REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Cahill.


Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi) moved:: That it be an instruction to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization that, in addition to the order of reference dated March 6, 1929, they have power to consider and report on the subject of storage, shipping, mixing, inspection and grading of grain generally, under the provisions of the Canada Grain Act.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, if I interpret this resolution correctly it means that the whole question of the marketing of grain is to be inquired into by the agriculture committee; I take it that the administration of the entire grain act is involved.
The administration of the grain act has been entrusted to one body of men, the Board of Grain Commissioners, and I believe the government to be in full possession of all the facts with regard to the chaos which existed in western Canada during the last grain marketing season. The Board of Grain Commissioners is practically a creation of this government, and since the board is responsible

Grading oj Grain

to the Department of Trade and Commerce the whole of western Canada has been wondering why tlie government have failed to deal with this problem which brought confusion and loss to the farmers of western Canada last year, and they are also wondering why the government have not dealt with the failure of the board to enforce the provisions of the grain act.


Mr. BENNETT:: Would the hon. gentleman speak a little louder?


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, a number of
members are very anxious to- hear this discussion, but I can hardly hear my own voice at times.
The whole problem seems to be that the elevator companies have been allowed to use a ticket the wording of which never has been authorized either by the Board of Grain Commissioners or by order in council; there is a line on this ticket which is contrary to the act and which never appeared on any other storage ticket. The ticket says the grain is taken for the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, and there is a space left in which the name of the province is to be inserted. Since agriculture was first begun in western Canada there has not been such dissatisfaction with the method of handling grain as there was last year and it all has to do with the right of the farmer to ship his own car of wheat where he wishes to ship it. I do not think anything in our history has shown such a breakdown of our juridical procedure.
In this respect the fanners are in a far different position from that of any other industry in Canada; this business must be carried on cooperatively; our wheat must be transported in bulk through the terminals to the seaboard, and the difficulty has been to preserve the quality of our grades intact until the wheat reaches the markets of the world. The Board of Grain Commissioners is a body of men appointed by the government to administer the grain act in the interests of all concerned; the board is looked upon as having full responsibility for this problem, and is equal in importance to the Board of Railway Commissioners. We believe the board has the power to administer the grain act in all its phases, but it has failed to do that and has allowed the elevator companies to use a form of storage ticket which is not authorized by the act. By this means the board has permitted the elevator companies to set aside

the provisions of the act and deny to the farmer the right to ship his own car of wheat to the terminal of his own choice. This has been brought to the attention of the Board of Grain Commissioners many times, but, to the knowledge of any of us here, they have not attempted to rectify the matter or maintain the farmer's right to ship his own car of wheat. The particular section dealing with this matter is section 150 of the Canada Grain Act, known as the Campbell amendment. The government knows how jealously the farmer has guarded this right. Some of us from the west realized the tremendous responsibility placed upon the grain commission and we moved a resolution recommending the advisability of granting an increase in salary.


William Frederic Kay: I rise to a point of order: Under standing order No. 38 I think this motion is not debatable.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am not quite sure that it is debatable under standing order No. 38, but I notice there are two motions on the order paper, Nos. 11 and 12, which cover the same question as in the present motion. These motions stand in the names of the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) and the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans). Under the rules of the house no debate can anticipate a question which is already on the order paper. I would advise the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) to confer with the two hon. gentlemen in whose names these resolutions stand, and then bring forward his motion. I declare the motion out of order.



THIRD REPORT OP SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE

William Frederic Kay: With the consent of the house I beg to move:
That the third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization be concurred in.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I call Your Honour's attention to the fact that you are now asking the house to concur in a report of a committee on which a motion has already been declared out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understand the report to which this concurrence refers is the same report which was covered by the motion already ruled out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: It is not the same motion; this motion is in order and anyone may speak on it.

Grading oj Grain


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the motion?


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is:
That the third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization be concurred in.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is that report?


Mr. IRVINE:: Could we have an explanation of the report?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Read the report.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I
direct Your Honour's attention to the votes and proceeding's of March 14, where we find the following:
Mr. Kay, from the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization, presented the third report of the said committee, which is as follows:-
Your committee recommends that the house do enlarge the order of reference to the said committee, dated March 6th, 1929, by adding thereto authority to consider and report on the subject of the storage, shipping, mixing inspection and grading of grain, generally, under the provisions of the Canada Grain Act.
Do I understand that the debate may proceed on the motion to concur?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That stood as a notice, at my request.


Hewitt Bostock: This motion is debatable.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, the thing which concerns us most is the failure of the grain commission to do their duty. Although the government have been in possession of all the facts from the beginning of the present session, and although demands have been made upon them, we have been left in doubt as to what action the government will take. For some reason or other the board have failed in their duty and we are now asking the government to remedy this state of affairs by the dismissal of those who have failed in their duty and place this matter under the supervision of a board which will carry out the grain act in all its phases. The present board have allowed the use of a grain ticket which permits the elevator companies to send a farmer's car of wheat to their own terminal. Through this method the farmers' cooperative concerns are deprived of the earnings which would otherwise be obtained through the handling of the wheat at, say, Fort William. The car of wheat may also be diverted to some milling company which pays a premium for the select grades which they need, based on the milling value and the gluten content which they desire. The farmer's car may be diverted to 78594-68J
some mixing elevator where it is mixed with an inferior quality of grain to the very lowest point for which a certificate could be obtained for that particular grade. When the royal grain commission was sitting in Saskatoon, the right of the Saskatchewan farmer to demand that his grain be shipped to a wheat pool terminal, if he so desired, was read into the record. In the case of the pool farmers the Board of Grain Commissioners have taken no steps to maintain the farmers' right in this respect. They have permitted the elevator companies to divert the farmer's cars to their own terminal and they have done this in defiance of the farmer himself and also of the grain act. Section 150 of the grain act gives the farmer this right and under section 225 of the act they have rendered themselves liable, by violating the law in this respect, to the loss of their license.
There is another way in which the farmer loses the intrinsic value of his grain. This is contrary to the grain act and contrary to the Railway Act as well. It came out before the royal grain commission at Saskatoon that ten elevator companies in Saskatchewan have an agreement with the Robin Hood Milling Company and the Canadian Pacific railway officials that they can go and select cars from the Canadian Pacific railway trains at the terminal or divisional points of that railway, sample them and, if they are of the milling quality which they desire, divert them to their own mills. In this way only the poorest quality of grain goes forward for export and it is on this quality that the price is based. This is a direct infringement of the act and one that never should have been allowed There is no doubt in my mind that the grain commissioners knew of this practice.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The car
must be diverted after inspection, must it not?


John Evans: The practice is that an
official of the railway company will go with the miller and the samplers at that point, break the seals on the car, and, if the car suits the miller, he diverts it to his own mill. If it does not suit him, the car is again sealed, sent on to the terminal elevator at Fort William or Port Arthur and the grain sent on from there.


Charles A. Stewart: This is done after the car is inspected or at inspection?


John Evans: Not necessarily. I think a test is made by the milling company themselves and it depends whether the grain comes from the district which they prefer.
Grading of Grain


Charles A. Stewart: After the
ear is sealed and shipped?


John Evans: After the car is sealed and shipped. The railway companies have been allowing the millers to take the cars which they desire out of their trains at the divisional points. This practice is contrary to the Grain Act and it is such that no other producer in any other industry in Canada would allow. Why should this be practised on the western farmers in this way? We require a complete reoiganization of the whole service; we also need a 'body of men who will carry out the provisions of the act without fear or favour. When our wheat of the highest milling value is filched from our crop by those who are already making unjust profits, t'he bulk of the wheat is lowered in price on the European market and the miller gets the difference in quality between the cream of the crop and the skimmed grades without paying anything for it, while no farmer receives a price greater than the export price for his wheat or any other produce. A grain commission that allows such practices is certainly incompetent or wilfully neglectful of its duty. I think no such body of men should 'hold such an important position as that of standing between the grain trade and the farmers to see that justice is done between the two. It is only fair and not unreasonable that we call on the government to remedy this state of affairs. The question does not need to be investigated by any committee; the government is in possession of all the facts. The grain act in this respect is all right. What we need is to have it administered as it is intended it should 'be.
I find that in a letter to the Board of Grain Commissioners dated October 28, 1927, the secretary of the 'Saskatchewan wheat pool asserted the right of the farmer in this respect, but in the reply the board maintained the right of the elevator companies to use the ticket I have under my hand, what is known as the "hybrid' ticket. That reply was dated November 9, 1927. In an article by one of the pool officials reproduced in the Western Producer under .date of October 13, 1927, there is given the clause in the agreement preserving the right of the grower to his grain in accordance with the grain act and also in a letter written by the solicitor of the Manitoba wheat pool the right of the farmer is still maintained. But from the same letter we find that the commissioner, Mr. Matthew Snow, asserted that the board did not include the objectionable wording in their ticket and never approved it. Later on we find that he had to admit that the board ap-

proved the trade using this ticket which contains the objectionable wording.
Many incidents might be quoted, but so that the house will understand the mature of the offence, I will quote just one from my own constituency. Mr. Charles Bell, of Tessier, on November 9 last could not get his wheat out of the local elevator even though he had a special bin ticket and not a "hybrid" ticket. He tendered all legal charges against the wheat in the elevator, but although he had a car already on track to 'load the wheat, the elevator operator would not load it. Mr. Bell at once wired the Board of Grain Commissioners, but they refused to give orders to the elevator company even in this case where there was' no doubt as to Mr. Bell's right in the matter of directing his car to any terminal he might choose. The Board of Grain Commissioners then simply discussed the matter with t'he elevator company at Winnipeg, the Pioneer Grain Company, who intimated they were willing, without prejudice, to comply with Mr. Bell's demand, reserving to themselves the right which they asserted they had under a contract with the wheat pool. It is a pretty kettle of fish we have here when the Board of Grain Commissioners have to consult a grain elevator company to find out whether they can by any contract or otherwise set aside an act of parliament. This board evidently did not know its duty, and was of the opinion that if any contract existed, an act of this parliament could be rescinded at any time by a grain company doing business in Winnipeg whenever it thought that its interests were being hurt.
There is another outstanding case. Robert Cannon, of Aberdeen, wired the board that a hybrid ticket was used, and Commissioner Snow said that it gave the right to the elevator company to ship the grain to the terminal of their own choice because the grain was taken into storage on account of the Saskatchewan pool. It is no business of any elevator company, on whose account it is taken in, and provision for the second name was never made on any ticket approved by the board or by order in council. This means that the Board of Grain Commissioners is allowing the use of a ticket that has not been authorized by itself or approved by order in council. The Board of Grain Commissioners has stated at different times that it had no power to enforce the act in t'hi3 respect. One of the commissioners attending the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan wheat pool this year declared that he would not enforce the act because of the incon-

Grading oj Grain
venience it would cause to the farmers themselves. The farmers in that case gave the board to understand that they expected it to do its duty, and they would be prepared to stand for any inconvenience that would ensue. The board, under section 225, has full power to cancel the license, and the elevator companies, unless some assurance had been given to them either by the Department of Trade and Commerce or by the board itself, knew and must have known that they were using a ticket which rendered them liable to have their license cancelled.
I do not want to speak at any length on this question. I think I have already given the house sufficient information for it to appreciate that nothing can be gained by prolonging this matter, and we expect now that the government will do its dirty. These practices have too long been going on in western Canada. The filching of our cars for mixing purposes and for milling purposes in western Canada is a direct loss to the farmer. This cannot go on for ever, although it does seem that the farmer in western Canada seems to be fair game for plunder by anyone that can get away with it. I say again that the duty of the government in this respect is plain, and we expect the government to do its duty.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: It is quite evident,
Mr. Speaker, that the desire of the agriculture and colonization committee was that the very matter which my hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) has brought up, and other matters pertaining to the grain act, should have the fullest discussion in committee in a manner in which they could not be discussed in the house. My hon. friend is quite within his rights in calling on the government to correct certain evils which he states exist in connection with the administration of the act, and it is the desire, not only of the government, but I think of this whole parliament, which unanimously last year passed certain amendments to the grain act, to rectify any evils which may exist. I am not desirous, without preparation, of going into the discussion of a matter which I think should be reviewed in committee, and in order to receive time for preparation there is only one thing I can do if it is proposed that this debate shall go on, and that is to move the adjournment of the debate, which I now do.


Edward Joseph Garland: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is not debatable.


Hewitt Bostock: It is not debatable.


Edward Joseph Garland: Under those circumstances, we shall have to vote against the motion.
After Mr. Speaker had called for the Yeas and Nays:


Hewitt Bostock: Call in the members.
And the members being assembled:


Edward Joseph Garland: Since Your Honour invited the members to be called in I have had a conference with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and have ascertained that my viewpoint was not correct. I understood that the motion to adjourn the debate meant an indefinite postponement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Order,
please. I now find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is quite willing that the debate shall be proceeded with to-morrow on "motions". Under these circumstances we may be able to avoid the necessity for a vote.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
house that there be no division?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 81 to amend the criminal code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the bill I am going to introduce under such happy circumstances will meet with unanimous approval, although I have some doubt as to this. This bill is similar in form to the bill that has passed this house three or four times in preceding sessions. Its purpose is to repeal certain sections of the criminal code which wore enacted' in 1919 concerning sedition.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Interim Supply Bill



BEAUHARNOIS LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills-Mr. Church-bill intituled: "An act to annul an order in council relating to the Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company."
Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
Northwest Toronto (Mr. Church) has left this note with me:
I wish to drop my Beauharnois motion.
There is no division.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the Easter holiday and are near the end of the fiscal year, it has been suggested that to carry on the public service we should vote the usual interim supply. Therefore with unanimous consent I beg to move that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


James Alexander Robb: Resolved that a sum not exceeding $20,451,936.78, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930.	.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time, and the 'house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is, of course, without prejudice to our right to discuss these items and must not be taken as acquiescing in the soundness of judgment of the government in voting this sum of money, being one-twelfth of the total of the public service portion of the supply bill, amounting to 120,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Irvine: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to a question based upon two sentences which I will quote from Commerce and Finance of March 13:
Canada shipped $1,500,000 gold and, were a free gold market operative in the Dominion, doubtless would have sent much more since Canadian dollars are quoted at a big discount. Canada is evidently resorting to extraordinary measures to keep her remaining gold reserve.
Is the Canadian dollar at a big discount, and is the Minister of Finance resorting to extraordinary measures to retain a gold reserve? And, if so, why?


James Alexander Robb: The answer to both questions is no.
Mr. ROBB moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


James Alexander Robb: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, the sum of $20,454,936.78 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82 for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1930.

Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether Canada is on a free gold market?
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) [DOT] We are on a gold basis.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: (Mr. Glen) and others of their associates who sit in support of the ministers, giving loyal and consistent support to the government, although those ministers hold views on economic subjects entirely different from the views held by the hon. members. Then there is the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), for example, sitting in the same seat with the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). Can one imagine two individuals with more divergent economic outlooks? Yet they are sitting in the cabinet together, and what is the situation? I presume that the gentle dropping of words of political advice, political wisdom and political experience by the Solicitor General into the ear of the Minister of Immigration has gradually worn away his resistance and his conscience, like the dropping of water upon the hardest stone, so that now he is able to look with equanimity upon a complete violation of his economic views. That was what I meant a moment ago when I said there is a possibility of governments in Canada seeking to hold power by placating groups here and there, but the question I ask is whether such a process and such a method is in the best interests of the country as a whole.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for a moment or two I wish to discuss two of what I think are the major problems facing this country, and the first is the problem of population which is * challenging if it is not actually defying this government, and I go further and say it is challenging this parliament. This persistent shrinkage of our population is appalling; I repeat that the constant shrinking of the population of Canada is a Challenge to this parliament. From 1921 to 1928 we lost, in numbers, all the immigrants who came to Canada and in addition 240,000 of our native bom. I have the figures before me, and if necessary I can take them back to 1901. For the comfort of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who twitted my colleague a day or so ago because he selected trade figures which were peculiar to this administration, although after all the government of this country is across the way and it is our duty to present to parliament the conditions as they exist at present, I want to say that I am not denying that this problem of population is not peculiar to this government, but I am able to say from these figures that this problem has been aggravated during the time this government has been in office. At this time I want to bring forward this problem as a challenge to parliament and to the government as the leaders of parliament, those who have the responsibility of administration 
and who must take cognizance of the problem so presented.
What are the figures? In 1921 the census showed a population of 8,788,000; from 1921 to 1928, we 'had 962,000 immigrants come to Canada; in that same period the births numbered 1,939,000, making a total of 11,689,000. If we deduct from that figure the deaths, which numbered 824,000, we have left
10,865,000	people. If the immigration policy of this country had been wise and successful we should have in Canada to-day, including our natural increase, 10,855,000 souls, but what is our poulation according to the Bureau of Statistics? Our actual population is 9,656,000, and if we deduct that from the figure I gave a moment ago we have an actual shrinkage of 1,200,000 people in the last six or seven years. This is not a question of juggling figures; it is a cold fact confronting this country.


Mr. DUNNING:: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am also glad to see the Minister of Railways in his sent, at least partially recovered from his illness; he shakes his head and says no. That is a habit of his. Does he question my figures?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I can only refer the minister to the Department of Trade and Commerce, from which I obtained every one of the figures I gave. If the only answer to the presentation of a problem is to simply say that the figures are wrong, and if one takes the precaution of securing bis figures from the Bureau of Statistics and then checking and cross checking them, what more can a man do?


Charles Avery Dunning: I just want to say that for one comparison my hon. friend is using a definite figure from the census of 1921, and in the other case he is using what is admittedly and what is stated by the department to be an estimate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so, but will the minister say that the Bureau of Statistics are out 1,200,000 in their estimates? I will admit that the estimate is not exact; I queried that very point myself and they told me this was their very best estimate, based upon the quinquennial census of the prairies in addition to the information which comes to them from their usual sources throughout the country.
However, the minister is taking this in the wrong spirit. Let me put the problem to the house again. These figures, which are issued) by the government, show a shrinkage

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
in population of 1,200,000 people; our total immigration was less than 1,000,000, so we have a shrinkage of 240,000 of our natural born, and that is the problem I put to this parliament. The government can wash its hands of the problem if it so desires, but I invite parliament itself to consider what I believe to be the chief problem facing the country to-day; that is, this abnormal shrinkage in population.


Mr. FORKE:: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, because I know his time is short, but has not that same problem faced the country since 1830?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already stated, and I want to make it quite clear, that this is not a situation peculiar to the tenure of this government, but it seems to have been aggravated and it seems to be increasing. This situation seems to be aggravated; for instance, the figures for 1901-that is the earliest I could obtain-show a shrinkage of 2,461,000, whereas immigration amounted to 2,691,000. There was a slight gain made by the immigration there, but for the last eight years we find that we have had not only a complete loss of our immigration, but 240,000 in addition. These figures are alarming and they challenge the attention of parliament; some consideration should be given to them. Governmental indifference is in a measure responsible for this situation. There has been a lack of appreciation of the problem and a refusal to admit the existence of difficulties.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke on the budget the other day-evidently put up by the government to be one of those to reply to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie)-he had something to say on this subject as it related to the farming industry. The attention of the government had been called to the fact that there had been a serious drop in farming production and in the activities of agriculturists. Indubitable evidence was brought forward, and the minister in replying to that evidence said:
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely no loss to the dairying industry because our farmers are milk producers in other forms.
If the dairying industry has gone into otner forms of production, why cannot that be done out of an increased production of milk? With complete complacency the minister says: There is nothing wrong with the dairying industry; it is true they have not made as much butter, but they made more condensed and powdered milk. But the answer to that is this: No country in the world should be going forward with greater strides than
Canada, but the minister is satisfied if he can discover that we are merely marking time. It is a startling situation when we realize that the production of the dairying industry fell off 500,000,000 pounds of milk. We should have advanced more than 500,000,000 pounds of milk. It is a serious thing for Canada when we realize that the dairy herds have decreased by 101,000 animals, while there has been an increase in the herds of New Zealand of 57,000. This problem challenges the attention of the government and it cannot stand idle unless it is going to be false to its simplest duties.
We have heard from hon. members opposite about the prosperous condition of this country. I am not going to suggest that there is not a large measure of prosperity in Canada, but I would invite the house to consider the fact that a large measure of the prosperity is merely a reflection of the profits made by Canadians in stock operations on the New York stock exchange. I am unable to give the exact figures in this regard because I found they were not available from the records of the Federal Reserve bank. I am not reflecting on those who did succeed in their operations, I say, "God bless them," but we must not overlook the languishing condition of a basic industry of this country. When we consider how the production has fallen off there is very little comfort in the fact that certain persons and groups have made money on the New York stock exchange.


James Alexander Robb: Some of them suffered losses.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not play the market myself, but the evidence on the financial pages of every newspaper in the country would go to show that the losses during the past few years have been very slight as compared with the so-called winnings, if one can use the gambling term.
I would also direct the attention of the government to the question of trade. When the Minister of Finance was presenting his budget the other day, he used these words:
It is gratifying to note the steady development of inter-empire trade.
If the minister has an opportunity at some future time I trust he will give us an explanation of these words in the light of the facts which I shall present. The minister continued :
Canada, the pioneer of the British preference, looks on empire trade as the keystone of its external trade policy-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
10S2
The Budget-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some hon. members are
saying "Hear, bear", but I want them to keep this in mind. To continue:
-and desires in every way to foster closer trading relations throughout the British commonwealth of nations.
Are those words sincere? Does the minister really mean what he said? They were given as the views of the government, and I recognize the language of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in some of the paragraphs. If they are sincere they should show a lower average duty on imports from the United Kingdom; they should show a larger proportion of free goods from England than previously; and they should show an increasing ratio of trade expansion. I will submit some figures which will show how the key-stone works. I am afraid it will be seen that the key-stone is wobbling in its place.
The figures of the Department of Trade and Commerce show that the average duty on imports from the United Kingdom for the six years 1922 to 1927 was 19-1 per cent. The average duty for imports from the United States for the same period was 13'3 per cent. The average duty on imports from all countries was 15-7 per cent. These figures will be found on page 500 of the Canada Year Book if anyone should desire to check them. The average duty on imports from the United Kingdom was 6 per cent higher than the average duty on imports from the United States, and four per cent higher than the average duty on imports from all countries. It may be argued:	What is the use of quoting the
average percentages of duty? If there is a lowering of the duty rate, it is true there may be an increase in revenue but there should be a lowering in the percentage of duty as applied to imports. What are the facts? In order to be perfectly fair in this matter I will give the figures from confederation down to the present time. These are the figures:
Imports from United Kingdom
Dutiable goods	$3,400,000,000
Free goods	 993,000,000
Average rate of duty, 20 per cent.
In other words during all that period 22i per cent of the goods that came in from the United Kingdom were on the free list. I give the same figures for the United States:
Imports from
United States
Dutiable goods	$7,500,000,000
Free goods	 5,700,000,000
Average rate of duty, 13.2 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Over what period?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Over all the period of
Canada's history from confederation down 	j 2 ilpO
to the present time. Let me turn to the record of this government from 1923 to 1928 inclusive. These are the figures:
Imports from United Kingdom
Dutiable goods	 $901,000,000
Free goods	 205,000,000
Or only 18 per cent free.
Imports from United States
Dutiable goods	$2,502,000,000
Free goods	 1,797,000,000
In other words, during the last seven years 42 per cent of 'the goods we imported from the United States were admitted free of duty. Let us compare the totals. The totals for the whole period since confederation are as follows:
Imports
From the United Kingdom. $ 4,400,000,000
From the United States.. 13,300,000,000
In other words, six times as much free goods entered this country from the United States as from Great Britain. I ask where the keystone of the foreign trade of this country is. I ask the minister:	Where is the enthusiasm
on the part of the government for the upbuilding of empire trade?


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: Are the imports from the United States not largely raw material for further manufacture?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the situation is exactly the opposite. There are some hon. members who hold the view-and it is the old Adam Smith view-that if you want to sell your goods, you have to buy goods. I have often heard that from hon. gentlemen opposite and from some of my hon. friends to my left. I ask them sincerely and earnestly to consider the figures. Since confederation we sold to the United Kingdom $12,500,000,000 worth of goods, while during the same period we sold to the United States only $8,500,000,000 worth of goods. In other words, we sold 50 per cent more to the motherland than to the United States. On the basis of this so-called Adam Smith theory of trade I ask this of my hon. friends:	Is it not time that parliament
addressed itself to the problem of buying goods where we sell them? Let us remember that in the same period we bought from Great Britain only $4,000,000,000 worth of goods or one-third of what we sold them. We are just $8,000,000,000 behind in our purchases-from Great Britain. Qn the other hand we are just $5,000,000,000 ahead in our purchases from the United States. To show that this-condition is increasing in its adverse influence

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
upon British trade, I can quote the figures of the United States. During the years 1923 to 192S our total purchases were as follows:
From the United States. .. $4,300,000,000
From Great Britain	 1,100,000,000
In other words our purchases from the United States were four times as much as from Great Britain.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Is it not a fact that we purchased all we needed from Great Britain and the balance went to pay our debts in the United States?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I see the hon. member
for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) taps his desk a little timidly. I might as well interject this at this point. The excess of our trade with the United States amounting to $5,000,000,000 is represented in $4,000,000,000 of investments in this country. In other words, when we speak of the great investments of the United States in Canada amounting to $4,000,000,000, we ourselves have overpaid that by $1,000,000,000. It is our own money that the United States is investing in Canada. I am not going to labour that point further, but I put to the house this problem as one of the problems challenging the attention of Canada: if we are going to continue this process of trade and purchasing, we are going to make Canada an economic vassal of the United States. If we persist in this course, there is no other outcome for us. I think it is about four years ago, speaking on the budget, I took even a more analytical form in presenting similar figures and I concluded my remarks then with this observation to the Prime Minister. I said: If the policies of the right hon. gentleman are persisted in, he will deliver Canada shackled and bound economically into the hands of the United States. I now bring forward additional figures to show that the progress in that direction is, if anything, accelerated.
There is more that I would like to have said, but I shall have to cut a good deal of it out. The Minister of Trade and Commerce offered, as his answer to the contention that conditions in this country were perhaps not all that some held they were, that car loadings in Canada were some 846,000 cars over what they were in 1923. He used these words:
It cannot be otherwise than that this increase in tonnage has helped employment in the transportation systems.
He left it at that. What are the facts? I get this from the Bureau of Statistics as well as from the railway board and I hope
the minister will not challenge my figures. The number of employees in the transportation business were as follows:
1923	 178,000
1928	 176,000
Or 2,000 less than in 1923. Yet the minister came before parliament and said that, because there was an increase in car loadings, there was an increase in employment in the transportation systems. What is the explanation? It is a simple one and parliament ought to know it. We have passed through parliament from year to year large sums of money for the purchase of new locomotive power for the Canadian National; the Canadian Pacific has done the same thing, and to-day they are hauling trains of 100 or 125 cars whereas a few years ago they hauled probably 50 or 60 cars. The result is an actual falling off in employment in that branch of activity. I am not criticizing this; I am saying it because the government comes before parliament and says that because there is an increase in car loadings, ipso facto there is an increase in employment in that branch of activity.
I said a moment ago that there were two types_ of policy that might direct the affairs of this country. One is a broad, comprehensive policy that keeps constantly in mind the vast potentialities of Canada. I wish to cite just a few of the milestones in Canadian history and I invite the house to consider the fact that every one of those milestones, each one of which called for broad vision, was brought about under Conservative administration.
Confederation was inspired and directed not wholly but largely by the Conservatives; they at least took the initiative in it.
Take the western territories and the organization of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-the Canadian Pacific railwayiSome hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some laugh. That was introduced by a Conservative government and was opposed bitterly by the Liberals of that day. The road was Said to be incapable of earning the axle grease necessary for the trains, and yet to-day it is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, institution in the world, with its steamships running to all quarters of the globe and its railway lines penetrating every corner of this country-an institution that has done more to advertise Canada perhaps than any other agency that we have, whatever we may think of it.
Then there was the national policy of 1878. I am not going to argue that; I simply say
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

that it was introduced as a result of a large vision of the needs of the country at that time.
Then there was the conduct of Canada's part in the Great war. There may be divisions of opinion and schism in regard to this, but the conduct of that great war by this country was an almost superhuman task, and, Mr. Speaker, there are men who broke under the weight of that responsibility, and no wonder. Nevertheless, that great task was conducted by a Conservative administration.
Then there was the foresight shown in opening up the St. Lawrence river and the making of the little eight-foot Welland canal into a big ship canal; the opening of navigation through the Soo from lake Superior to the ocean, and bringing what was then a great unpeopled west in touch with the seaboard. That task was undertaken by a Conservative administration.
Then there was the co-ordination of the Canadian National railway system. Well I remember the bitterness with which that was opposed. I want to say here that it was one of the most mammoth undertakings ever attacked by any government or any parliament, and it was due to the former leader of this party that that great task was successfully accomplished.
The system of trade commissioners, of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is to-day so justly proud, was introduced by Sir George Foster when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Then there was considerable of what might be called social legislation. There was a vote of 910,000,000 for technical education, aid to which is now rejected and refused by the government, which has set up in this country a magnificent system of technical education, giving our young lads and our young girls a chance in the growing industrial activities of this country. Aid to technical education is now coldly rejected by this government.
Housing,. There was a time immediately after the war when the housing problem in this country was acute. The Conservative government set aside 920,000,000 to help solve the 'housing shortage.
Aid to highways. One of the most necessary things in this country is a highway to link up the different units of confederation. One of the biggest things that could be undertaken by parliament is the opening up of a national highway to unite this great country. The Conservative government appropriated 125,000,000 for that purpose, and started the work. The work was well done and the money well spent, but there ar certain gaps remaining.

Civil service reform. The basis of whatever benefits the civil servants now enjoy was given to them by a Conservative government.


Mr. MARCIL:: Will the hon. gentleman
allow me a question? He spoke of technical education and civil service reform. Both of these measures were introducedl by the Liberal party, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, certainly not. The
hon. gentleman is not strictly correct. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1910, appointed a commission, but I have not time to go into that.
Aid to agriculture-


An hon. MEMBER:: And votes for women.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and we extended the franchise to women. We provided for seed grain advances, and some of our friends from the prairies will realize what a great benefit that was to the farmers.
The original national parks scheme-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Speaker is in the
chair, and if hon. gentlemen will allow him to call time, he will do it at the proper time.
The Conservative government introduced measures for the establishment of national parks. The Conservative government created the fuel board, but it has been allowed to languish under- Liberal rule and nothing to any extent has been done since this government came into power.
These are some of the milestones, Mr. Speaker, in Canadian history, and it was because of breadth of vision and foresight that these great things were inaugurated under Conservative administration, and to my mind, sir, that is what is required to-day to cope with the embarrassing problems that are now facing us.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	I sometimes think that Canada
suffers greatly from an inferiority complex, but evidently it has not infected the Conservative party. I greatly enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). He always speaks clearly and well, but I am astounded that in this enlightened day he should claim credit for the Conservative party for giving the franchise to women. I do not know of anything more scandalous except the War Time Elections Act, of which it was a part, than the manner of granting of the franchise to women in 1917. Does the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and his party not know that it was the starvation and the fighting fhe going to

The Budget-Miss Macphail
jail and the forcible feeding suffered by the suffragettes of Great Britain, and to a lesser extent of the United States, that gave the franchise to the Canadian women?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Hon, members do
not show good sense in laughing at that. It is true; it is not a thing to be laughed at. The Conservative government-they called themselves the Union government-gave votes to women in 1917, but not to all women. That would be too risky, and I have noticed that the Conservative government and the Union government did not take many risks; in fact, governments, no matter what kind they are, do not take many risks, and so the Conservative government did not give votes to all women.


Mr. McGIBBON:: They gave them to those who were qualified.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The hon. member for
Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) can make his own speech. They gave votes to women who they thought would vote for them at that particular time, and their guess was good. They gave votes to some women, not to all women, and not because they were intelligent, but because they had a husband or a brother or a son fighting at the front. Whether war time or not, it was a very stupid way of extending the franchise to women.


Mr. HANSON:: You were not qualified,
that is all.
Miss MACPHAIL If my hon. friend was, I have no apologies to offer because I was not. In 1921 for the first time, women voted, and I am very glad to say that 1921 brought me here. I am sorry that more did not come with me.
To talk for a moment of prosperity, it is true, as almost every speaker has said, that there is a degree of prosperity in Canada, but that prosperity to my mind is spotty, it is felt only by certain classes, and by the classes, by the way, who need it least. We live m a spending age. People want to buy things whether they can afford them or not, and business wanting to help them buy because business, quite rightly, wants to sell, has instituted the instalment plan of buying. We buy stocks on margin. People to-day borrow from the banks to a degree never thought of ten or twenty years ago, and when they
borrow from the bank it is written down in bank's books as a deposit. Yet everybody will admit that wealth has not increased by that act of borrowing. The use of automobiles and their rapid replacement has released a very great deal of credit. Possibly the savings of	the	last generation	have	beenspent, as well	as	what has	been	earned inthis generation, and in addition, the months and years that lie ahead of us have been mortgaged in many cases to purchase these things. I do	not	call that	very	real	prosperity. Yet there	has been	some	real	prosperity, and I would not want to appear to pass over it. The mining industry has really developed. New fields for agriculture have been opened up, either through a more intensive agriculture or the opening up of new territory, and that is real development.
I want to show the house-and I will have no difficulty in doing so-that farming is not one of the industries participating in the prosperty that is being so much talked about. If the government reads its own publication, Sixty Years of Canadian Progress, published by the Department of Trade and Commerce, it will find that there must be an investment of seven dollars to produce one dollar annually in agriculture; while an investment of three dollars will produce better than two dollars annually in the manufacturing industries. The full figures will be found at pages 60 and 89, but I will not quote them now, having dealt with them last session. I need not say that capital and labour are leaving the land, they are fighting shy of it, because it does not pay the return on either capital or labour that almost any other industry does.
I have before me a statement compiled by and for the life insurance companies of Canada to show that they had better not continue investing their funds in rural mortgages. With the consent of the house I shall be glad to put this table on Hansard. The figures show that in 1926, $73,086,916 was invested in rural mortgages, and the loss was $1,313,810. The amount of money invested in urban mortgages was $192,264,998, and the loss only $256,015. That is, with two and three-quarter times more invested in urban property the loss was only one-fifth the loss on rural property. The figures for 1927 show a little improvement in both agricultural and rural property, but the proportions are about the same. I place these tables on Hansard:

The Budget-Miss Macphail



ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES-FARM MORTGAGES

[Stage Direction]
Province Alberta	 British Columbia	 Manitoba	 New Brunswick		CO go JN o o o <0 	 $ 16,830,397 	 355,583 		 13,918,771 	 800	m Ip 2 ft ^ ,5 ft co rt ft? ft<M P >
u „ Q O O ,-T -M'S p tn CO <D <D ft £ ^ w a;*-1 S3 d c C pO O c3 $3,360,334 68,985 2,888,800	S S 2 ° 2 S' « g « 8 * S 8^ 		. ft tv-1 a>
p-* r-^- o ^Sug-sis-sg n u C O * C o ®03 C-l r- C QJ O O 1-1 $ 941,996 13.482 158,694
Nova Scotia				
Ontario	
Prince Edward Island	
1,727,150 	
27,800	45,444	457Quebec	
105J73	15,902	Saskatchewan	3,556,590	199,181$ 73,086,916	$9,936,055	$1,313,810

[Stage Direction]
Alberta	
British Columbia.. ..
Manitoba	
New Brunswick.. ..
Nova Scotia	
Ontario	
Prince Edward Island
Quebec	
Saskatchewan	
$ 6,213,927	$ 251.266	$	115,08811,987,084	100,901	76.35222,407,770	590,034	10,968298,291 700,881	34,31685,983,981	307,999	10,2767,700	57,974,044	333,138	6,691,320	84,904	9,115$192,264,998	$1,668,242	$	256,015

[Stage Direction]
Province Alberta	a [DOT]* o o Q CD fiQ . & 1 fi QSO 917	® Amount of loar a on which interc 3 has been overdi 5 one year or moi o at Dec. 31, 1927 Total amount written off 9 mortgages or jj foreclosed real o estate and loss £ on sale of foreclosed real estate during 1927	British Columbia	. 323,183	52,178	«pManitoba	New Brunswick	* 830	Nova Scotia	Ontario	Prince Edward Island	, 3/5 000	Quebec	15,938	Saskatchewan	$ 73,873,774	$8,541,866	$1,558,104ALL COMPANIES-OTHER Alberta	
British Columbia	
Manitoba	
New Brunswick	THAN FARM $ 6,780,585 17,557,801 25,875,126 280,737 611,753 101,214,655 7,700 71,573,584 8,970,460	MORTGAGES $ 251,817 154,878 847,622	$ 77,201 14,114 93,936Nova Scotia	Ontario	Prince Edward Island	Quebec	179Saskatchewan	
$232,872,401	$1,623,486	$ 227,055
[Miss Ma^pUaU 1
10S7

The Budget-Miss Macphail
I think many of us have read the articles written by Mr. E. C. Drury in MacLean's magazine dealing with farm conditions. In one of these articles-I do not have the date of its appearance; I made this extract at the time-he stated:
No farmer can stay on the farm and maintain the same standard of living at the present time as, for instance, those in other businesses. Others are not cleverer, because we are continually filling their ranks with sons of the soil. Considering capital plus labour-farming pays less than any other calling.
I do not think Mr. Drury was overstating what is a well-known fact. To-day one can scarcely sell farm land in many counties in old Ontario. If a sale is effected it must be for the value of the buildings or the value of the land, for certainly the owner will not get the value of both. If farm lands in old Ontario could be sold readily, at least one-half the farms would change hands overnight. It really boils down to this, that the farmer pays more for every service he needs than he receives for the service he renders.
In the Canadian Countryman for February 9, 1929, the editor has worked out a table that will no doubt interest hon. members. I have not time to go through it in detail, but he compares the increased wages of men working in the building, metal, printing and miscellaneous factory trades since 1913 with the increased prices of farm products during the same period. He reaches this conclusion:
A comparison of this table with the one given previously shows that while people engaged in building trades are getting approximately $1.79 for every $1 they received before the war, farmers are only getting $1.26 in the case of hogs, and $1.44 in the case of eggs, and illustrates clearly the disparity between what farmers earn and what very large numbers of city people earn.
And he proceeds to say:
If farmers received as much for their products as people engaged in miscellaneous factory trades receive for their labour, instead of the price of creamery butter being 40 cents it would be 58 cents per pound; eggs would sell for 54 cents per dozen instead of 38 cents per dozen; wheat for $1.94 instead of $1.32 per bushel; oats for 80 cents instead of 53 cents per bushel; butcher steers for $14 instead of $9.65 per hundred; and hogs for $18.20 instead of $11.50.
But it is not only in labour that the farmer is paying more than he receives-and do not misunderstand me. I do not want labour to get less, rather I want farmers to get more. I am not one of those farmers who want to see cheap labour, and I am not advocating cheap labour-but, I say, it is not only- in labour that the farmer pays more than he receives. When he pays for medical services
he pays a very, very high rate. One major operation, one long sickness, and he may lose his farm in meeting the expenses. People who are very poor or people who are very wealthy can afford to be sick, but the middle classes cannot. Dental services are also expensive, and necessary. But much as it costs to be sick or to get a tooth fixed, it is nothing to what it costs to die. Speaking for the province of Ontario, I say that a farmer cannot afford to die-the expenses are too heavy. In fact the burial expenses may absorb all his savings. We can fight shy of the lawyer-that is a blessing anyhow-but if we have to employ his services the fee charged by the doctor or even by the undertaker shrinks into insignificance compared with the lawyer's fee. I have had very little to do with lawyers in a business way, but this year I had occasion to in connection with a farm mortgage. The lawyer-he practises in a town in old Ontario-charged the man who was getting a $4,000 mortgage ten dollars for exchange, although $2,000 was paid by an official cheque and $1,000 by a bank draft. Someone else will have to explain this charge; I cannot.
Not only are wages going up all along the line, but taxes also. I might initerject here that the end of the raise in wages has not yet been reached: the deputy ministers are to have a very handsome increase in their salary this year, the judges, I dare say, will be back before long for an increase in their salaries, and so it goes. Municipal, provincial and federal taxes have increased enormously, and the farmer not only pays his own taxes but, as everyone of us knows, he pays a good part of the other fellow's in the increased cost of services and commodities.
I do not know of any body of men that is less well informed on actual conditions in the country than the members of tihe government. When they go out into the .country all the people who have been making money on the stock exchange or by some other method entertain them, they get the band out and the flags flying, with the result that being so lavishly entertained our cabinet ministers know nothing about those who are in a poor way and who possibly have not got a dress suit in which to meet these hon. gentlemen. Apparently the government thinks that the wheat crop this year brought great wealth to Canada. The wheat crop of the prairies was certainly a bulky one, and the railways earned as much in hauling down to the head of the lakes No. 3 or No. 5 grade as they did for No. 1. The grade of the wheat does not affect the earnings of the railways. And the banks made just as much on their loan to the farmer who is still carrying that loan as if he had been able
loss
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Miss Macphail
to pay it off; indeed, in such cases the banks have made more money in interest charges. The farmer had to borrow funds to buy food and clothes and the necessary machinery to harvest his crop, and in all probability he has not yet paid off that loan. The merchants in the small places would surely agree that they have lost money because the farmer has not been able to meet bis last year's debts.
I do not propose to go fully into our loss of population, because this question will be dealt with by my colleague the member for East Lamb ton (Mr. Fansher). I shall deal only with the loss of population in the last twenty years in my own constituency of 'Southeast Grey. It comprises nine townships. Between 1901 and 1911 those nine townships lost 6,543 people, and between 1911 and 1921, 4,200, or in that period a total loss of 10,743. One can clearly see that unless this exodus ceases very soon there will be nobody left in Southeast Grey.
I need not further emphasize to an intelligent body of legislators the fact that the agricultural industry in Canada is in a bad way; it is quite clearly the sick industry of the Dominion. And what remedy is offered? I have heard only two; one is protection and the other immigration. It is said that we should have protection by way of the tariff. We have two schools of protection in Canada, both high protection, the only difference being that in the case of the Liberals they talk low tariff and practise high tariff-low tariff to get the votes and high tariff to get the campaign funds in order to enable them to sit on the cushioned seats of the treasury benches. At least I can say this for the Conservative party, that with the one lapse of the Winnipeg convention they are consistent in their tariff policy; whether one thinks of them as they are to-day or as they were a hundred years ago or as they will be a hundred years hence, they are always in the same place-the place of special privilege.
At the moment the Conservatives are advocating protection for agricultural products. I am sorry I did not have the pleasure of hearing it, but I read very carefully, and have re-read a part of it many times, the speech of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). It seems fashionable to congratulate somebody and I shall therefore congratulate the hon. member for South Wellington. And I may truly say this, that his speech has required more answering than the budget itself. I could not accept it all, but the first part was exceedingly good; and with a great part of it I did agree. I gather from that speech that the hon. gentleman advocates in the main keeping our agricul-
tural products at home; that is to say: Don't let the other fellow's products come in, but keep our own products within Canada. One might boil it down to this:	Let us eat our
own products and so make ourselves prosperous. I am not so sure that it would make us prosperous, but it would make us full. That is clear. On page 757 of Hansard the hon. member is reported:
I realize quite well that in many respects the United States market is the most convenient, the most expedient market which we have; in many respects it is the very best market in which to sell many of our farm products.
If the hon. member was speaking officially for the Conservative party, then that party was eighteen years too late in finding that out; for in 1911 that was the very thing that was advocated by people who still believe that the United States market is a very good outlet for a considerable proportion at least, of our agricultural products. And if the Conservative party actually thought that the United States was a good market for our farm products, when they went into power in 1911 they could have turned right about face and helped us to market our products there- that is, if it is really the farmer they want to help. It would not have been the first time that a government turned right about face and did what in campaigning it said it would not do.
I heard someone-I have forgotten who- say in this house that he more or less resented the inaugural speech of Mr. Hoover, the newly elected president of the United States. Well, I read very carefully what the newspapers reported of his speech and I considered it masterly. I thought it was a broadminded speech, with one exception: it is very difficult to be internationally minded on one thing and nationally minded on another, and President Hoover had something to say about a tariff in regard to farm products. We must remember however, if we intend to be fair, that the United States offered us a market for our farm products and kept that offer open for a long time. We did not accept it, and it is their own business if they shut out our products; and we have no right at all to feel any resentment against them. Indeed, they must think we are very hard to please if neither thing they offered pleases us. I am not one of those who believe that the raising of the tariff will not injure agriculture in this country; I think it will. It will particularly injure the cattle and dairy people.
The hon. member for South Wellington did not make clear to me how it is, if protection can operate to the benefit of the farmer, that the American farmer, who has been enjoying a large measure of protection for some time,

The Budget-Miss Maephail
is poorer, more discouraged and less able to help himself than the Canadian farmer, notwithstanding that he has access to one of the best home markets in the world. How considerable is the protection which the American farmer has enjoyed I will let a noted American tell you. In the last volume of the American Academy of Political and Social Science there appears at page 125 an article by John D. Black, professor of economics of Harvard university. Professor Black canvasses the question whether the tariff will do the agricultural population of the United States any good, and under the heading, " Possible Expansion of the Home Market", he says:
The question now to be answered is: Assuming that expansion of the home market by shutting out some of these $647,377,000 of imports would be desirable, how much can really be accomplished in that direction, presumably by raising tariff duties? An examination of the tariff list reveals only two competitive products which do not now have tariff protection-cotton and hides. All the others-coffee, tea, bananas, silk, sisal, etc., are non-competitive. There does not appear much room for expansion here. Apparently the end must he obtained mostly by raising the existing tariff rates. But they seem to be rather high already. The ratio of duties collected to values of dutiable agricultural imports is running just under 40 per cent.
These are not my words but the words of an eminent American. I do not think that protection can raise the prices of farm products in a country with an exportable surplus. A very good example of that is to be found in the United States in the matter of wheat. They had an annual exportable surplus of 3 per cent and they had a protection of 42 cents per bushel; yet wheat has been selling in Canada, almost constantly since 1925, higher than in the United States. No one has ever made me see-and I want to see it if it is true-how protection can protect agricultural products in this country with conditions as they are now. What I fear is that the farmer will place himself, if he asks for protection, in the position where he cannot refuse higher and ever higher protection to the manufacturing industry. Let me give an example to show how that works. In the United States, where the general opinion is that something will be done in regard to raising the tariff against imports of agricultural products, the manufacturer of cream separators, feeling that the man who has cream is gding to be considered, has already filed a request for an increase in duty on cream separators. And that is exactly what would happen here. The farmer would have to pay over and over again for any slight benefit that might come to him. There are perhaps a few things of which we have no 78594-69
exportable surplus in connection with which he might benefit in a very small degree, but he would then be in the position where he would be absolutely helpless against the manufacturer who would demand more and more protection for himself. I am particularly anxious that the farmer shall not again be fooled by high protection as he was in 1911. And let me say that the protectionists then were not all Conservatives by any means. On page 257 of the same volume from which I have already quoted there is a clear admission that the farmers of the United States have been fooled by the manufacturers in regard to protection. I should like to put this on Hansard:
The manufacturing exporters know they cannot benefit by the tariff. They know that, on the whole, it tends to increase costs of production including, directly or indirectly, their own. Consequently they will, especially if and when competition in their essential external markets becomes keen, advocate a general lowering or abolition of duties. Their success will depend upon their ability to unite with them the farmer, whose interests are the same as theirs.
In a footnote exception is made of a minority of farmers producing wool, flaxseed, and hard wheat.
If they become numerous and powerful enough to do this before the farmer ceases to produce for export, their success will be easy. The manufacturers of the last two generations have bamboozled the farmer into voting against his own interests. There is no reason why the intelligent export manufacturers of the future may not with equal skill and better conscience convince the farmer of the truth.
The only other remedy I have heard proposed is immigration. I noted a welcome change in the speech of the Minister of Immigration the other day, but until the present time the government have advocated getting immigrants, getting more settlers, regardless of cost or kind. Their solution for the agricultural problem was the tariff plus bringing in more farmers to produce more goods further to lower the prices we are getting for farm products. Isn't that brilliant? Only a government could do a thing so stupid; they were afraid they could not do it fast enough themselves to ruin agriculture and so they called to their assistance the railway companies and certain religious organizations. I hope that when the immigration estimates come up every farmer in this house, whether he is an Independent, a Liberal or a Conservative, will take the stand that as a farmer he is not going to be so dull as to sit still and see the people's money spent to bring in more farmers to compete in an already under-paid field.
To my mind the way out for the agricultural industry lies with the farmers themselves
[Stage Direction]


The Budget-Miss Maephail
rather than with the government, although the government can help; the ability to solve the farm problem is latent in every farming community, although it is quite true that the rapid depopulation of the country makes it necessary that we should arouse the latent ability before all the virile and aggressive people have left the land. Farmers have suffered severely from an inferiority-complex, regardless of their political affiliations; the farmers need to trust themselves and stand on their own feet.
This whole condition has come about because the farmer did not look after his own business. He must, not as an individual but as a group, enter the marketing, the financial and the legislative fields; he must become a dominant figure or at least a very important factor in each of these three fields. It is not possible for each individual farmer to study the needs of the market at home and abroad but it is possible for agriculture, well organized and selling its products efficiently, to do that very thing.
We heard a great deal about our importations of cheese, but let me say there is cheese and cheese. I know that when the hon. member for South Wellington made his speech he made no difference, but down at the Chateau Laurier I am sure he would find a great deal of difference. We import a great deal of cheese because it is put up attractively and because it is of a kind the Canadian people want. So far as I know the producers of cheese, not the cheese factories but the people who produce the milk which is made into cheese, have not made any cooperative effort to put their cheese on the markets of the Dominion of Canada in a way acceptable to the Canadian people. In the first place they market it too fresh; sometimes I buy and attempt to eat cheese which tastes and feels a good deal like soap. It was not cheese; it was not ripened; it was not good for the home or the foreign market. Sometimes I buy soft cheese, because I like it; I do not care particularly where it is made. Surely one does not have to eat indigestible cheese just because it is made in Canada; that is carrying patriotism too far. If the men who produce the milk which is made into cheese will make of themselves a cooperative unit; if they will study the needs of the market and the needs of the consumer they will get a better price for their product.
That is equally true of apples. Why is it that the British Columbia apple can compete at a higher price with our Ontario apple right under our noses, when the British Columbia apple has not the flavour of the On-
[Miss Macphail.l
tario Spy or McIntosh? Of course, we have been trained to think of an apple as a beautiful thing and we buy it on its looks, just as men pick their wives. That is why I have been so unlucky.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: You have your chance
yet.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: There is no use in my building up false hopes. When a person buys graded apples be knows they will be uniform and attractively and conveniently boxed and he is willing to pay a higher price. Just as soon as the Ontario apple grower wants to get into the cooperative business he can command a higher price. I do not suggest that he go into a cooperative concern organized by a government; if there is anything in this world I distrust it is a concern of that kind. Let me cite the tobacco pool as a very fine example; but if the growers themselves organize they can put their apples on the market and certainly they will be purchased by the people of Ontario at least.
We have a very considerable degree of cooperative marketing in Canada now. I refer particularly to the grain pools, which came about as a direct result of twenty-five .years of farm organization and education and not from the work of the war-time wheat board. The farmer is learning to become intelligent as a group. I think it would astonish the house, as it astonished me, to learn that in 1927 we marketed cooperatively $500,000000 worth of farm products out of the total of $1,750,000,000 worth of farm products marketed. Supposing the farmers said, "We are going to put over the idea of cooperation to every farmer in Canada regardless of what he produces; we are going to carry on an educational campaign through a body which might be called the associated producers cooperatives." Supposing the farmers levied a tax on themselves, of one mill, or one dollar out of every thousand; that would give them the tidy sum of $500,000 a year. With that they could do very many things to sell the idea of cooperation to the Canadian farmer; they could do it through speeches, through discussions, through marketing schools, through moving pictures and the new "talkies" and through lectures, and it would not be very long before the farmers of Canada would be in the position the farmers of Denmark are :n to-day. Then they would laugh at anyone who tried to convince them that cooperative marketing was a good thing; they would know that themselves.
Then, when they had gone that far they could go still further. I am sorry time does

The Budget-Mr. Heenan
not permit me to go into this question more deeply, because it is a most interesting field, but the farmers could continue this annual levy in order to arouse the national consciousness to the need of rural culture. That exists to-day to a very limited degree, but it could be extended, deepened and sweetened; it is necesary to the moral well-being of this nation. All of this would take time and money, but it could be done, and there are many things the government could do to assist agriculture. Let me say right now that there is no use spending money for immigration; there is no use talking about our great prosperity until we get the basic industries prosperous. I do not claim for a moment that agriculture is the only basic industry but it is the chief industry and the government could do much for it. For instance, they could take the advice of the tariff board, which would be a very good body if the government would listen to them; they could free the implements of production from any taxation whatever; they could cut down expenditure as far as possible, thus lowering taxation; they could stop bringing in immigrants and they could bring about disarmament. No country in the world could lead the world better in disarmament than could Canada. They could revise the Bank Act in the interest of the masses. That may sound a Little like talking about heaven, but it is one of the things they should do. They could carry the grading of farm products through to the finished article. What is the use of grading hogs if we do not grade bacon? Unless we can win a place on the world markets for good -bacon there is no use grading the hogs. They could collect data from the whole world regarding agricultural conditions and broadcast it to the farmers of Canada. They could develop a federal health program which would lead to state responsibility for good health. There are many other things I would like to mention but I have not the time.
There is one matter which needs immediate consideration-if they think about it for five years they might do something-the financing of the wheat pool. Why could not credit be arranged between the treasury board and the wheat pool? The wheat pool has the wheat and they can deposit collateral with the treasury board; the treasury board has the right to issue credit, or give authority to somebody else to do it, but the way things are at present, the banks stand between the two and make a tidy profit out of doing nothing at all.
But when we got all that done we would still have this monstrosity known as the House of Commons; we would still have two 78594-691
hundred and forty-five members sitting here with the seventeen or so who are in the cabinet actually doing the ruling. Unless it is changed, we would still have this place where questions are not debated or decided on their merits; where private members, and particularly private members in the governing party are not free to advocate the needs of the people-the Liberal Progressive are a telling example of this. The people's representatives are bound and gagged by party discipline and by rules and customs. Perhaps I should say that they are bound and shackled because they are hardly gagged, but at least they have to talk to a wilderness of empty seats and closed minds.
When agriculture becomes fully organized it will then be powerful enough to be one of that group of interests which stand outside and pull the strings which operate the cabinet. But that does not seem to be a very democratic way of effecting government; I think it would be much better if agriculture strove to have the form of government changed in a way which would acknowledge the economic needs of the country and the economic nature of government; which would acknowledge the right of the agricultural group to function as they desired to were they not bound by the present rules and usages of the house. The people will soon realize that the geographical unit is a false unit in the electing of members to this house. Good sense may overtake us and we will realize that questions should be decided in this house on their merits; and I think there is a day in the future-possibly a long way ahead-when the cabinet will not rule parliament but will be subject to parliament. When that day does arrive w7e will have something which comes nearer to true democracy.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, If I am to finish
by six o'clock I must hurry along, and I know the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) will pardon me if I do not pay her the compliments I should like to have paid her.
During the course of the debate I have noticed that some of the hon. members seem loath to believe in the prosperity of this country. I noted that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) hesitated to accept the figures of car loadings as given by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). He pointed out that although railroading activities were improving in this- country there were less men engaged in that industry. In that he is probably correct, but the hon. member should not have
The Budget-Mr. Heenan

taken that decrease in number of employees as proof that we were not progressing. He should have realized that it was because of the more efficient organization of our railroads, the better cooperation and efficiency among railroad men which enabled us to get through the rush periods of traffic without having to bring in men from the United States who would only take wages out of the country. The hon. member stated that 2,000 less men were employed in 192S on our Canadian railways than were employed in 1923. No doubt that is true, but the wages paid the railroad men in 1923 amounted to $253,000,000, in round figures, as compared with $276,000,000 in 1928.


Mr. HEAPS:: Does that include salaries?


Peter Heenan: That figure covers operating wages. The Canadian railroad employees had $23,453,000 more amongst themselves in 1928 than they had in 1923, notwithstanding the fact that the last thing which was done under the Conservative administration in 1921 was to reduce the wages of railroad men by 121 per cent, involving an amount of $50,000,000.
I should like to take the opportunity afforded me in this debate to answer some remarks which have been made by hon. members opposite. I should like first to refer to a statement made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). When in Winnipeg on September 24 of last year he charged me, as I understand from the press, with being adverse to the British harvester movement. The following day I corrected that statement and I thought the matter was ended, but when the hon. member spoke in reply to the speech from the throne he quoted from an overseas publication to the effect that I had repudiated the harvester movement. I do not think it is necessary to go outside of Canada to obtain information as to what Canadian public men have said or with regard to Canadian affairs. I harm before me extracts from different newspapers published throughout the country, from Halifax to Vancouver. These newspapers have stated in effect that the Minister of Labour had defended the harvester movement at the trades congress convention. It may be that the hon. member was confused by the tactics of some of his own lieutenants who appeared before the trades congress convention and criticized the harvester movement. I have in my hand the issue of September 22 of the Labour News of Alberta, in which the following appears:
Senator Gideon Robertson contended that the Britishers were not even required during har-
[Mr. Heenan.l
vest season. "Due to the influx of old country-harvesters," he said, "the second harvest excursion from the east has been cancelled and thousands of young men in the maritime provinces were thus deprived of the opportunity to secure the usual seasonal employment in the west."
If there was confusion it was caused by that statement, and also because one of the delegates, a man prominent in the councils of the Conservative party, not content with things as they were in the convention, having tried to get the reporters to give a garbled account and failed, slipped out to the telephone and endeavoured to give to one of the papers in the east a garbled account of my statement. The editor, however, wanting to be fair, sent a gentleman to investigate the matter and found that it was a deliberate falsehood. The convention took to task the gentleman who sent out the report. That was what caused the confusion. In that connection the Labour News, published at Hamilton on September 28, had this to say:
It begins to look as though the garbled and misrepresented account of Hon. Peter Heenan's convincing address on immigration at the Dominion Trades Congress convention, given out by an unnamed delegate who by the way is ultra-Conservative, has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by certain Tory newspapers, party writers and leaders.
Commenting on this same controversy between myself and the leader of the opposition, the same editor had this to say:
The Minister of Labour is right in what he says. The writer heard his address at the congress convention and the minister did not hesitate to tell the delegates that he had been a party to the arrangement to bring British harvest help to Canada.
I defended the harvester movement. Why should I not? The harvest crop of western Canada is of vital interest to the whole nation. It is of vital interest to the farmers of the west, to our railroads and railroad men, and I might say practically every man in the industrial centres of the east depends upon the prosperity of the farmers in the west. Therefore I say I defended the harvester movement, but in doing so I endeavoured to show the importance of the question. I tried to show that every year there sits in Winnipeg a committee composed of representatives of the governments of the three prairie provinces, the farmers, the immigration department, the labour bureau, together with the transportation companies. They estimated that this year 75,000 men would be required. When I was informed of that-I was along with my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration

The Budget-Mr. Heenan
(Mr. Forke), who was aibsent at the time -I sent this telegram to every premier in the eastern provinces:
From information to hand annual meeting of Canadian Passenger Association western lines, employment service representatives of all three prairie provinces, immigration authorities and farmers' representatives held in Winnipeg on Thursday, it was estimated that 75,000 harvest workers would be required to handle this year's crop in the west, 25,000 of whom would be locally available. British Columbia estimates being able to supply 6,000 leaving balance of
44,000	to be secured from other sources. As the harvesting of the western crop is a matter of national importance would greatly appreciate an expression of opinion from you by wire at your earliest convenience as to the approximate number from your province who may be expected to avail themselves of the usual cheap rates provided by the railways for transportation to and from the prairie provinces for the purpose of engaging in harvest work.
Peter Heenan,
Minister of Labour.
I received telegrams in answer to those, and for the information of the house I want to read them. Hon. Doctor Forbes Godfrey, Minister of Labour for Ontario, telegraphed me on July 25 as follows:
On account of the fact employment index in Ontario is at a higher point 108.5 than it has been since 1919. the interest shown among our applicants in the harvest excursion is less than usual. In the case of Toronto for instance not more than a dozen men have asked (at the employment office) for particulars regarding the excursion dates, et cetera. The harvesting of the wheat crop is of course a matter of national interest and benefits the Dominion as a whole, including Ontario, and there is not sufficient labour in western Canada to take care of this tremendous seasonal project. At the same time I would expect this year to find a noticeable falling off in the number of men available from Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Taschereau wired me on the same date:
I am advised by employment bureau that Quebec usually sends about 5,000 available workers every year and that same number will probably be available this year.
Mr. J. A. Murray, Commissioner of Immigration for New Brunswick, wired:
Estimate approximately 2,000 harvesters from New Brunswick.
Let me point out that this is about 25 per cent of a falling off from the previous year. Hon. E. N. Rhodes, Premier of Nova Scotia, wired as follows-and I should like the leader of the opposition to take note of this answer, because I understand he was in the maritimes at this particular time; and he can see whether this gospel is along the lines of what he was preaching:
During past four years average 1,700 have gone west for harvest. Would estimate 25 per cent decrease this year owing activities building construction, highways, mining industry, and increased agricultural production.
This is the reply from Hon. A. C. Saunders, Premier of Prince Edward Island:
We are very short of farm labourers in our province, having the largest potato crop in our history. We have a large waiting list of farmers here requiring farm labourers. Demand so very keen doubt if 50 men will avail themselves of cheap transportation rate to prairie provinces.
With those telegrams before us, the promise of 5,000 from Quebec, 2,000 from New Brunswick, 1,275 from Nova Scotia and 50 from Prince Edward Island, or a total of 8,325, leaves us still short by 35,675 of the estimate made by the committee, and we could hardly expect that number from Ontario.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Has the minister the
figures for the western provinces?


Peter Heenan: The estimate is 25,00f
from the three prairie provinces.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did Mr. Brownlee send that word?


Peter Heenan: No, that estimate was
from Winnipeg. With that before us, and realizing the position of the workers in England, we heard the cry of the Imperial government and it was decided to try as an experiment the bringing out of 10.000 men. Many opinions have been offered as to whether the experiment was a success or a failure, but at any rate it was tried, and after the Minister of Immigration and the government had exacted every safeguard from the transportation companies and representatives of the Imperial government so that those men would not be a burden on the country, they were permitted to come over. That was the position, and the leader of the opposition should not endeavour to get the government both coming and going on a question of this description. While some of his party and his newspapers are crying out in favour of this scheme, he ought not to have one	of	his chief lieutenants	stand in	thetrades congress convention damning the scheme. I hope I have made myself clear on that	point, and that the	leader of	theopposition will now take my word for it that	I	did not repudiate the scheme	butwas	a	party to it and glad	to make	the
experiment.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is the minister going to continue it next year?
The Budget-Mr. Heenan


Peter Heenan: I am making this speech this year. One thing at a time is pretty good.
Some hon. members have spoken on many subjects, and I should like to refer to two hon. gentlemen in particular who discussed the old age pension legislation, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) and the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith). The hon. member for Vancouver South, in the course of his remarks, made this statement:
Mr. Speaker, to me it is inconceivable that this government and the Liberal forces throughout Canada should be parties to a scheme to submarine their old age pension legislation after it has served their purpose before the electorate. It seems to me that the suggestion to test the constitutionality of the Old Age Pensions Act by a reference to the supreme court is an indirect method of destroying the effectiveness of the legislation, resorted to by certain forces in the Liberal party that do not approve of old age pensions and would like to shift the whole burden upon the provinces.
At this juncture I would pause to say that the only suggestion that has come with regard to testing the validity of the legislation came from a member on the Conservative side of the house, who has several times put a question on the order paper asking whether the government were willing to test the validity of the legislation before the courts.
I should like to outline briefly the history of the old age pension legislation, and after that I shall be surprised if the house and the country are not convinced that my hon. friends opposite attempted not merely to submarine but to torpedo the whole old age pension legislation at every opportunity they got.
In 1919 it was a plank in the Liberal platform to advocate an old age pension scheme in cooperation with the provinces. In 1922, after the Liberal party was elected to power, a resolution was introduced by the then member for Hull urging that ways and means be devised to establish an old age pension scheme in Canada. In 1924 a resolution was introduced by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), appointing a committee to make inquiries into an old age pension system for Canada. That committee reported in the same session, and recommended that the provinces be communicated with. That was done, and answers were received from the provinces. It is true that the provinces were not enthusiastic over the scheme. The question was again submitted in 1925 to the same committee, which recommended the same scheme again, and submitted in addition the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice to the effect that this was a provincial, and not a federal, responsibility. When the report of that committee was before

this bouse my hon. friend then sitting for East Calgary, and sitting on the Labour benches- I refer to Mr. Irvine-moved an amendment
to the effect that the question should be referred back to the committee with instructions to bring in a report upon a purely federal plan. One would have thought that if the Conservatives in this house wanted a purely federal scheme, this was their opportunity to secure one, but the house will be surprised to learn from the record that only two Conservative members in the whole house voted for the amendment calling for a purely federal plan. Every other member of the Conservative party voted against it, and voted for the adoption of the committee's report. The two members of the Conservative party who voted in favour of a purely federal plan were the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black).
There was an election in 1925, and in 1920, the first session after the election, a bill was introduced in regard to old age pensions. What was the position of my hon. friends opposite, especially the leaders of the Conservative party, at that time? Sir Henry Drayton, was then leading the. opposition in the absence of Mr. Meighen, who I remember well was ill at the time. Sir Henry Drayton had this to say:
I am not at all certain that it is a good thing for this parliament to try to look after other business than its own, to try to look after provincial business, when I do not think the most enthusiastic supporters of this government can say it is looking after, as they should be looked after, matters of pressing Dominion importance. This is entirely a provincial matter.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Prime Minister said
exactly the same thing a few days ago, did he not?


Peter Heenan: The hon. member for
St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), speaking on this question at that time, referring to Nova Scotia, said:
I do not think there is any demand from that province for contributions of this kind in respect of work which they have undertaken as a province and in which the municipalities assist. They regard this as a provincial and municipal affair and they are prepared, I be-live. unless there has been a change of sentiment in recent years, to continue it in the same vigorous and successful way in which they have carried it on in the past.
Another very prominent member of another chamber, the leader of the Conservative party in that house, said:
In this case, according to the Department of Justice, the subject matter over which we are legislating has been assigned under our federal constitution to the provinces. I think

The Budget-Mr. Heenan
it is a good general rule to lay down and to follow as closely as possible, that the parliament of Canada, or any house legislating under a similar constitution, should confine itself to those subjects which have been assigned to it, and the provinces to the subjects that have been assigned to them.
Then, my hon. friend the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) had this to say in Hansard, March 26, 1926, at page 1975:
I apologize for trespassing again to-night upon the time of the house, but I feel very strongly on this subject. I am deeply interested in it; i desire to see it succeed. I am convinced that it cannot succeed without the cooperation of all the provinces, unless the_ Dominion, in defiance of our constitutional jurisdiction as voiced by the Deputy Minister of Justice, sees fit to undertake the whole responsibility, which would involve us in an expenditure of $23,000,000 per annum, and, in a very short time, an expenditure of $40,000,000 per annum, an expenditure entirely too large for us to entertain at the present time.
So I do not think we got very much encouragement from our Conservative friends on that occasion. In view of the statements I have quoted, it puzzles me to understand how the hon. leader of the opposition, after saying that it would be in defiance of our constitutional jurisdiction to undertake the whole responsibility, could vote at the Winnipeg convention-the press stated that the vote was "unanimous-that the old age pension scheme at present in operation was inadequate and unworkable, and that there should be a federal scheme instead of a Dominion-provincial scheme. But that was the position of the Conservative party. In 1925 they voted in this house against a federal scheme and in favour of a Dominion-provincial scheme, and in 1926'they opposed a Dominion-provincial scheme on the ground that old age pensions were the business of the province, and not of the Dominion.
But the bill passed this house. It went to the other chamber, and there, to use the language of my hon. friend from Vancouver South, it was submarined. An election took place following its execution, and I think of all the questions that were discussed before the public in that campaign, old age pensions was one of the most prominent, and we know with what result. The bill was re-introduced in 1927, and amendments were offered by the Conservative party, which had for their purpose the loading down of the amount involved to such an extent that if they had ever been accepted by the government it would have been killed in the senate almost before it reached the other chamber; because when the senate threw out the old age pension bill in 1926 on the ground that it was going to cost $24,000,000 a year, it could
hardly be expected that they would pass an old age pension bill the next year that was going to cost around $176,000,000 a year. When those tactics failed and the law was finally placed on the statute book, one would have thought, yes, one had the right to expect, that hon. gentlemen opposite would cooperate with the rest of the country in an effort to induce the provinces to make the best of the situation and participate in the scheme. But what did they do? They called a meeting in Winnipeg, the Conservative convention, and there in the centre of Canada they broadcast to the four corners of the country discouragement to the provinces, declaring that the Dominion-provincial scheme was inadequate and unworkable, and they voted unanimously for a federal scheme instead of a Dominion-provincial scheme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does Quebec say?


Peter Heenan: I will tell the hon. gentleman what somebody else s^ys first.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: They declared for the federal scheme, in face of the fact that my hon friend in the session of 1925 voted against it, and in view of the fact that the now leadei of the opposition, my hon. and genial friend, said that it would be an invasion of our constitutional jurisdiction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will pardon me, but I cannot let that statement pass. He has made it for the third time, but on the other occasions I refrained from interrupting him. I said the constitutional jurisdiction as declared by the Deputy Minister of Justice. I expressed no opinion of my own.


Peter Heenan: I expect my hon. friend is like myself. He accepts the Justice department as the logical authority to give legal advice to this parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was asked for by this government.


Peter Heenan: My hon. friend can ask for it now if he expects something different. Now, we were told that the scheme was unworkable and inadequate, and at that very time we were negotiating with the western provinces. To-day this so-called unworkable and inadequate scheme is in effect in every province in western Canada with the exception of the province of Alberta. The Premier of Alberta has stated that his government will adopt the scheme this session, and already a bill has been introduced for the purpose.
The Budget-Mr. Heenan

Then again this so-called unworkable and inadequate scheme is about to be put into effect in the province of Ontario, the most Tory province in the whole Dominion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Except Quebec.


Peter Heenan: Ontario, I think, sent more delegates to the Conservative convention in Winnipeg last year than any two or three of the other provinces combined. They were unanimous in declaring our old age pensions scheme to be unworkable, but quite recently Premier Ferguson has introduced a bill in the provincial house to take advantage of the legislation. When my hon. friends observe the progress that has been made in this connection I should think they would not start sniping at the scheme and attempt to make the people of this country believe that the Prime Minister stated in this house the other day that it was a vicious system, when as a matter of fact he said nothing of the sort.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said it was a thoroughly vicious principle.


Peter Heenan: Everyone who was in the house at the time knows that he was speaking on the principle of provincial subventions, and an hon. member here and there tried to lead him to say something-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mostly here.


Peter Heenan: I would expect opposition from the Conservative party, but I am surprised to find One or two members-whom I would have expected to endorse the old age pensions scheme and help the government in every way to put it into effect-are joining the Conservatives in trying to infer that the Prime Minister called the scheme a vicious principle, whereas as a matter of fact such a thought was far from his mind. But I am not so much worried about what my friends of the opposition think of the government and of the scheme. I am satisfied to reflect that the people who are now benefiting by this legislation are old-time pioneers. Therefore I prefer to take the opinion of those who are sympathetic towards those pioneers and towards this scheme, and I can cite no better evidence in this connection than the views of the Trades and Labour Congress, as set out in the legislative program which they presented to the government on January 8 last. They did not doubt our sincerity. They said:
It is pleasing to note that the Minister of Labour has continued to publicly urge all provincial governments to accept the federal-provincial Old Age Pension Act and this we ac-[Mr. Heenan.)
cept as a manifestation of the sincerity of the federal government in seeking to have the benefits of the measure made applicable throughout the entire Dominion at the earliest time.
We have been told time and again by our friends opposite that the old age pensions act is inadequate and unworkable. Apropos of this allow me to quote what the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) stated from his seat in this house:
Might I mention here that very recently there has been submitted to the government of the province of Nova Scotia an interim report by the commissioner who was appointed to investigate an old age pensions scheme in that province, and he has estimated in this report, which is not at all complete, that the total cost to inaugurate such scheme-of which I may say every person in the province of Nova Scotia is heartily in favour-will amount to $4,400,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Where did he get his figures?


Peter Heenan: He manufactured them.
The portion to be borne by the province to be $2,200,000, plus expenses of administration of the scheme.
When a similar argument was advanced by the government of Ontario, I undertook to hazard the guess that instead of costing in the neighbourhood of five million dollars, as stated by the provincial authorities, it would cost approximately half that amount, towards which the Dominion government would contribute 50 per cent. I knew whereof I spoke, for to-day the premier of Ontario realizes that at the most it will not cost the province more than three million dollars. This estimate for Nova Scotia-


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it an estimate?


Peter Heenan: They call it an estimate,
and I like to call it by the same name. This estimate, I say, is ridiculous, because at the last census the number of persons in Nova Scotia over seventy years of age was 24,756. Assuming every one of them was paid the maximum pension, the cost to the' provinces would be less than 12,975,000. Our experience in the other provinces has shown that about thirty-five per cent of these old people qualify for some part of the pension. Even taking forty as the percentage for Nova Scotia, the cost of full pensions for all would be about $1,200,000; if thirty-five per cent received full pensions the cost would be $1,027,800. The cost of administration has been exaggerated. In British Columbia it does . not cost more than eight thousand dollars a year, whereas it has been estimated that it would cost Nova Scotia two hundred thousand dollars for administration. Such an estimate on the face of it is ridiculous.

* Sun Lije Assurance Company
I have only five minutes more in which to deal with several questions, and, Mr. Speaker,
I do not know which to cut out. Before I leave the old age pensions question let me say that this government is right behind the scheme; the Prime Minister and his cabinet are one hundred per cent in their support of it, and they are all anxious that the scheme should go into effect in every province. We ask support from our friends opposite even at this late date to help us to put it into effect in every province, and when it does go into effect in the provinces we are quite prepared to sit down with them and consider such amendments as may be deemed necessary; because so far as this government is concerned this is not the last word in regard to old age pension legislation-this is the first.
The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) took a fling at the government from many angles, and I want to discuss one point of attack which he made. He attributed the strike in Hamilton to the policy of this government, implying that had this been a protectionist country that strike would not have taken place. Let me point out to him that there has just terminated a strike in New Bedford, Massachusetts, in what is the most highly protected industry in the world. That strike occurred in the cotton mill centre where, according to the American Federationist, the employees are not making a living wage. They had to suffer a 5 per cent reduction. I wonder, therefore, how the hon. member can blame the policy of this government for the strike to which he referred. Let us measure my hon. friend's party and its policy by the strike criterion and see how they fare. From 1912 to 1921 there was an average of 150 strikes a year, while time lost by reason of strikes averaged 1,081,508 working days. In the last three years, on the other hand, from 1926 to 1928 inclusive, there has been an average of 86 strikes per annum instead of 150, while the average number of working days lost was 233,410 as compared with over a million.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) advanced a strange argument. He read from the census returns of 1921 to show that the country was not prosperous, and then he went on to make the statement that not one of the men engaged in several occupations which he mentioned earned over $1,600 a year. I would point out to my hon. friend that he was not censuring this government in that regard; he was alluding to what had taken place while his own party was in power from 1912 to 1921. But if he wanted
to be fair he could have ascertained from the wages bulletin which we issue that the wages of bricklayers in Toronto had increased since 1921 from $1 to $1.25, or 25 per cent; the wages of carpenters from 90 cents to a dollar, and the wages of electrical workers, sheet metal workers and others similarly, the average increase in wages being 19 per cent. So that if the hon. member condemns his own party-


Hewitt Bostock: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock PRIVATE BILLS



THIRD READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 64, respecting Chartered Trust and Executor Company.-Mr. Lawson.

[Stage Direction]
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) moved the third reading of Bill No. 16, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I will not take very long to explain my views in connection with this bill as the amendment which has been made is satisfactory, but I do not think I should fail to present to the house what was said at a public function in the province of Quebec with respect to the way this bill was dealt with last year. The remarks to which I refer were made at a public dinner held in Quebec on June 8, 1928. and may be found in the proceedings of the third annual convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, held at the Chateau Frontenac, Quebec city. With regard to this bill the following words were used:
The west must understand the problems of the east and the east must understand the problems of the west.
That is elementary; no one can object to that.
They are not the same problems.
That is true and it is also elementary.
It must be a matter of give and take.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mostly give.


Mr. POULIOT:: I think there is nothing so good as a fair understanding.
Some times I read in the papers some things that do not sound well-and when I see, not in our parliament but in the federal house, that westerners object to some bills-

Sun Life Assurance Company
Perhaps in speaking of members from the west he was thinking of the 'hem. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett).
-in which they are not interested, but they object precisely because they are not interested, I am afraid they create a bad feeling in the east. Let me quote an instance. Last year at the interprovincial conference at Ottawa the west came to us and said, we want now the .return of our natural resources. Ontario and Quebec, for the first time, said, we have no objection at all, and the return of your natural resources is absolutely agreeable to us. In the past, Outario and Quebec had objected. Some days ago-
This was last June.
-two important bills came before the Dominion parliament, the Sun Life and the Bell Telephone bill, and I am told that these two bills are going to be talked out by 'westerners.
These are not my words; I am quoting from the remarks of a prominent man in Quebec.
I hope that they won't (hear, hear) and I may say to those gentlemen of the west who wish to talk them out, that if they want to create a bad feeling in the east against the west and call for retaliation-I don't say that they will get it, but I say they are courting it.
I hope my hon. friends in the far corner of the house notice those words.


John Evans: What is the title of the book from which my hon. friend is reading?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am reading from the proceedings .of the third annual convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; I am sure my bon. friend has a copy also. I do not make these words mine; I want the house to understand that clearly, because I do not share these views at all. I believe in the freedom of this parliament; I believe that no one can interfere with free speech here, especially an outsider, and no one outside of this house can dictate any policy to members of this house. That is my understanding of Dominion politics. I exercise my privilege of free speech to quiite an extent; it is the greatest privilege we have in this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask my hon.
riend a question? I suppose he remembers that two distinguished members of this house exercised their privilege of free speech to such an extent that one became Minister of National Revenue and the other Canadian Minister to Japan. Is my hon. friend emulating them?


Jean-François Pouliot: I believe both were good
appointments; the Minister of National Revenue is doing very well and I do not complain because the Minister to Japan has left this country for Japan. This is free [Mr. Pouliot.l
speech again; I could not get accustomed in this house to his snobbish way of speaking when he was a member here; I remember that the second part of his speech used to contradict the first part.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: But to continue-and I
will be very brief:-I would like to tell my hon. friends in the far corner that they need not be afraid because the worst they could receive from the gentleman who made this speech to which I refer would be the cracker which he found on his door step in Quebec and which did not explode. This is another instance of those crazy utterances of the Premier of Quebec, who quite often does not know the first thing about the matters of which he speaks. The members of this house have no lesson to learn from anyone outside of this house; here we come to an understanding; members are free to express their views and they can say what they like. They use dignified language when they speak to each other or when they address the house, and I have never heard before of an outsider coming and trying to impress his views by ' threats upon independent members of the House of Commons. I protested against this very thing at a committee meeting this morning. I asked the officers of the Bell Telephone Company' who were appearing there if they were ready to take all responsibility for the remarks made by that gentleman, and I received the answer from the attorney of the company in the negative.
I do not intend to occupy the time of the house any longer, but I desired to express my views on this subject. I believe our greatest privilege, as members of this house, is to use the language we think fits the circumstances, and I think this will be a lesson to that gentleman and he will mind his own business in the future, and observe "de Con-rart Ie silence prudent," at least with regard to federal matters.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) for committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that
about three minutes of my time still remain, and I should like to place on record a few figures which will Show that the railroad activities can be taken as a barometer of the progress the country is making. I wish to give the tonnage of revenue freight since 1921


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member's time
had elapsed before the house rose.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
gentleman's time has elapsed.
Mr, MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert): Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of hearing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) this afternoon, and if he will be good enough to listen to me this evening I shall a tale unfold which will go a long way toward assisting him in improving the employment situation in this country. However, to do that he must be diligent; he must prevail upon his colleagues to adopt certain measures which I hope to place before the -house this evening. I propose discussing the question of trade as it relates to the welfare of this country. The terms "trade" and "oommerce" are somewhat similar, and it is very difficult to differentiate exactly between the two words.
There is a general consensus of opinion that the word "commerce" has a greater scope and wider application than the word "trade". But we hear the term "foreign trade," and surely that is wide enough. There is also the phrase "overseas trade," which is equally wide in its scope. I intend to deal particularly with overseas trade as it concerns Canada.
Overseas trade is divided into two groups, the first of which is the imports into Canada. As we all know, these imports enter Canada either through Canadian ports or through ports of the United States. I have before me a table prepared by the Bureau of Statistics which illustrates the progress which has been made during the past years in this respect. Imports which entered Canada through Canadian ports during the year 1928 were valued at $377,402,000, or 96.6 per cent of the total imports. The imports entering via United States ports in the same year amounted to $12,118,000, or 3.1 per cent of the total. These figures show a satisfactory improvement in the use of our own ports and rails. There has been a steady increase in the use of the Canadian ports. For instance, the imports through United States ports in 1921 were valued at $25,936,000 while last year they had decreased to $12,118,000. The statement in detail is as follows:
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-External Trade Branch
Trade with Overseas Countries via Canadian Sea or River Ports and United States
Ports
(Taken from Canadian Sources)
"Overseas Countries" includes all countries, except the United States
(1) Imports into Canada from overseas countries
Canada's
Note:-The expression
Years ended March 31
1919..
1920..
1921..
1922..
1923..
1924..
1925..
1926..
1927..
1928..
(a) via Canadian ports	
Value	Proportion of
of imports	total imports
$	%
146.521,000	86.4
238,296,000	90.5
358,046,000	93.3
219.749,000	94.8
248.730,000	95.1
278,221.000	95.3
275,536,000	95.8
304,492,000	95.5
331,109.000	96.3
377,402,000	96.9
(b) via United States ports	
Value	Proportion of
of imports	total imports
$	%
22,988.000	13.6
25,135,000	9.5
25,936,000	6.7
12,097,000	5.2
12.859.000	4.9
13,890,000	4.7
11,616,000	4.2
14,219,000	4.5
12,761.000	3.7
12,118,000	3.1
This improvement has taken place partly by drawing the public attention to the importance of using our own ports and our own rails. I do not think that is a large factor. The main reason is that there have been various preferences, such as the small preference that was added a few years ago, which have brought it about. There can be no doubt about this, because those who recall the instance of the West Indian trade will remember that at that time a small preference was added for direct importation and the improvement followed so soon after that there could be no other explanation. The various trade agreements and treaties that have been passed by parliament in the last few years contain a clause that the preference shall apply when direct importation is made. This, too, has assisted in the improvement. I do not wish to convey the impression as to the

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
treaties and trade agreements that I approve 'those measures except solely as regards the one point of the mode of import. The merits and demerits of the treaties that we have passed must stand in a separate category and at the present moment I do not deal with them. So far as that goes credit is due to the government for the legislation that has been passed. In like manner equal credit is due to those on this side of the house who have persistently and steadfastly urged that the legislation be brought into effect and who have supported the measures when introduced.
I should like to point out, in reference to the West Indian trade, that not long ago a duty was imposed on bananas coming through the United States and that they were admitted free when imported directly. The United Fruit Company of the United States, a very large, wealthy and powerful organization, which has hitherto been importing through Boston practically all the bananas used in this country, has this year, owing to the duty, arranged to ship bananas from Jamaica to St. John and Halifax. It is doing that because it finds that this fruit can be introduced into Canada two or three days sooner than by shipping it via the St. Lawrence route.
The second great group is that of exports from Canada to overseas countries, and "now is the winter of our discontent," our disappointments and our remonstrances. In the period from 1919 to 1928 exports were as follows:
Tears ended March 31 1919. .
1920..
1921..
1922.. 1923. .
1921..
1925..
1926..
1927.. 1928 .
(2) Exports from Canada to overseas countries
(a) via Canadian ports
Value	Proportion of
of exports	total exports
a	%
609,459,000	80.0
606,808,000	78.2
470,861,000	72.8
300,225,000	67.1
330,052,000	58.7
390,965,000	63.8
394,290,000	60.7
510.417,000	60.8
475,449.000	60.5
458,594,000	61.1
(b) via United States ports
Value	Proportion of
of exports	total exports
$	%
152,112,000	20.0
168,656,000	21.8
175,980,000	27.2
147,427,000	32.9
232,319,000	41.3
223,678,000	36.2
257,360,000	39.3
329.952,000	39.2
310.285.000	39.5
291,607,000	38.9
The house will note the large percentage of trade that passes through the United States to the seaboard for shipment overseas. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), in an interesting speech referred, as an illustration of what he regarded as indicative of a distinct distribution of wealth, to the records of car loadings as representing the movement of tonnage and the business which is carried on within the nation. I ask the houses to mark the words "within a nation." He said that the increase in tonnage had helped employment in the transportation systems. This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) also referred to car loadings and he was followed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). This is the time when I think the Minister of Labour might, with some advantage, consider another viewpoint of the question of car loadings. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said: See the increase in car loadings in Canada and how from that follow the distribution of wealth and the emplo3Tment that is offered by the railway people. But the minister failed to trace the course of many of these cars. He made no mention of the $291,607,000 worth of tonnage which was carried into

another country for transshipment overseas. He made no mention of the loss at Canadian ports, nor of the loss of railway mileage cn goods passing through the United States, nor -and I would ask the Minister of Labour to listen to this-of the loss of employment both on the railways and at ocean ports. I think I can fairly assume that about as much labour is required for unloading cars as for loading them. Many of the figures which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave should be cut in half because those cars are unloaded in another country and consequently the employment that should come to our railway operatives, the additional mileage that our railways should have and the employment that should be available at our seaports, are lost because of this S291,000,000 worth of goods being shipped through the United States. The index number of employment would do some oscillation if these facts were plainly and fairly placed before the indicator. Some time we will be interested in learning just what is the number of freight cars that are loaded in Canada and unloaded in the United States. It would be most instructive and impressive to know just what is the number of cars that would be required to handle the freight to the value I have just men-

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
tioned. I do not for a moment say that there should or could be no transshipment through the United States, but I do strongly assert that the amount now being transshipped should be greatly curtailed, and that our own people, our own railways and ports, should have the benefits of that traffic.
I desire to dTaw the attention of the house to a report recently issued by the United States government, dated January 28, 1929.
It is a report of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, in response to a senate resolution relative to the diversion of commerce from ports in the United States to Canadian ports. This inquiry was held at the instance of two American ports which complained that their trade was being diverted to Canada. The phrase "diversion of trade'' means to us in Canada the "reversion" or the recovery of our trade, because the principal part of the trade in question is in Canadian goods. Whether or not these two cities Were correct in complaining of the loss of trade, the loss certainly was not due to' Canada securing that trade. The report itself states that there has been no diversion to Canada, and that on the whole the United States is well maintaining its trade overseas.
I commend this extensive report to the attention of the members of the house. It was made after a thorough investigation, and it is always well to get another viewpoint and to learn how our neighbours are regarding questions of trade. I should like to read a few extracts from the report. On page 4 it says:
On the basis of the value of Canadian commerce handled by American ports and the share of the total commerce of Canada obtained by ports of the United States in the years 1919 to 1928, it appears that the position of American ports has materially improved during this period. [DOT] Not only is their position in 1928 superior to that in 1919, both on the basis of the absolute value and the proportion that Canada's commerce obtained, but taking the period as a whole there is a perceptible_ tendency towards improvement in their position.
Again:
A comparison of the percentages of the total commerce of each country handed by the ports of the other show's that in the year ending March 31, 1928, Canadian ports obtained only 4.8 per cent of the total trade of the United States with countries other than Canada, while American ports obtained 26.6 per cent of the trade of Canada with countries other than the United States.
These are rather striking figures. Again:
On the whole, available data as set forth in the preceding pages with respect to the movement of traffic through the ports of Canada and the United States do not seem to afford ground for apprehension concerning the welfare _ of American ports and transportation agencies.
Here is a similar quotation:
In view of the year to year fluctuation aDd the lack of any pronounced trend, there appears to be no adequate basis for concluding that there has been any material change either favourable or adverse in the position of American ports with respect to the handling _ of American export traffic during the above period.
According to the tables given in this report, it appears that there is all the way from $60,000,000 to $100,000,000 more in value of Canadian exports passing through the United States than of United States exports passing through Canada. One table gives the figure as $60,000,000 more, and other estimates place it at $100,000,000. As I have said, the percentage is 26.6 as contrasted with 4.8 per cent.
The separate report which is attached, and which was made by the United States shipping board, is not so positive in tone as the ieport from which I have quoted, and yet there is no important divergence from the extracts which I have just given. I submit to the house that here is a clear indication that Canada, represented by its government, should be up and doing in this matter. We have heard what the American viewpoint is. They think that they are gradually improving their ocean export trade as compared with Canada. The trend is favourable, they say, and it is for us, and for the government above all others, to set about and see what can be done, not in any antagonistic attitude towards the United States, but with a view to recovering our own Canadian business and securing the employment and returns that will develop therefrom for all our people.
What is to be done to improve the Canadian overseas export trade through Canadian ports? Certainly the action of the government is a large and important factor in this case. It is for the government to have regard for the interests of our country and our people. It is true that port facilities are being improved, and that is important, and in the direction of recovering our trade.
If there be the impression that the Atlantic ports are destined to carry on only a moderate amount of business, and that only in the winter months, that impression can be promptly and completely set aside. The Atlantic ports expect to secure, and will secure, a large overseas trade throughout the year, and gain what should have been theirs years ago. About half of our Canadian grain is exported through Canadian and about half through United States ports. Had the Crowsnest pass rates been made to apply only when transhipments were -made through Canada, those rates would have borne more of a national character. Our
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren


Mr. M. J. MALONEY (South Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this already lengthy debate other than to do my plain duty as a member of the House of Commons. If there is one occasion on which a member should state his views, I believe it to be in the discussion of the budget. The budget is really an auditor's report, coupled with a statement of present and future fiscal policies. As our oath of office binds us to support in every manner possible those acts of government which we believe to be in the interests of the country, and with equal vigour to condemn those which we believe to be the opposite, I for one have no hesitation as the representative of a very important section of this country in standing here and discussing the matters before the house.
The budget, as I say, is the auditor's report. Suppose one of our great banking institutions, one of our great insurance companies, or any other of our great financial corporations, were holding its annual meeting, and the shareholders were obliged to sit down and listen to such a lean and unsatisfactory statement as this government has handed out to the shareholders-the people of Canada-what would the shareholders in any of those corporations say? My belief is that they wcrald readily make up their minds to change the management; and, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm conviction that at the very first opportunity the people of Canada- the shareholders-will change their board of management.

The Budget-Mr. Maloney
I sympathize with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). He made the best of a very bad case. He used in profusion the grand old battle cry of the Liberal party-lower taxation and economy. And those of us who sat face to face with the Minister of Finance could hardly think it possible that he would mention the words lower taxation when in another very important part of his official statement he observed that last year he collected from the people of Canada almost $430,000,000, while this year he intends to take out of them more than $455,000,000. In other words, he intends to wring out of the people of Canada this year $25,000,000 more than he took last year. Economy 1 He extolled economy. They are the greatest savers on the face of the earth. Well, what have they done? Last year he told you we spent almost $363,000,000 and this year we are spending $385,000,000; in other words, we practise economy to the extent of spending $22,000,000 more this year than last year. That is certainly economy with a vengeance; it is a very peculiar species of economy, a species which we do not very often see to-day. It reminds us of the old shell game which we used to see at fall fairs in the days gone by. Here we have a government who lower taxation and collect more taxes, extol economy and spend more money. What a singularly wonderful combination of men, a combination of men equalled only by the old sleight of hand artist we saw years ago on the stage, who could deftly flip the cards over and turn them back again. These claims of economy and lower taxation, Mr. Speaker, are really no more fantastic than are the claims which are being circulated throughout the country in the government's propaganda in an endeavour to make the people of Canada believe that we are all prosperous. The only measure of true prosperity lies in the distribution of wealth, and if we follow the arguments advanced, if we follow the full page advertisements in the newspapers for which we are paying and which tell us that we are a prosperous people, if we allow our minds to run along this channel long enough, we shall finally reach that state of mind in which we shall become obsessed with the idea that we are all millionaires. And what a rude awakening there will be for many and many in this country.
Let me ask the Minister of Finance this question: Is he really sincere when he makes the statement that we are indeed prosperous? I would ask him to look a little deeply into that question. Let him go out and face conditions as they are. Let him go out for
example among the great wage earning class; let him go into the workshops and, if you will, into the bread line where many a workman is to-day and has been for the last few months; let 'ham go into the humble home of that workman, sit down side by side with him, and ask him whether he feels more prosperous to-day than he did six or eight or ten years ago. And what will the answer be? " No; I am not more prosperous, As a matter of fact I am finding it more difficult all the time to make both ends meet. I am having a hard time to support my family. But that is not all; I am worried because, in the event of my being cut down before this family has become self-supporting. I am in the unfortunate position of being unable to provide insurance to take care of them when I am gone." Not only will the labour man tell him that. Let him go among the farmers of the country; let him go into the beautiful farming sections of this Dominion, and what will he find? He will find farm after farm abandoned; he will find areas once abundantly productive now waste places. If he goes into the homes of those who still live on the fend he will find debt there; he will find worry; he will find farmer after farmer with a mortgage on his land, farmer after farmer unable to secure the money to meet the taxes on his land. This, Mr. Speaker, should not be the case in such a wonderfully productive land as we have. These men are left in this position because their markets have 'been all stolen; they have no hope for the future. Yet the Minister of Finance would try to make us believe that we are indeed a very prosperous nation. Talk about prosperity! The balance of trade is mentioned with great jubilation by this government. But they forget that at least three-quarters of the exports of the country are in the raw or semi-raw state; they forget that they are shipping out Of Canada the very things that should make Canada wealthy, handing them over to some foreign nation for the enrichment of its people. In addition to the raw and semi-raw products they are exporting, they might as well include a very highly manufactured article, the product of this country, the fifty or sixty thousand boys and girls who are exported year after year, boys and girls who are compelled to leave this land to earn an honest living abroad. And if each one of these boys and girls has a potential value of $10,000, you can easily see how the government can to a still greater extent increase the favourable balance of trade.
I would ask the minister what this budget will do to lighten the burden and make easier
The Budget-Mr. Maloney

the way of the ordinary citizen of this Dominion. It is true that when the Ontario farmer pays his annua! visit to the province of Nova Scotia he will save possibly a quarter on his railway ticket and an equal amount on sleeping car accommodation; and when the ooor fisherman, after drawinsr that yearly $300 in Nova Scotia, takes his annual holiday at the coast, he will find that he has saved possibly 50 cents on his. railway fare. That is a wonderful boon and I am sure the fisherman and the Ontario farmer and all of us are delighted that the minister has seen fit to make our lives so much easier by reducing the tax on railway and sleeping car tickets. Again, to take another item: When the workingman who labours six days out of seven draws his princely cheque of $15 on Saturday night and finds it necessary to buy a suit of clothes for his son, he will go into a store and discover that $5 is the lowest he can pay: so three hearty cheers the poor old labourer will give for the Minister of Finance when he finds that he has saved five cents on that suit of clothes for his son. That is one of the great benefits accruing from the budget which has been brought down by the minister.
Had the government of the day been really sincere in their endeavour to aid the people of the country generally, that sales tax would not be in existence now. Had they followed the resolution proposed. I think, by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) not one but two years ago, they would have abolished the sales tax on articles of wearing apparel and on boots and shoes, and thus would have shown that they were indeed endeavouring to do something for the ordinary citizen of the country. But this budget is a worthy successor to several of its predecessors from the same source. There is no relief for the farmer; there is no relief for the labourer other than the old time worn injunction, work harder, spend less, and pay more taxes.
This government claim to be the friend of the farmers, and why? True, they have reduced the duty on agricultural implements, but to-day the farmer is paying more for his implements than he paid before that reduction was made. To that extent they have benefited the farmer. Not only is that the case, but they have reduced the tariff on woollens and on certain grades of yarns, and by that act they have driven out of business many textile plants throughout Canada; they have so tied up the textile business in this country that what was once a prosperous industry is now barely hanging on by its finger nails. As a direct result of that policy, CMr. Maloney.]
to my knowledge in this Ottawa valley at least seven woollen mills have closed their doors. In addition to that, many farmers in this district and throughout the whole country who found the raising of sheep a profitable industry have gone out of that business because when wool went down they could not make any money. Mutton was allowed to enter Canada to compete with our own product, and that made the situation so much worse. The Prime Minister of Canada has had some experience in raising sheep and chickens; a few years ago he launched a bold scheme and became a sheep farmer. He procured the land and bought a flock of . high grade sheep, which he placed in charge of a shepherd; things went well for a time but eventually, after this act of his own government, he was obliged to abandon the project and to-day while he still has the land, the sheep and the shepherd have disappeared. He still has the chickens, but if the government allow eggs to pour into Canada as they have done in the past few years eventually he will abandon the chicken game also.
What else have hon. gentlemen opposite done to show their wonderful friendship for the farmers of this country? They negotiated a treaty with New Zealand and point to it as the greatest aid our farmers ever were given. How has it worked out? Last year we imported from Australia and New Zealand 2,000,000 pounds of beef and mutton and 16,000,000 pounds of butter. Is that encouraging home production? Is that encouraging the farmers of Canada? I represent a county very well suited for the raising of stock of all kinds, well adapted for dairying and for poultry raising. A few years ago the farmers were going in for dairying and sheep raising quite extensively but to-day, because of the acts of this government, they fear to move, and our dairy and sheep industries are falling off. In that great inland county, thousands of miles from New Zealand, today we are eating New Zealand meat and butter and American eggs. Why should that condition exist? How does that encourage the farmers of this country? If those products were, shut out completely or if those countries were compelled to trade with us on a fifty-fifty basis our farmers would be encouraged, they would be more content and happier than they are to-day. But this government encourages production at home. Why, Mr. Speaker, there never was a government in the history of this country which did less to encourage production at home and in fact did more to prevent it, yet they are the friends of the farmers and of the people gen-

The Budget-Mr. Maloney
erally throughout Canada. How any farmer in this country can support the present government is an unsolved mystery to me, yet quite a few of them even in this house will continue to stick as long as the sticking is good.
In addition to being the friend of the farmer and encouraging home production this government are the champion spenders of all governments of this country. They let money float around like chaff, but the funny part of it is that some of the most laudable projects are turned aside while others of less value are readily accepted. Quite recently this house considered the question of a grant to the provinces in aid of technical education; that request was rudely turned down, yet with great alacrity this same government handed over to Vincent Massey more than $700,000. What has Vincent Massey done to cost this country that amount of money? He has done nothing so far as I know. Oh, yes, he did one thing; he arranged a passage for the Prime Minister of this country on a French boat sailing from an American port when the Prime Minister left to attend the peace pact conference in Paris. Our Prime Minister and Mr. Kellogg did their work nobly, but I fail to see where Vincent earned his $700,000. While we were all behind the Prime Minister in his magnificent efforts overseas I might tell him that we would have felt much better and that the honour of Canada would have been upheld to a much greater extent if he had sailed from a Canadian port on board a Canadian vessel.
Technical education is absolutely essential in Canada to-day. Our whole system of education is of an academic kind. Once we enter the lower grades of the public schools our system heads us straight for the university; our system of teaching is based on no other idea, and we forget that a very large percentage of the people of Canada never see a university. We overlook the fact that our boys and girls who do not intend to take advantage of the opportunity to go to university should be trained in some vocation which will be of use to them when they go out into the world to earn their own living; they should be taught carpentry, book-keeping or some other trade or vocation which will make them useful citizens of Canada. That is the idea of technical education, and with that idea in mind the various provinces to-day are advocating more and more a system of technical training. Our hon. friends opposite, however, prefer Vincent Massey to the education of our children, so what are we to do?
Is this a spending government? It is. They spend millions of dollars to destroy perfectly good buildings in Ottawa but they have not a five-cent piece for a national highway. That is a project which would give employment to thousands of our citizens from coast to coast; it would link up the east with the west and would allow a resident of Prince Edward Island to cross Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the great provinces of Quebec and Ontario, on through Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to the coast without setting foot on foreign soil. That is the great advantage of a national highway, and in addition it would bring to this country an untold tourist traffic from all over the world. But our friends on the government side prefer to tear down buildings in the heart of Ottawa rather than to build a trans-Canada highway. They are destructive rather than constructive.
Then we have the tariff board. This board has been in existence two years and even the chairman of it does not know the first thing about its operations. Here is what he said on page 5 of his report to the Minister of Finance:
Difficulty exists as to determining the nature of the advice we are presumed to tender to the minister. Applications in regard to customs invariably contain submission of evidence with the object of obtaining relief, whether by upward or downward revision of the tariff. Parliament alone can grant that relief. What then becomes the nature of the advice expected from the board?
Here is a tribunal which costs the Dominion of Canada many thousands of dollars each year, and the open confession of the chairman of that board practically amounts to an admission that the only thing he knows with certainty about the operations of the board is the fact that he and two fellow commissioners draw a fine, fat cheque at the end of each month.
The .money which is used in maintaining this board could well be spent in many other ways. I would advise the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to get his claws on that money. He can use it, because his department is supposed to be operated for service and not for profit. The people from end to end of this country are crying out for improved rural mail facilities, and I leave it to the good judgment of the Postmaster General if it would not be wiser to close up the shop of the tariff board and spend the money in extending the rural mail system.
While I am on the subject of the Post Office department, I would like to mention a matter which is operating to the disadvantage

The Budget-Mr. Maloney

of a great number of our people. I refer to the special privilege which is given to the large mail order houses of this country. The mail order houses are expanding slowly but surely, and the day is bound to come sooner or later when the old time general merchant will be forced out of business and the merchandising of our country will be in the hands of a few. The Postmaster General is aiding those mail order houses by allowing the use of the mail at a sacrifice price. About two or three times a year these great mail order houses send out many hundreds of thousands of catalogues, the great silent salesmen. Every time an article is ordered from these catalogues it works to the disadvantage of the general merchant. Every transaction with a mail order house must be on a cash basis, while the general merchant carries the settler for from one to three years. The Post Office department is aiding and abetting these large firms in going in and taking the bread out of the mouths of the country merchants. I know of one town in my riding where nearly a carload of these catalogues came into the post office and were distributed to the settlers within a radius of twenty miles at a cost of seven cents apiece. Had these catalogues been obliged to pay the regular mail rate of one cent for every two ounces it would have meant that the Post Office department would have received eighteen cents on every catalogue. That would have totalled about half a million dollars which could have gone to the treasury of this country, and at the same time an unfair advantage would not have been taken of the country merchants. I ask the Postmaster General to look into this matter and if possible to give some relief. The Postmaster General might use that extra money in extending the rural mail system, taking it along with the money which is being wasted by the operation of the tariff board. He could start many rural mail routes, but I suppose he would rather have the tariff board, which is helping the big corporations, and let the poor fellow out in the country walk from one to five miles to get his mail. As I said before, the Post Office department is operated for service without profit, but it is a service to the great plutocrats, in the same way this government has been rendering service to the rich men of the country ever since it became a factor in the affairs of Canada.
The budget is a rich man's budget. It helps the man who travels a great deal or the man who sends many telegrams; it helps the man who is purchasing large articles; and it helps the man who deals in high-priced min-

ing stocks at the expense of the man who deals in the penny stocks. It is generally the poor man who deals in the penny stocks, and they are being penalized while the high-priced stocks are allowed to go practically free. I would like to call to the attention of the Minister of Finance the fact that some of our greatest mining institutions in Canada were once listed on the market as penny stocks. Had this unfortunate tax then been in effect we might not have had the opportunity of developing those rich properties.
I would like to touch for a few moments upon the question of the exporting of raw materials. We have no conception of the amount of money we are handing over to the United States by permitting our raw products to be exported as they are at present. In the county town of my county there is a factory engaged in the manufacture of matches. They utilize poplar wood very largely in the manufacture of those matches. Every winter the farmers cut a considerable amount of poplar pulpwood and they sell that wood to the buyers at a price of from $6 to $8 per cord. It is then loaded on the train and shipped to the United States, and our railways get possibly $2 per cord. In other words, we derive from $8 to $10 per cord from the sale of that wood. Let us see what happens when a cord of poplar wood is used in the manufacture of matches. From the time it leaves the stump until it is turned out in the finished product, a cord of wood represents the distribution of $60. Compare that with the price received for the wood we ship to the United States. There is a difference of $50. Where is that $50? It is down in the pockets of the boys and girls of the United States when it should be in Canada to be spent among our own people. But these matters have been so long urged upon and consistently brought to the attention of the government without result that I fear for the future of this country if the present government is allowed to remain in power any longer.
We have a Minister of Immigration, and a good one, but as a matter of fact we should not have a minister of immigration at all; we should not need one. As everyone will admit, we have the finest country in the whole w'ide world. We have resources without end; we are economically independent of the whole world; we are self-supporting from every angle, and if our affairs were run properly, we would require no minister of immigration; we would have no reason to go out among foreign nations and seek for people to come to our shores. A proper system of immigration is this:	Let us make Canada
a country worth living in, and who will come

The Budget-Mr. Stinson
back within our borders? Our own boys and girls who are to-day across the line longing to come back to their old homes but who cannot do so because they are unable to make a living here. Make Canada a country fit to live in and these boys and girls will return. What we need to make this country worth living in is a government which will give confidence not only to our people but to the foreign investor. Both outside of and within Canada are millions of dollars awaiting a favourable opportunity for investment, millions of dollars awaiting their chance to be used in the development of our great natural resources; but the capitalists fear, and they have reason to fear, an inactive, wavering, insincere and compromising government, and they are afraid to invest their capital. With a strong, stable government in power, with money flowing in on every hand, factories which are to-day locked up tightly will again swing open their doors; plants which are now masses of rust and ruin will start up again; our boys and girls will flock back to Canada and our country will once more be prosperous as it should be. When our own boys and girls come back I would suggest this as a policy of immigration: Go throughout the length and breadth of the wide world and pick the best class of men, no matter from where. Coming from the county of Renfrew I can testify to the singular ability of the German and Polish immigrants as settlers on the land. We have in that county a large Polish population and no better people than these ever lived on any land. If we had a million or two or three millions of these Poles in Canada along with Germans, who are equally good, they would help to build up a great country for us.
I would like to touch for a few minutes on the railway situation. I was amused a short time ago when I heard the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) complain about the railway facilities in his constituency. He stated that they were the worst in the world, and I believe he brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). A day or two afterwards the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) stood up and went him one better. He said that he had the very worst railway in the whole country and he urged the Minister of Railways to take it over and amalgamate it with the Canadian National. I would ask the hon. member for Cumberland to hesitate, because I want to say both to him and to the hon. member for Inverness that if they visited the county of Renfrew and saw the railway situation as it exists under the name 78594-70^
of the Canadian National, they would return home and, travelling on their own railways, would imagine they were on a Chicago flier. There are two points in my county which are sixty miles apart, and hon. members will be surprised to learn that it takes four days to make the trip one way on a passenger train. That is in the county of Renfrew, one of the finest counties in the whole Dominion of Canada, and it has occurred under the unfortunate management of the Canadian National railways.


Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) on the splendid address which she delivered in this chamber this afternoon. I believe that after two or three more sessions of parliament, she will be content to leave her farmer friends in the hands of the Conservative party.
The budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) grows in importance to the people of Canada year by year, and for the last seven years it has been awaited with anticipation and concern by increasing numbers by reason of radical tariff changes or suggested or mooted changes therein. I congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the clear, concise statement that he has given us this year, but my congratulation is much deeper and much more sincere by reason of the fact that this year no radical changes in the tariff are suggested. The government is [DOT] apparently settling down to a policy of tariff stability. The problem of the tariff has been one of the most persistent and controversial in Canadian history, affecting as it does either directly or indirectly the well-being and prosperity of every citizen in Canada. The government has tinkered with the tariff every year since 1922, with the result that there was nothing but uncertainty in our industrial life for the workers and for the manufacturers, and this had a depressing effect upon the whole life of Canada. If this budget spells stability in tariff-and I hope it does-then we have gone a long way towards creating and fostering an era of prosperity for this country. Let us proclaim to the world once again that the settled policy of Canada is that of reasonable protection.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance further upon his timely reference to our neighbour to the south. Although timid indeed, yet it states that in case the United States should implement by legislation its tariff proposals directed in the interest of their farmers against the products of the Canadian farmer, measures will be taken to
The Budget-Mr. Stinson

protect the interest of our Canadian farmer. I would let the United States understand clearly and without equivocation that their citizens cannot have their own market and ours too, save only on the basis of fairness to our people. The policy of the government of this country should be to protect our farmers and to give them the full benefit of our home market.. The farmer in Canada is competing with his fellow farmers in other countries under conditions of absolute unfairness. The product of the foreign farmer is brought into this country under a relatively low tariff or, in some cases, under none at all, while our farmer is forbidden access to other countries save over a tariff wall. Our neighbour to the south has excluded from that market more and more of the products of the Canadian farmer. The Hoover election was fought on the ground of more relief to the American farmer by higher tariffs and the retaining of the American market wholly and unreservedly for the American farmer. What have we to gain by giving our home market in vegetables, vegetable products, fruits, grains, meats, eggs, cheese and butter to the American and other farmers? If the American wants our market, let him compete in it on terms of fairness to our manufacturers and farmers who desire to compete in the American market. What are the terms of competition at present? This is a table of compartive duties on farm products:
American Duty Wheat, 42c. per bushel. Corn, 15c. per bushel.
Alsike clover, $4 p. 100 lb*. Bay, $4 per ton.
Butter, 12c. per lb.
Cheese, 5c. per lb.
Eggs, 8c. per doz.
Potatoes, 50c. per 100 lbs. Peas, 60e. per bushel.
Canadian Duty 12c. per bushel. Free.
$1.50 p. 100 lbs. $2 per ton.
4c. per lb.
3c. per lb.
3c. per doz. Free.
15c. per bushel.
Is it not time that we attempted to play fair with our farmers and give them the same degree of protection as the United States government gives its farmers? Keep for our own people the home market, which is the most profitable, and free from all the complicated and vexed problems that relate to the foreign market. Peas from Japan and Belgium are right now replacing Canadian peas in our own market. Potato flour is being shipped in from Belgium, and our farmers cannot get a decent price for their potatoes.
No country in the world seems to be so alive to the retention of its home market as the United States, with the result that they consume 87 per cent of all their products both grown and manufactured, and export only 13 per cent. They check and follow

importations a great deal more closely than we do. Let me give you an instance in the milling trade. Buffalo in the last seven or eight years has built up the largest milling industry in the world. Under the Tariff Act of 1922, section 311, Canadian wheat can be shipped into the United States in bond for milling, and thus escapes the duty of 42 cents per bushel. The wheat is milled there, and shipped out lo compete with Canadian flour in the world market, thus giving the American labourers a payroll of 81,950,000, in which Canadian workmen can participate only by leaving Canada and making their homes in the United States. There is also lost to our Canadian railways the freight on the movement of the wheat to the mills and the flour to the seaboard, which amounts to upwards of 81,500,000, and a further loss on the offal of about $650,000. Here again the American railway man is getting the payroll instead of our good Canadians. At the present time the American mills are importing in bond about 17,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat for the export flour trade. The American farmer now objects to this, and the matter has recently been submitted to the ways and means committee at Washington, and a merry fight is being waged. The Buffalo millers, in their brief, point out, as I did a year ago in this house, that if the practice was stopped it would not affect either the American farmer or the Canadian farmer, as this Canadian wheat is ground for the export market. The export market is there just the same to be supplied with 16,000,000 barrels of flour made from Canadian wheat, no matter whether it is ground in the United States or in Canada. The Buffalo millers further point out that if the administrative features of the present American tariff were abrogated or made more rigorous to the miller grinding in bond, the advantages in milling possessed by Canada would without question draw United States milling-in-bond trade to Canada, and thus give us a payroll for our labourers, and increased freight for our railroads with increased man power to handle it.
It should be the purpose of government to direct and mould the business policy of our country for the development of our natural resources, and thus give employment to our citizens. A nation cannot exist without people, people cannot exist without homes, homes cannot be maintained without money, and money can only be obtained by the multitude by work, and by labour. Therefore if a government fails in its duty so to direct its policy as to foster and provide work and labour at a fair remuneration, it fails in its duty to the people. The test of a good budget should then

The Budget-Mr. Stinson
be: What does it contain to create industry in order that the foundation of the nation may be maintained in the building up of happy and contented homes? Does the present budget contain one tariff change that will develoip a new job capable of employing an additional Canadian boy in Canada? I have failed to find such a change, and the most that can be said for it is that it is, in the words of the Financial Post, "an innocuous budget."
After the budget speech of the finance minister had been delivered, I wrote to a friend of mine who is engaged in the manufacture of woollens, and who has been a supporter of the present administration, and here is what he has to say:
The evidence brought out before the tariff commission in Ottawa by the textile mills showed that the importations of blankets and rugs, from Great Britain is increasing each year. Our mills are specially equipped for the manufacture of blankets. Each year our trade has continued to fall away as the competition has grown keener.
The large dealers, such as departmental stores and jobbers can purchase blankets in England and Scotland, and lay them down in Canada for a lower price than it costs us to make them. This is due to the lower cost of labour and coal. The standard of living is so much higher in Ontario than it is in Europe that we cannot get work done on the same basis.
Textile machinery is not made in Canada, but up to a year ago it was brought in subject to from 10 to 27Jr per cent duty. The government, a year ago, changed this and allowed machinery from Great Britain to come in free, but this is no benefit to us as there is now more textile machinery in Canada than can be used. The government also allowed free yarns, but this is no benefit to woollen mills as they all make their own yarns.
The importations from Germany and France into Great Britain, free, undersell the British manufacturers, who in turn ship the products of their mills into Canada at such low prices they claim they cannot continue to exist, and they are now asking the British government to safeguard their industries against this invasion of their livelihood.
In the past few years wollen mills that made blankets have closed their doors and nailed up their windows or are being dismantled. One at Chatham, one at Mitchell, two at Renfrew, one at Carleton Place, Midland, Rockwood, Glen Williams, Bullock Corners, Dundas, and many others.
Unless the government restores the duty which was taken off a few years ago, at a very early date other mills will be compelled to cease operations, thus throwing more workmen out of employment. This has a serious effect on towns and villages where these mills are situated, and makes the matter of unemployment a real problem.
That letter comes from a supporter of the present administration. Every effort is being made by the farmers growing wool in Canada
to increase the quality and volume of their product. The wool growers, the manufacturers, the agricultural colleges, and the National Research Council are all cooperating in research work in the growing and the use of Canadian wool. Canadian grown wool is particularly adapted for making blankets and woollen cloth such as tweeds. Blankets and woollen cloths made from Canadian wools are better wearing, warmer, and of superior quality to those made from wools in any other country, and yet the woollen schedule of this government gives practically no protection to this important industry, and thus damages the industry and the farmer who produces wool.
In nine months ending December, 1928, there were $751,010 worth of household blankets imported as against $652,768 worth in the same nine months of 1927. I was sufficiently interested to obtain the December, 1928, figures of imports, and I found that there were blankets coming in from Czechoslovakia at 99 cents a pair; from Belgium at $1.10 a pair; from the Netherlands at $1.62 a pair; from Germany at $2.15 a pair; from the United States at $2.03 a pair, and from Great Britain at $3.69 a pair. These low average prices indicated by the import figures do not seem to be reflected in the prices at which blankets are bought by the consumers in Canada, and I submit that an increase in the duty would therefore have no effect on the retail prices of blankets, but would result in more blankets being made in Canada by Canadian labourers and from wool produced in Canada, which would benefit the farmer, the labourer, and the manufacturer, and make more jobs in Canada for our boys and girls.
Canadian wool is particularly adapted to making the bulk of woollen cloths used in Canada. For nine months ending December, 1928, under the heading "worsteds and serges including coatings," there was imported into Canada 19,642,572 worth. The British government figures for twelve months ending December, 1928, show that they exported to Canada 17,473,000 square yards of woollen cloth valued at $12,743,525-and this is to the detriment of Canadian grown wool, which is particularly suited to the making of woollen cloth. It is the duty of this parliament to see that adequate protection is given to the blanket and woollen cloth mills in Canada which make the types of cloth for which Canadian wool is particularly adapted.
It is stated on all sides that our great need is population. If that is the case the government must find ways and means of employing the population we have and making new
The Budget-Mr. Stinson

jobs for those we desire to add to our population. Consequently the efforts of the government should be bent to the task of creating work in Canada; and our efforts should be directed toward the work of building up a balanced population. The farmer says: If you bring in more farmers and settle them on the land you are intensifying competition for me, and this will help to lower the price of my product. The labourer says: If you bring in additional labourers there will be more competition for the available jobs in Canada. Therefore it is necessary to build up a balanced population in terms of occupation to a point where Canada will present a fairly harmonious economic unit; where the burden of taxation may be so distributed over more shoulders that it will bear lightly upon all; where our transportation machine may be operated efficiently and economically, and where the local consumption of industrial products may be large enough to give industry and the consumer the benefit of savings incidental to quantity production. We cannot overlook the fact that the first duty of a young nation is to make itself economically secure.
It is time Canada took stock of herself, of her resources and her institutions, and commenced to formulate national policies in keeping with her peculiar conditions and limitations. We should strive to reach our effective minimum population and always endeavour to maintain a fairly balanced population in terms of occupation. Build up agriculture and industry side by side. What Canada and many other countries have suffered from during recent years and what has given rise to general unemployment is not necessarily overpopulation, but unbalanced production, and there should foe no widespread unemployment in Canada if corrective methods were employed by our government.
In considering th* social value of the citizen we must not overlook his performance as a consumer of the products produced within the state. This has an important bearing on employment and general prosperity. Every man, woman and child added to our population is a potential consumer to the extent of $243.30 of manufactured goods, and of farm products to the extent of $87.50.
Mass production is the essential element in successful modern industry. Canadian agriculture will suffer by reason of inflated prices 
leading to a higher production cost until our general consuming population reaches a point where our industries can function more effectively, and thus reduce commodity prices, resulting in a lower cost of farm operation and of living all round. Until we can bring about a spectacular increase in population the present handicap of high commodity and operating costs cannot be removed. Increasing our imports cannot do this, for imports give the job to the foreigner and not to our own citizens. The farmer is sending his product to the export market, to maintain the workman there to manufacture the goods we are importing, instead of bringing the workman to Canada to make his goods and articles here and thus consume our farm products here.
The importation of 20,000,000 pounds of New Zealand butter is unfair to our farmers. This is the result of the Australian treaty. The bonus given by the Australian government to its farmers on all butter exported permits the Australian to carry his butter to Vancouver without cost, as the bonus pays the transportation charges. Australian and New Zealand butter can be shipped on a through rate from Vancouver to Montreal at $2.30 per 100 pounds. The rate for the British Columbia producer to Montreal is $3,581 per 100 pounds. So the Australian can ship his butter to Montreal, pay the freight and 1 cent per pound for duty and lay it down for 281 cents per 100 pounds less than our British Columbia producer. Saskatchewan and Alberta are similarly affected by this unfair competition as well as Ontario. The Saskatchewan producers are now of the opinion that there should be a general tariff on butter which would give our Canadian farmer protection in his home market, which is the proper solution of the problem. Twenty million pounds of butter imported in one year would keep 100,000 cows busy the year around in Canada, and would give employment to a large number of people in caring for the cows and handling the product. If we kept our home market for butter for our own farmers an additional ten thousand farms could be occupied in Canada. The competition which affects our farmers most is from New Zealand, and New Zealand gives us no benefits in return.
And what of the egg situation? Last autumn at the most critical time for our egg men fifty carloads of 500 cases to the car

The Budget-Mr. Stinson
were brought in from the United States, to the great detriment of our market, as eggs collected in April, May and June are put on the market in October, November and December of the same year, and large importations at that time seriously prejudice our poultry industry. Under the new government grading of eggs large quantities not up to the grade of extras or firsts, owing to size, soiled shells, and so forth, must be marketed as seconds. These together with cracked eggs are broken into cans, frozen, and supplied to the bakers the year round. Approximately four million pounds of this product are used in Canada. This frozen egg industry is a very valuable asset to the poultry industry, because if all the frozen eggs consumed in Canada were Canadian eggs it would relieve the market of approximately four million dozen of the grade of eggs which it is most difficult to sell. If there is no protection to the egg buyers from these importations it means that our farmers must necessarily take a much lower price for their supply during the collecting season of April, May and June. Our tariff is three cents a dozen against the American tariff of eight cents a dozen. Last year's tinkering with the egg tariff is going to have the effect of a very much decreased price to our farmers this year, as huge losses were sustained by the packers in 1928 on the eggs they purchased from the farmers in April, May and June of 1928. Frozen eggs imported from China to the extent of upwards of two million pounds per year should not be allowed to come here and compete with our own eggs, nor should they be allowed to be used by our bakers and restaurant keepers if the statement made by a member of the deputation which
waited on the government in the spring of 1928, in reference to the repeal of the dumping clause is true, as to the sanitary conditions under which they are put up in China. He said they were put up under conditions that were absolutely unsanitary.
All this tariff trouble has been brought about by reason of the fact that our Liberal friends have been successful in making a section of our farmers and others believe that a tariff is an invidious thing and should be discarded. In the platform of the Liberal party in 1921 we find the following words:
Whereas the protective tariff is the most wasteful and costly method ever designed for raising national revenue because for every dollar obtained thereby for the public treasury at least three dollars pass into the pockets of the protected interests, thereby building up a privileged class at the expense of the masses.
And yet in spite of that declaration this government has collected in the last year- after having had eight years in which to change the method-$185,000,000 from customs dues-the largest amount ever collected from customs dues in Canada, in any one year. If they believed what they preached to the electorate in 1921-1925 and 1926, and for many years prior thereto, then they should have wiped out the tariff and made good their declaration that the system is wrong. When you go into the figures carefully the fact is revealed that the farmer is not affected to any great extent by the tariff, and if he were given protection for his farm products then the account would be balanced. Let me work out the account for you. If a farmer purchases a complete line of implements costing $2,267.25, the net duty he would pay is $54.31, as follows:
Selling	Dutiable	Tariff	NetImplements	price	value	rate	duty8 ft. binder	.. .. $ 275 00	$170 00	6 %	$10 206 ft. mower	.. .. 110 00	55 00	71%	4 1312 ft. hay rake	.. .. 63 75	38 00	71%	2 8516 x 16 disc harrow	.. .. 76 50	45 00	71%	3 3820 dble. disc drill	243 25	150 00	71%	11 251-3 furrow engine gang plough	... 155 00	100 00	10 %	10 005 section drag harrow. 	.. .. 32 75	20 00	10 %	2 0031 x 3 wagon (complete)	... 166 00	105 00	10 %	10 501 15 x 27 tractor	.. .. 1,145 00	nil	nil	nil
The Budget-Mr. Stinson

The average life of the implements mentioned in this table is from eight to ten years, and if you put it at the lesser figure of eight years the duty on his machinery is $6.79 annually.
Now then, let us treat the farmer's food products in the same way, leaving out the non-dutiable articles. We find he pays in duty on food products annually $21.01, made up as follows:
Amounts
SOn lbs. sugar	
25 lbs. coffee	
25 lbs. , tea	
25 lbs. raisins	
25 lbs. currants	
50 lbs. rice	
50 lbs macaroni	
5 bbls. apples	
50 doz. oranges	
10 doz. lemons	
5 doz. grapefruit	
1 bunch bananas	
25 pineapples	
100 lbs. evaporated prunes..
100 lbs. apricots	
100 lbs. peaches	
200 lbs. salt	
100 lbs. pears	
This is based on a family of five, which should be a fair average.
Next we come to the tariff on the family supply of clothing. There is no duty on cloth in the bolt entering Canada, nor is there any on raw cotton brought in for manufacturing or finishing in Canada; consequently the amount of duty paid by the average farmer on his clothing budget is very small, less than $15.
This gives us the complete burden imposed annually on the farmer with a family of five b}' reason of the tariff, amounting in all to $42.80. Of that amount only $6.79, the duty on machinery, is peculiar to the farmer alone, as the other two amounts are collected from every other household in Canada. What does the farmer get in return for the $42.80 which he pays? It is his main contribution toward the upkeep of the federal government. In return he gets a paid representative to Ottawa; government help in selling his commodities and in extending his markets; protection of life and property; experimental farms and research bureaus conducted in his interest; federal grants to highways, at least at times; payment to old age pensions, and many other advantages and assistance from the government. Is not the farmer amply repaid for his annual contribution of $42.80 as likewise every other citizen?
The farmer's share of the cost of provincial and municipal government is at least four times the cost to him of federal government. A little tariff protection will build up a home

Rate	of duty	Duty	paid$1 50	per	cwt.	$ -	5003	per	lb.	7510	per	lb.	2	5003	per	lb.	7503	per	lb.	7575	per	cwt.	37i1 25	per	cwt.	02190	per	bbl.	4	50nil	nilnil	nilnil	nil50	50nil	nil0666 per lb.	06ij50	per	cwt.	501 00	per	cwt.	1	0005	per	cwt.	1050	per	cwt.	50$21	011
market for both farmer and manufacturer, and no nation has ever become great and prosperous without a well balanced industrial and agricultural population. Let us strive for a balanced population in terms of occupation to develop one of the finest countries in the world, and build up a strong virile nation capable of taking care of itself.
The Minister of Finance at page 596 of Hansard states that:
The administration will refuse to support any extravagance in the spending of the taxpayers' money.
That no doubt is the basis for the government's refusal to renew the grant of $400,000 per annum to the province of Ontario and other provinces for agriculture; for its refusal to renew the grant to the provinces for technical education; for its refusal to renew the grant to the provinces for good roads. In view of the above declaration against extravagance, I would like to have the minister's explanation and his justification for spending $520,000 in one year for automobiles for the ministers of the crowm and others; for spending $3,000,000 on the beautification of Ottawa; $500,000 to buy a mansion in the United States for the Hon. Vincent Massey and $255,000 for the maintenance of embassies at Washington, Tokyo and Paris, and $231,178.91 on furnishings and repairs to Quebec citadel.
Let us end the weary years of fickleness and instability in financial and fiscal affairs; let us restore definitely and clearly the principle

The Budget-Mr. Mercier
of protection in the tariff of Canada, a principle and a practice upon which all can rely, upon which industry can depend, upon which workers and farmers can depend, but a principle and a practice which none should be permitted to abuse. Let us see that the great resources of this country are conserved for the development of our own nation and not of another, and for the multiplication of our own people and the retention in Canada of our own sons and daughters.
I heartily support the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie).


Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), speaking in this house last evening, said that in view of the immense territory which he represented he was entitled to more time than the average member. If that principle were applied, very little time would be allotted to me because I represent a constituency small in territory though high in the quality and large in the number of its inhabitants. Among those people who live in the division of Laurier-Outremont you, Mr. Speaker, have many friends who followed with delight and admiration the magnificent course of lectures which you gave at the Sorbonne at Paris this winter, and as an old pupil of yours at Laval university, Montreal, I add my congratulations to those of your numerous friends in the division I represent.
Even at his late hour I desire also to join with the members of the opposition in extending congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) upon the concise and able manner in which he brought down this, his sixth budget in the house. But unlike those members, I do not qualify my congratulations, and I assure the minister that we on this side of the house take his word for it when he says that prosperity reigns throughout the land. Our friends opposite criticize that statement and say that Canada is not prosperous, so it might be well to go outside the house and take unbiased authorities in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not Canada is prosperous. We might go to important organizations and bodies throughout this country but we could find none more reliable or more qualified to speak of the prosperity of Canada than our banks, and if I may be allowed to do so I would like to quote a few words from the annual statement of the Bank of Montreal as submitted by its president, Sir Charles Gordon, who said:
The statement of the year's operations shows that we have fully participated in the general prosperity while agricultural, commercial and industrial activities have been carried on in greater volume than ever before.
The general manager of the bank, following Sir Charles Gordon, said:
Canada as a whole has enjoyed more prosperity than ever before; our live stock industry has shown marked improvement. Cattle have been in better demand at better prices than for some years past. Between 1926 and 1927 there was an increase of about 25 per cent in the output of our dairy factories, and progress has continued in 1928. One of the happiest developments has been the definite revival of prosperity in the maritime provinces, coming into line with the rest of Canada in this respect. Canada is great in agriculture, but the glory of her heritage lies in the variety of her resources. Minerals are steadily growing in importance. The tourist trade is of the highest importance; according to government statistics tourists from abroad spent $275,000,000 in Canada in 1927. Reports from all provinces report an even larger number of tourists, and the amount spent has no doubt also been greater in 1928.
Looking at the annual statement of the Imperial Bank of Canada we find that the president, Mr. Peleg Howland, said:
This year has been most profitable to bankers. Our foreign trade has increased, particularly in imports, which would indicate increased spending ability on the part of the people. Our debt has been reduced; our revenues are increasing. Most of our industries will show satisfactory results from their operations this year. It cannot be said that mining activity is not prosperous. Building construction has been active in Canada, the confidence displayed in the continued growth of the city of Toronto particularly by those erecting lofty buildings being very marked. Savings have increased. The country's prospects are pleasing. Reasonable confidence in the immediate future is instilled.
In his turn the general manager of the Imperial Bank, Mr. A. E. Phipps, said that on his return from his western trip Mr. E. W. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, was quoted as follows;
I have never seen the country looking better, and in all my experience I have not previously found so general a feeling of complete confidence in this country and its possibilities.
Then the general manager of the bank continues :
This to some extent sums up my present feelings with regard to the future conditions in Canada which are largely governed by profits from iagriculture, which seems to he on an assured basis and given the continuance of the prosperity which the agriculturists have enjoyed for the past few years, I see nothing ahead to check the development of the country.
The annual report of the Bank of Toronto, as shown in the Financial Post of January 18, 1929, contains the following statement by Mr. W. G. Gooderham, the president:
My first word must be an expression of satisfaction and thankfulness. The rising tide of progress has continued during the year just passed and many new peaks have been established. Agriculture is now in excellent financial condition and it is good to see con-
The Bud (jet-Mr. Mercier

ditions for the farmer improving, not only financially but in all those things which add to the measure of comfort available to him. Manufacturing lines have enjoyed a good year. In construction there has been unusual activity, while the orders handled by the iron and steel companies, railway equipments and similar basic industries have also been large. Mining steadily makes new records.
Senator Dandurand, president of the Montreal City and District Savings Bank, said:
The year just closed has been one of great prosperity for Canada generally and for our city in particular. We have harvested a record crop, business generally has been very good and a wave of well-being has spread over the country generally.
Sir H. Laporte, president of the Provincial Bank of Canada, said:
The bounteous crops, as well as the sale of live stock at very satisfactory prices, were important sources of revenue for the agricultural class whose buying power has contributed to the speeding up of our industries. The rapid development of some of our natural resources, by the water-power developments and dependable labour. . . .have been factors which contributed to the general prosperity, speeded up the building trade, kept our great transportation companies active and provided employment for our working classes.
I now came to the report of the Royal Bank of Canada. In publishing this report the Montreal Gazette said:
The annual meeting of the Royal Bank is always followed with a good deal .of interest .... but yesterday's gathering was of particular importance, following as it did one of the most prosperous years in the history of this country and coming on the threshold of what appears to be an era of further and marked progress in the affairs of the Dominion.
In his address to the shareholders of the bank, Sir Herbert S. Holt, chairman of the board, said:
The growth of agricultural, mineral and industrial production has been reflected in growing assets. . . . There was extraordinary growth in the demand for Canadian products; in 1922 the total value of Canadian exports amounted to $740,000,000 and by 1926 this had increased to $1,315,000,000, or an increase of 78 per cent. . . . Exports in the fiscal year of 1928 were only 6 j per cent below those of the record year of 1926, and the last few months have witnessed the development of a new upward trend in foreign sales. I believe, however, at the moment it is no exaggeration to summarize the situation by saying that there is no other part of the world more prosperous than Canada.
Mr. C'has. E. Neill, the efficient and papular general manager of the bank, made the following statement:
To our farmers .... the record crop of 1928 has brought substantial prosperity. A pronounced shortage of cattle in the United States has brought alxiut a movement to purchase cattle in Canada.

So far commerce and industry have their feet on the ground and speaking generally, the publicly owned corporations have never been in a more sound or liquid position, with pros* perity general and prospects never before equalled in our history.
Almost all indications of Canadian production have shown a spectacular rise during the past four years. This is particularly true to those relating to manufacturing. The amount of electric energy generated daily in 1928 is double the amount in 1924 and this in itself is a valuable index of manufacturing activity. The accessibility of vast water-powers constitutes an outstanding benefit to manufacturing in Canada.
The directors' report to the shareholders of La Bunque Canadienne Rationale, as given by Senator Beique, its president, and Mr. Beaudry Leman, its general manager, reads as follows:
The progress of the bank during the year was naturally influenced by the business activity prevalent throughout Canada. Prosper it3r was not shared equally by all branches of industry but on the whole it was greater than ever before; as evidenced by official and private statistics, returns of the banks and railroads and the statements of the great number of industrial and commercial enterprises. Viewud as a whole. 1928 has undoubtedly been one of the most prosperous years in the history, of Canada.
Agriculture, which still ranks as our principal source of wealth, yielded a very high revenue this year, in spite of damages caused
in certain regions by premature frost	
Farmers were compensated for the lower prices prevailing for wheat by the economies effected through more efficient machinery. The raising of live stock was stimulated by better prices and prospects in this branch are very encouraging. Agriculture has made great progress in the last few years. The use of more efficient agricultural implements, which are well adapted to the conditions on our western plains and the discovery of new varieties of wheat maturing more rapidly and consequently less subject to damage by frost, have rendered available to agriculture new territories.
For the third consecutive year mineral production has established a new high record. . . . Coal production was greater than ever and it is interesting to note that Canada is relying less every year upon imported steam and domestic coal.
Referring to forestry operations, the reiport says:
General prosperity in Canada and the United States has caused an increased demand for export as well as for home consumption with a consequent improvement in prices.
Power consumption is undoubtedly one of the most reliable indexes of industrial activity. . . . The water-power development in Canada shows total hydro-electric development in Canada to be 5,328,000 horse-power and that there is actually under construction and development an additional amount of 1,200,000 horse-pow'er.
Labour statistics give a fair idea of industrial
activity during the year	the indexes
show that the ratio of employment was at a higher figure than in any previous year of record. The building trades have established a new high record.

The Budget-Mr. Mercier
Several industries have benefited by this great activity, particularly iron and steel. Both of the country's railways have more cars in commission, carried more freight and registered larger receipts than ever before.
According .to an article published in the Ottawa Journal of January 14, 1929, Mr. E. W. Beatty, chairman and president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, said:
There exists no surer criterion of national economies than is afforded by the condition and effectiveness of a country's transportation systems. I think there is no question of the fact that the railways of Canada have performed their duty well. It is evident that under ordinary circumstances the next few years wil record a notable forward step in our economic development. The past year has been one of marked progress. For four years in succession, Canada has had a series of big crops. This year all previous records have been broken. . . . Conditions such as these cannot fail to influence the business life of a country, and as the prosperity of the country has been based on the yields of earlier years, the present crop ensures a continuance of activity.
The general satisfactory nature of the country's business has, of course, been reflected in increased railway earnings. To the end of October, which are the last figures available at time of writing, Canadian Pacific gross receipts totalled $183,588,531, as against $160,384,749, an increase of 14.46 per cent, while net earnings increased 31.03.
Industrialism has made an impressive start in many of the western cities. One is used to speaking of western Canada as though that country were solely agricultural in its nature, but times are changed.
Subsequent to the issuance of that report, the following article appeared in one of the Ottawa papers:
Surplus of C.P.R. Nearly 15 Millions Report Showing the Net Revenue is Issued in Montreal
The Canadian Pacific Railway to-day reported that after payment of all dividends declared for [DOT]the year, the surplus from the earning3 of the railway, lake steamers, and special income for the year 1928 amounted to $14,892,257. The net revenue from the same sources available for dividends amounted to $48,313,437.
Gross earnings from the railway and the lake steamers amounted to $229,039,297, while the working expenses, including all taxes, were $177,344,845, thus leaving the net earnings from the railway and lake steamers at $51,694,452. The special income amounted to $12,677,683. The fixed charges and a contribution to the pension fund amounted to $15,308,698 and $750,000 respectively.
The next authority I would cite in favour of the existing prosperity in Canada is the report of the Canadian National lines. In an article published in the Ottawa Journal at the commencement of the year, Sir Henry Thornton makes certain observations. The article is headed as follows:
West is entering industrial field with oil and mining also prominent states president of national lines. Prairie provinces outgrown period when agriculture only industry-New records made by Canadian National Railways in 1928 -Extensions made and services improved.
The body of the article as given by Sir Henry Thornton, reads:
Canadians in every line of business, from the agriculturist to the manufacturer and the financier, seem to be firmly convinced that as we enter the year 1929 Canada is stepping firmly along the high road to further prosperity. To discuss Canada's progress with men in all walks of life in each of the nine provinces which go to make up this great Dominion of Canada, is to become confirmed in one's optimism concerning this country and its people.
During each year it is my privilege to visit each of the different provinces to talk "Canada" with men in every walk of life. In doing this, and in travelling over the 22,861 miles of line which go to make up the Canadian National Railways system, I think one gains a much more clearly defined picture of what Canada really holds than could be secured through study of many volumes of statistics. The wealth of Canada lies not only in the fertility of her soil, the wealth of mine and forest and the output of factory, it lies also in the determined spirit, the splendid character and the quiet optimism of her people.
Another organization which bears a large part in the industrial activity of Canada is the Montreal harbour commission. I have under my hand an article written in the Ottawa Journal by the Hon. Doctor W. L. McDougald, chairman of the Montreal harbour board, and I would like to cite to the house what he has to say as to the prosperity that exists in Canada at the present time. He says:
The harbour of Montreal, considered as an important operating unit of Canadian enterprise, possesses many faculties, notably those of a favourable nature. But, of all its characteristics, that one which it possesses in most striking degree is its ability to exceed anticipations.
For very many years has this been so. In the years 1907 and 1908, and subsequent years prior to the great war, the harbour commissioners were busily engaged in building and creating a modern harbour, which they anticipated would provide for the legitimate expansion of the port for a period of twenty-five years. This anticipation was exceeded, however, as by 1921 the business had so prospered and augmented that new facilities were necessary.
Accordingly in 1922 the present board of harbour commissioners undertook an elaborate scheme of development. The sum of $5,000,000 was expended on new wharves and additional grain handling facilities. And the port business grew faster than facilities could be provided. A new program was begun at the end of 1923, and oh this the sum of $10,000,000 was expended, including new sheds, further wharf extensions, and an increase of 1.500,000 bushels grain storage at elevator "B".
Still the business increased. Expectations were again exceeded, and in 1926 the harbour
The Budget-Mr. Mercier

commissioners applied to parliament for a further loan of $12,000,000 with which to provide additional sorely-needed equipment and facilities at Canada's national port. Work on the new program was begun in 1927 and continued in 1928. But in 1927, as if to lay emphasis on the fact that it was Canada's jubilee year, the port surpassed all previous efforts and new marks were reached in half a dozen lines of activity. Grain exports in that year reached 195,000,000 bushels, revenue increased to around $5,500,000, shipping tonnage increased, total tonnage of commodities increased to 11,921,000, tons, and coal imports grew to more than two million tons.
I skip over the greater part of this report, but before putting it aside I would like to cite the following from it:
The foregoing account will give a general impression of the activities of the year, without dwelling in too much detail on other important phases of harbour activities. It will be seen that the year under review has been one of exceptional achievement, but the commissioners are not yet satisfied that the harbour of Montreal has reached its limit of success. Future years are confidently awaited, and in preparation for the business they will bring, plans were laid during the season now closed for several important schemes of harbour development, which include new construction, rearrangement of many existing activities, and schemes for new undertakings. Of these, one in particular may be mentioned-the provision of an area in the harbour for creation of a new air-port for seaplanes and amphibians. Thus, side by side with the requirements of to-day, the interests of the future are protected at this most modern of Canadian public utilities.
It seems to me that a gentleman occupying the important position of president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce would know something about financial, industrial and other conditions in Canada and that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house would all the more readily accept his views when it might be remembered that the same gentleman was a Conservative candidate in St. Antoine division not so many years ago. Mr. W. M. Birks, writing likewise in the Ottawa Journal, says:
Judged by the basal factors which determine our mercantile situation, the year 1928 has been in the van of our entire economic progress. Whether it be cultivation, manufacturing, or the development of our natural resources, each tells the same story these past twelve months of an abounding prosperity, which per se indicates prosperous commercial conditions. Unless there were outlets for the products of the plough, the dynamo and the exploitations of nature, there could develop no commerce of proportions.
Canada has found itself in the fortunate situation, however, vdiere marketing opportunities of unusual dimensions, both at home and abroad, have absorbed the output of her farms, her factories and her harnessed and 
natural wealth. More than that, the sinews of commerce have shown remarkable strength. Given the volume of output in Canada and the more than ordinary intake of imported merchandise, the transportation companies and the competing distributing agencies have all made the flow of commerce between our provinces and between Canada and outside countries particularly easy and vigorous.
And not the least important for this year of unprecedented commercial activity has been the sustained purchasing power of our own people and that of our customers abroad. We might conceivably have products to sell, internal and external markets where our goods were wanted, means of conveying and financing shipments, but had we all these and lacked consumers in a monetary position to buy not only our own merchandise, but that of a nondomestic character, our whole commercial life would be depressed.
Our people, however, generally are at least comfortably well off, and possess for the most part that wherewithal required for a no mean standard of living. Nor should we overlook the fact that the rehabilitation of European exchanges and the healthier tone of economic life abroad have reacted favourably on our export trade.
I have before me another extract from the same paper, the Ottawa Journal, in which Mr. O. W. Liberty, its financial editor, says, " Canada's advance is outstanding in present day economic history, while future is full of promise. Statistics prove achievements were not equalled by people of any other country-bumper crops one of chief factors in financial situation in which all classes shared-advances in mineral development. General anticipation is that present wave will continue during first six months of 1929 at least."
The automobile has become an important factor not only in the commercial but in the social life of Canada. I have before me an article taken from the Montreal Gazette, of February 24, 1929, in which Mr. J. D. Mansfield, of the Chrysler Corporation, is quoted as saying that he considers the Dominion is coming into its own, and that his company is expanding. It says, " First unit of new production plants will soon be erected. Output for 1928 up over 47 per cent," and goes on:
Expressing the opinion that all business in Canada is on a thoroughly sound basis. John D. Mansfield, president of the several divisional manufacturing companies of the Chrysler Corporation of Canada, Limited, said that the Dominion is not entering a boom period so much as an era of genuinely sound business, when interviewed yesterday morning at the Mount Royal hotel.
Having just come down from Windsor, Ont., where, he said, there is a general feeling of optimism as to the future of business, both in the west and east, Mr. Mansfield is in Montreal to attend the motor show being held this week ait the Stadium and to discuss conditions with the dealers in this part of the province.

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
He feels that the position of the country is very satisfactory and can see^ nothing but very fair prospects lying before it. The general trend of business is as it has never been before, and he is positive in his assertion that "Canada is just coming into its own."
Turning to the public accounts of this country, a Canadian Press despatch in the Montreal Gazette, dated March 15, 1929, shows that there has been a revenue gain of $32,355,049 in eleven months, that $407,938,555 has been paid into the treasury up to February 28, that the net debt has decreased, showing a reduction of $64,130,157, as compared with February of last year. I shall not read the despatch, because these figures are available to all members of the house.
1 wish, however, to quote from the report of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, which shows a great increase in telephone business. According to the company's annual report, recently published, the total revenue of the company last year was $35,888,980, embracing $26,920,593 from exchange revenue and $8,968,387 from toll revenue, an increase of $3,157,850 over the total revenue of the previous year.
The Montreal Gazette of yesterday's date has an editorial to the effect that the Victoria Daily Colonist reports that exclusive of residences and minor alterations, buildings to the value of $3,253,000 are in course of construction in the city of Victoria, and now that cold weather is departing, contractors are planning still more structures, including public, commercial and other blocks.
I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: At this late hour, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to trespass on the time of the house. The arrangement was that another speaker was to be put up on the other side of the house, but he is indisposed and cannot proceed. I should like, however, to take a few minutes to-night to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who brought down his budget in this house on March 1. Many eminent men have occupied the responsible position of Minister of Finance of Canada, eminent men of different shades of politics, some Liberals and some Conservatives, men who had the confidence of the great bulk of the people of this Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But I want to say that never perhaps in the history of the country have we had a Finance minister who has won his way into the confidence of the masses to the extent that the hon, gentleman has who now occupies this position. And I would add, Mr. Speaker, that none of his predecessors has had so many obstacles to surmount and so many difficulties
to combat. As I say, he has won his way into the confidence of the people to a marked degree and year after year continues to bring down budgets that meet with national approval. Any Finance minister who can reduce the national debt by about seventy million dollars, and at the same time reduce taxation to the extent of thirty million dollars, cannot be open to any severe criticism.
Very attentively, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech delivered by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) a few days ago. He made an excellent speech. He had a wonderful opportunity in the absence of his chief, and he rose fully to that opportunity. Not only that, but he enthused his followers sitting around him. But in that ispeech-and I do not agree with all that he said-he repudiated every speech as a Liberal he made from 1900 to 1917. I do not find any fault,, at all-and I say this in no offensive spirit-with the fact that he crossed over to the other side of the house, but, knowing as I do the political views of the people of Ontario, although my knowledge may be limited, I say that however much the speech of the hon. member may enthuse his new-found Conservative friends in the province, I do not think it will lead any Liberal seats into the Conservative column at the next general election.


Mr. GOTT:: It is only a supposition.


Frederick George Sanderson: Quite true; but let
me tell my hon. friend that no member of this house goes on supposition more than the hon. member for South Essex.
As it is a quarter to eleven, Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and1 debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb, the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Wednesday, March 20, 1929