CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I desire to lay on the table copies in English and French of the annual report of the Canadian National railway system for the last calendar year. Copies of the report are being placed in the post office box of every member of the house.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. SPENCER:: What has been spent in the aggregate, by the immigration department from 1881 to 1928, inclusive?


Mr. FORKE:: 


$51,618,024.96. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-LAND BRANCHES
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	How many branches of the Department of the Interior deal with land, with the specific function in each case?
2.	What is the total cost of each of these branches for the fiscal year 1927-28: (a) Ottawa service; (b) outside service?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	The different branches of the department handling the various phases of Dominion lands administration were consolidated in the Nor-lite building in March, 1928. Reorganization has progressed steadily and the Civil Service Commission recently concurred in the completed departmental reorganization.
Dominion lands administration, Ottawa service-Division-Functions-Commissioner's office-Dominion lands-Deals with all matters relating to land settlement.
Mining lands-Deals with matters relating to mining, petroleum and natural gas operations.
Timber and grazing-Deals with cutting of timber and grazing leases.
Land patents-Registrations and titles.
Ordnance, admirality and public lands-Deals with ordnance, admirality, railway and escheat lands, fur farming, fractional areas and town-sites.
Questions

2.
Saskatchewan Moose Jaw (including inspectors)	
Prince Albert (including inspectors)	
Sub-agents	Salaries $ 46,816 69 46,834 48 11.249 19	Expenses 18,820 48 18,744 96 500 53	Total 65,637 15 65,579 44 11,749 72Alberta	104,900 36	38,065 95	142,966 31Calgary (including inspectors)	
Edmonton (including inspectors)	
Grande Prairie (including inspectors)	
Lethbridge (including inspectors)	
Peace River (including inspectors)	
Sub-agents	41,954 76 58,176 87 12,986 03 26,464 27 13,927 89 12,130 13	11,703 71 20,132 24 4,850 03 6,261 42 4,049 18 340 82	53,658 47 78,309 11 17,836 06 32,725 69 17,977 07 12,470 95British Columbia	165,639 95	47,337 40	212,977 35Kamloops (including inspectors)	
New Westminster (including inspectors).. .. Revelstoke (including inspectors)	
Sub-agents	. 10,961 15 . 21,986 09 7,764 10 1,284 68	3,012 07 4,187 35 1,062 01 33 01	13,973 22 26,173 44 8,826 11 1,317 69Northwest Territories	41,996 02	8,294 44	50,290 46Sub-agent	300 00	300 00
Ordnance Lands		. 4,005 89	3,303 69	7,309 68
Summary			
Outside Ottawa	
Ottawa	, 401,799 32 457,910 00	128,810 79 6,796 41	530.610 11 464,706 41Grand total	.8859,709 32	$135,607 20	$995,316 52
School Lands-Deals with sales and leases of school lands and mining and timber matters affecting same.
Technical-Technical work in the Dominion lands administration, such as descriptions, maps, plans, etc.
2. (a) Ottawa Service
Division Commissioner's office			 .. Dominion Lands		Salaries . .$ 37,260 00 .. 109,800 00	Expenses $ 1,745 50	Total $ 39.005 50 109,S00 00 39,840 00 60,180 00 80,500 00 51,999 78 37,871 13 45,510 00 464,706 41
Mining Lands		.. 39.840 00		
Timber and Grazing		.. 60,180 00		
Lands Patents..		.. 80.500 00		
Ordnance, Admiralty and Public Lands.. School Lands	 Technical		.. 48,460 00 .. 36,360 00 .. 45,510 00	3,539 78 1,511 13	
Total			6.796 41	
(b) Outside Service Assistant Commissioner's (Edmonton) office.	. .$ 17,418 00	12,855 54	30,273 54


$ 67,539 10 $ 18,953 77 $ 86,492 87 OTTAWA PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What are the names of the persons or
firms who acted for the government in the acquisition of the following properties:	(a)
Wellington street south and Sparks street north; (b) Elgin street east; (c) Soarks street south and Queen street north (Russell House block) :	(d) Bate building. Canal street; (e)
Birkett building. Canal street; (f) Ottawa Transportation building, Canal street; (g) International Paper Company, Sussex street?
2.	What commissions were paid in each case?
3.	What price was paid by the government for each of the above properties?
4.	What amount was paid by the government in connection with the adjustment of leases, rentals or other claims in respect of the above properties?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1 and 2. (a) and (b) Messrs. T. Foley and C. W. Ross were appointed as agents to value and negotiate with the owners, adjustment of leases with the tenants and to act as witnesses in Exchequer court, and for these services they were paid the sum of S4,000 each. Services in connection with expropriation were paid as follows: F. B. Poucher, National Trust Company, $1,026.55; H. A. Richards, $650; Farley & Cassels, $190.75; H. L. Maley, $200. The following services were engaged by the Justice department and the following payments made: Raoul Mercier, legal services, $843.55; Tilley, Johnston, Thompson & Par-menter, legal services, $2,000; Green, Johnston & Strike, legal services, $1,512.98; W. Johnstone, legal services, no payment made to date; E. J. Daly, legal services, no payment made to date; Clarkson, Gordon, Dilworth, Guilfoyle & Nash, accountants, $890.40.
(c)	J. J. Leddy, A. B. McRostie, A. H. Fitzsimmons, W. E. Noffke, T. Foley and C. W. Ross were employed as real estate valuators and Harold Fisher, K.C., as counsel and legal adviser.
(d)	In the case of the Bate building the lease expired on November 1, 1927, and was not renewed.
(e)	The wharf lots leased to the Birkett company were cancellable on six months' notice; this notice was given by the department, effective from August 25, 1926. The Birkett
warehouse lease had until 1942 to run, and contained no provision as to cancellation, as to which proceedings were taken by the Federal District Commission.
(f)	The Ottawa Transportation Company held two "during pleasure" leases of property on Canal street. These were cancelled by notices, effective February 20, 1926.
(g)	Engaged by Justice department: Greene, Johnston & Strike, legal services, no payment made to date; N. B. MacRostie, C.E., surveyor, $394.50.
3.	(a) and (b) Ottawa Electric Company, $214,463.70; W. J. Irvine, $68,835.62; Bangs estate, no payment made to date, amount fixed by Exchequer court, S290,000 plus interest; Matthewman estate, no payment, made to date, amount fixed by Exchequer court, $188,500 plus interest; (c) $1,270,831.01; (d) nil; (e) no payment yet; (f) nil; (g) Gatineau Company Limited, $525,000.
4.	(a) and (b) $37,916.91; (c) $220; (d) nil; (e) nil to date; (f) nil; (g) nil.


HOUSE OF COMMONS EMPLOYEES
Mr. GEARY:: 1.	What number of men are employed on:
(a)	the elevator staff of the House of Commons;
(b)	the messenger staff of the House of Commons?
2.	By whom are they appointed?
3.	How many of these are returned soldiers?
4. What are the names of the returned soldiers?
5.	How many men are temporarily employed in the House of Commons?
6.	By whom are they appointed?
7.	How many of them are returned soldiers?
8. What are the names of the returned soldiers?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	(a) 11; (b) 40.
2.	Permanent employees appointed by the Civil Service Commission. Temporary employees appointed by His Honour the Speaker.
3.	10.
4.	E. Carriere, O. Carriere, M. Sabourin, I. Trepannier, F. Fraser, E. Wittenberg, H. A. Charbonneau, A. Faimie, W. H. Jones, L. Merriam.
5.	200-31st March, 1929.
Questions

6.	By His Honour the Speaker.
7.	65.
8.	C. L. Beck, G. H. Campbell, R. de la Durantaye, J. W. Gibson, W. H. Grant, H. R. Hamilton, H. A. Jarvis; R. W. Porteous, F. Aldridge, R. Alexander, E. C. Andrews, P. Banning, J. J. Barber, A. E. Booth, F. E. Brazeau, J. CarviH, T. Closs, H. N. Chretien,
S.	Dalton, A. Desjardins, R. Gariepy, P. Geymonet, H. Giles, H. Grayshon, A. E. Green, W. Greenwood, T. Hamilton, W. F. Henbrey, A. Hughes, J. Heaton, R. Hewitt,
P.	Janvenne, W. H. Jones, TV. R. Little, J. Laundy, D. Madere, P. McDonald, J. McKenzie, J. McQuattie, A. L. Merriam, A. Nichol, D. O'Rourke, H. Rastrick, W. Rowley, TV. Savage, J. E. Seabrook, G. St. Amand,
H.	Terry. R. Usher, D. Walker, H. J. Wells, A. Wheeler, J. C. Wilson, H. Gravel; J. L. Branback, II. Deledique, J. Emslie, A. Fairnie, J. Giroux. H. Levesque, L. H. Meade, A. McCracken, II. Rutledge, A. Reynolds, E. Tabor.


GOVERNMENT HOUSE-EMPLOYEES
Mr. SPENCER:: 1. How many labourers are employed at Rideau Hall by the Public Works department?
2.	What is the rate of pay per month?
3.	How many have families dependent upon them ?
4.	How many years are they engaged temporarily before they are put on the permanent staff?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Twelve.
2.	S84.44 a month.
3.	No information.
4.	These workmen are prevailing rate employees and as such are not permanent.


NATIONAL DEFENCE STATISTICS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What number of: (a) officers; (b) noncommissioned officers; (e) other ranks; of the Department of National Defence were employed at Ottawa for the years 1912-1913 and 19271928?
2.	What number of officers of all ranks were in civil employment in said department at Ottawa for the same periods?
_ 3. What was the total number of all ranks in the permanent force in the years 1912-13 and 1927-1928 ?
4. What was the extent of military units in the years 1912-1913 and 1927-1928, as to: (a) number of units; (b) total personnel of all ranks in said units; (c) any other duties devolving upon the military and civil staffs at Ottawa ?


Mr. RALSTON:: I would like to direct the attention of the hon. member for Bow River to question No. 4 (c). Either there is a misprint or something has gone wrong in trans-
scribing the question, because it is difficult to understand. Question No. 4 asks the extent of military units in two periods, the number of units and the total personnel. Then paragraph (c) reads:
Any other duties devolving upon the military and civil staffs at Ottawa.
I would ask my hon. friend if he would drop paragraph (c) and put another question on the order paper.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: As amended it carries.


James Layton Ralston: It is a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.
Question stands.


IMMIGRATION EXPENDITURE
Mr. MANION:: 1.	How much was expended by the Department of Immigration in the British Isles in 1928 annual year?
2.	How much was expended by the same department on the continent of Europe in the same year ?


Mr. FORKE:: 1.	$1,016,202.99.
2.	$	75,796.67.


Mr. MANION:: How much money was spent by the Department of Immigration and Colonization for the obtaining of immigrants during 1928, in the follorving:
(a) United States; (b) Great Britain and Ireland; (c) on the continent of Europe?


Robert Forke: (a)	United States, $392,157.96; (b) Great Britain and Ireland. $1,016,202.99; (c) Continent of Europe, $13,557.62.


HOUSE OF COMMONS-OFFICES OF MEMBERS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many rooms are there in the House of Commons used as offices by members of parliament?
2.	What are the names of members and the number of the rooms in each case?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	175
2.	The information follows: Members of the House of Commons-
Adshead H B Room 618.
Allan H Room 514 Anderson A J Room 611 Anderson R K Room 669 Arthurs J Room 670 Boldwin TV K Room 453 Bancroft L P Room 503 Barber H J Room 645 Beaubien A L Room 565

Questions
Bell C W Room 634 Bell L G Room 527 Bell T Room 558 Bennett Hon H B Room 301 Benoit A J Room 484 Bettez A Room 662 Bird T W Room 615 Bissett E D R Room 575 Black G Room 637 Black Hon W A Room 592 Blanchard S Room 415 Blatchford K A Room 584 Rock W G Room 574 Boivin P E Room 416 Bothwell C E Room 577 Bouchard G Room 520 Boucher A Room 477 Boulanger O L Room 416 Bourassa H Room 408 Bourgeois A E Room 414 Bowen F W Room 613 Bowman B Room 410 Boys W A Room 555 Bradette J A Room 519 Brady J C Room 649 Brown J L Room 572 Cahan C H Room 641 Cahill F S Room 232 Campbell M N Room 619 Cannon Hon L Room 373 Cantley T Room 596 Cardin Hon P J A Room 496 Carmichael A M Room 619 Casgrain P F Room 405 Casselman A C Room 656 Cayley T M Room 514 Chaplin Hon J D Room 559 Charters S Room 305 Cheerier ERE Room 406 Church T L Room 589 Clark J A Room 647 Coote G G Room 608 Cotnam I D Room 593 Cowan D ,T Room 643 Delisle M S Room 445 Denis J A Room 484 Desaulniers A L Room 486 Descoteaux J F Room 449 Deslauriers H Room 454 Dickie C H Room 672 Dionne G L Room 517 Donnelly T Room 574 Dubuc J E A Room 451 Duff W Room 566 Dunning Hon C A Room 570 Dussault J E Room 413 Edwards A M Room 642 Edwards G C Room 582 Edwards Hon J W Room 553 Elliott Hon J C Room 436
Embury A T Room 650
Ernst W G Room 597
Esling W Iv Room 646
Euler Hon W D Room 267
Evans J Room 615
Fafard J F Room 419
Fansher B W Room 617
Fansher W R Room 617
Ferland C E Room 449
Fiset Sir E Room 233
Fontaine J E Room 564
Forke Hon R. Room 501
Foster A R Room 452
Fraser J A Room 645
Gardiner R Room 610
Garland E ,T Room 610
Garland W F Room 595
Geary G R Room 666
Gershaw F W Room 584
Gervais T Room 486
Girouard W Room 480
Glen J A Room 503
Gott E J Room 644
Goulet A Room 485
Gray R W Room 452
Grimmer R W Room 558
Guerin J J E Room 421
Guthrie Hon H Room 387
Hall W A Room 482
Hanson R B Room 556
Harris J H Room 66S
Hay F W Room 412
Heaps A A Room 618
Heenan Hon P Room 378
Hepburn M F Room 518
Hocken H C Room 636
Hodgins A K Room 644
Howard C B Room 420
Howden J P Room 586
Ilubbs J Room 595
Ilsley J L Room 414
Irvine W Room 607
Jacobs S W Room 386
Jelliff L II Room 608
Jenkins R II Room 410
Johnston J F Room 205
Johnstone L W Room 599
Jones Hon G B Room 556
Kaiser T E Room 642
Kay W F Room 479
Kellner D F Room 612
Kennedy D M Room 609
King Hon J H Room 273
King Rt; Hon W L Mackenzie Room 401
Lacombe L Room 456
Lacroix E Room 487
Ladner L J Room 655
Laflamme L Iv Room 483
Lanctot R Room 492
Langlois J V A Room 411
Questions

Lang M Room 518 Lapierre E A Room 446 Lapointe Hon E Room 383 Lavigueur H E Room 448 Lawson J E Room 589 Lemieux Hon R Room 220 Lennox T H Room 671 Letellier J E Room 480 Lovie W J Room 513 Lucas W T Room 614 Luchkovich M Room 612 MacDonald A J Room 515 MacDonald F Room 599 Macdonald Hon J A Room 561 Macdonald J A Room 598 Macdougall I D Room 598 MacLaren M Room 675 MacLean A E Room 409 MacNutt G T Room 596 Macphail A C Room 605 McDiarmid J S Room 578 McGibbon P Room 643 McGregor R H Room 648 McIntosh C R Room 581 McKenzie R Room 579 McLean M Room 575 McMillan T Room 482 McPhee G W Room 583 McPherson E A Room 586 McQuarrie W G Room 590 McRae A D Room 562 Malcolm Hon J Room 505 Maloney M J Room 593 Manion Hon R J Room 551 Marcil Hon C Room 234 Matthews R C Room 673 Maybee M E Room 654 Mercier J A Room 447 Mercier P Room 450 Millar J Room 585 Milne R Room 576 Morin G D Room 411 Morin L S R Room 444 Morrissy C J Room 415 Motherwell Hon W R Room 264 Neill A W Room 560 Odette E G Room 519 Parent G Room 488 Peck E A Room 652 Perley Hon Sir G H Room 307 Perras F W Room 481 Pettit G H Room 648 Plunket D B Room 646 Pouliot J F Room 554 Power C G Room 418 Prevost J E Room 494 Price O B Room 588

Quinn F P Room 592 Ralston Hon J L Room 381 Raymond M Room 455 Rennie G S Room 591 Rheaume J T Room 494 Rinfret Hon F Room 269 Robb Hon J A Room 201 Roberge E Room 563 Robinson S C Room 651 Robitaille C Room 477 Ross A E Room 653 Ross J G Room 658 Rowe W E Room 671 Rutherford J W Room 516 Ryckman Hon E B Room 557 Ryerson R E Room 639 St Pere E C Room 433 Sanderson F G Room 489 Seguin P A Room 493 Senn M C Room 613 Short H B Room 594 Simpson T E Room 674 Sinclair D Room 594 Sinclair Hon J E Room 512 Smith A N Room 511 Smith R Iv Room 597 Smoke F Room 639 Speakman A Room 614 Spence D Room 611 Spencer H E Room 609 Spotton G Room 588 Steedsman J Room 576 Stevens Hon H H Room 552 Stewart Hon C A Room 271 Stewart H A Room 653 Stinson T H Room 654 Stirling G Room 649 Sylvestre J E A Room 483 Taylor W H Room 516 Telford W P Room 412 Thompson A B Room 652 Thorson J T Room 578 Tobin E W Room 491 Totzke A F Room 571 Tummon W E Room 650 Vallance J Room 585 Veniot Hon P J Room 371 Verville J A Room 413 Ward W J Room 580 White J F Room 651 White R S Room 307 Wilson G C Room 667 Woodsworth J S Room 616 Young A MacG Room 583 Young E J Room 579 Young N M Room 673

Montreal Railway Terminals



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Mr, FRASER:
1.	How much of the consolidated revenue has been paid by each of the departments of the government as premiums on security bonds of its employees, in contravention of the Public Officers' Act (R.S., chap. 164, sec. 5) ?
2.	Does the government propose at the present session of parliament to amend chapter 164, section 5. of the revised statutes, as indicated by the Auditor General in his 1927-8 report, vol. 1, on page XIV?

Mr. POWER:: 1.	In cases of promotion within the departments. is it customary for the Civil Service Commission to hold examinations when a candidate has: received from the department the highest rating; (b) has had the longest term of service; (c) has been recommended for promotion by the commission's own board of examiners?
2.	If such is the case, what period of time elapses between notice thereof to the applicants and the holding of such examination?
3.	Since June, 1925, in how many cases, when all the elements favourable to an applicant as outlined in question No. 1 appear on the record, has the ordinary procedure been disregarded and examinations ordered?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all permits, correspondence, letters, telegrams, orders in council, and all other documents in relation to the issue of a permit to develop 50,000 horse-power at "Chat Falls" under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and a copy of the evidence on said hearing before the Minister of Public Works.


LOCH LOMOND POST OFFICE
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, papers and other documents with reference to the closing of the post office at Loch Lomond, Richmond county.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R, B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):	The hon. Minister of Railways
and Canals (Mr. Dunning) has just tabled the report of the Canadian National railways.
May I inquire whether the report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine will also be tabled at an early date?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Yes.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: On the 6t.h of March the house unanimously adopted a resolution regarding the administration of the water-powers in the three prairie provinces, which resolution calls for certain legislation. I wonder if the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) can inform the house whether such legislation is in process of preparation, and when we may expect it to be introduced.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Yes, it is in process of preparation, but we are finding it somewhat difficult to make it conform. We expect to bring it down within a few daws.


MONTREAL RAILWAY TERMINALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: May I ask when the report with regard to the Montreal terminals which has been laid upon the table of the house will be available in English and Fiench for distribution?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I presume my hon. friend refers to the report of Mr. Palmer which was tabled a few weeks ago?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Mr. DUNNING:: I just received the
printed copies this morning, and they are available now.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will they be distributed to members of the house?


Charles Avery Dunning: I had not considered the question of general distribution. Perhaps it would be desirable to give them a general distribution. My hon. friends and any member who is interested can secure a copy now, at all events.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I trust I may secure several
copies because Montreal is very much interested.


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.
Questions of Privilege



PRIVILEGE-MR. GOTT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to say that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn), speaking last night in a very hysterical manner-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr. GOTT:: Perhaps I had better quote
his words.


An hon. MEMBER:: You cannot quote
his manner.


Eccles James Gott: Speaking, shall I say, in a
schoolboy and dramatic manner, made several references to some quotations that I had made, and used the words " gross exaggeration." I want to say to the hon. member for West Elgin-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Eccles James Gott: After quoting from the Border Cities Star-I hesitate to mention this, but nevertheless it concerns the honour of a member of the press gallery-the hon. member for West Elgin said that the Speaker did not congratulate me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not a question of privilege.


Eccles James Gott: Not a question of privilege
when it concerns the honour of a member of the press gallery?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Eccles James Gott: I desire to read what the
hon. member for West Elgin said:
I do not know to whom to give credit for this publicity, whether to the hon. member for South Essex or to the reporter who signs himself E. C. Buchanan. If Ananias and Sappliira were to return from the grave I am sure they would rush up to a reporter with such a vivid imagination and grasping him by the hand would say, "Shake brother, shake!"
I had nothing to do with that newspaper report; I had nothing to do with the words of the speaker. But may I say that the Speaker not only congratulated but commended me.


Hewitt Bostock: As Speaker of the house
I must say that I know of no Ananias amongst my friends.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HEPBURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: Speaking to a question of privilege, I want to call the attention of the house to the fact that two very definite statements appeared in the Border Cities Star. One was to the effect that a special privilege was granted by you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott), in extending his time limit for speaking, a privilege previously refused to another hon. member who had asked for it. I maintain that that statement is unfair to you, sir, because I do not 'believe that you have ever shown favouritism to any member of this house. Following that up-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I am simply claiming
the same privilege that was exercised by the hon. member for South Essex. I want to read this very definite statement appearing in the Border Cities Star:
When Mr. Gott sat down amidst the applause of his party and other members, Mr. Speaker Lemieux left his place and went over and congratulated him on making one of the best speeches of the session.
I do not think that ever in the history of this parliament has any Speaker left the chair to congratulate a member of the house, much less the hon. member for South Essex.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 9, 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.
Mr. W. G. BOCK (Maple Creek):: In rising, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks in this debate I feel that the preceding speakers have so thoroughly covered and re-covered the most outstanding topics of general interest that it may be somewhat difficult for me to enlarge on many of them without being obliged to thresh considerable old straw. However, we have threshing machines out west -and I presume they may also be found in

The Budget-Mr. Bock
the east-which at times "throw over" a certain amount of grain when crowded, and occasionally it is possible to find a fair amount of grain in the straw stacks, especially if too much wind is used. I am in hopes, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be able to find among the many gigantic straw stacks which have been thrown up-I had almost said blown up- in the course of the threshing of the various problems in this debate, a few kernels of some value.
I wish in the first place to offer my congratulations to the hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the splendid efforts they made. I was very much impressed by the graceful and assured manner of the member for Joliette, (Mr. Ferland) who made his maiden speech on that occasion. I mention this because I have not previously had an opportunity of voicing my sentiments.
Let me also congratulate the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie).


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The house is in
such a happy mood that I cannot hear the hon. gentleman.


William George Bock: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to congratulate the hon. member for South Wellington, who made so fine an effort in criticizing the budget. I am sure he must have raised the spirits of the opposition members several feet. No doubt they began to think that the policies of the Conservative party if implemented would further accelerate the steadily increasing prosperity; for even the most pessimistic members opposite must admit that the financial condition of the country is in a much stronger position than when the present administration took office in 1921. Calamity howling and blue ruin rumours are not so prevalent this year as in the past, because even the most rabid disciples of high tariff must realize how ridiculous their gospel would seem, when under this administration we find reductions in taxation and in tariff and a substantial increase in the surplus, all contained in the same budget.
Now, according to the philosophy of some very prominent members opposite, a condition of this kind should be an impossibility. For here we have a very remarkable performance by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). The other night the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) referred to him as a financial wizard, and quite rightly too, for it was a remarkable performance. He puts his
tax and tariff reductions in a hat, makes a few passes with his financial wand, reaches in and pulls out a $69,000.000 net surplus, without damaging the old hat in the slightest, and on every hand we see evidences of prosperity. On a former occasion this financial wizard also performed a remarkable miracle. It will be remembered that he mixed some automobile industries with a reduction in tariff, at a time of unemployment, and in spite of the chorus of blue ruin which was hurled at him by our friends opposite, who cried "you'll ruin the hat" he "stood by his guns" and produced the finest specimen of industrial expansion; and incidentally the old hat was better than ever.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I have never been able to grasp the alleged logic of tariffs, whether they went by the name of protection or were disguised sufficiently to be called industrial "safeguards", of which, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) as geographical conditions warrant can so tactfully take advantage; for while in the eastern industrial centres he runs with his tariff cuLout wide open and talks of protection through a megaphone, when he returns to the wide open spaces west of the Great lakes he uses his muffler, retards his spark and in the cool shades of the evening he may be heard to murmur gently something about the safeguarding of our Canadian industries.


Mr. BENNETT:: I cannot permit the hon. gentleman, although it is bis first speech in this house, to make such a misstatement. I made exactly the same observations in western Canada as I did in the east and I propose to do so in the future.


William George Bock: Possibly the hon. leader of the opposition will forgive me for making a mistake, as I can forgive him his error in stating that this is my first speech in the 'house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first time I have
heard the hon. gentleman.


William George Bock: Speaking of prosperity, Mr. Speaker, we have the best country in the world-it is full of opportunities for those who will take advantage of them. To enumerate a few of the activities in which we are second to none, I might mention wheat exports, newsprint production and pulpwood resources, nickel and asbestos mines. Per capita we have the greatest hydro-power development of any country in the world; the greatest railroad mileage, most life insurance, largest
The Budget-Mr. Bock

cooperative societies and largest grain handling system. After listening to the inspiring and masterly address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday, I am more than ever of the opinion that the prosperous condition of Canada to-day is largely due to the clear vision and outstanding statesmanship of the present great leader of the Liberal party. Why, a reverend gentleman, in this city in the course of his remarks last Sunday, touching on the prosperity of our country, stated that in his opinion in many cases today blue ruin propaganda is only the reflex of a bad digestion.
The speech of the hon. member for South Wellington was I presume the most outstanding speech that has emanated from the opposition benches for some time. Many of the hon. gentlemen opposite must have been speculating on what a bear of a speech a man of his ability might have made, had he been defending the budget rather than criticizing it. Of course it is plain to anyone who has read Hansard of March 7 that his chief concern was criticism of the government whether there was any justification for it or not. He made a great fuss about a so-called unfavourable trade balance between Canada and the United States; he neglected, however, to emphasize the fact that our total foreign trade shows a balance in our favour of $154,000,000.
This so-called unfavourable trade balance is stated by the hon. member for South Wellington to be around $333,000,000 which is a large sum indeed, and he submitted that something was seriously wrong in regard to our relations with the United States and stated that he believed we were buying too much from that country year in and year out. His statement that goods purchased must be paid for is correct, but he neglected to mention that to offset this adverse balance of $333,000,000 Canada carried on a trade with the United States which, although invisible in so far as government reports were concerned, should easily wipe out this unfavourable balance about which we have heard so much. I refer to the tourist traffic, which not only consists of the money spent in Canada by tourists for the necessities of life, such as board, lodging and so forth, but includes a large amount of exports to the United States which are not found in any customs record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William George Bock: I am not referring to what
hon. gentlemen have in mind. I say that these particular exports I mention are not found in any customs record, for it is well known that the majority of American tourists returning carry with them at least a fair pro-

portion of the amount of goods, to the value of $100, which each is allowed to take into the United States free. The Department of Railways and Canals, in bulletin No. 19 I believe, refers to this matter and estimates the amount of money spent in Canada by tourists in the year 1927 at approximately $300,000,000. Taking this one item from the speech of perhaps the most outstanding critic of the government, and showing both sides of the case, it is very apparent that conditions are not nearly so bad as the hon. gentleman tried to paint them.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft) last Thursday night referred to the results of the tariff adjustments, implemented by the United States government in the year 1921-22, and which were supposed to be of great benefit to the American farmer. With the result of those adjustments we are all familiar, and I doubt very much whether the hon. member for South Wellington (Mf. Guthrie) will be able to fool very many of the western Canadian farmers when he baits his hook with promises of safeguarding and protecting the agricultural interests. The Canadian farmer is not going to buy flowers for his own funeral, nor is he going to make dynamite with which to blow himself off the map; and if hon. gentlemen opposite have been franking a few tons of the March 7th Hansard to the prairies it is to be hoped that they started them west on the 1st of April, because in that case the farmers out there will realize that at least they have a sense of humour. Let me tell you that the farmers of western Canada have not forgotten the Crowsnest pass agreement, the Hudson Bay railway, second homesteads or reductions in duty on over 275 items which have been made since 1921, and which I think may be found in Hansard of 1928, pages 1360 to 1373.
With regard to the tariff, there is one little matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and that is with reference to the classification of harvester combines, which was mentioned recently by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher). This combine is a very expensive machine and it is becoming increasingly popular in western Canada. Of course, as many hon, gentlemen know, it is a combination of harvester and thresher, and a great many of these machines were in operation last fall in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. At present this machine comes into Canada under tariff item 447b, subject to' a duty of 10 per cent. As harvesting machinery is subject to a duty of only 6 per cent under item 445, I think

The Budget-Mr. Bock
that in view of the fact that the life of this machine is very short, and that the price i3 quite high, the machine should be reclassified so as to come in under item 445, carrying a 6 per cent duty instead of 10 per cent. In view of the concern which my hon. friends opposite have expressed on behalf of the agricultural interests, I do not anticipate that they would raise serious objections to such action on the part of the government.
In referring to constructive legislation, I prefer to deal with a subject, outside the tariff, which I am better qualified to discuss, a subject of vital importance to the people of my constituency, the people of western Canada, and the people of the Dominion as a whole; because we are all component parts of one great whole, and anything that tends to injure one part must reflect to the detriment of all, and vice versa. The question of grain grading is and has been the main topic of conversation in the prairies since October last. When reports on car shipments of wheat came in from inspection points, in many cases it was found that the wheat was one to two grades lower than anticipated by the producers. In spite of the fact that the bulk of last year's crop was to a considerable extent injured by frost, it was nevertheless very apparent that there had been a tightening of grades by the inspectors, which resulted in widespread dissatisfaction and a feeling on the part of the producer that something was wrong with our system of inspection of grain. In consequence of this discontent, which had assumed alarming proportions, the Saskatchewan government appointed a commission to inquire into the whole matter and to endeavour to discover some means whereby this condition might be remedied. This commission has been devoting its best efforts to the study of the problem, and I am satisfied that it will be in a position to supply us with an interim report of its findings before this house prorogues, so that legislation may be framed to remedj' some of the evils which at present exist. Many farm organizations have been giving considerable study to the problem and many resolutions have been passed by these bodies and referred to hon. members representing western constituencies.
Three remedies in particular have been suggested by various local lodges of the Saskatchewan section of the United Tanners of Canada, which asks that the Canada Grain Act be so amended as to prohibit the mixing of grain in all private as well as at present in public terminal elevators, and to establish the protein content as one of the basic factors to be given consideration in the grading of
wheat. Other resolutions have come to hand from similar bodies asking that the Canada Grain Act be administered by the Department of Agriculture, rather than by the Department of Trade and Commerce, in view of the mass of evidence that has been made available both by the Saskatchewan commission and the committee on agriculture, I am inclined to think that this practice of mixing is more or less responsible for a great deal of the dissatisfaction at present existing.
The constituency of Maple Creek, which I have the honour to represent, comprises a large area which produces wheat of high protein content and naturally the producers are keenly interested in securing legislation which would recognize this quality as a factor in grading. Located as we are, immediately north of the Montana line, where the farmers of that state are able to secure premiums of 30 to 40 cents per bushel at times on the Minneapolis market for wheat showing a high percentage of protein, our farmers are naturally bound to be dissatisfied, as the Saskatchewan farmer in the southwest part of the province is growing exactly the same quality and variety of wheat, under the same climatic conditions as they are in Montana, and it is very hard to understand why the 49th parallel, which is only an imaginary line, should account for this disparity in values. These men are neighbours though living in different countries, and visit back and forward and discuss these matters.
I think it is generally conceded that the value of our wheat on both the domestic and foreign markets is determined largely by its baking strength, and baking strength is easily determined by checking up the quantity and quality of its protein. It should follow, then, that protein, gluten, or baking strength, which mean practically the same thing, should be given consideration in the fixing of grade standards so that the producer would be paid on the same basis as that which determines its value from the buyer's viewpoint.
In connection with the strength of wheat, or wheat with strong protein or gluten content, in the Financial Post of Toronto under date of March 1, I notice a reference by Professor James E. Boyle, who is professor of agricultural economics at Cornell university. This gentleman is considered a world authority on grain marketing problems, and in referring to the strength of wheat he says:
.... to get both strength and colour in the flours in Europe, blending of wheats is required. The strong wheat, wheat with the strong gluten, makes flour, the dough of which will absorb much water. When the dough is baked much of this water remains in it. The baker finds
The Budget-Mr. Bock

it to his advantage to sell as much water in this way as he can, as long as the quality of his bread remains uniformly good and satisfactory to his customers. He aims to produce 380 pounds of bread from 280 pounds of flour, after adding the water, salt, yeast and so on. He can do this if he has strong gluten- otherwise he cannot.
I think it is a well known fact that Canadian and American millers take advantage of the fact that the protein content of wheat can be easily determined by chemical analysis; the millers continually make tests at inspection points and divert cars showing a high protein content to their own mills. This practice has been referred to by the trade as skimming, but from the standpoint of the farmers it might be classified as "skinning", since oniy on rare occasions is a premium received by the producer. This skimming or skinning might be compared to a man selling milk; in the process of delivery of the milk a third party takes the cream. So the consumer receives only skim milk, the man who takes the cream gets it at the price of skim milk and the producer receives only the skim milk price for both milk and cream. In other words the man who gets the skim milk is the man who sets the price, just as the old country buyer sets the price of wheat. Therefore it will be seen that this skimming is an expensive process from the farmer's view point.
The committee on agriculture devoted considerable time and study last session to this question of protein content and from the evidence submitted it was shown that the costs of making protein tests or the time required would not be serious obstacles in the way of giving protein a place as one of the factors in our grading regulations as far as carload lots were concerned. Street wheat, however, which probably constitutes 50 per cent of the volume handled, would involve difficulties which, however, I think, might be overcome. While the committee looked with favour on this matter, they deemed it advisable to secure more information and recommended that the national council on industrial and scientific research make further inquiries into the matter. I trust that when these requests are dealt with in committee there will be sufficient evidence submitted to warrant their adoption, and I hope this house may see fit so to amend the grain act as to give protein content the recognition it deserves.
In connection with the question of protein content, Mr. Speaker, I feel that a great deal of credit is due the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Millar) for the time and energy

he has devoted to the study of this important matter, and I sincerely trust that his efforts will bear fruit in the near future.
The question of mixing has been discussed at considerable length, but since the committee on agriculture no doubt will make an intensive study of this matter before the House adjourns and will hear considerable evidence both for and against this practice, I have no desire to enlarge on it at the present time. However, as I see it at present, I am strongly of the opinion that mixing is a practice which is of no benefit to the producer, more particularly when it makes possible the mixture of American soft wheats with our better varieties and permits them to go to the old country markets under Canadian Government certificates of grade.
In this connection I would refer to an editorial published in the Ottawa Journal of April 3, 1929. It comments on evidence taken before the royal commisison at Winnipeg, and reads as follows:
The marketing of Canada's wheat crop, one of our greatest sources of wealth, is a matter so vital to the country's prosperity that it cannot be Jeft to incompetent or haphazard methods. Yet, unless a great deal of evidence recently taken before a number of commissions is untrustworthy, that is the condition that exists. Take, as an illustration, this despatch that came over the wires the other day from Winnipeg:-
"Canadian wheat, mixed with soft grain from the United States at Montreal, is being shipped out to world markets as Canadian government-inspected wheat, it was declared at to-day'a session of the Royal Grain Commision here by James D. Fraser, chief government grain inspector. Mixing of western hard wheat with low-grade American grain is a common practice of the transfer houses in Montreal, the commissioners were informed, and Mr. Fraser thought this practice had been going on for a number of years, certainly since he was made department head in 1925.
"That no authority for a mixture of Canadian and United States grain exists was admitted by the chief inspector, who added that there is nothing on the inspection certificate to show that the grain is a mixture.
"Canadian grain passing through the United States to American ports also was being mixed with American, the witness thought. He contended these facts were the real reason why foreign millers had expressed dissatisfaction with the Canadian grain they had been receiving.
"Nor was that all. A few days later a number of technical witnesses, testifying before this same commission, admitted that they did not know just upon what basis Canadian wheat was graded. They were the people supposed to be charged with that very important duty, yet they were unable to explain to the commission just how grading was arrived at."
The fact that such practice prevails is sufficient to give Canadian wheat a bad name in

The Budget-Mr. Bock
foreign markets, and now that the condition is known suitable steps must be taken not only to see that the practice of mixing shall not only be discontinued but that it shall be made impossible for such a condition of affairs to exist in future.
With regard to the hybrid ticket, which occasioned some controversy in this house, to my mind this question, while important, i3 not so vital as the question of mixing and grading. While I do not uphold the board in allowing this ticket to be used, we should not lose sight of the fact that the last threshing season was probably the most outstanding one in years with regard to uninterrupted fine weather, and grain was rushed to the railroads faster than ever before, owing to the more general use of the motor truck. Possibly the board had visions of the pool terminals blocked up and the private houses not operating up- to capacity, and no doubt the question of congested terminals may have been a factor considered when allowing this innovation. I trust, Mr. Speaker, when the Hudson Bay railway is in operation we may provide that only public terminal elevators will be used at Fort Churchill, and that no mixing of grades will be allowed therein. This should give us a splendid opportunity of ascertaining the real value of our grain, as the attitude of old country buyers would be reflected in prices offered.
And speaking of Churchill I feel proud to associate myself with a government which has brought to realization a dream nurtured by the pioneers of Canada's great west for forty years. During the Easter recess I read with pleasure press despatches to Lhe effect that the steel had entered Fort Churchill. Until the recent advent of the aeroplane, few Canadians or as a matter of fact few citizens of the world realized the untapped resources of mineral wealth which are now known to exist within reach of the Hudson Bay railway. With the enormous mining development which is taking place in Canada and the interest this development has awakened, it is realized now that instead of merely being an artery for the transportation of grain and other commodities to Europe by the northern route, the railway taps the vast precambrian shield, which is the repository of untold mineral wealth, and in addition opens up to commercial development large areas of pulpwood. Now that this road is nearing completion the insistence of its promoters is seen to be justified, and I look back with wonder at the sarcastic remarks of certain hon. members of this house who referred to the whole venture as a fantastic and impossible dream which could only end in adding 78594-92
to the country another burden of debt, and who damned this enterprise from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Speaking in all seriousness, it looks as if these disciples of despair I almost said disciples of "damnation"-will be confounded, and the so-called gold brick, represented by the railway, will turn out to be twenty-four carat throughout.
On the way east recently I fell in with a 3roung man who has 'been working for the Department of Railways during the past five years in the vicinity of Nelson and Churchill, and who had spent last winter at Churchill. What impressed me most, Mr. Speaker, was his great enthusiasm over the possibilities of that northern route, and it was very evident that his whole heart was bound up in the project. He seemed very anxious to hustle back with his steel workers and get on the job again. I have often heard it said that the government employees are inclined to loaf on the job, but it is evident that condition is not prevalent at Churchill. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) is to be congnatulliaited not only on the aggressive manner in which he has been rushing this project through, but on his ability to select men of the proper calibre and who are able to measure up to jobs of those dimensions.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to refer to briefly, in connection with a request from Mr. Jack Miner of Kingsville, Ontario, for an annual contribution of $5,000 from the federal government to help him in providing feed for the birds taking refuge at his sanctuary. It appears to me that this matter should be considered from a national viewpoint, as the migratory bird life from all over the continent receives protection there. Provincial or boundary lines have no meaning to our wild fowl, and I am sure that Mr. Miner and his sanctuary at Kingsville have become national in prominence. It is not necessary for me to attempt to enlarge on the benefits that we as Canadians derive from an establishment of that kind, for while its value may not be estimated in dollars and cents, yet true lovers of nature realize the importance of protecting our bird life, and its educational and scientific value should be readily apparent. In view of the fact that the United States government in the Norbeck bill, which was passed last February, has set aside $8,000,000 for the establishment of similar sanctuaries over a ten-year period, I do not think that the Canadian government should hesitate over the comparatively small annual grant of $5,000 to provide food for our feathered

The Bvdgel-Mr. Bock

friends. Of course there is the possibility that some hon. members opposite will taka advantage of an opportunity to justify their accusation that this government is throwing money to the birds, because we have frequently heard that statement from across the floor of the house. Possibly the hon. member for Toronto Northwest, (Mr. Church) could support this expenditure. He so frequently talks about the government spending money like water or like drunken sailors when he is not eulogizing the late Sir Adam Beck and the Ontario Hydro-Electric, or worrying about some marine garage down at Halifax. He would be able honestly to add another phrase to his repertoire of critical expressions when referring to expenditures and conscientiously accuse this government of ''throwing money to the birds."
Speaking of extravagance, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite criticize right and left the expenditures of the government. Many of them referred to the embassy at Washington and deplored the fact that this government had supplied our ambassador with a residence and offices in keeping with our national needs and dignity. One would almost have inferred from their remarks that our ambassador should have hired a room at the Y.M.C.A. or built a shack outside the city limits and used a second hand Ford by which to travel to and from his office.
As my time is rapidly slipping by, Mr. Speaker, I must hurry to a conclusion. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in his amendment regrets that the financial proposals of the government make no provision for safeguarding and protecting the interests of those engaged in agricultural or industrial pursuits, but I am satisfied that the farmers of western Canada at least will have little faith in a policy which involves a protective tariff. While I cannot support his amendment, I must say that he has made it abundantly clear that, should the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) step into higher and wider fields of political activities, or should he be prematurely harvested by the grim reaper which we sincerely trust will not occur, hon. members opposite would not have far to seek for another Moses to lead them through the wilderness. I am sure that he could even outclass that famous leader of the children of Israel when it came to making bricks without straw.
With the subamendment of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) I have no quarrel, for I have always been in favour of greater freedom of trade within the

British Empire and of further increasing the British preference. But as the policy of the government has been to develop and foster inter-imperial trade, and in view of the fact that consideration is being given to this matter at the present time, I consider these sufficient reasons for my not registering my vote for what is really a want of confidence motion.


Hon. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been a very interesting and instructive one. We have had the pleasure of hearing many excellent speakers, including the hon. acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), who delivered an address which brought forth eulogies from friend and foe alike. I do not intend to detain the house in repeating what has been said many times with regard to the items in the budget. The budget speaks for itself, and I am at a loss to understand just what benefit my province is to receive therefrom.
I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), delivered during the evening of April 8. I am sure the house has by this time digested the supposed facts which the hon. gentleman presented. I think it would be interesting to know just what his colleagues from Nova Scotia, the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), think of the statements made by the hon. member. My opinion is that this house has never before had placed before it such a large number of statements, all of which were alleged to be in accordance with the facts but none of which indicated the true state of affairs as shown by the records of the house. It would take quite a long time to deal with the various topics which he discussed, and I will refer only to one of them, the port of Halifax. The hon. member's words are:
Let us compare the record of the Liberal party with regard to the port of Halifax with the record of the Conservative party. We do not hear anything about what was done for the port of Halifax between the years 1.911 and 1921, the ten years during which our Conservative friends were in power. But what did they really do for that port? Practically nothing.
There is a supposed statement of fact, but what does Hansard show? It shows that during 1912, 1913 and 1914 the Conservative government spent $6,760,000 in the development of the port of Halifax. Why was that expenditure made? It was made to carry out, not only the terms of the British North America Act, but more particularly the conditions upon which the Transcontinental railway was built. Why was that railway built? To carry the traffic of Canada through Canadian ports.

The Budget-Mr. Black (Halifax)
That could not be done until the terminals were provided whereby the ships would find accommodation and the traffic could be handled. That was carrying out by the Liberal-Conservative government the terms upon which the Transcontinental railway was built. Had the Conservatives remained in power, the development would have been completed by this time and we would have had, instead of,
I shall not say a paltry amount of business, many, many times the present business in the port of Halifax during the winter season and perhaps during the summer. This government has been in power since 1922; this is 1929, but it is only this year that they are beginning to handle any traffic through that port, and the amount is very small.


Mr. DUFF:: Did my hon. friend say that
$6,000.000 was spent by the Conservative government between 1911 and 1914?


William Anderson Black: I gave the amount as 86,760,000, as shown by the records.


William Duff: My hon. friend is mistaken.
The amount was 816,000,000, wThich was wasted on the terminals, and not $6,000,000.


William Anderson Black: I will add that
during the Liberal-Conservative regime there was in all $17,000,000 spent on facilities for handling Canadian traffic through Canadian ports.


William Duff: Money which was wasted.
It will ruin the whole city.


Mr. QUINN:: That will sound good down
there.


William Duff: It cuts the whole city in two.


William Anderson Black: My hon. friend
says that it will ruin the whole city. Sir Robert Borden's government sent engineers to Halifax to report on the best location for terminals for the great Transcontinental railway. Those men visited Halifax and brought back their report. The terminals were located in accordance with their report, and on looking over the harbour, studying the depth of water and so on, although I was a sufferer personally because my property alongside those terminals is not as valuable as it would have been had the terminals not been put there, I believe the choice was the proper one and never before in the history of a government were plans made and carried out so advantageously as were the plans on which work was commenced in connection with those terminals. The plans were comprehensive and so laid out that as pier after pier was required because of the development of the traffic through that port, they could be added without any disturbance of traffic, buy-78594- 924
ing of additional property, removal of buildings or anything of that kind. It was the most comprehensive and businesslike proposition that was ever put on paper by any government. It may be said; why were the terminals not put further north? I will not waste time going into that. Had the terminals, at the time that those plans were ready, been extended as some people contended they should have been, there would not have been a private wharf left in Halifax harbour. We have facilities for eight big wharves capable of accommodating twenty to thirty steamers at a time, and not a piece of private business property is interfered with.
I might have added that in 1914 the work was considerably curtailed because of the war. But for the war I believe, as I said before, Halifax to-day would be enjoying a vast traffic which at the present time she is not receiving.
This free trade government, as is well known, is crippling the industries of the country. Many, perhaps all of the members are aware of interference with, crippling and closing up of industries in their constituencies or near thereto. In Halifax, having lost many industries because of the tariff policy of this government, we are now threatened with, I might almost say the destruction of another very important industry. I refer to the Acadia sugar refinery, located in Dartmouth, and I do not omit the Atlantic sugar refinery in St. John. These institutions employ many people, and the closing of them, if it takes place, will be a serious matter. For some time refined Cuban sugar has been entering the Dominion of Canada on favoured terms, greatly of course to the injury of those refineries which, under existing conditions, are not able to earn dividends for their shareholders. What will be the probable result if such conditions continue? In my judgment those industries will close because people do not as a rule employ their capital in industries which make no return to them. With the closing of those industries, what happens? Not only is a large body of our people thrown out of employment, but we lose the money that would be distributed in connection with the industries in handling the sugar and other materials that are brought in, storing them, and so on. Where will those people seek employment? Across the border in a foreign country. May I make a suggestion to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that he soften his heart; that he confer with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), urging that some consideration be given to his fellow manufacturers, permitting them to enjoy some of the advantages of the
1448	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Block (Halijax)
protective tariff which he so extensively enjoys. What has built up the great nation to the south of us? It is the protection necessary to industries that keeps their people at home-the policy of America for the Americans, not America for the Canadians. The French do not leave their homes. Why? Because they find employment at home. Their industries, being protected, are in a position to thrive and grow and employ the people.
Our people have been hearing a great deal for some time past of the trade treaty made by this government with the West Indies. It would appear to me that the more treaties these gentlemen make, the deeper they get into the mire. Probably hon. gentlemen of this house, especially those from the prairie provinces, are not aware of the contribution which they make to the West Indies through this much discussed treaty. Take sugar, for instance. The quantity of sugar imported into the country is about 800,000,000 pounds, half of which comes from the British West Indies. On that 400,000,000 pounds coming from the West Indies the duty would be $4,000,000, but under the treaty a return of ninety per cent, or $3,600,000, is made to the West Indies interests. In other words, out of that $4,000,000 which is supposed to be collected on the importation of sugar from the West Indies, we return to the West Indies planters and growers $3,600,000, and yet nobody in this country is buying sugar any cheaper than had that sugar come from a foreign country. That $3,600,000 which is returned to the growers and planters of sugar in the West Indies represents, on a basis of 9,000,000 people in Canada, about 40 cents per bead that we are contributing to the sugar producers in the West Indies. If Canada is willing to contribute the large sum of $3,600,000 to the British West Indies sugar industry, surely she has similar obligations to the home industries which are now suffering.
A great deal has also been said about butter.
I wish to endorse what has been said as to the harmful effects on our farmers of the New Zealand treaty, and I would like to give the house a few figures on the importation of New Zealand butter. There has been landed during the three months of this year at one port alone in Canada, Halifax, 16,000,000 pounds of New Zealand butter, and in addition 100,000 carcasses of lamb and mutton and about 6,000 carcasses of beef. It is for the government to decide what effect their policy is having upon the struggling farmers of Canada. May we not ask, is Canada an agricultural country, and is this government striving to make it such?

We have been told by hon. gentlemen opposite of the prosperity throughout Canada. I am free to admit that Canada has been prosperous and is prosperous to-day in spots, but prosperity is not general. Whilst the banks and the large corporations no doubt show satisfactory returns and profits to their shareholders, prosperity is not general throughout this country. It is difficult to find a farmer who can show a profit, who can perhaps do more than enough to keep himself and his family alive and clothed.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) referred to the prosperity in Halifax and the money that is being spent there. I admit, that Halifax is prosperous, although not wholly so. The waterfront of Halifax is very busy at the present time, and there is a large amount of money circulating from week to week amongst the labourers and longshoremen -and those who work on the steamers entering the port. But on the other hand, if you talk with the workers of the welfare bureau, as I have done, you will find, and I have been told by these workers, that this winter is the worst that they have had for years. These welfare workers are not working among the labourers and longshoremen who are earning money on the waterfront, but in other sections of the city, and they say this is the worst year that they have had for many years past. One reason for the prosperity amongst the labourers on the waterfront is this: I admit at the outset that the British preference has had something to do with it, inasmuch as there is a certain amount of cargo being landed in the port of Halifax from Great. Britain; but the tonnage which is entering the port of Halifax from week to week is coming there not because of any action on the part of this government, but because of the position Halifax occupies, a position not occupied by any other port on this side of the Atlantic. We have a magnificent harbour, and we are on the trade route 'between the American ports and the ports of Great Britain and Europe. What brings the ships there? Some are coming with the mails, as they always have done, and with passengers. The others come simply because these steamship lines are in competition, and when one line makes Halifax or any other port a port of call, its competitors do the same. The foreign boats entering the port-and we have some of the finest vessels of the Scandinavian Baltic-Amerioan. Hamburg-American and other lines calling-do not bring British goods; they come to land passengers and to continue in their business. So it is not due to any of the policies of this government that Halifax is so prosperous along the waterfront and has so

The Budget-Mr. Black (Halifax)
much shipping coming and going. We have as a rule as many as seven large ships entering the port between Saturday night and Monday noon during the winter months, and, as I say, I believe one-half of the tonnage is foreign tonnage-not brought into Halifax because of any British preference or any action of the government, but by reason of the competition among the shipping companies.
The Liberal-Conservative party is charged by hon. gentlemen opposite with continually preaching blue ruin, depression, unemployment, and always singing "hard times." Let me say to these hon. gentlemen that had the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party been followed by them Canada to-day would be enjoying far greater general prosperity than now prevails. It is not the Liberal-Conservative party alone which is said to be "whining," and in confirmation of this let me quote what leaders of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia are saying. In the Nova Scotia Legislature which is at present in session, and in which the Liberals are on the left of the Speaker, there has been on their part a good deal of wailing over bad business conditions in the province. They have been demanding what they describe as "an economic commission" to ascertain, as they say, "what is wrong with Nova Scotia and its business affairs."
One of the Liberal members, Mr. Wishart Robertson, who represents Shelburne county -and Shelburne county is a part of the federal district represented by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston)-drew a very dark picture of the financial and economic conditions as between the central provinces and Nova Scotia. Here is what he said, among other things, and it is taken from a verbatim report which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle of March 2, 1929:
Duties and taxes paid to the Dominion are entirely out of proportion with w'hat we receive in any form of benefits, and we must find out more details before finding a suitable end to our problems.
Again, referring to the number of new automobiles and trucks in Nova Scotia and their cost, Mr. Robertson claimed that on an average these were costing the people of the province more than the same article cost in the United States, and then he concluded with this assertion, which I am also quoting from the Halifax Chronicle, the leading Liberal paper in the province. He said:
We in Nova Scotia in that one item alone contributed $1,926,000 in excess of what we should have paid as our contribution to the maintenance and success of the industrial structure of central Canada.
Mr. Robertson went on to refer to the refusal of the Dominion government to provide protection for the steel industry of Nova Scotia, and said:
When the Dominion Iron and Steel Company sought protection at Ottawa, its opposition, in part, consisted of an argument that such protection would increase the cost of producing automobiles to the extent of $1.45 each.
These gentlemen, I repeat, are demanding what they describe as an "economic commission" to ascertain, as they say, "what is wrong with Nova Scotia and its business." Mr. Robertson continued:
We are asked to contribute from our meagre resources towards the maintenance of the financial and industrial structure of central Canada, yet so soon as they are asked to contribute to assist our industry, we are told it is not sound business, that we should go to the markets of the world.
We are contributing from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 each year as a constant stream because of our economic 'handicap, and now is the time to take some action to inquire into the causes and remedies.
Another of the Liberal members of the legislature, who spent over three hours in an attempt to show that Nova Scotia is going to the dogs, is Mr. A. S. MacMillan, who was a member of the Armstrong government which was defeated in 1925, and who is not bashful in stating that he expects to be a member of any future Liberal government in the province. He represents Digby county. He takes a very gloomy view of two of the fundamental industries of the province, namely, agriculture and lumbering.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But contracting is bright with him.


William Anderson Black: Mr. Robertson was in a very despairing mood in regard to the great steel industry of the province, and when he and his colleague, Mr. MacMillan, unite in describing the steel industry, the farming industry and the mining industry as not making any progress, their views are in striking contrast with those of hon. gentlemen in the federal government who declare that Nova Scotia is humming with prosperity. This is what Mr. MacMillan said:
The farmers of Nova Scotia were not prospering. Fifty per cent were sliding back each year, twenty-five per cent were holding their ground, and twenty-five per cent, favourably situated wrere making a little progress.
Those are the words of Mr. MacMillan, a member of the legislature of Nova Scotia, and an aspirant to the provincial leadership of the Liberal party. There seems to be keen rivalry as to who should1 be the leader. This gentleman was a member of the late Armstrong
1450	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Black (Halifax)
government, whose financial characteristics were a surprise to the whole province, in fact to the Dominion, falsified accounts having been presented showing a shortage of a few thousand dollars when in fact there was a deficit of several millions. Then in regard to the lumbering industry what does Mr. MacMillan say? He dismisses it with a few words, as follows:
The lumbering industry is suffering from heavy depression and the people of the province did not know the policy of the present government with regard to the forest wealth. It was time for a show-down on this matter.
The Halifax Chronicle, for many years the leading Liberal newspaper of Nova Scotia, vigorously backs up the Liberal members in the legislature in their determination to show that Nova Scotia is staggering along under almost desperate industrial and economic conditions. It has been commending, I say, the stand taken by those Liberal members. Another text has been supplied by the report of the commissioner on old age pensions, whom the Rhodes government appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the probable cost to the province, if adopted, of the Dominion government system of old age pensions. We find the Chronicle making this startling remark :
The result of the investigation shows the prevailing economic condition to be immeasurably worse than even the best informed had ever dreamed.
In another place, following the lead of Mr. Robertson, the Chronicle has a slap at the central provinces in this language:
She-
Meaning Nova Scotia.
-is contributing annually vast sums for the upbuilding of the economic fabric of central Canada, without any commensurate return to herself. It leaves her yearly more impoverished than she was beforfe.
Further on the Chronicle emphasizes Mr. Robertson's complaint about the steel industry and the argument with which the Dominion government met the request for protection of the steel industry of Nova Scotia, and the Chronicle remarks that when demand was made for aid to the steel industry:
It was met with the argument that it would increase the price of the automobile by $1.45 each. Just imagine it.
And still further on the Chronicle speaks about the need for action on behalf of Nova Scotia toremedy the disastrous economic condition into which it has fallen.
On another day during the present month the same leading newspaper refers to a report of the Halifax county council to the effect

that it has discovered reasons for believing that Nova Scotia is in a terribly bad way. This is the blue ruin statement which the Chronicle makes on the subject.
The reports just made to the county council do not tell a happy story so far as the county is concerned. Instead of an increase in assessment values, there is an actual decrease, and a decrease in a single year amounting to $61,000. This is anything but reassuring. It indicates that the country section of the metropolitan county of Halifax is sliding backward. The reasons given in the council for the fall in assessment values were mainly that people had moved away and the assessment values of the property had dropped.
The Chronicle moralizes in this language:
With people moving away and with idle property the state of Halifax county conjures up the pension commissioner's report on Hants, where he found things going to the dogs.
This leading Nova Scotia Liberal paper finds further reason, as late as the 9th of March of this year, to add to its lamentations in regard to the desperate condition of the province. It would appear that the commissioner who was sent out by the Rhodes government to examine into the possible cost of old age pensions in Nova Scotia, found, as might be expected, that a great many of the younger people had left the province, and that in large part the country districts were inhabited by older people. This is how the Chronicle viewed the situation:
He did not know that economic conditions were bad. He had not the remotest idea that they had reached such an intolerable situation as this. If only one out of every five have any assurance of being able to provide for old age, then it is little wonder that the boys and girls are leaving this province in their earning years.
In another place on the same day the Chronicle emphasizes its despair on the subject in these words:
There are not many factories in the east. There are a few in Nova Scotia. Factories want young men in them. When a man begins to go over 40, hard sledding starts for many of them. If for the next thirty years of his life he has trouble to get work and pay and save, what is he to do when he gets to 70? The commissioner's report goes to show that in our basic industries-agriculture, lumbering, fishing, etc.,-something is fundamentally out of joint, because it is in these occupations where our poor people must be largely found.
If these, and such other lamentations, are really true, and the representatives of Liberalism in the Nova Scotia legislature and this leading Liberal newspaper in the province aver that they are true, what are we to think and say when we find members of the federal cabinet, even from the province of Nova Scotia, declaring that the whole of the province of Nova Scotia was never before in such a period of widespread prosperity?

The Budget-Mr. Boys
Still further, I picked up another Liberal paper, the oldest in Halifax, the Acadian Recorder, and this is what I find. An advertisement of the city collector's office, dated Halifax, March 1, 1929, stating that fourteen properties would be offered for sale at auction on April 2 for unpaid taxes. No work, no money to pay taxes.
My time is about up, although I should like to say a word or two further with regard to the province. There is one matter that vitally interests Nova Scotia, and I will say this, that the people of that province will never be satisfied until their demand is granted. I refer to the entry of the Canadian Pacific Railway into the province. Every province of the Dominion enjoys the advantages of that company's enterprise; why should Nova Scotia stand alone, deprived of that which all other provinces enjoy? At this date not a yard of transcontinental railway has been constructed in Nova Scotia. Surely, in view of our large contributions to railways and canals all over Canada, we are entitled to consideration.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (North Simcoe):: Up to two or three hours ago it had not been my intention to take part in this debate, but a very recent resolution passed in the legislature of Quebec has been brought to my attention, and it is in that connection that I should like to engage the attention of the house for just a few moments. I wish at once to allay the fears of hon. members if they have any idea that I intend to try to interfere with the vote which we are all contemplating this afternoon.
I am glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in his place, and I should like to prelude my remarks by a reference to his speech on April 8, quoting from Hansard at page 1335, where he referred to the economic conference which sat in Geneva on May 4, 1927. He referred to the fact that certain representatives from the United States had taken part in that conference, and also certain representatives from Canada. He pointed out that the conference had divided itself into committees, the three main committees being on agriculture, commerce and industry; and it is in connection with agriculture that I wish to engage the attention of the house. Aft page 1335-6 of Hansard we find the following paragraphs quoted from the report:
In view of the fact that harmful effects upon production and trade result from the high and constantly changing tariffs which are applied in many countries;
And in view of the fact that some of the causes which have resulted in the increase of
tariffs and in other trade barriers since the war have largely disappeared and others are diminishing;
The conference declares that the time has come to put an end to the increase in tariffs and to move in the opposite direction.
Lower down on the same page we find this paragraph:
It is desirable that all hindrances to the free circulation of and trade in agricultural products should be removed, in so_ far as their removal does not endanger the vital interests of the different countries and their workers.
In those states in which customs protection is maintained, it should be reduced, both for industry and agriculture, to the lowest possible point indispensable to production.
The final recommendation is:
That the governments and peoples of the countries here represented should together give continuous attention to this aspect of the economic problem, and looks forward to the establishment of recognized principles designed to eliminate those economic difficulties which cause friction and misunderstanding in a world which has everything to gain from peaceful and harmonious progress.
I take it for granted that the Minister of Justice, in giving these quotations, approved of them himself. While he was speaking he did not venture to suggest that any country in the world had implemented these suggestions by legislation, with the exception of Canada, and Canada's part in implementing them is so infiinitesimal that I should think it would afford vain glory to the Minister of Justice, because we have been told during this debate that from 1921 to the present time the Liberal government has not reduced the tariff by even one per cent. Now we are awaiting the action of congress which is to meet on the 15th of this month; we all know perfectly wrell that during this session the United States tariff dealing with agricultural products will certainly be raised, so we see that there is not the slightest tendency on the part of the nations of the world to implement the recommendations quoted by the Minister of Justice.
Before coming to the resolution to which I have referred it might not be amiss to place on Hansard some of the recommendations made by the National Dairy Council of Canada to the Prime Minister and five or six other members of the cabinet on November 29, 1927. These recommendations were presented by Mr. Alex. Smith, solicitor for the council, and in part were as follows:
To the Right Honourable the President and other members of the Privy Council.
The National Dairy Council of Canada desires respectfully to present some observations and requests on the Australian trade agreement.
1.	That on the 27th day of June, 1925, the Australian trade agreement act received Royal
The Budget-Mr. Boys

Assent and by order in council was made applicable on and after the first day of October, 1925;
2.	That the said trade agreement is subject to the Canadian Customs Tariff 1907;
3.	That the producers of butter in Australia have what is known as the Paterson scheme, whereby they pool all their product and pay three cents to the pool on each pound of butter produced. The pool paying to the exporter six cents a pound on all butter exported. This common fund is to encourage and enlarge the export trade;
4.	That the effect of the Paterson scheme is to render Australian butter subject to dumping duty. This duty is in the first clause of section 6 of the Customs Tariff 1907, defined as follows:-
I need not trouble the house with the next part, but the recommendations proceed:
6.	That previous to October 1, 1925, the duty on Australian butter was four cents per pound;
7.	That the order in council applying schedule 2 of the Australian trade agreement to New Zealand enables New Zealand to export butter into Canada on payment of customs in Canada of one cent a pound, instead of the British preference rate of three cents a pound;
8.	That the Canadian customs tariff 1907, at present provides duties on butter as follows: British preferential 3 cents per pound. Intermediate tariff 4 cents, general tariff 4 cents, and (as per treaty) Australian and New Zealand, one cent;
12.	That in consequence of the Australian trade agreement the dairy industry of Canada suffers.
13.	At the annual meeting of the National Dairy Council of Canada, held in the city of Toronto the 21st and 22nd of November, 1927, the effect of the Australian treaty agreement and its extension to New Zealand was fully discussed by the members of the said council.
The result of these deliberations was that the executive committee was unanimously instructed to make representations to the government along certain lines.
The executive therefore respectfully requests as follows:-
1.	That the order in council applying schedule 2 of the Australian trade agreement to New Zealand be rescinded at once;
2.	That the dumping clause be immediately applied on all butter sent from Australia to Canada on consignment as well as on direct sale;
3.	That the Australian trade agreement be terminated as provided in the Australian Trade Agreement Act 1925.
The concluding recommendation is as follows:
We trust that our petition, which is backed by every important dairy producing organization in Canada, will be given early and sympathetic consideration by the government, so that our own dairying industry may flourish and be able to participate m the profits that will accrue from the splendid industrial development that seems to be ahead of us.
We have the government faced with this recommendation and with the contemplated action of the United States, yet the Minister of Justice suggests to the house that we should 
have lower duties. I would like to find out whether or not he is familiar with what the legislature of his own province has been doing. I hold in, my hand a copy of the votes and proceedings of the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec dated Wednesday, March 27, 1929, in which I find the following:
Mr. Sauve moved:
That in view of the fact that it is necessary (a) to take all reasonable means to protect agriculture; (b) to secure for farmers markets where they can obtain better prices and prices more in proportion with the cost of production; (c) to encourage inasmuch as possible the best methods of cultivation, particularly market gardening and the canning industry, as well as the best methods of classification; (d) to make the subsidies granted to agricultural enterprises more profitable and to secure for our province greater prosperity in general;
This house invites the government to use its influence so that our produce may be sufficiently protected against competition coming from countries having a better climate than ours.
Before that resolution, was put, the Premier of Quebec had something to say upon it. I took the trouble to secure a Quebec paper, the Chronicle-Telegraph of March 25, in which the Premier of Quebec is quoted as follows:
Premier Taschereau admitted this would be a very good motion but it was not the time to bring it forward because if adopted it would cancel the motion to go into supply. However he would withdraw his motion to go into supply if the leader of the opposition would make a regular motion of his amendment. The premier expressed the opinion that it was the best proposal the leader had ever introduced in the house.
With that the motion was put; I understand that the Quebec legislature is composed of eighty-five members, and with about fifty members present this resolution was carried unanimously. Not only was that the case, but the premier himself was so anxious to have it dealt with that he withdrew his motion to go into supply in order to permit this resolution to be proceeded with, and as I have said it was carried unanimously. This action was taken by the legislature of the province of Quebec, yet we find the Minister of Justice, coming from that province, advocating in this house a proposal absolutely in opposition to the unanimous proposition of his own province.
I am glad to see that 'both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are in their seats, and I would like to ask them three questions. First, is the government aware of this resolution; second, have appropriate representations been made to them by the government of Quebec; third, what, if anything, does the government intend to do to give effect to the unanimous request of the

legislature of Quebec? I would be only too glad now to yield the floor to either of the hon. gentlemen if they see fit to answer these questions or any one of them, and I wonder if the Minister of Justice would accommodate me to the extent of answering this question:	Have representations been made to
the government by the province of Quebec?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I do not know of any, but if my hon. friend wants me to finish my speech, which I could not conclude the other day because of the forty-minute rule, I am quite willing to do so, but I will make my speech in my own way.


William Alves Boys: I do not suppose the Minister of Justice could conclude in another forty minutes, so it would not do much good to give him thirty minutes now. I take it for granted, since the Minister of Justice says he knows of no such representations from the government of Quebec, that these representations have not been made, because I am quite confident the minister would have heard of them otherwise. Let us hope that they will be made, but whether or not that is done there is the resolution; we find the great province of Quebec, which undoubtedly is a protective province, agreeing with the Conservative party and with the Dairy Council of Canada in this connection.
While I am on my feet I want to make an observation with regard to our farming communities. I have listened to a good many speeches with regard to farmers and to labour generally and I have also listened to a good many speeches with regard to prosperity in Canada. By nature I do not think I am pessimistic; I think I am inclined to be optimistic and I do not want to preach blue ruin. At the same time, however, I do not want to be optimistic without reason. Having practised law in my county for over thirty-five years, I speak with some knowledge when I say that I have never known the farming community in my county to be as hard up as they have been during this last season, and I doubt very much if the conditions which prevail there, are any different from those prevailing in other counties in Ontario. There has been great difficulty in the payment of principal and interest upon farm mortgages, and the farmers of Ontario have had a very hard time during the last two years. In many cases they have not been able to make both ends meet, and in other cases they have been unable to pay their obligations. I do not believe there is a member of the house representing a rural riding in the province of Ontario who will contradict my statements. I do not attempt to speak for the west or for Quebec, because I do not know of the conditions pre-
10, 1929	I453
The Budget-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)
vailing there. The county of Simcoe is one of the best counties in Ontario, but the conditions there, so far as prosperity is concerned, are no different from the conditions which prevail in other counties. We all know how important the farming industry is to the country, and I regret to say that from their standpoint there is no prosperity at the present time.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has taken his seat in the house. No doubt he has heard of the resolution which has been passed by the legislature of Quebec, but if not I ask that he do me the honour of reading it in Hansard to-morrow. I am curious to see how he can maintain the position which he proclaims in the house, and at the same time keep in harmony with the views of the members of the legislature of his own province.
Mr. LESLIE G. BELL (St. Antoine): Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add a great deal to the remarks of the many speakers who have preceded me, but to put hon. gentlemen opposite in good humour, I take this occasion to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the very able address which he presented to this house yesterday afternoon.
I do not know that I have ever seen the Prime Minister in better fettle, and I am sure that all of us who sit on this side of the house appreciated the fact that he handled his subject matter in a very admirable way. I only wish that he could in a like manner be congratulated by us upon the principles underlying the subject matter of his speech.
The most notable feature of this budget debate, as pointed out by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), is that we find our hon. friends opposite strong in their advocacy of a low tariff policy. We on this side of the house have listened to them in previous years when the policy of the Liberal party was that of free trade, tariff for revenue and freer trade, but today we find that 'the flag under which they are sailing is the flag of a low tariff. It is rather strange to find hon. gentlemen opposite criticizing the members on this side of the house flying a flag other than that of protection. They may find it a hard problem to solve, but it is much more difficult for us on this side of the house to discover which flag they are flying, especially with regard to their tariff policy. It has always been a question of expediency with them, and particularly so at this session.
I think they must admit that the articles covered in the proposed tariff changes are very minor ones. I am sure the Conservative party would be just as willing as they to give encouragement to the mining industry by means of a reduction of the tariff as it applies to mining machinery.
1454	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)
But they seem unable to formulate a tariff policy for the Dominion of Canada. Why? Because they are waiting to see just what action will be taken by our neighbours to the south. That is not the policy of the Conservative party. We do not wait to see what foreigners will do with regard to their tariff policies; we do not legislate against foreigners or their tariff policies, but we do endeavour to formulate policies for the people of our own country. Speaking for myself, and I am sure for other Conservative members. I can only say that we intend always to have our tariff formulated under the word "protection." The protectionist policy of the United States has stood them in good stead. The- United States is a very prosperous country and has grown steadily under the protectionist flag. The latest general election in the United States resulted in the president being endorsed by the people in all sections of that country, and he preached but one policy, the policy of protection. The candidate of the Democratic party came out openly for the first time in the history of the United States and stated that protection was going to be the policy of his party. Our hon. friends come to us to tell us that the word "protection" forms no part of their political creed, and they chide us for trying to get away from the protective principle. I am a protectionist, but I am not a "spotty" protectionist. I do not stand for protection in one section of the country and then advocate free trade in another. I believe in protection for western Canada as well as protection for eastern Canada. The policy of the Conservative party has always been, despite what the hon. members opposite may say, a policy of protection throughout the length and breadth of Canada.
The protectionist policy is not a hard one to understand. Our hon. friends believe in the principle of importing into Canada goods which have been made by foreign manufacturers. They believe in taking goods, whether they are manufactured in Germany, or in free trade England, or in the United States, or in whatever country they may choose, and as long as they can get those goods delivered in Canada and given to the consumer, as they state, cheap, then they believe in that policy. We on this side of the house do not believe in such a policy. No matter how cheaply goods made by foreign manufacturers and workmen can be sold in Canada, I believe the Canadian workman, although he is able to secure those goods at one cent or two or five cents cheaper- is the person who loses in the long run, and I make no exception with respect to the machinery referred to in 
the budget, because I have- enough faith in Canadian workmen and Canadian manufacturers to believe Canada can make just as good mining machinery in this country as can be made in the United States.
Let us take a concrete example: Suppose a man working in a furniture factory buys a chair made in the United States and delivered in Canada for fifty cents less than one made in Canada, who suffers? The workman is the man who suffers. Why? If he is unemployed for a day, even if he can walk into a store and buy a chair made by foreign labour fifty cenls cheaper than one made in Canada, how much does he lose on account of that one day's unemployment? How much does his family lose? The question is only a simple one of economics. Not only does it involve the larger question of opening factories in the United States or in any other country, or the question of giving employment to the people in that foreign country, but it comes right back to our own homes, our own firesides, our own unemployment situation. When the government has faith enough in Canada to realize that we can establish factories in Canada to manufacture our own goods with Canadian workmen; when, instead of sending to the United States for safety lanterns made by a foreign workmen-as they propose to do under the present budget-it finds that we can manufacture those same miners' safety lanterns by Canadian labour, thus giving employment to our own people, and' that it is better for our own mining concerns to use our own safety lanterns, it will be coming into line with what is known as the Conservative doctrine of protection.
The great republic to the south of us is accustomed to ascribe its liberties and economic development to their Declaration of Independence. That is only partly true. It is true that under the declaration of independence the people of the United States, achieved liberty, but one thing which I think established more than anything else the greatness of the United States of America was when Madison, a young man, was appointed secretary of that country at thirty-two years of age and drafted the first protective tariff law. We talk about national status and last year we had a division on the question of national status. Is Canada a nation to-day? Have we the fundamentals which make for national life? If we have, times have changed. In the war of 1812 the United States learned for the first time that they were not a nation. Why? Because they could not make up their national life within their own borders; they were dependent upon England and other

The Budget-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)
foreign countries. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day quoted some prominent English free traders, what they believed in and their policy regarding England. Let me for a minute quote what Lord Lynd-hurst said in 1838 regarding the United States of America:
The United States of America was always considered our own special market. "The extent and swift, regular progress of the American market for English goods." said Henry (afterward Lord Brougham) in 1813, "we can easily account for .... America is an immense agricultural country, where land is plentiful and cheap; men and labour, though quickly increasing, are yet still scarce and dear when compared with the boundless regions which they occupy and cultivate. In such a country manufactures do not naturally thrive; every exertion, if matters be left to themselves, goes into other channels. This people is connected with England by origin, language, manners, and institutions; their tastes go along with their convenience, and they come to us, as a matter of course, for the articles they do not make themselves."
What do we find? We find the United States of America with their ports blockaded first by England during the war with France, and then by France. Where could they get their merchandise? They discovered that they were solely dependent upon other foreign nations. To explain that, I will read another short section:
What did we discover in our war of 1812 but that we had nothing to equip the war? Having no woollen manufacture, we could not clothe our soldiers: we could not even make a blanket. We had been free traders, buying all such things because we could buy them cheaper; but we now discovered that we might better have been making blankets at double the cost for the last fifty years. The si me was true of saltpetre for gunpowder, of guns and canon and swords, and iron and steel out of which to make them. . . . We also began to discover that the very insignificant article of salt, coming short in the supply, was nearly a dead necessity, one of the munitions of war, and that manufacturing it for ourselves at double the cost would have been a true advantage. . . . We very soon discovered in the facts referred to the lowness of our organization, and the very incomplete scope of our industrial equipments. Our products were not various enough to make a complete nation.
This is what one Englishman said regarding the crop of the United States at this very period:
On the breaking out of the war the crops of the United States would be devoured by vermin because there was not enough skill in America to make a mousetrap.
One of the fundamental things which we have to bear in mind when we are endeavouring to make a nation is to take account of Canadian workmanship. Are we building up our factories? Are we making the necessary strides in manufacturing so that when we get
into trouble with any foreign nation our workmen will be so well equipped that they will have at hand the articles we require and we may not be dependent upon foreign nations?
I would stress that point to hon. members opposite. When you have cheap goods, which my hon. friends opposite are always talking about, you have cheap labour and a cheap policy. Wh-at we want to have in Canada is a policy whereby the Canadian workman will be supported just as much as the foreign workman-in fact, the Canadian workman first, the foreigner comes next. Like the Americans discovered they must become more Americanized, we must discover, sooner or later, we have to become more Canadianized. Would any man with common sense argue in this house that Canadians oan compete with the cheap labour of China or Japan, or of England and other countries where labourers are paid only from one-half to one-third the wages that Canadian labour receives? Are we going to bring Canadian labour down to the standards of living in the Orient? The United States of America year by year are enlarging their factories, increasing their production, equipping their shops with more efficient machinery, and engaging in mass production to a greater extent than ever before. How can we expect that Canada, which comparatively speaking is only a young country, can compete with the manufacturing industry in the United States, a country sixteen times as large? Is there any common sense in expecting us to be able to do it? Yet the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite is to put Canadian industry on an equal basis with that of the United States, to allow our smaller factories to be subject to competition with the huge factories across the line, and to expect them to pay the same wages that are paid to American workmen and to produce goods at the same cost.
I do not wish in any way to belittle the great industry of agriculture, because it is one of our basic industries. But surely the fanner must realize that when he buys machinery or farm implements made in other countries he is buying articles of foreign manufacture, and that that is an unpatriotic move so far as Canada is concerned. When will he come to realize that the cheapness he demands is not calculated to build up the factories of the east and provide for the population that is coming in? When will he realize that in this country we are crying for immigrants? We are having immigration committees inquire into the question why immigrants are not coming into Canada in greater numbers. If we feel that something is wrong we have only to turn our eyes southwards, where under protection the
1456	COMMONS
' The Budget-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)
factories of the neighbouring republic are booming, and thousands of Canadians are going thence to seek work. Our hon. friends opposite accuse us of always talking blue min and of decrying the principles which make for the upbuilding of a country. I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite that we are far from being blue ruinists. We believe in a policy which has built up another nation, and into whose markets we are now clamoring for admission. We believe in looking into the past and learning from it, and following those same principles which have built up the neighbouring republic. We are not blind to what is going on round about us. It is only a matter of common sense to determine what the future policy of this country should foe.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are now waiting to find out what the United States are going to do at the next session of congress. Why wait to see what they are going to do? Why not put into force in this country now a tariff which will provide work for Canadian workmen, build up our own factories, and make this young country a prosperous nation? When hon. gentlemen opposite have waited and have seen what the United States is going to do, are they going to come back to the House of Commons next session and say:	We cannot
do anything with regard to the tariff this year because we are waiting to see what Germany is going to do? And the following year they may be waiting to see what France is going to do. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the tariff policy of the Liberal party is to make a tariff against a foreign country, while the policy of the Conservative party is to make a tariff, not against any foreign country, but for the benefit of Canada.
The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) emphasized the word " retaliation " in connection with the tariff. He said:	Our
friends opposite are urging that we retaliate. Where in the world did he ever hear us use that word? The word "retaliation" has nothing whatever to do with the policy of the Conservative party. It is quite unnecessary; our tariff policy is not one which calls for retaliation against any foreign country. We make our tariff policy on the same principle on which the United States make theirs, and retaliation does not enter into it at all. It is my hon. friend himself who has interjected that word into the discussion. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) spoke of what the United States had agreed to at Geneva. But congress says, No, the protective principle is good enough for us; it has stood us in good stead and we will stick to it. Is there anything wrong in that? A pro-
tective policy which has been good enough for the United States in all these years of prosperity which it has enjoyed should certainly be good enough for a few more years to come. When congress meets and decides upon its tariff policy-and their ways and means committee is meeting to-day and discussing means of building up their own manufacturing, agricultural and mining industries -is there any reason why we, who are a foreign country to them, should exercise the threat of retaliation? The idea is ridiculous. These retaliatory measures which our friends opposite apparently intend to follow are the very measures which lead to international complications. Retaliation is a policy which should form no part of our national life, living as we do side by side with a friendly nation. We are supposed to be the binding link between the English-speaking nations of the world. We are a small nation with a great responsibility when we assume that role but I hope that we shall always be capable of that responsibility. We shall never maintain it, however, if my hon. friends opposite have nothing to offer to this country but a policy which calls for retaliation, and which seems a direct threat against the United States. My hon. friend from West Elgin mentioned nothing which would justify his charging hon. gentlemen on this side with being advocates of retaliation, because there is nothing in our policy, and especially in our tariff policy to suggest it.
What have we been buying from the United States? What have been our trade relations with them? Why are we on this side of the house objecting to the so-called tariff policy of hon. gentlemen opposite? I am afraid the Minister of Finance, who comes from the good old province of Quebec, must have found some difficulty in sliding over to the low tariff policy, because that is not the policy of the province of Quebec. The words " low tariff " are something new, I think, in the annals of the Liberal party from that province, and I for one am interested in	finding out	just how	low	theywill go in	their tariff	policy.	They	arepreaching low tariff this year, but next year, when they find they have to protect Canadian industry and Canadian goods, they will be the very ones to use the word " protection." They will not come to the house then with a low tariff policy, but they will say:	"We	will have to	build up	our	tariffto protect	Canadian industry."	In	other
words, there will be a change of front on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now, what have been our imports from the United States? These are startling figures, Mr. APRIL 10, 1929	1457
The Budget-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)
Speaker, and show the value of our imports from the United States in excess of the value of our exports to that country.
1921		 $217,568,000
1922		 158,338.000
1923		 177,484,000
1924		 101,519,000
1925		 97,430.000
1926		 190.855.000
1927		 215.719,000
1928		 312,049.000
Or a grand total in nine years of $1,470,960,-
000.	Now, air, in nine years this nation of 9,000,000 people bought from the neighbouring republic of 120,000,000 people $1,470,960,000 worth of goods in excess of the value of the goods we exported to them. Apparently we believe in supporting the American working man. we believe in supporting the American factory, we believe in our people going to the United States to build up that country. And yet my hon. friends opposite say that theirs is the right policy. How long are they going to persist in this disastrous policy? How long have we to stand idly by, with our population fixed at 9,000,000, losing hundreds of thousands of our best citizens, our artisans, to the United States every year? How long are we to continue educating our boys and girls to equip them to build up a foreign country? Yet this is the policy of our friends opposite. Would that policy be continued if we had the Conservative party in power? Certainly not. Under a Conservative administration would our young people be seeking work in a foreign country? Undoubtedly not. Is Canada such a poor place to live in that they would leave their native land to make their home in the United States? Not at all. And my hon. friends opposite know it.
Now let me take a few of our imports. We buy from the United States canned soups to a value that I am sure would surprise the house. I suppose hon. members opposite will say that Canadians are not capable of making good soups, that we cannot grow vegetables of a sufficiently high quality for the production of good soups. What is the value of our soup imports from the United States? These are the figures:
1923		 $ 923.973
1924		 1,122.979
And this under the Liberal policy which is supposed to bring about such great prosperity at home.
1925		 $1,141,271
1926		 1,236.793
1927		 1,400,264
Of course, we collected a little duty on these soup imports. Now, what were our exports of soups to the United States? This is very interesting because it shows the commercial ingenuity of the Americans engaged
in the soup industry. In 1923 we did not export one tin of soup; in 1924, likewise; in 1925, likewise; in 1926, $64 worth. In 1927 we did a big soup business, we shipped $6 to the United States and $10 worth to Alaska. That is one of the results of the policy of my hon. friends opposite. We buy American soups, made by American workmen, paid for in the United States, and-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Give them free advertising.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: Yes. Meanwhile our farmers complain that they cannot sell their vegetables. Under the policy of this administration there is no place in Canada for a soup factory and our farmers suffer; on the contrary the United States government protect their soup manufacturers and their farmers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I hope my hon. friends get a lot of satisfaction from their merriment, but it is ill timed. We as the representatives of the people of the Dominion are supposed to be legislating for their benefit, we are supposed to be building up the industries of Canada, we are supposed to be looking after the workingmen of Canada, and yet we enact legislation that tends to build up industry in the United States, apparently oblivious of the fact that the time will come when we shall be called to account for our failure to discharge our responsibilities and do something for the benefit of Canadians.
Ngiw, sir, let me turn to a different subject. This government is always telling us about the wonderful trade treaties it has negotiated with other countries. We have trade treaties with France and a dozen other nations. About the last to be negotiated was the treaty known as the West Indies Trade Agreement Act, dated July 6, 1925. Under this treaty we have entered into an agreement which will benefit the West Indies as well as Canada. We have a merchant marine with a deficit last year of about $6,000,000. One of the principle clauses of this agreement provides for the importation of bananas from the West Indies. Where are we getting our banana supplies to-day? We are giving Jamaica, Trinidad and the other West Indian islands a steamship service for which we have built several 6.000-ton ocean liners, which are provided with special refrigerator accommodation to bring bananas to our doors at a cheaper rate. But bananas are still coming into Canada duty free. No preference has been given the West Indies under this trade arrangement, and will not be given until, as the Liberal government says, " the service is com-

The Budget-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)
pleted." When will that service be complete? In the meantime where are we buying our bananas? We are buying them from the United States. And they do not grow bananas in the United States because that country imports them. We poor Canadians will allow American ships to bring in bananas from the very people with whom we have a trade agreement, delivering those bananas at New York or in some other American port, shipping them over American railroads to Buffalo or some other American port, and then into Canada. And we purchase them. This is taking place under the trade arrangement which this government made with the British West Indies. How do hon. gentlemen opposite explain it. Where is the benefit to Canadians? Have the Canadians paid less for bananas since the treaty went into force? Not at all. We are still buying bananas shipped from America and I presume we shall continue to buy them for several years. I cannot understand the principles underlying trade treaties that operate in this way. I should think that the Canadian government merchant marine ought to get the advantage of the freight in connection with bananas coming from Trinidad and Jamaica. As a matter of fact, this was understood when the treaty was under discussion in this house; the house understood that the treaty was being made including other things for the benefit of the banana trade in the West Indies. Read the trade agreement and you will find that accommodation is made for 70.000 bunches of bananas on every ship! But if you look at our imports from the West Indies you will find only a few dozen bunches of bananas coming up the Atlantic in some ocean greyhound bound for Canada.
As I stated in the beginning, I am a protectionist. As for the Conservative party, at the masthead of its ship of state flies the protectionist flag. It has in the past and it may again go down into the surging waters of defeat. But the ship will be raised by the wise foresight of a great people, having faith in their principles. And, sir, as the protectionist flag was the last thing to go under, it also will be the first thing to come up, flying more boldly than ever at the masthead, because of the renewed confidence of a common sense electorate believing in Canada first, last and always.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to say a few words regarding the subamendment moved on March 14 by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). That subamendment reads:

That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after "house" and substituting therefor the following:
"urges upon the government the consideration of an immediate and substantial increase of the British preference as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations."
This subamendment brings up the whole question of the British preference. The government have done nothing definite with regard to British preference, for they have on the tariff been everything by fits and starts and nothing for long and have no economic principles.
It was proposed two or three years ago to adopt a national coal policy so that every pound of coal would be mined and coked under the British flag, whether from Wales, Nova Scotia or Alberta. Such a policy would in the coal industry establish a real British preference. That was intended to implement the British preference policy and the government after a great many days adopted the resolution and then refused to carry it out. At the same time the question was discussed of affording protection to the ooal and steel industries of the maritime provinces, and for three or four years this was delayed also pending the completion of the Duncan report.
That policy was one of protection namely a system of bonuses, subventions and subsidies for the maritimes with respect to coal and steel.
But the government pooh-poohed the idea, declaring that it was not a suitable policy for this country. No; they were content to have this country send $56,000,000 a year over to Pennsylvania to help the mining industry there at the expense of the Welsh miners. The government have simply dilly-dallied with the whole problem from 1922 to the present time, and they have failed to put into effect the report of the Duncan commission, or adopt a national coal supply which would be equivalent to a British preference.
We are willing to consider what should be done to assist the motherland in a large way in order to encourage trade and industry within the empire, because trade should follow the flag; it should follow lines of national defence, Hon. gentlemen opposite have been talking a good deal about the British preference, quoting Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding as pioneers in this regard. But Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding were not the pioneers of the British preference movement; Hon. Joseph Chamberlain and Sir Charles Tupper and the 'ate Colonel George T. Denison were

The Budget-Mr. Church
the pioneers or authors of the whole movement. England to-day finds herself, a free trade country, shut out of the markets of the world. She has lost her shipbuilding orders to the Hamburg yards and she is losing her supremacy in coal, as the result of the failure of the colonies to come to her support in her hour of economic trial. After all, it is just as necesary in time of peace as it is in time of war for the country to mobilize all its resources, to keep its workmen employed, to preserve its own markets and to repel the foreign invader. It is just as necessary for Canada to mobilize in time of peace, to resist the economic invader at her door as it is for her in war to repel that invader. In war we mobilize our transportation facilities and all the natural and other resources of the country for the purposes of defence, and the same thing should apply in time of peace. What do we find in the mother country today? Thousands of men are starving in Wales and while this government can send millions to Japan and other countries to relieve distress from floods and famine, when they are asked to do something to bring relief to the Welsh miners they refuse to take action or to vote a copper. They simply make a football of the whole question; they say that they can do nothing because they have not been asked by the British government. Had this government been sincere they would have done something, sitting at the round table of the colonial conference and planning for a real British preference and cooperating with the overseas dominions, Australia and New Zealand, to work out a solution of the three major problems of the British empire defence, trade and immigration. The keynote of the empire trade problem is the extension of the British preference doctrine, bringing it up to date, and not relying upon the principle as it stood twenty or twenty-five years ago, when we had a lop-sided preference which was not a real preference at all. The British preference has been meddled with by the government, who have tried to introduce free trade piecemeal with the world at large.
We have entered into free trade arrangements with every country under the sun except such regions as Patagonia, to which the government have not as yet extended their free trade principles. Small "five, ten and fifteen cent" countries have been given preferences in our market and our tariff has been amended to give them free trade piecemeal, at the expense of the Canadian working man and in discrimination against the working man of the old land.
There are over a million and a half men out of work in England now, which shows that this present so-called British preference is of very little practical value in providing work there for our own kith and kin. If the government meant business at all, instead of saying at the last colonial conference that they were quite satisfied and had nothing at all to propose for the relief of unemployment in the old land or anything else, they would have sat around a table and done something to relieve the coal industry in Wales, for example, where there are millions of tons of coal which could be utilized in Canada to-day. The government have a merchant marine, although they sold some of the ships without public tender for $50,000; these ships could have been utilized to put the British preference into effect in a proper way in respect to coal and other products. Are we to continue to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the people of the United States while hundreds of thousands of our young people go to that country to live? Are we to be forever an adjunct to the United States in a trade sense? We buy from the United States every year $900,000,000 worth of high priced manufactured goods. The hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) said last night that 50 per cent of those goods could be manufactured in Canada, but in my opinion almost 70 per cent of the manufactured goods we import from the United States could be produced in this country. So I say the time has gone when the government can fool the people with their lopsided British preference and their pro-American tariff which operates against the unemployed in the old country. When we buy'goods from the United States we pay for them with our raw materials, and we cannot continue to do that much longer under such an absurd system of reciprocity. A special session of the United States congress has been called to meet this month to consider farm relief; I think a special session of this house should be called before the general election in England in order to see what we can do to relieve the unemployment in the old country and to adopt a real British preference. England is paying millions of dollars a day to the United States on account of the war debt, but England did the bulk of the fighting during the war and carried the financial burdens of most of the European countries as well. No one knows what England is going through to-day in an industrial way, but a rich dominion like Canada does nothing to
The Budget-Mr. Church

assist the mother country. A proper British preference which would protect British goods would d'o much in this direction.
Conditions have changed greatly in the old country during the past years. At one time England was a free trade country, the United States was a free trade country and so was Germany. The great German economist List has given a magnificent description of these countries years ago, when they all supported the free trade policy. The United States was invaded every year by an army of English commercial travellers until the great work of Horace Greeley, the founder of the New York Tribune, converted the people of the United States to protection, and to-d!ay it is the highest protected country in the world. In 1849 the Germans were so poor that they had to wear wooden shoes; that was under free trade, but later Germany adopted the principle of protection and became prosperous. The result was that in 1914 England had to ask the help of the United States to save her from the invader. We have a free trade government in Canada now; they are talking of low tariffs. At the special session of the United States congress to be held this month the question of farm relief is to be taken up, but on that question this government is a ship without a rudder; they have no farm relief policy at all. It is all very well to talk farm relief when the election is coming on, but with the Liberal party, platforms are made to get in on and not to stand on. They have no proper or adequate policy with regard to British preference and1 they will do nothing to help the Welsh miners. They even say that they have nothing to do with unemployment in Canada, that it is a matter for the provinces and the mumcipalities. The government have charge of the tariff, of trade and commerce and of the banking and immigration laws; they could make that British preference effective in two or three days if they wished to do so, but they refuse to take any action.
This is also the case in connection with empire marketing. At the Toronto exhibition the empire marketing board had a large exhibit which included some of the' articles mentioned in the budget. The British preference on those articles amounts to only five cents or one cent, and a lopsided preference such as that is no good at all; it is less than we are giving small European and South American countries. That is not the kind of British preference we want here. Welsh coal has been tried out in Canada and has been proved a superior brand of fuel, but nothing is done to further its sale in this country on a preferential basis.

In my opinion the overseas dominions are partly to blame for the condition of British industry to-day; as far as Canada is concerned, we are buying too much from the people of the United States. Loyalty in Canada seems to be largely lip loyalty, -when you get down to brass tacks. We bought more goods from the United States than England bought, with four times our population; we bought twice as much as Germany, with six times our population, and we bought twice as much as France, which has five times our population. In 1928 Canada spent $3,000,000 per day across the line, largely for clothing, boots, shoes and many other articles on this list of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), when a large part of this trade could have been carried on with the motherland. Are you content to continue this policy? If you are, then the British Empire must fail because trade follows the flag. Are you content to spend $400,000,000 to-day, when in 1896, wfith a population of only a few million less, we were spending only $36,000,000? We should give the motherland preference in our market by a real reciprocal preference tariff and not a lopsided one.
The government is doing very little for the people of the old land with its immigration policy. Immigration is related to the tariff; the two are interlocked and correlated; one cannot exist without the other and the immigration question is also related to that of the British preference. There can be no immigration as long as the present free trade panAmerican tariff policy is in force. What is the use of putting 10,000 more immigrants into the west, when there is no work for them and when you cannot market your crops properly. The grain growers of the west are suffering untold hardships, not only with regard to transportation facilities, but in an economic way. These hardships are brought about by the competition they have to meet from across the border. I might quote the great German economist List, who described England about 1840 as:
Supreme in every branch of manufacture, as a world's metropolis which supplies all nations with manufactured goods, a treasure house of all great capital, a banking establishment for all nations, which controls the circulating medium of the whole world, and by loar-s and the receipt of interest on them makes all the peoples of the earth her tributaries. In vain did the Germans humble themselves to the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water to the Britons; the latter treated them worse than a subject people.
Then we should see the United States at that same time, in 1840, invaded every year by an army of British commercial travellers. We should then have a picture of a com-

Questions
para-tive situation of the three countries at the outbreak of the war, Germany producing twice as much steel and iron as England, the United States with an even vaster production, the two countries towering in their industrial strength above the nation which had once supplied both with everything they required except food and timber. These comparative diagrams might be accompanied by others to show how national power was a reflection of industrial power, and ho.w free trade England which, as a protected country, had once ruled the world, was compelled to invoke the aid of one great protected country, the United States, to assist her in repelling the attack of another.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 11, 1929