have been a Conservative, Mr. Speaker, as long as I can remember, but if at any time my party should descend to any such truckling as we have witnessed, in order to remain in power, I would leave them at once. I believe in the dignity of party. I am dismayed and sorrowful indeed to see the once great Liberal party degenerate, as it has done. I am sorry to see our Canadian friends who believe in protection not sticking up for it. In effect they say, "Let our sons and daughters who were born in Canada, and whom we loved and educated, drift across the line-anything in order that the government of the Prime Minister may remain in power." What kind of Canadian sentiment is that, Mr. Speaker? I do not understand it, and I think few of us do.

This budget will undoubtedly have the effect of forcing more people to drift across the line. That indeed! seems to be the emigration policy of the government. The United States government have spent millions to keep people from coming to their adequately protected country. We have spent millions in the endeavour to bring people from Europe and to use Canada as a training school to qualify for citizenship in the United States. We practically say, "Come, no matter whether you prefer the red flag to the Union Jack; we want you to come to Canada, we want conscientious objectors; we want anybody to come and we must have immigration to Canada, while at the same time the United States are keeping these people out." We have the conscientious objectors in British Columbia; in fact one man I was informed was so conscientious he would not split wood because of the scriptural injunction, "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." I am sorry indeed to see the once great party opposite adopt such tactics. They remind me of the sick man turning from side to side in his bed, weary, restless, impotent, unable to help himself, willing to even sacrifice a kingdom, if he had it, in order that he might recover; in other words, to fit the present case, in order that the government may live and remain in power. Such an attitude on the part of any party cannot help having an adverse effect on that party, even though for the time being they may seem to be deriving some slight benefit from it.

We have, as hon. gentlemen know, expected and wished for some relief for our small farmer in British Columbia as well as in

Ontario and Quebec. In British Columbia we have not those vast domains which they have in the Northwest Territories. We have only small farms, and we specialize in dairying and poultry raising. I represent I believe more poultrymen than any other man in the Dominion of Canada. My district is ideal for that sort of thing. We have on the beautiful islands along the coast of Vancouver island, as well as on that island itself, extensive poultry industries upon which millions of dollars have been expended. They have brought the modern hen up to a degree of efficiency that never was dreamed of years ago. We have the modern hen developed so that it approximates a mechanical unit; all we have to do is to feed Alberta and Saskatchewan grain to the hens, and out comes the egg! The price of that grain is fixed by the world's market, and we are glad that is the case. Immediately a hen does not live up to past records the unit is discarded and replaced. In British Columbia we have the best poultry on the American continent. Today we are sending breeds of our poultry to the Argentine, India, China and Australia. We specialize in poultry raising; with us it has become a scientific industry. But we find that we cannot compete with the United States people in this respect. I do not know a Leghorn from a Wyandotte, but I know ninety per cent of British Columbia poultry-men are returned soldiers and seventy per cent of them want nothing from this Dominion of Canada but an equal chance with their brothers across the line in the poultry business. These men came back from the War, doffed their uniforms and put on their working clothes, asking for nothing. They put their money into the poultry business; they have been struggling along and they are suffering under a handicap, no matter what the Minister of Finance may say about the prices of eggs and butter being fixed in the markets of the world. He can talk in that way until ice forms where ice has never formed before, but I know that when eggs and butter come from Seattle and Puget Sound cities into the British Columbia cities of Victoria and Vancouver, down goes the price of our eggs. We let eggs come in under a duty of three cents per dozen; but when conditions are reversed and we have a surplus of eggs which we want to send across the border because the market there is good, we are met with a hostile tariff of eight cents a dozen. Are we mice rather than men that we are going to stand for that sort of thing?

The Minister of Finance says that the price of butter is fixed in the world market. Every boy on the street, every woman in British

The Budget-Mr. Dickie

Columbia knows that when a shipment of New Zealand butter comes on to the market in Vancouver or Victoria, down goes the price of butter. We know the United States policy with respect to these matters. Why not adopt a similar policy? I do not believe in copying anybody; I believe we are strong enough, vigorous enough, virile enough and sensible enough to adopt a policy that will be adequate for the protection of the farmers and manufacturers of Canada without respect to the policy any other nation may adopt.

I care not what tariff the United States people may impose, I would impose a tariff adequate to protect this country, just as they are doing to protect theirs, and not necessarily an imitation of them. When we find their butter and eggs coming in to the detriment of our dairymen and poultrymen, and when we find their manufactured goods appearing on the shelves of our stores in competition with goods manufactured in Canada, I would impose a duty to prevent that. Where do you see on the United States side any of our goods exposed for sale? The moment any article manufactured in Canada goes over there, up goes their tariff. That is a wise, sensible policy, a policy that has been adopted by every country in the world with the exception of Canada.

Owing to the strong appeals from the people in the prairie piovinces, who, I admit, would not benefit by a highly protective tariff, we are forced to acquiesce in their wishes that we should still travel along the line of a moderate tariff and allow goods manufactured in United States to enter Canada. I want this thing to be spread equally over Canada and I say, as our leader has said, that I would be willing to reimburse our brethren in the west to the extent of their losses in having to pay more for goods manufactured in Canada than they would have to pay if they bought in the United States. But we must buy in Canada. I have said this before and I say it again: We must keep

more of our money in this country or we cannot succeed. We talk of prosperity in Canada. We have made some strides; but this wonderful Canada of ours, with its vast resources in timber, mines and agriculture, instead of simply increasing a little in prosperity from time to time should be one of the most prosperous countries in the world. We have the population,-fine up-standing, broad men. I have seen them by the thousand leaving Canada, men who could hold a cow up with one hand and milk her with the other. We want to keep those men in this country rather than allow them to drift away to the United States.

With lespect to the automobile industry- and -I speak for myself; I do not speak for my party-instead of reducing the duties I would give the automobile industry a fifty per cent piotection. Then I would say to those manufacturers: We have given Canada

for your field; prepare for and go ahead with your mass production; but we want cheaper automobiles. I know that one of the greatest automobile factories in Canada would be prepared to concede a ten per cent cut right now had that been done, and I have no doubt others, would do the same thing. In time they could manufacture automobiles in such a way that the price could be reduced, and I would have the government say to those people: We will not stand for any

illegitimate profiteering. In that way we would keep millions of our money and thousands of our men in Canada. That is the way in which I would' build up this great country of ours.

With regard to our good friends from the west, for whose ideas I have every respect, although we have not in British Columbia perhaps the vast expanse of acreage that there is in the prairies, I think we have a broader national vision-and I say that in all kindness to my hon. friends. We have our grievances in British Columbia. We can buy the goods we require more cheaply in the United States than we can in Canada, but there is no desire on the part of our people to do that. We are willing to make little sacrifices in order that the whole of the Dominion may succeed. It makes me, I will not say impatient, but a little sorry to hear at times such remarks from my friends from the west. I do not think they mean them as badly as they sound. Two ot three years ago the 'hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) came here with five or six measly, almost rotten apples, in what seemed to some an effort to discredit the fruit growers and packers of British Columbia, at a time when they were spending and had lost millions in trying to build up the fruit industry of Canada. Another member from Saltcoats, an estimable gentleman who is not in the House now, said in this chamber: We will soon be able

to grow rhubarb in the northwest so that we shall not require any British Columbia apples. We all know the free trade proclivities of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) who used to moan and groan when anything was said about enacting a dumping clause that would keep Washington apples out of British Columbia. Those are things, I say with all respect to all parts of the House, that are not conducive to that unity preached

The Budget-Mr. Dickie

by the very sincere hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). I think that the prairie people should cultivate a broader vision which would enable them to help us to make Canada the country which it was designed to be by a beneficent Providence. Surely the winds that sweep across that great prairie country have not dried up all the milk of human kindness. Our poultrymen in British Columbia have to work every day in the year and during the last year they have lost manj' thousands of dollars because they cannot produce eggs at thirty cents a dozen. They buy goods from the merchants; the merchants buy from others, lumber is bought, and all that money is circulated. But when we send any of that money into the United States, it is gone. We want it circulating in Canada. That is the only sane policy to adopt. All other countries have adopted it; why do we hesitate for a purely political reason? Let us have a policy that will make Canada a great country because Canada is greater than all political parties.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

In fairness to the hon. member for Macleod, who is not in the House at present, I might point out that on the occasion referred to by the hon. gentleman, what the hon. member for Macleod was complaining about was the system of grading. He showed some inferior apples which were graded Fancy Sweets, or something of that kind. I would assume that the fruit growers of British Columbia would be just as much interested in having a proper grading system as the consumers on the prairies. There was no attack whatever on the fruit growers of British Columbia.

Mr. DICKIE I did not say there was an attack on the part of the member for Macleod, but it led to very many things being said that we were sorry to hear, especially from the hon. member for Hosetown and others. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken knows how hard they fought against the dumping clause in order that they might get apples in from Wenatchee and other points south of the line. Perhaps their packing methods were not quite up to date but they were doing their best. We know that the orientals sometimes pack apples which are not shipped through the white packing associations of British Columbia and we know also that the people of that province have lost fortunes in the endeavour to build up an industry. I do not attribute badness of heart to our Progressive friends but things of this sort lead some people who perhaps are not given to looking for motives of gener-

osity to think that the people of the prairies were opposed to the interests of British Columbia. Let me assure "hon. gentlemen that our struggle is a hard one.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

On the occasion in

question the recriminations were mutual as they usually are under such circumstances.

Mr. DICKIE:

The recriminations may

have been mutual but I took no part in them. We in British Columbia, I say, are having a hard fight. We are, so to speak, shaking dice with the mountains, trying to wrest wealth from their tenacious grip. In the poultry and dairy businesses everybody is working hard to succeed and all we want is to be put on equal terms with other nations who have adopted the protective policy. As my good friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) observed yesterday, we do not see people going from Canada to reside in England, and England is as nearly a free trade country as one can find anywhere. Look at Australia. We are allowing their eggs to come into Canada to the detriment of our industry. I do not say that as a matter of fact their eggs will come in, but some doubtless will be imported. But the significant fact is that Australia with a duty of eighteen cents per dogen on eggs is given the opportunity to send her product into this country in competition with ours if she can manage it. Is there any sense in such a policy? Australia came out of the war torn, battered and bleeding, as we were, but years ago she was paying off her debt and reducing taxation so that two years ago she was prospering and is still prospering. Australia has a protective tariff to safeguard her manufacturers and all her producers. And in this regard she serves as an object lesson to us. Take the United States again: it is true they came out of the war in better shape than we did, and it is also true that they were more prosperous than we were before the war came, but we see our people going across the line from year to year, and all because there is a policy over there that makes for employment. We know that the moment we try to send anything into the United States, a tariff wall is erected to stop our progress. I do not say that we should build a tariff of brick for brick, but I do say that we should have an adequate tariff wall to keep out the manufactured products of other countries which have tariff policies hostile to us. Only in that way can we bring about that prosperity that will make for the unity which we all desire to see achieved in Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Dickie

I am sure every one of us wants to see Canada succeed, and this success can be attained if we are prepared to compromise a little here and there. I maintain, however, that Canada can never hope to make any real progress without a protective tariff. I am convinced of the soundness of that argument, everything tends to support it. Why should we arrogate to ourselves a knowledge superior to the wisdom of experience in every other part of the globe? Every country has a protective policy except poor Canada. We have some protection but what was adequate in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and in the days of Sir John A, Macdonald is inadequate at the present time. As mass production sprang up in other parts of the world, and new methods were put into practice, the tariff which we had in this country proved insufficient to protect us. We see the Americans putting up their tariff from time to time, while France is doing the same thing. France has a tariff of 100 per cent on some articles and generally she takes every possible means to keep her workingmen employed at home. That is a sort of policy we should have in Canada. We want to see this country united and we shall see this hope realized in time, I am sure, although it must be confessed that now and then one loses heart.

When the Roman Empire fell, two great nations came into prominence in Europe- England and France, representing the pinnacle of culture and civilization in the Old World. These two countries in the course of their history have alternately fought and caressed, and notwithstanding all their faults they stood out as the two greatest peoples of Europe. Then came those awful days of 1914 when they fought side by side in defence of a common ideal. It annoys me to hear disparaging remarks of the British Empire, but even if we admit, as I personally do not admit, that England went to the aid of France merely from motives of self-preservation, it seems to me that every intelligent man must concede that had not Great Britain entered the war when she did, and gone to the relief of France, la belle France would not be in existence today as an independent nation; she would have been wiped off the map. So that whatever injury Britain may have done to France at any time, she has paid her account in full.

We in Canada are descended on the one hand from the French and on the other from the English, and there is no reason why we should not stand side by side and make this a united and prosperous land. Let no barriers of race and creed stand in the way, but let 14011-170-i

us all work together to make this a nation of which we may be proud. I well remember in the early days of California that the best recommendation any man going into that country could have was the fact that he was a Canadian. His Canadian citizenship carried with it credentials which were at once accepted. Ho had been brought up in a place where the motto that 'honesty is the best policy had been constantly before him in the little schoolhouse and in his home. Canadians occupied very many of the responsible positions in California.

Just across from Victoria is the big city of Seattle, where a few years ago nine-tenths of the positions of responsibility were held by Canadians because they had been taught to be honest and had therefore qualities which appealed to the Amerioan people. That is one reason why we are allowed to go there to-day while other people are excluded.

Before I conclude I want to read the following resolution passed by the poultrymen in my district:

That whereas, the present duty on eggs entering Canada is only three cents per dozen as compared with the duty of eight cents per dozen on eggs entering the U.S.A.;

And whereas, the Canadian duty of three cents per dozen makes possible the import of U.S.A. eggs into Canada, (particularly storage eggs and at some seasons of the year fresh eggs, thereby making it unprofitable for B.C. poultrymen to send their eggs to the prairie and eastern Canadian markets;

And whereas, the duty of three cents per dozen is in the neighbourhood of approximately 12 per cent at present prices;

And whereas, Canadian eggs are almost totally prevented from entering the U.S.A. by reason of the eight cent tariff;

Be it therefore resolved:

(a) That the federal government be requested, as an act of justice to Canadian poultrymen, to raise the tariff on U.S.A. eggs coming into Canada to an equality with the tariff imposed on Canadian eggs going into the U.S.A.

(b) That the federal government be requested to moke the Eggs Marks Act of B.C. applicable to the Dominion of Canada as a whole.

And be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, the Hon. E. D. Barrow, Minister of Agriculture for B.C., and to each of the federal members for B.C., also to various co-operative and poultry associations throughout Canada, and to all poultry journals circulating in the Dominion.

What is there unreasonable in that application? Ft comes from the centre of the poultry industry of Canada. I can assure the government that these people are justified in seeking some protection against competition from the United States. Surely it is not too much to ask, and I hope that this government will see its way clear to give that protection.

With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I beg to put on Hansard two other

2676 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)

resolutions of the same character as the one I have just read:

Whereas, under the Canadian-Australian treaty, eggs from Australia are allowed to enter Canada free of duty;

And whereas, under the Dominion of Canada grading regulations it is possible that eggs from Australia raised under summer conditions will be able to enter Canada as fresh eggs at a time when winter conditions prevail in Canada:

And whereas, this will increase the already serious competition which Canadian poultrymen have to meet from eggs from the U.S.A.;

Be it therefore resolved: that the federal government be requested to add to the present definition of the word "fresh" the length of time during which eggs intended for sale as "fresh" in Canada may be held when in transit at a temperature of 35 Fahrenheit, or less:

And be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, the Hon. E. D. Barrow, Minister of Agriculture for B.C., and to each of the federal members for B.C., also to the various co-operative and poultry associations throughout Canada, and to all poultry journals circulating in the Dominion.

Whereas, there is reason to believe that an effort a-itl shortly be made by certain produce dealers in the prairie provinces to secure the modification of the present egg grading regulations, which modification amounts practically to the abandonment of egg grading;

Be it resolved: that the federal government be requested to make no alteration in the present regula -tions beyond the amendment asked for in resolution No. 2.

And be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, the Hon. E. D. Barrow, Minister of Agriculture for B.C., and to each of the federal members for B.C., also to the various cooperative and poultry associations throughout Canada, and to all poultry journals circulating in the Dominion.

Mr. GEORGE SPENCE (Maple Creek):

I wish to add a few words of commendation to what has been said by previous speakers in congratulation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the splendid budget he has presented to parliament. I have briefly summarized the main features of that budget and I find that they consist of a reduction in the national debt of some $22,000,000; a reduction of $25,000,000 in taxation; substanial reductions in income tax, particularly in the lower grades; the abolition of the receipt tax; reductions and exemptions in the sales tax; automobile tariff cut to 20 per cent on cars of $1,200 and under, and to 27A per cent on cars over that value; balance sheet showing $402,695,000 in our favour; British preference applicable to direct shipments through Canadian ports; and last, Mr. Speaker, but by no means least, the return on Dominion Day to penny postage. It is a budget for the common people. I shall refer to it more particularly in detail as I discuss certain questions which I now propose to bring before the House.

[Mr. Dickie.)

I feel like offering some apology, Sir, for engaging the attention of hon. members on matters of more or less local importance, but I would remind them that, not having spoken in the debate on the Address, this is perhaps the only opportunity I shall have this session of discussing these matters. I realize also that a private member has a responsibility to his constituency and that certain local problems affect the Dominion as a whole. Therefore I think it is his duty and privilege to bring his best judgment to bear on the solution of those problems.

I come,- Sir, from a purely rural constituency in one of the oldest settlements of the province of Saskatchewan, the constituency of Maple Creek. At one time the greater part of my riding was open range, and the chief industry of the settlers was ranching. Following the inauguration of the great homestead policy there was a steady influx of settlers, which resulted in a large additional acreage of land being brought under cultivation. Now, like every other policy that is more or less of general application, mistakes were made under the homestead policy-mistakes by the government itself in the first place, and also by the settlers. The mistakes made by the government worked the greatest hardship, due to the attempt to apply the policy indiscriminately without regard to the varying conditions of soil and climate. This criticism applies not only to the particular constituency of Maple Creek, but also to the great bulk of southern Alberta. There are lands in my constituency, not very extensive, it is true, where farming has not been very much of a success. There is a small corner in the southwestern portion of Saskatchewan and a larger area in southern Alberta where the climate is rather inhospitable to the growing of spring grain, which is commonly understood to cover wheat, oats and flax.

For this and perhaps other reasons some of our settlers are in more or less financial difficulties. Quite frequently I get letters from settlers not only in the southwestern corner of my constituency but also from others in southern Alberta complaining that they are in arrears with the Dominion government on their pre-emptions, that their indebtedness is steadily growing, and that they are also behind with their payments on seed grain and other relief. There is

5 p.m. no doubt that these people are a great asset to the Dominion. We are contemplating spending money on an empire settlement scheme and on other schemes to attract immigrants. We are also preparing to make a revaluation of the land

The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)

held by returned men. All these activities will I hope help to draw attention to the particular condition which I am now bringing to the notice of the House.

I am not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to state specifically what should be done, but undoubtedly this condition of affairs will have to be carefully inquired into and some action taken as early as possible. I have sometimes thought that a plan of amortization might be adopted, with provision to cancel payment of interest for a period of years. Perhaps something on those lines might be worked out. As I have said, we must do something to retain on the land these people who through misfortunes for which they are not responsible find it increasingly difficult to carry on. I am in hopes that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) will give this matter his favourable consideration. There is one thing I like about him: he is a practical man, he has been through the mill himself. Carlyle has said: Two men I honour, the horny handed son of toil, and the man who works for the moral uplift of his people.

I feel like saying: One man I honour, the

man who has been through the hard school of experience, the man who has been through the mill, the practical man. I have a great deal of confidence in the Minister of the Interior. He knows the problems peculiar to the west and the southwest portions of the prairie provinces, and he has worked with praiseworthy patience and diligence to solve not only the problem of soldiers' re-establishment, but also other perplexing questions which have engaged his attention since he entered the ministry.

There is another matter of importance to my section of the country. I am speaking more particularly now for the rancher, although what I am about to say applies to a lesser degree, but still to a very considerable degree, to the mixed farmer as well. As you know, Sir, we have a great asset in our natural grass. You can turn a steer or a cow out in the spring on the natural prairie grass and before the end of July that animal will be fit for the block. It is a wonderful national asset and adds a great deal to the wealth of the Dominion. Unfortunately, however, we are in what I might term a great inland empire, far from the markets of the world, and when we add the freight, the commission charges and the other tolls levied on that steer before it eventually reaches the markets of Europe, there is very little left for the producer. Therefore I say, Sir, the vital question with the live stock industry to-day is the question of markets. I am sure my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins) will

bear me out in this. I have listened with a great deal of interest to his observations on this question, for I look on him as a practical man, one whose opinion I value, although I am afraid he is not actively engaged in the business at the present time, but is rather what I might say feeding steers by proxy. Be that as it may, I think something must be done to enlarge our market. I have on my desk an article which is the substance of an address which was delivered before the agricultural societies at their last annual convention, and which is reprinted by the Grain Growers Guide of December 23. I understand that Mr. Tom King has given this matter very careful consideration, and I am going to give the conclusions he has reached, and then make a few observations drawn from my experience in the cattle business. He says:

In 1911 the congress of the United States passed a statute which remained in force for eleven years. That statute proposed reciprocal free trade in cattle, at a nominal tax of one-quarter of one cent a pound on beef. During those eleven years parliament did not see fit to accept the proposal, which had been definitely rejected in 1911 by a vote of the Canadian people.

He goes on:

But there was a second offer of reciprocity. In 1913 congress passed the Underwood tariff bill placing cattle and beef on the free list. That law remained on the statute book for eight years, and during all that time Canadian cattle went freely into the United States. During that eight years Canada maintained against all American cattle a tariff of 25 per cent ad valorem, and against American be**r a tax of 3 cents a pound.

He continues:

I am told that when the Fordney-McCumber tariff bill was before the Senate finance committee a rancher of the northern range argued that it might be a good thing to have no tariff barrier between the two countries, because in times of drought American cattle could be driven across the Canadian border. Someone asked him at once whether Canada would be willing to take off her 25 per cent ad valorem duty if the United States put cattle on the free list. He could not answer, and no one could answer for him. It is certainly my impression that at the time of which I speak it was touch and go whether the tariff should be continued or allowed to drop, and the weight that cast the balance was the fact that Canada was maintaining, and for fourteen years had maintained, a tariff of 25 per cent ad valorem against the importation of American cattle.

Then he explains the difficulty which Mr.. Taft had in getting the reciprocal trade agreement through congress. I shall read only the essential parts of his remarks on that phase.. Mr. Taft was indebted to a great man, Mr. Underwood, for the help which enabled him to pass the measure. Mr. King says:

Mr. Underwood was at the time chairman of the House committee dealing with the matter. He said to his Democratic colleagues that the people of Canada had really never rejected reciprocity. He explained that

2678 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)

the reciprocity issue had been tangled up with party politics, and that much weight had been given the fact that a hard and fast bargain was provided for. Now, he said, we will give the Canadians all they would have gotten under reciprocity without demanding any price in advance, without asking for any bond, trusting to their commonsense to show some appreciation. Among other things he put upon the tentative free list for Canada to accept or reject wheat, flour, potatoes He greatly lowered many duties on Canadian grains and dairy products, and when he came to cattle and beef he puts them on the free list absolutely. He was confident that the government of Canada could get for Canada all the benefits of reciprocity without losing their face. He expected that the Canadian duties against American products would be lowered to some extent. He took it for granted that cattle, at any rate, would be put on the free list. Yet in 1921 he told me that up to that time Canada had not shown the slightest appreciation of the very great benefit conferred upon her by the Underwood tariff law.

Mr. MULLINS:

Would the hon. member permit American cattle to come into Canada provided the United States took their duty off and allowed our cattle to go over there?

Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):

Yes, I would, and I would fortify that statement with another one; I do not think very many of them would come into this country.

Mr. MULLINS:

For the information of

the hon. gentleman, may I say that foot and mouth disease and all sorts of other diseases are rampant among American cattle, and in my opinion they should not be permitted to come in here and mix with our healthy herds.

Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):

The hon.

gentleman may know quite a bit about cattle, but he evidently does not know very much about our health laws. We have quarantine stations all along the border. I happen to have the advantage of my hon. friend there, in that I live right on the boundary.

But Mr. Speaker, it is no use crying over spilt milk. The tiling has been done. But it is just as well to look at this question from the United States point of view as well as our own. Though it is no use crying over *spilt milk, something should be done about the matter now. According to Mr. Underwood, and according to Mr. King, and I have no doubt that he is a great authority on this question, it was just a matter of touch and go whether the United States would put on that duty or not, and had we had any representative in that country at that time representing our stockmen, it is altogether likely that the duty would not have gone on. I am not prepared to say-well, yes, I think I will-I will go so far as to say that I think we should be represented at Washington by an ambassador, or a commissioner, or someone who would represent our interests. We have commissioners in almost every important

country of the world, and if there is one place that is more important than another, it is surely the nation lying right to the south of us, where we have our natural market.

There is another feature of our ranching industry that requires a little attention, and that is the horse industry. We have in Saskatchewan approximately one million horses. Altogether in western Canada we have, I believe, over three million horses, and of that number one million represents the surplus for export. Some of these horses are rather small, what is known as the range horse or the broncho. We have no trouble at all as regards our domestic horses weighing from twelve to fourteen or sixteen hundred pounds. But there is very little demand for the small horse in our own country. I understand that an experiment has been carried out by the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the matter of the disposal of surplus horses. A trial shipment has been made to Europe, but up to the present I am not aware except in a general way as to how the experiment has turned out. I for one would be very much interested in knowing exactly what the result of that shipment has been. I should be very glad, therefore, if the Minister of Agriculture will make the report to be prepared on this subject available to every hon. member of the House. I have had one or two conversations with officials who were identified with this experimental shipment, and am credibly informed that it has met with some success and that there is a market in Europe for perhaps from five thousand to ten thousand horses annually. Now that is a very important thing. To be able to make such shipments would afford very material assistance to the horse-breeding industry in western Canada, and I think this experiment should be followed up by further work on constructive lines. I am not much enamoured of the idea that the government should undertake everything which may be needed for the people. I think perhaps there has been a tendency to go too far in that direction in the past, and that we have erred a little in that respect. But there is a bona fide assistance that a government can give the people which is perfectly legitimate; for it is a fact that we can help people to help themselves. The responsibility devolves upon a government to explore every possible avenue of relief. Having made the necessary investigation and arrived at certain conclusions it is then incumbent upon the government to make those conclusions available to the people. I should like to see this particular matter

The Budget-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)

followed up. I think that will be done in this case, having in mind the characteristics of the present Minister of Agriculture. '

And here I must give the minister a word of commendation. I am glad he is in his seat, although if he were absent I Should feel disposed to express my opinion more freely. I do not think that Canada has ever had a better Minister of Agriculture than the gentleman who now administers the department. I can say with perfect truth that the Minister of Agriculture enjoys the confidence of the organized stock-breeders of this country. He has championed and carried to a conclusion, since he assumed the administration of his department, some very important things. It was largely, in fact I may say almost entirely, through his efforts, that oleomargarine was excluded from Canada. It has been through his efforts that the grading system has been developed to its present state of perfection. A number of hon. gentlemen opposite have made some rather disparaging references to the Minister of Agriculture, but these do not reflect the sentiments of the Canadian people. The latter appreciate what the minister has done in their behalf, and I do not exaggerate when I say that in any future history of Canada the minister's name will occupy a prominent place.

Coming now to deal with the farm, particularly the grain farm, I may say that there are in my particular section some of the very largest grain farms in western Canada. I am sorry I cannot altogether agree with the hon. member for Marquette in the statement that he could see no good at all in wheat farming.

Mr. MULLINS:

May I set the hon. gentleman right? I never made any such statement.