GRADING OF GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
Report prepared by associate committee on grain research, National Research Council, being interim report on protein content as a factor in grading of wheat.-Mr. Malcolm.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 80, to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicles).
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The appalling loss of life
in this country from motor cars operated by hit and run drivers has been commented on by many supreme court and superior court judges in all of the provinces as well as by grand juries and coroners' juries. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost, and the necessity for the introduction of a -bill of this character was emphasized by Chief Justice Meredith at the London assizes last month, when His Lordship made the statement that everyone knew or should know that the provisions of the criminal code were so uncertain and inconsistent as to be quite inadequate to meet present needs in this matter. The object of this bill is to repeal the section in the criminal code relating to motor vehicles and to enact a provision w'hich will more fully meet the situation. The amendment covers reckless driving, injury to persons, racing, cut-, ting in, hit and run driving and the provision th-a-t death caused by motor cars shall be deemed to be murder. Under the code as it 
stands, murder or manslaughter may be charged where the victim dies, in the case of a hit and run driver, -but if the victim survives after injuries there is no penalty except fine under the various motor vehicles acts, and -there is no section of the -code to fit such a case. The amendments are intended to cover such cases.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. PRICE:: 1.	Will -all employees at -present engaged on railways -being taken over by the Canadian National Railways be retained in as good positions as at present, and advanced in the service in accordance with their ability?
2.	What wall be done in so far -as participating in the new Canadian National Railways' pension scheme for those employees working on railways now or hereafter -acquired by the Canadian National Railways?
3.	What maximum -age limit will permit an employee, medically fit, to enter the service and participate in pension benefits?
4.	How many years' service -are required and at what age may an employee under the new Canadian National Railways' pension scheme apply for a retiring allowance?
5.	What percentage of his pay will he receive if retired, owing to injury, or incapacity, before the expiration of the ordinary years of service required for pension?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Full consideration will be given to each individual and if retained in the service each will be given credit for seniority earned on the line on which employed.
2.	Any employees of railways acquired by the Canadian National will participate in the proposed pension plan in the same way as employees now in the service of the railway.
3.	Fifty years of age is the maximum.
4.	The age at which an employee becomes eligible for pension is 65, and 15 years' continuous service are required to qualify.
5.	All pension allowances are calculated at the rate of one per cent for each year of service on the highest average rate of wages or pay during any ten consecutive years of service.
Pensions to disabled or incapacitated employees are granted as follows:

Questions
To an employee of the age of 60 and under 65 years with 20 or more years of service to his credit retired by reason of permanent physical or mental disability upon the certfi-cate of the company's chief medical officer that for such reason the employee is unfitted to follow his usual or any other suitable employment in the company's service.
To an employee who, after ten or more years of service to his credit, becomes incapable of continuing his service by reason of injuries received whilst actually at work in the employment of the company, but only for so long as his incapacity shall continue.


IMMIGRANTS ENTERING IN 1928
Mr. MANION:: 1.	How many immigrants came into Canada 'during the calendar year 1928?
2.	What numbers by nationalities?


Mr. FORKE:: 1.	166,782.	.
2.	By origins:
British:
English	 28,762
Irish	 8,875
Scotch	 15,183
Welsh	 3,028
55,848
Preferred countries:
Finnish	 3,674
French	 675
German	 13,664
Swiss	 473
Danish	 3,732
Icelandic	 26
Norwegian	 2,241
Swedish	 3,424
27,909
Albanian	 31
Armenian	 11
Austrian	 425
Belgian	 1,261
Bohemian	 9
Bulgarian	 265
Croatian	 1,087
Czech	 980
Dalmatian	 1
Dutch	 1,569
East Indian	 55
Esthonian	 107
Greek	 685
Hebrew	 3,532
Italian	 849
Japanese	 535
Jugo-Slav	 2,890
Lettish	 74
Lithuanian	 1,785
Magyar	 6,265
Maltese	 25
Moravian	 7
Negro	 92
Persian	 1
Polish	 8,319
Portuguese	 13
Roumanian	 283
Russian	 957
Ruthenian	 16,039
Serbian	 399
Slovak	 4,438
Spanish	 20
Spanish American	 2
Syrian	 81
Turkish	 2
Via ocean ports	 136,849
From United States	 29,933
Total immigration	 166,782


MULGRAVE-PORT HAWKESBURY FERRY
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 11.	Do all coastal service boats either operated or subsidized by the Dominion government comply strictly with the regulations?
12.	Were any complaints or representations concerning the operation of the strait of Canso ferry made to the Dominion government, or any department or official of the government?
13.	If so, from what persons, on what dates, and of what nature?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The collector of national revenue, Port Hawkesbury.
3.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries as per telegram to the collector of national revenue at Port Hawkesbury, dated 13th September, 1928, signed by E. Hawken, Assistant Deputy Minister of Marine, reading as follows: "You will stop ferry steamers Pont de Canseau and Sir Charles Tupper from running and carrying passengers . until such time as they comply with requirements Shipping Act as regards inspection, equipment and certificated officers and engineers."
4.	No.
5.	On July 11, 1927, J. E. Belliveau of the Department of Highways, Halifax, N.S., was advised by telegram that it was reported that ferries on the strait of Canso were operating without properly certificated officers on board. On the 13th September, 1928, a telegram in the following terms was sent to J. E. Belliveau, Department of Highways, Halifax: "Following telegram has been sent collector of customs, Port Hawkesbury. Begins. You will stop ferry steamers Pont de Canseau and Sir Charles Tupper from running and carrying passengers until such time as they comply with requirements Shipping Act as regards inspection, equipment and certificated officers and engineers." On August 24, 1928, the Department of Highways, Halifax, was telegraphed to as follows: "Am in receipt of telegram from collector national revenue, Hawkesbury, begins: Ferry steamer Pont de Canseau 102 tons register carrying eleven automobiles at present operating without certified captain or mate, ferry steamer Sir Charles Tupper 140 tons register carrying 16 automobiles at present operating without certified mate, both boats only carry three men each, not sufficient to handle lifeboats in emergency. Ends. Will be obliged if subject matter this complaint will receive immediate attention. Stop. With reference to requirements please see sections ninety-four and ninety-five of chapter 186 revised statutes." On 17th October, 1928, J. E. Belliveau was advised that unless action was taken to comply with the law and regulations the vessels would be seized and detainer'
TMr. Macdougall.]
6.	Action detaining ferries was taken on 23rd October, 1928. It was considered that sufficient notice bad been given to enable compliance with the regulations.
7.	It is the intention of the government to carry out the provisions of chapter 186, revised statutes, 1927, and the regulations made thereunder respecting the inspections, manning and life-saving equipment of steamers carrying passengers.
8.	All ferries of which the Department of Marine and Fisheries has knowledge are required to comply with the law and regulations in that behalf.
9.	Ferries other than those operating on the strait of Canso have been stopped for failure to comply with the law and regulations.
10.	All Canadian National railway ferries are subjected to and comply with the pro- * visions of the law and regulations.
11.	All coastal service boats whether operated or subsidized by the Dominion government are required to comply with the terms of the law and regulations and so far as the department has knowledge they do actually comply.
12.	Yes.
13.	W. V. McLean, August 17, 1928; P. J. Walker, July 9, 1927, August 28, 1928, September 6, 1928; W. L. Murray, August 28, 1928; Wm. Duff, September 29, 1928; and Captain Mitchell, supervising examiner of masters and mates, Halifax, October 6, 1928.


DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL DEFENCE-ARREARS OF SALARIES
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What action has been taken by the government in regard to the reference on page X, of the Auditor General's report for 1927-8, vol.
1,	commencing at page 220-"Arrears of salaries, National Defence department"?
2.	Why were these arrears not provided for by parliament?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Provision for the arrears in question was made in supplementary vote 419, 1928-29.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


BILLINGS BRIDGE POST OFFICE
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	How long has a vacancy existed in the position of postmaster at Billings Bridge, Ontario?
2.	What are the names of the applicants for the said position?
3.	Why has the vacancy not been filled?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Post office vacant since the 6th December, 1927.

Question as Order for Return
2.	Hector Doresa, Wm. T. Phillips, Mrs. K. Campbell, Edward Sutherland, Mrs. Violet Daisy Dowler, Joseph Henri Lemoine, James Henry McCullough, John Sinclair, Andrew Amos Brule.
3.	Certificate for permanent appointment issued by the Civil Service Commission on the 14th March, 1929.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-APPOINTMENTS
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: What is the total number of cases in which the present Postmaster General, his deputy or his department, or either of them, have rejected or refused .to accept the recommendations of the Civ.il Service Commission as to appointments?


Mr. VENIOT:: 32.



CANADA GRAIN ACT

Mr. BOCK:: 1.	By what amount did the revenue obtained from the administration of the Canada Grain Act exceed the expenditures in each year since 1926?
2.	What revenue was obtained from terminal elevator overages in the western inspection division for the same years?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1. Fiscal year	
1925-26			$1,083,679 07
1926-27			 573,287 58
1927-28			 635,043 35
1928-29			 672,180 19
2. Crop year	
1925-26			 nil
1926-27			$ 173,206 69
1927-28			65,913 26
1928-29			 14,465 02
The figures given in answer to question No. 2 are also included in the answer to No. 1.
AUDITOR general's REPORT


Mr. FRASER:: What action has been taken by the government in regard to the reference in the Auditor General's report of 1927-28, at Page XI, 1st volume, directing attention to the contravention of section 59 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, .in charging the expenses of three departmental officials to civil government contingencies vote, instead of. to the vote Deep Sea Fisheries?


Mr. CARDIN:: See page 220 of the said report.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. CANTLEY:: 1. What persons have acted as expert advisers to the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation since its creation in 1926?
2.	When was each appointment made and on what matter is he an expert?
3.	What is the duration of the expert's engagement ?
4.	How many days has each devoted to the service ?
5.	What remuneration has been paid to each, from time of appointment, to date?


Mr. ROBB:: Return tabled herewith:
I,	2, 3, 4, 5. Dr. A. W. G. Wilson, expert of Department of Mines, was employed July and August, 1926, and on various occasions since has been called upon to advise in matters of metallurgical research. Paid $300.
Dr. W. A. Mackintosh was employed during summer and fall of 1927 and 1928 (approximately 9 months), as an investigating officer in connection with inquiries re textiles, sugar, iron and steel. Paid $3,574.19.
Prof. G. E. Jackson was employed in 1927 and 1928 (approximately 4i months), as an investigating officer in connection with inquiries re textiles and printed matter. Paid $1,806.88.
Prof. Henry C. Grant was employed during summer of 1927 as an investigating officer in connection with inquiry re fruits and vegetables. Paid $480.
R. P. Sparks was retained in the fall of 1927 to prepare certain data relating to textiles and was paid a fee of $250.
Prof. W. R. Maxwell was employed in 1928 as an investigating officer (about six weeks), in connection with inquiries re coal and coke and fruits and vegetables. Paid $420.43.
D. H. McDougall was retained in November, 1928, as an expert in connection with inquiries re coal and coke and iron and steel. Services are given as required, totalling to date 25 days. Paid $2,500.
George D. Macdougall was retained in December last as an expert in connection with inquiry regarding iron and steel. Services are given as required, totalling to date 20 days. Paid $1,000.
J.	Dix Fraser was retained in November, 1928, as an expert in connection with inquiry re iron and steel. Services are given as required, totalling to date 20 days. No fee paid as yet.
Alex. MacDonald, freight tariffs expert, was retained in November, 1928, and paid a fee of $200.
H. F. Wilson, industrial engineer, was retained at various times during 1927 and 1928 for independent investigations. Fees paid $720.58.



Unopposed Motions for Papers



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MERCIER (for Mr. Casgrain):: For a copy of requests and representations, telegrams, letters and other documents, exchanged by and between the government of Canada or the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, relative the entry into the Palais station at Quebec of the trains of the Quebec and Saguenay Railway and the Quebec and Lake St. John.



PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY-PAPER SUPPLIES

Mr. STEVENS:: For a return showing the quantities and prices of paper supplies shipped from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery to the different departments of the government service in the city of Vancouver during the years 1927 and 1928, including such supplies as wrapping paper, toilet paper, paper towels, printing paper and twine, together with freight or express charges on the same.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return showing the quantities of paper supplies of all kinds purchased by the Department of Printing and Stationery for the years 1927 and 1928, and showing the price paid for the same, the parties from- whom purchases were made with the quantities in each case, and whether or not tenders were called for the same.



ASSISTANT CUSTOMS APPRAISER-GAUGERS DIVISION

Mr. BOUCHARD (for Mr. Power):: For a copy of all applications, ratings and other documents in the possession of the Civil Service Commission, together with a copy of the report of proceedings and decisions thereof, with respect to the appointment of an assistant customs appraiser, Gaugers division, Quebec.



BRIDGE BETWEEN GRENVILLE AND HAWKESBURY

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac) (for Sir George Per ley):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, requests, and other documents, received or sent by the government, during the past three years, in connection with the proposed highway bridge across the Ottawa river between Grenville, Quebec, and Hawkesbury, Ontario.



FERRY BETWEEN PORT HAWKESBURY AND MULGRAVE

Mr. MACDOUGALL:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other memoranda, relating to an attempt by officials of the federal government to interfere with, or stop, the operation of the * 
Nova Scotia government ferry operating between Port Hawkesbury and Mulgrave, in the province of Nova Scotia.



SLAUGHTER- OF TUBERCULOUS CATTLE

Mr. JOHNSTONE (for Mr. MacNutt):: For a return showing-
1.	The total amount paid in compensation in the province of Nova Scotia, for animals slaughtered under the Animals Contagious Disease Act, termed The Health of Animals, in each of the years ending March 31, 1926, 1927, and 1928;
2.	The amount of compensation paid for cattle slaughtered as re-actors to the tuberculin test for tuberculosis, in each year mentioned;
3.	The amount paid as compensation for pure bred registered cattle, and average payment per head. Also showing the same information for grade cattle;
4.	The total amount paid in each year in
salaries, wages and travelling expenses1 to offi-cials_ of the Department of Agriculture in connection with the administration of the tuberculin test for cattle in the province of Nova Scotia;
5.	The total amount paid in each year, in salaries, wages and travelling expenses to officials of the Department of Agriculture, in connection with the administration of the tuberculin test throughout the Dominion for the years ending March 31, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928.



DEVELOPMENT OF POWER AT MORRISBURG

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, agreement and orders in council, between the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, or the government of the province of Ontario, or any member thereof, and the government of Canada, or any member thereof, relating to an application for lease by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario to develop and generate power at Morrisburg, including the minutes of hearing and evidence taken before the Honourable the Minister of Public Works on said application for a permit under Navigable Waters Protection Act, and for the approval of the plans of said proposed works.



CHICAGO WATER DIVERSION

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, orders in council and all other documents between the government of Canada, or any member thereof, and the government of the United States, in relation to the_ Chicago diversion of waters, covering the period since the return brought down in the session of 1928 to date.



HOUSE OF COMMONS EMPLOYEES

Mr. DUFF:: For a return giving the names and remuneration of all the persons employed in the House of Commons, in the position of messengers, charwomen and cleaning staff, during the sessions

Motor and Pleasure Boats
of parliament for the calendar years 1927 and 1928, as well as the names and remuneration of those employed during the whole of 1927 and 1928, with the further information as to where and for whom said employees worked during said periods.



POSTMASTER AT BILLINGS BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPENCE (for Mr. Stewart (Leeds)):
For a copy of all reports, recommendations, correspondence, memoranda or other documents on file in any department of the government, in any way relating to the appointment of a postmaster to fill the vacancy now existing at Billings Bridge, Ontario.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPENCE (for Mr. Stewart (Leeds)):
For a copy of all reports, recommendations, correspondence, memoranda and other documents, on file in any department of the government, in any w-ay relating to the appointment of one Berthiaume, as postmaster at Hawkes-bury, Ontario.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: In view of the fact that Canada was a signatory to the labour .convention with respect to the eight hour day I would' like to. ask if it is the intention of the government to put that eight hour day into effect with regard to departs ments or employees of the government now working more than eight hours .a day?


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: In reply I would say that the government are considering the matter.



MOTOR AND PLEASURE BOATS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A few days ago
several questions were brought forward by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ont.aiio (Mr. McGibbom) with regard to the licensing of small boats in certain waters. I observe that the hon. member is not in his seat at present, but since he appeared quite anxious to have these questions answered I would like to present a statement which I have prepared in regard to this matter.
For many years past representations have been made to this department concerning the need for rules that would effectively control the motor boat situation, to ensure that all craft operating at night should carry proper lights and that boats should not be driven at 78594-65J
excessive speeds in minor waters. Some ten years ago representations along these lines were first submitted to the department by the municipal council of Madora and Wood through Doctor McGibbon, then as now a member of the House of Commons. These representations were endorsed by the Humphrey township council and by the council of the town of Gravehhurst. Since then delegations representing the Muskoka Lakes Association, which is a particularly active body in that district, have been coming to the department urging that regulations be made and put into effect on the Muskoka lakes for the protection of the lives of those who are using these waters. These representations became so insistent that last year the department decided to enact regulations under the provisions of section 7 of .chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, providing for the licensing and operation of small boats in certain areas. It was decided, however, that these regulations should not become effective last year. Due notice was given in the press that these regulations had beeD enacted and that it was the intention that they should become effective.
As indicating the view taken of these regulations by the Muskoka Lakes Association, the following resolution was passed at the annual meeting of that body, held on August 14, 1928:
Moved by Sir Thomas White and seconded by Mr. F. C. Gratwich that this association fully approve of the new regulations governing small boats, and that our secretary write the Department of Marine thanking the Minister of Marine, the Hon. Mr. Cardin, and the Deputy Minister of Marine, Mr. Johnston, for their kind consideration .and courtesy shown our committee who waited on them on several occasions regarding this important matter, and that our secretary in writing request that the new regulations be put in force on our lakes "as described" next spring, and also request that the Department of Marine advertise the new regulations by poster in all the post offices bordering the lakes by April 15th, and give small boat owners one month .to procure the necessary equipment before securing their licenses from the harbour traffic officer, and further that this association heartily approves the action of our executive committee in recommending to the Department of Marine Mr. W. R. Winter, our secretary, for the post of harbour traffic officer with headquarters at Port Carling. Carried unanimously.
On the 15th February last the president and secretary of the Muskoka Lakes Association visited the department and requested that an order in council be passed applying the regu-
Motor and, Pleasure Boats

lations definitely to the Muskoka lakes during the present season. In view of the fact that it was generally known since last July that it was intended to make the regulations effective in that area this year, and no protest having been received from any quarter, accordant action was taken and the order in council of February 28, 1929-P.C. 363-was passed, a copy of which is herewith submitted. A copy of the order in council of July 12, 1928-P.C. 170-enacting the regulations is also submitted herewith.
The regulations are designed, not for the purpose of creating positions or obtaining revenue, but simply and solely for the protection of 'human life and property. The fees to be derived from the licenses will be applied towards paying the expenses of the traffic officer and the assistance which will be necessary to properly enforce the regulation.
The view of the Muskoka Lakes Association are set forth in a telegram from the president of that association to the Prime Minister, dated March 15, and reading as follows:
Having noticed a criticism of the regulations for Muskoka by Mr. Peter McGibbon made in the House of Commons, I beg to state that the Muskoka Lakes Association of thirty-five years standing and entirely non-political has been negotiating with the Department of Marine for the new regulations for over three years. The members of our association can not be termed as tourists. They are houseowners who pay taxes and operate ten times as many boats asj do the yearly residents. Our lakes are positively unsafe without proper regulations and their enforcement. I have personally talked to many yearly residents of Muskoka and found them all strongly in favour of the new regulations and I firmly believe that eighty per cent of the yearly residents are in favour of the new regulations. I wish respectfully to call your attention to our year book and a letter of August 14th to Mr. A. Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine. I trust, honourable sir, that the criticism made will not have the slightest effect on the new regulations which we have been striving for years to have put in force.
That is the situation.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are ships that
pass in the night.


Mr. BENNETT:: I am quite sure the
member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) will be very pleased to receive this information from the minister as a striking illustration of government by order in council.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It could not be done in
any other way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes it could.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 15, 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 df Mr. Spencer.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the short time at my disposal I can only extend a brief but very sincere word of congratulation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and also to the country, on the financial proposals which he has put before the house. I will also deal with some phases of the address made by the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and in doing so I desire to pay him the compliment of having delivered an address which was marked wiith ability, but which at the same time displayed a great deal olf ingenuity and dexterity.
The hon. member is a fine advocate and he displayed a good deal of ability in selecting facts and circumstances which would best meet his purposes, and, in disregarding of omitting to make reference to any embarrassing circumstances or facts which would interfere with his arriving at the conclusion Which he sought- I will endeavour to point out one or two omissions Which he made and which, had he dealt with them, I think might have given a different impression and led to a different result in his reasoning. Take his discussion of what he called the burden of taxation. As has been done previously in this house-for want of a better argument- the hon. member disregarded entirely the fact that there had been reductions in the rates of taxation. He disregarded the fact that under this administration something like $241,000,000 in taxes had been remitted to the people of Canada, and resorted to the expedient of taking an adding machine and arriving at the total amount of revenue received during the last five years of Conservative government and comparing it with the total received during the last five years of Liberal government. He concluded with the argument that because the total of the last five years under Liberal government was $259,000,000 greater than the total of the 'last five years of Conservative rule, therefore what he calls the burden of taxation has been increased. He even went to the extent of averaging the amount of the increased burden of taxation

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
each year, and reducing that average to a per capita increase. I would point out to the hon. member that the so-called burden of taxation, which is after all t'he revenue which has been obtained from the people of this country in connection with the administration of the public services, was increased between those two five-year periods by something like 15 per cent. The hon. member cited a statement of the late Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone that the rate of taxation meant nothing but that the burden of taxation meant everything. He knows, and the members of this house know perfectly well, that when Mr. Gladstone made that statement he referred not only to the amount but to the capability of the people to bear the burden; the burden of taxation does not mean simply the gross amount, but it refers also to the ability of the people to carry that burden. Therefore, I submit, that in this respect the hon. member omitted to mention a very important fact.
I have before me a comparison of the volume of business-after all, that is what taxation is paid upon-for those two five-year periods. These figures, which appear in the statistics of this Dominion, cover the business done in forestry, mining, construction, manufacturing, trade as indicated by employment in trading establishments, imports, exports, car loadings, shares traded in, and bank debits. The index figure representing the volume of business for the years 1919 to 1921-I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member the figures for 1918, the year he began with, because the statistics have not been made up for that year -is 93.1. I have the same figure for the last four years of Liberal rule-the hon. member referred to the last five years-from 1925 to 1928 inclusive, and it is not 93.1, as it was for the last three years of Conservative rule, but 141.8. There has therefore been an increase of 50 per cent in the volume of business and an increase of less than 15 per cent in revenue collected. That is a very salient fact which the hon. member omitted to mention. He might just as well have said because the country paid 817,000,000 more freight rates last year than was paid the year before that it can be said that there was an increase in the burden of freight rates. But there was no such thing; there was an increase in business, and business was perfectly willing to pay for the facilities to carry on and to take advantage of the prosperity which existed in this country. When my hon. friend compared the period of 1918 to 1922 with the period of 1925 to 1929, he made a comparison concerning a different Canada altogether; a Canada which
had emerged from the gloom which existed during the last five years of Conservative rule and had entered into the sunlight of prosperity under Liberal rule.
Allow me to mention another omission which my hon. friend made. It is always a good test to find out what a governing [DOT] or directing body does with the money which is paid in to or collected by that institution. The hon. member stated that during the period from 1918 to 1922 our friends the Conservatives received and spent $1,739,802,000. That is true. They received that amount and they spent it. But what more did they do? They did not balance their expenditures and I want my hon. friends to note that I have allowed them for all the expenses which are known as war and demobilization expenses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For what year?


James Layton Ralston: For the years 1918 to 1922, and I think my hon. friends, when they are permitted to take off the total of the war and demobilization expenses, are getting the benefit of a good deal, because many items which really belong to current expenses appear in that particular account. I have also given them the benefit of assets transferred from the active to the non-active list, and I still find they are in the hole to the extent of $149,839,032, after receiving the full amount of $1,739,-
802,000	which my hon. friend mentioned the other day. In other words, to take care of current outgoings, leaving aside the transfer of assets from the active to the non-active list, and war and demobilization expenditures, they required $1,8S9,641,032.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend must be
wrong as to that because Mr. Fielding in 1922 said just the opposite. He said the railway deficits.


James Layton Ralston: I will give my hon. friends the figures taken from the public accounts. I repeat that, having allowed my hon. friends war and demobilization expenses amounting to $1,155,510,989 and after having deducted $237,599,483 for transfer of assets from the active to the non-active list, I find that there is still an increase in debt of $149,839,032. I add that to the amount which my hon. friends collected as revenue and I find the figure which I gave a moment ago of $1,889,641,032.
On the other hand let us take the five years of Liberal rule. As my hon. friend said, we collected $1,998,991,000 and instead of adding to the public debt, as my hon. friends did, to
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

the tune of $149,000,000, we paid off $190,715,041 of the debt created by my hon. friends opposite, with the result that all we had to spend for current outgoing was not $1,889,000.,000 odd, which my hon. friend referred to, but $1,808,275,969.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Has the minister made
any allowance in his figures for railway deficits?


James Layton Ralston: I expected my hon. friend would ask that. The Conservatives did lend the railways on account of deficit and capital $213,000,000 more than' the Liberals did out of current outlay, but on the other side the Liberals paid for pensions and interest $207, 000,000 more than the Conservatives did, so that one almost balances the other.


Hugh Guthrie: The statement which I
made, and which is in Hansard, was that this revenue did not take account of war demobilization and railway expenditures.


James Layton Ralston: I am pointing out that
the amount of money which my hon. friends collected was not sufficient to balance current outgoings and they had to go into debt to the tune of $149,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.


James Layton Ralston: We collected $259,000,000 more but we were able to pay off $190,000,000 of their debt.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where does my hon.
friend find that in the public accounts?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will have
an opportunity to reply. I have waited quite a while for my forty minutes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The statement is not correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement is not correct. Mr. Fielding's budget is clear.


James Layton Ralston: I am speaking of the
statement by the bon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). Let us consider another admission which my hon. friend made. He spoke at some length of the increase in imports of agricultural implements, and he rather indicated that this was injuring the agricultural implement industry in this country. I think it would have been fair if he had compared the import of agricultural implements with the actual increase in production of agricultural implements in this country. Let me give the figures for two years.
Year	Production
1923	 $26,026,419
1927	 42,996,288

An increase of practically 50 per cent in those four years, notwithstanding the decrease in duty of which my hon. friend complained. Something else happened. Nobody apparently was hurt very much by the decrease in duty and by the additional importation of agricultural implements.


Mr. MANION:: Except the people of Canada who did not get the work.


James Layton Ralston: There can be only two
reasons for the importation of agricultural implements. One is that the farming community must have been able to secure them cheaper, or else the Canadian industry must have been so rushed with orders that it did not have an opportunity to manufacture them to supply the demand. We must also remember at the same time that during those four years, or, in fact, during two years, Massey-Harris stock, which in March, 1926, was worth fifty, in March, 1927, had risen to one hundred and fourteen. It was split four to one in April, 1927, and to-day it is at eighty-four. In other words, the old stock that was worth $50 is now worth $336, which is an indication that the agricultural implement industry is not suffering.


Mr. McGIBBON:: The money was not
made in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: I will give my hon.
friend an opportunity. Let me point this out. My hon. friends have talked a good deal and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) was particularly strong in talking about red-blooded Canadianism, and the fact that by a stroke of the pen-


Robert James Manion: I did not use that term
at all.


James Layton Ralston: Well, two or three other hon. gentlemen did. The hon. member for South Wellington said half a dozen strokes of the pen would stop these importations-


Robert James Manion: I used the term "redblooded" but not "a stroke of the pen."


James Layton Ralston: He said last year that
red-blooded Canadianism would wipe out those imports. My hon. friend was a member of a government years ago.


Robert James Manion: Not for long.


James Layton Ralston: No. I have taken occasion to look up the record of what was imported from the United States in those years and after all this red-blooded Canadianism did not seem to have asserted itself very

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
much. I find that the figures with regard to our trade with the United States are as follows:
Adverse
Fiscal Year	trade balance
1912-	13	
$285,000,0001913-	14	
219,000,000
This was money going over to the United States in excess of what was coming back into Canada. I have jumped over the war years because I think that is fair.
1919-	20	
$299,000,0001920-	21	
295,000,0001921-	22	
211,000,0001927-28	
222,000,000
It stood at between S200,000,000 and $300,000,000 against us very year my hon. friends were in power since 1911, except in the war years, and yet that red-blooded Canadianism did not assert itself. That old clock in the Victory tower which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) described, was not going, but another one was, and those dollars were going over the United States border. Nevertheless the old pen was allowed to rust on the desk, and the old ink-well was empty. There was no stroke of the pen at any time. I think my hon. friends ought to begin at home. Of course this red-blooded Canadianism exerts itself now that my hon. friends are in opposition. I am reminded of two boys at school who were about to engage in an altercation. The teacher got one of them firmly by the back of the neck, and then the boy got very courageous and shouted: "Let me at him!" Now that my hon. friends are restrained by the fact that they are in opposition, now that they have no responsibility, they are very red-blooded when they are over there, but it is a different story when they get on the treasury benches. As a matter of fact, money is constantly going over to the United States, just as it always has been. I want to remind my hon. friends that we have had in this country during the last year or two some reasons even for increases in imports from the United States. We are using in this country a good deal of machinery which is not made here, and if my hon. friends had attended before the tariff board, they would have heard Canadian manufacturers themselves admitting that much of this machinery could not be made here. Industry in this country is constantly expanding, and we are needing this machinery. Machinery and facilities are needed for the development of our resources all over the Dominion, and it is as a result of that that there has been some increase in imports from the United States. But I do think that
industry in this country has obtained full value for what it has imported, and that workmen in Canada are fairly well employed, notwithstanding what my hon. friends opposite have said with regard to conditions in the large centres. I am going to deal in a moment with the figures given by my hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition in regard to unemployment, but I suggest that my hon. friends opposite begin housecleaning at home rather than use all their red-blooded Canadianism only when they are sitting on the other side of the house.


Robert James Manion: The house needs it more
when you are over there.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend-I do
not mean this personally-supplies it at least so far as putting it on record is concerned, but I do not think he has done much over on this side.


Robert James Manion: I was not there long
enough.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: All the white corpuscles are over there.


James Layton Ralston: Now my hon. friend from South Wellington selected certain figures with regard to unemployment, and he indicated that unemployment was greater now. He said that he had the employment index figures and would give them. He turned them up and gave something which I think rather astounded the house. I do not think very many people realized that there was such a figure in existence. What did he give? He gave the figures of unemployment for December 1922 as 6.4 and for December 1928 as 6.6. If he had looked at the title at the top of the table-I have no doubt that he had in his hands the Labour Gazette of February 1929, the very same book I have in my hands now-he would have seen that he was quoting from the "Percentage of Unemployment as Reported by Trades Unions", and if he had read, as he should have done, the article in which this table is inserted, he would have found that this was a report from 1,695 labour organizations with 190,000 odd members. That was not a large percentage of the number of people who are employed in the Dominion of Canada. If my hon. friend wanted to use the unemployment figures, I submit that he should not have picked out the month of December, because that is not a very good month for anybody; it is not a very good .month to select if the purpose is to indicate what the normal conditions are. He should at least have taken the average for the year. If he had done that, he would have found that the average unemploy-

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
ment figure in 1922 was 7, and in 1928, 4.5. But he could have done better than that if he had turned back a few pages in the book from which he was quoting. Then he would have found, not the unemployment figures for 1,695 labour organizations with 190,000 odd members, but the employment figures as reported by firms in Canada employing over 15 men, whether in trades unions or not, and running up to about 910,000 employees. That is the figure he would have found just a few pages back, but apparently he missed that. I am going to give the figures that appear on page 206 of that same record; they show that the employment figure in Canada in 1922 was 78.8 and in 1928, 116.6. Those are the figures which are given in the book which my hon. friend had in his hands. I wish to point out also that employment in the last six months of 1928 was at the highest point it has ever reached since these statistics have been kept.
Let me add, for the benefit of my friends from the maritime provinces, that employment in the maritime provinces for the last six months of 1928 reached the highest point it has ever reached since the record began and particularly as regards winter employment. The figures show this comparison. In November, 1927, the employment figure was
100.1,	and in November, 1928, the figure was 109.5; in December 1927 it was 99.1. and in December 1928, 108.1; in January 1928, it was
97.1,	and in January, 1929, 103.3. I have another figure even more recent, showing that in February, 1928, the employment figure was 97, and in February 1929, 104.6.


Mr. PRICE:: Where did my hon. friend
get those figures regarding the maritime provinces, did he get them from the employment bureau?


James Layton Ralston: I get them from page
206 of the Labour Gazette of February. 1929, from the returns made to the labour department by firms employing 15 men or over. t I should have liked to speak of conditions in the maritime provinces generally, with regard to agriculture, with regard to the great fishing industry which is developing there by leaps and bounds, with regard to the manufacturing industry, and with regard to lumbering. But my good friends from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) and Cumberland (Mr. Smith) have succeeded in making me feel that it is perhaps desirable, both for their information and the information of the house and of the maritime provinces, that I mention one or two matters in connection with the steel and coal industry, because that seemed to be . what particularly concerned them. They have talked in this

house for a number of sessions about what is known as the Duncan report, and they are down at the present time to one single point. I say that advisedly, because I listened carefully to my hon. friend from Cumberland to hear just exactly what his objections were. He spoke of having the Duncan report implemented in toto-that was the word he used, I listened carefully to hear in what particular respect he considered the report had not been implemented, and that one thing was with regard to steel and coal. My hon. friend from Pictou was discussing exactly the same thing. I just want to remind the house of what the exact situation is with regard to steel and coal, so that at least the facts may be put on record. There was a bonus recommended by the Andrew Rae Duncan commission, the exact terms of which recommendation were:
. We recommend that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used m its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.
They recommended a bonus in respect of steel, calculated on the amount of coal which goes into its manufacture. My hon. friend says that ^ that recommendation has not yet been ^ carried out by the government, and that is the burden of his complaint. I have already pointed out to my hon. friend, and it has been emphasized on many occasions in this house, that the steel and coal industry are absolutely interwoven. I believe that no one will agree more -readily than my hon. friend from Pictou that the interests of steel and coal in the maritime provinces, and particularly in Nova Scotia, are almost inseparable and are inextricably bound up. If, for instance, assistance is given to coal, then instantly that is reflected in the price which steel has to pay for coal, and that immediately is reflected in- the question whether or not there can be successful operation of the steel plant, and whether steel at this new cost can. be sold- at a profit. On the other hand, if you have assistance- given to the steel industry, since it is located directly above the coal mines, yo-u have immediately the question whether steel may not contribute something of that assistance towards coal, whether there will not be an increased production of steel leading to a larger -consumption of coal, thereby reducing the overhead. So these two great industries are bound up, and I believe that every man in Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces generally will agree with me in that.
At the present time the coal industry in Nova Scotia is operated by a company under the control of those who own the bonds, and

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
the steel industry is in the hands of and being operated by a receiver. Last session I pointed out the necessity and the desirability of unifying these industries and of reorganizing them so that anyone who proposed that they be assisted might be able to show what earnings were necessary to make a fair return on the capitalization. There are still fourteen large companies to be dealt with. I understand that a new company has been incorporated, but that the reorganization has not yet taken place. Regarding any proposal for assistance I do feel, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me in this, that those who are vitally interested financially ought to be the best judges of how to proceed. They have to have experience of actual operating conditions in order to determine their cost of production, their markets and their competition. Now on the question of delay, it may surprise the house to know that the final coal brief, the brief on which the application is proceeding at the present time, was filed with the Tariff Advisory Board only on November 21, 1928- not two years ago as my hon. friend suggested. My hon. friend knows-I think he was present at the hearing-that that brief puts forward a request, not to the government but to the Tariff Advisory Board, that the bonus which is recommended by the Duncan report should be granted to coal. On the other hand, a brief was filed by the receiver in respect of the steel company, and almost its very first words are a reference to this same thing, namely, the bonus recommended by the Duncan report. It does not ask for a bonus for steel in so many words, but the reference is there, and it was indicated to the tariff board that the steel people considered they should be paid that bonus. This means that the coal people are asking that this relief be afforded them as part of tariff relief, and it means also that the steel people are standing off and saying:	We are
going to have it in any case, and we are going to have further relief by the amendment of several items in the tariff. It is also important to note that the final steel brief was not filed until November 23, 1928.
The coal hearing went on for three or four days after November and was adjourned until January, 1929, when further hearings took place. There is no question of delay on the part of the government or the Tariff Advisory Board. The solicitor for the receiver said himself on November 27, 1928:
The brief does raise some new points, but unfortunately, with all the effort we put on it, we could not bring it before the board earlier
than we did. We fully appreciate the position you take, and the time and care involved in any investigation, relating to an industry such as this, and of course I should think it wise that that full investigation be assured.
That is the situation with regard to those two industries. Yet my hon. friend has been complaining that nothing has been done, notwithstanding the fact that those who are in the industry admit that you must have the fullest investigation, and notwithstanding the fact that the mattter of a bounty on coal or a bounty on steel is wrapped up in. the tariff, because the foundation of the claim for the bonus is that there has been a rebate of duty granted in connection with coal coming in for steel-making purposes.
Now this question of tariffs on coal and steel is not by any means a simple one. What happened before the Tariff Advisory Board on the application of the steel company for an increased duty on billets? It was opposed by no less than three big companies. The application for an increased duty on skelp was opposed by three big companies. The application for an increased duty on sheets was opposed by thirteen separate companies. The application for an increased duty on bars and rods was opposed by eleven companies. The coal application was opposed as well, as my hon. friend knows. Some hon. gentlemen in this house are connected with those opposing companies. For instance, I understand that the firm of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Ohaplin) was opposing, as they had of course a right to do, the relief which the Nova Scotia industries were trying to get. My good friend from West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) was present in his professional capacity, and what do you spppose he was doing? I would have expected my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) to take him in hand. My hon. friend from West Hamilton was actually propounding the heresy that there be free pig iron. To add insult to injury, the province of British Columbia was represented officially in opposition to any increase of duty on coal.


Otto Baird Price: May I ask the Minister of National Defence what the Prime Minister of Canada said at Amherst during the campaign of 1926? Free trade or protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Otto Baird Price: He said protection. The
records will show it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Layton Ralston: It rather indicates that the application is not just as simple as my hon. friends would think. As a matter of
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

fact, it aroused considerable opposition. It is of prime importance to the Dominion to have the steel and coal schedule so settled that the industry may work under stable conditions. I believe my hon. friend will agree with me that it was physically impossible to make a new steel schedule in time for this budget when the adjournment of the hearing took place on January 29. I may say that the board employed two experts, Mr. D. H. MacDougall and Mr. J. Dix Fraser, men who were not unsympathetic by any means to the Nova Scotia steel and coal industry, and I am informed that they both concurred in the view that it was physically impossible to deal with the schedule in time for the b.udget this session.
This is a summary of the position:	The
question was brought before the tariff board, and rightly so; it was brought there by the company itself; and it is equally sound policy, in the national interest to have it considered there; the briefs on which the application^ are actually being based were not filed until November 21 and November 23, and the hearings were not completed at the adjournment on January 29 of this year; coal and steel are inextricably involved and wrapped up, and any tariff relief by way of bonus to one has to be considered in connection with the other.
I am glad to say that the year's operations have been better than those in previous years. I am glad to have it reported to me that sixty thousand tons more of coal were mined during the three months of December, January and February than during the corresponding months last year, and that there were nine days' more work last January and February than a year ago. I am glad also to have it reported to me that the steel output has increased by some 18 per cent. It is also very satisfactory to know that the extensive branch line mileage this year will create an extra demand for steel. But I do not wish the house to think for one minute that either I or the people of Nova Scotia are satisfied with the position of the coal and steel industry. The prices for coal and the prices for steel are low, particularly for certain products of the steel industry. But I believe we should congratulate both the men and the management on the way in which they have conducted the industry during the past year. I am satisfied that every fair-minded man will realize that all the ramifications and complications incident to a revision of the steel and coal tariff make it imperative that there should be the fullest investigation, as counsel for the receiver himself suggested, in order that the government may intelli-
gently study the representations which have been made to the tariff board.
My friend has spoken of the steel industry as if he and his party were the only people to whom it could look for assistance. The other night he spoke of Russian coal. I think he might have been a little more frank with the house. He did not say that that coal was anthracite coal. Nor did he state that anthracite coal is not subject to duty.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I did.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I accept his word. Then he did not tell us that it was his party that took the duty off anthracite coal in 1887.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 1887?


James Layton Ralston: Consequently there is no duty on anthracite coal, and that is why it is coming in. He spoke of Russion coal displacing Canadian coal; but as a matter of fact it is displacing American anthracite. That is the policy of his party to let in anthracite free. They are also the ones who took the duty off coke for all purposes so as to permit the Americans to convert their bituminous coal into coke and bring it in here free of duty. They had the chance to renew the bonus on steel, but they did not renew it. It is just another case of doing very little when in power and a good deal of talking when out of power. They had a chance to help the industry in connection with the rebate of duty on coal used in the smelting of metals. A rebate had been granted in connection with coal used for this purpose, and in 1914 under my hon. friend's administration the word " melting " was added so that all foundries would get their coal free of duty. I do not think my hon. friends ought to claim to be entirely the friends of the coal industry in view of their record. They gave a rebate on rods used for fencing. It was good for the agricultural industry but it did not benefit the steel industry. And what do we find on the other side of the slate? On the other side we find the steel policy of this country as laid down by Mr. Fielding in 1897 whereby a bonus was granted on steel when Canadian coal was used in its production, and that gave the steel industry in the maritime provinces its first real opportunity to make headway. But my hon. friends never renewed the bonus. We find also that the Liberal party granted a substantial duty on slack coal. It was only 14 cents at first but the Liberal party increased it to 50 cents. Again, we find the Liberal party taking coal for bunker purposes from the free list and making it liable to a duty with the result that the maritime in-

The Budget-Mr. Ernst
dustry benefited to the extent of 50,000 tons last year. There have also been freight subventions. I wish I had time to give the house an idea of what has developed as a result of the granting of these subventions in the last year. Contracts were closed for waterborne coal amounting to 175,000 tons, which were moved in addition to all rail movements amounting to 50,000 tons, and there will be moved this spring another 25,000 tons. In other words, 250,000 tons have been moved under that subvention. It may be said that some of that business would have been done in any case. It is estimated that 40,000 tons would have been carried anyway, and the estimate remains that 210,000 additional tons of maritime coal have been used by reason of the subvention granted by this government. Now I would ask my hon. friends opposite to point to anything their party has done which has increased the production of Nova Scotia coal 210,000 tons in one year.
I wished to say a word generally with regard to the report to which my hon. friend has referred, but I have not much time left. As I say, he has dealt only with one particular question, steel and coal. I have not an opportunity to point out all that has been done, but I wish the house and the people of Nova Scotia to realize that this government has tried to deal fairly with that report. Harbour commissions have been appointed and money has been loaned to them; a deputy minister of fisheries has been appointed, as recommended; freight rates subventions have been granted, such as I have described; and $875,000 by way of interim payment has been paid out yearly in addition to the regular provincial subsidy. There has been at the same time a 20 per cent reduction in local and westbound freight rates. Now I want the house to understand this, that neither I nor any other man from the maritime provinces regard this as a dole, but as a right to which the maritime provinces were entitled; and my only complaint is that this was made necessary by the fact that when my hon. friends were in power, from 1911 to 1921, they were asleep at the switch so far as the maritime provinces were concerned, permitting an increase in freight rates three times on the Intercolonial railway before there was any corresponding increase on other lines. This government had therefore to come to the rescue, and that is why I say that what has been given is not a dole. The sum of over $7,000,000 has been paid out or will have been paid out this year on account of the 20 per cent reduction in freight rates. And there has been, in spite of that-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Time.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: I have known the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) as a soldier, and I have known him as an advocate, and as I listened to him this afternoon I came to the conclusion that he had lost none of his courage as the one and none of his skill as the other, in presenting a hopless case; and I could not help wishing that he were better informed on the subject he has presented to-day than he was only a short year ago when he attempted to dabble in the fishing industry in Nova Scotia. I recollect that in the summer of 1927 there were operating off the coast of that province two trawlers of Spanish origin. They desired to go into a Nova Scotia port and transship their fish to Spain and they sought by different avenues to obtain permission. The result would, of course, have been a much greater productivity on the part of those trawlers. Well, after trying different avenues they applied to the Minister of National Defence, who took up their cause, which he pleaded with the Commissioner of Customs, requesting that the Spanish trawlers be allowed to enter a Nova Scotia port and land their catch for shipment to Spain.


James Layton Ralston: What are the names?


William Gordon Ernst: In a moment I will read my hon. friend's telegram.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, do.


William Gordon Ernst: On behalf of an apparent friend of his in Halifax he asked that the trawlers be allowed to go into Halifax in order to transship their catch, and in his telegram he suggested that such a course would have no prejudicial effect on the fisheries of the Dominion. I was aware that we shipped from Nova Scotia, or had shipped in times past, salt codfish to Spain, Portugal and Italy, and I therefore took the trouble to turn up the records from which I find that in 1927 we shipped to Spain fi^h to the value of $4,357; to Portugal, $90,702, and to Italy, $855,038. I ask the minister now whether the adoption of such a policy as he advocated in his telegram would not in his opinion prejudice the industry. Let me read the telegram. It is dated Yarmouth, N.S., July 8, 1927:
R. W. Breadner,
Commissioner of Customs,
Ottawa, Ont.
James Fraser Halifax representing parties who operate two trawlers under Spanish flag advises me that operators wish to send trawlers to Halifax to transship green fish one to the other the loaded trawler returning to Spain or tranship to French vessel for Spain. They tell me that there is some regulation under which they may be liable to pay one cent per pound. Think there must be some way out of this. It
The Budget-Mr. Ernst

is represented that it does not in any way prejudicially affect fishing industry and is serious loss to port. Would appreciate your personal attention.
J. L. Ralston.
Now, seeing that we market dry codfish in Spain, I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the first effect of such a policy as he urged in that telegram would not be to cause us to lose that market, and whether, secondly, if we lost the Spanish market we should not also in due course lose the market in Portugal, which is adjacent? Furthermore, Newfoundland, which ships large quantities to Spain, must be affected likewise. And we have to lose, too, eventually, the Italian market in order that the Minister of National Defence might gratify the desire of a friend in Halifax-and apparently without his having inquired into the industry. Such a policy, I say, would represent the sacrifice of $1,000,000 worth of business to the Dominion fishing industry.


James Layton Ralston: What was the export to Spain?


William Gordon Ernst: The figure is $4,357. And, as hon. gentlemen know, Portgual is adjacent to Spain. The market in Portugal represents $90,702 and that in Italy $855,038. But what I am pointing out is the principle of allowing trawlers of foreign origin to come and use our ports as a basis of operations. Once you start that sort of thing with one nation you will have bo extend the privilege to others.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It is against our law too.


William Gordon Ernst: Yes, certainly. Let me direct the attention of the house again to the wording of the telegram:
They tell me that there is some regulation under which they may be liable to pay one cent per pound. Think there must be some way out of this.
It seems to me this afternoon the minister was exhibiting the same attitude towards the fulfilment of the provisions of the Duncan report; he thinks there must be some way out of it. In the case of fish, the duty was imposed by his government; his government were responsible for the collection of the duty but he, as a responsible minister of the crown, thought there must be some way out.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend just follow that through? I have not the faintest recollection of it.


William Gordon Ernst: I will hand the tile to the minister just as soon as I have finished with it.


James Layton Ralston: I thought my hon. friend would follow it through and see what was done.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Breadner stood by his guns and the minister was refused.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend know who James Fraser was?


William Gordon Ernst: No, I do not; I presume the minister knows, but I do not think it makes the slightest bit of difference who he was. The point is that the minister was trying to find a way out of the regulations imposed by his own government.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend intimated that it was for a friend of mine.


William Gordon Ernst: I said apparently it was a friend of the minister's, but my hon. friend will have time in due course to make his explanation.


James Layton Ralston: That is the point; I will not have time.


William Gordon Ernst: I feel quite sure that the fishermen of Nova Scotia will require quite an explanation from the Minister of National Defence.
When the minister was dealing with the recommendations of the Duncan report he referred to the bounty of 50 cents a ton on coal used in the manufacture of steel, and I could not help wondering at his attitude. In 1927 he made a speech in this house during which he gave the house to understand that he was in favour of complete implementation of the report; during the session of 1928 he made another speech on the subject and at that time proposed three conditions which should be met before the report could be implemented. One condition was that the litigation in which the industry was involved should cease; the second was a reorganization and the third a recapitalization. To-day only the litigation has been settled, but I ask the Minister of National Defence whether it is not a fact that when the Duncan commission made its report the conditions with regard to organization and capitalization were exactly the same as they are to-day? So that Sir Andrew Rae Duncan had an opportunity to take all these facts into consideration. The capitalization was exactly as it is to-day; the organization was exactly as it is to-day, and in the face of those conditions the Duncan commission recommended this bounty.


James Layton Ralston: To whom?


William Gordon Ernst: To the government, for implementation.

The Budget-Mr. Ernst


James Layton Ralston: To whom was the bounty to be paid?


William Gordon Ernst: To the steel industry in the province of Nova Scotia. But my hon. friend is quibbling-


Richard Bedford Bennett: " I think there must be some way out of it."


William Gordon Ernst: The point is that the recommendation is there, but each year the minister brings up more conditions, and it seems to me that the only condition whereby we will have the report fulfilled will be to put the minister and the government out of office.
Now, sir, I desire to go back for a few moments to the fishing industry. Last year the minister made quite a lengthy speech in this connection during which he told of all the things the government were doing for the industry and the great progress which was being made. The latest statistics available with regard to employment in the fishing industry in the province of Nova Scotia are for 1927, and I want to compare them with the figures for 1914, which is the last of the normal pre-war years. In 1914 there were 5,832 men engaged in the fishing industry in Prince Edward Island; an 1927 there were 4,136, a decrease of 1,696; in 1914 there were 29,364 men in Nova Scotia engaged in this industry; in 1927 there were 19,749, a decrease of 9,617; in New Brunswick there were 22,034 men engaged in fishing in 1914 and 12,344 in 1927, a decrease of 9,690. In other words, between 1914 and 1927 the fishing industry in the three maritime provinces lost over 21,000 men, and since this government came into office in 1922, " this government which fosters and assists the basic industries," Nova Scotia has lost 4,230 men. These men have gone to the United States, almost without exception; if you go to Gloucester you will find that a very high percentage of the captains sailing ships operating out of that port come from the southern shore of Nova Scotia. That is the condition of the fishing industry.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Is not that due somewhat to the Fordney tariff of 1922?


William Gordon Ernst: Undoubtedly at is partly due to that, but it seems to me that if the government would only take a lesson from their failure to meet the Fordney tariff in 1922, we will not get into any difficulties in that respect during the coming year.
Now, what have the government done for this industry? In 1927 they appointed a royal commission to inquire into the condition of the fishing industry; that commission cost the country something over
$S5,000 and brought in a report which was tabled late last session, too late to come before parliament. Since that report was tabled, however, the government have taken some steps to assist the industry. I have seen great, flaming articles telling of what the government have done. One such article appeared in a magazine called the Canadian Fisherman, telling how the government had reorganized the Department of Marine and Fisheries. In what does that reorganization consist? The government have appointed Mr. Found, who was director of fisheries, to be Deputy Minister of Fisheries; they 'have created a fisheries intelligence service and appointed as its head Mr Paisley, who was editor of a paper in the city of Sydney, * a gentleman who knew nothing about fish but who wrote the most bitter, partisan Liberal articles to appear in any newspaper in Canada. Mr. Paisley was formerly editor of the Sydney Record and now has been made head of the fisheries intelligence service. The government also boast of the changes which 'have been made in the regulations in order to assist this industry, but those changes are so minor that they cannot be mentioned on the floor of the house.
Then we are told that the government have brought in two bills this session in the interests of the fishing industry, bills 25 and 26. One of these bills provides for the further inspection of fish and the other provides that the lobster seasons be made statutory. It also contains another provision with respect to steam trawlers, one of the most innocuous paragraphs ever to be put into any statute. This paragraph provides that steam trawlers cannot operate from our ports unless they are owned in Canada; broadly speaking, that is the provision. I say to the house that this paragraph is inserted for one purpose only; it is quite innocuous except for the fact that it is placed there to save the government from their own sins. On July 20, 1920, Mr. Edwards, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, was asked to define what constituted a Canadian fishing vessel, since only Canadian fishing vessels can land their fish in the p.orts of this country free of duty. Trawlers did not actually operate until 1922, although during the war they were permitted by special order in council to operate in order to supply food. In July, 1920, Mr. Edwards gave his opinion as follows:
I am of the opinion on consideration, that the words in question-
The Budget-Mr. Ernst

That is, Canadian fishing vessels.
-should be construed to mean fishing vessels owned by British subjects .... domiciled in Canada.
If that opinion is sound-and the Minister of National Defence, as a lawyer, knows that it is sound-the government have been violating the law for the past seven years in allowing these trawlers to land their fish duty free, and now they 'bring in a bill which they wave before the fishermen as 'being of great assistance to them, but which is of no assistance to anyone but the government themselves.
I suppose they also point to the tariff provisions in the present budget; those provisions, so far as they affect the fishermen, consist of four tariff items. The first item refers to rubber gaskets; the Minister of Finance, when he presented his budget with a great flourish, announced that aid was being given to the fishermen through a reduction of the duty on rubber gaskets. So far as I can find out rubber gaskets are used for only one purpose, for sealing sardine tins, and this reduction will aid only one corporation in the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. HANSON:: Friends of the government.


William Gordon Ernst: The next item is metal
swivels; these are used by a very limited class of fishermen, and I doubt if more than 100 fishermen in the three maritime provinces use them at all. The next item is needles of a class or kind not made in Canada for use in repairing fish nets, and I think that . provision might save a man one-tenth of one cent per year. The next item covers gasoline engines and their parts. Over 85 per cent of the gasoline engines used in the fishing industry of the three maritime provinces have been manufactured in those provinces. This means a direct blow by the government at the gasoline-engine factories; a direct blow by the government at an industry in the maritimes. To sum it all up, it amounts only to a benefit of two aents per man engaged in the fishing industry.
The minister referred last year to the biological station and told us of the wonderful work which was being done in developing the process of brine freezing, which was to revolutionize the fishing industry. This brinefreezing process, which is practised in a commercial way in the United States and I believe in Great Britain, is capable of doing much for the industry, but I ask the government: How does it propose to see that this benefit is passed on to the ordinary fishermen who are scattered along the thousands of

miles of our coast? As it stands at present it will be gobbled up by the corporations and the fishermen will not even get a smell of it. What is needed is a system whereby practical fishery officers would be placed in each fishing district, similar to the system practised by the provincial governments who place agricultural representatives in each agricultural district. Under such a system the practical fisherman along the coast would be helped by the work of the biological station, and until that system is adopted I can only construe the results obtained by the biological station as being intended for the benefit of the corporations, nearly all of which are favourable to the government.
There was a majority and minority recommendation in the report of the commissioners with reference to the trawler question. The majority recommendation was that the steam trawlers should be abolished; the minority recommendation was that they should be regulated. What is the attitude of the government in relation to the trawler question? Both the corporations and the fishermen have a right to know what is in store for them; they have a right to know whether they can count upon a condition of stability. This is a matter of vital importance to the fishing industry in the three maritime provinces and I ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who represents the province of Nova Scotia, what is to be the policy of the government with regard to steam trawlers? Is he, as indicated in his telegram, seeking to find some way out of this difficulty?
The recommendation was also made that a minister of fisheries be appointed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced to the house in his own pleasant manner that the government would appoint a minister in its own good time; that it would settle upon a policy but only in its own good time. It seems to me that the policy of this government is to do things in its own good time rather than in time for the good of the country. Immediate attention is vital to this industry and it is not fair to the fishing industry of the three maritime provinces that they should be asked to wait until the political squabbles in the ranks of the government are settled. The government has men who are capable of filling this office, men who are practical fishermen. The pronouncement upon fisheries which was made last year by the Minister of National Defence it would seem to me might better have come from the lips of some practical man who understood the industry.
I have dealt with the recommendations of the report, but there are two suggestions I

The Budget-Mr. Ernst
wish to make with relation to the industry itself. If the fishing industry is to survive in the maritime provinces we must organize the fishermen cooperatively. To-day the fisherman is buying and selling retail and the middleman is getting the profit both ways.


Mr. HEAPS:: What do the fishermen
actually get for their fish?


William Gordon Ernst: I >ean not give the hon.
member the exact price, but the average income of the shore fishermen is not more than $300 per year. They should be organized cooperatively in order to eliminate the middleman and get what is coming to them. They should be given an effective voice in dealing with the government and the corporations. In 1905 the government of Nova Scotia placed an act upon the statute books which made possible an organization in eastern Nova Scotia. That legislation was brought about through the indefatigable work of Mr. Moses H. Nickerson, who has always been a great friend of the fishermen. In 1927 that act had become obsolete and it was then amended and consolidated. During the early part of last year the minister told me that this was a matter of provincial concern. I would point out to the minister that the fisheries report, which had not been tabled at that time, recommends, on page 81, that an organizer be appointed by the federal gov-vernment. The recommendation reads as follows:
_ We recommend, therefore, that the establishment of cooperative organizations of fishermen be assisted by the department as soon as possible, and that an organizer, experienced in coperative methods, be appointed and paid by the federal government for the required period to initiate and complete this work.
The fishermen of the province of Nova Scotia are looking to the government to implement that definite recommendation. As a corollary to that recommendation, it is necessary that some system of loans to>
the fishermen be devised. I am not going to make any definite suggestion or go into the details except to say that the earning power of the fisherman is so small that he can not improve his equipment. He has no capital and if he is to survive he must have improved equipment, and the only manner in which he can procure that is by aid from the government. I ask the government to take this matter into consideration and give us some action, not next year on the eve of an election but immediately, before thousands of our fishermen have gone to the United States.
I do not intend to discuss further the technical details of the fishing industry in the
maritime provinces. There are many matters upon which I could speak did time permit, I wish in the few minutes remaining at my disposal to compliment the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) on the veiy able speech which he made, a speech which has the hearty endorsation of myself and I know of every member sitting on this side of the house. It is a speech with which I heartily agree, and the only thing in it to which I wish to refer particularly is his reference to the inroads being made upon our dairy industry by the importation of New Zealand butter. There are three creameries in my constituency and I know what the effect has been not only upon the creameries but upon the farmers supplying the cream to them.
I was surprised this afternoon to hear the Minister of National Defence commending the Liberal government for the raising of a duty, because year in and year out and especially at election time, he and other hon. gentlemen from Nova Scotia have advocated the principle of free trade. The Liberal organ in the province of Nova Scotia, the Halifax Chronicle, advocates it in and out of season. Furthermore, it says that the tariff is the cause of all our worries and ills in the province of Nova Scotia. It says that the tariff has ground us down under the heel of the province of Ontario; it does not say the central provinces because Quebec is a supporter of the government. It claims that our industries are disappearing and our shipping is dwindling away. It is sad to say that that is true with regard to our shipping, but the reason why our shipping is not as great in volume as it was in time past is because we failed to take advantage of the transition from wood to steel and from sail to steam. There is no doubt we have lost other industries; some of them have located in Quebec and some in Ontario. During the last election campaign the Chronicle had a big cartoon which depicted a cow feeding in the province of Nova Scotia and being milked in the province of Ontario, a sentiment which would not tend to promote Canadian unity.
Wbat are the real facts? Let us examine the situation as it stands in Nova Scotia at the present time. I am prompted to do this because the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) started his speech the other day by standing on a pinnacle and getting a broad view. After he had been there for a while he returned to his own doorstep and turned his face to the wall. We have in the eastern end of my province the coal and steel industries. We have scattered round our coast thousands of fishermen who supply what?
The Budget-Mr. Ernst

They export to a certain, extent, but the basis of their market is the home market, the Dominion of Canada. The great proportion of our farms are mixed farms; in fact, farmers engaged in mixed farming are more numerous than any other class of the population. They are raising their products for sale largely in the markets of Nova Scotia. We have scattered all over the province little manufacturing industries, with a few large ones here and there, some of them, it is true, exporting to the whole Canadian market and even to the markets of the world, but in the main they supply the home market. I ask the Minister of National Defence:	If that free
trade which is preached by Liberal organizations in Nova Scotia came into force in our province, what would happen to the coal and steel industries? They would be snuffed out like a candle. What would happen to the other manufacturing industries? They would also be snuffed out like candles. What would happen to the farmers and the fishermen? Well, we would continue to export them. The cause of our ills is obviously not the tariff; the cause must be sought somewhere else, because if the tariff were taken away completely, Nova Scotia would not be one whit better off in relation to the other provinces. We have, as I have said, big deposits of coal in the eastern part of the province. Developments are being made to-day by scientists, designed to promote the use of that coal to generate electric energy, and I look forward to the day when we shall be generating electric energy not only as cheaply as it is produced by hydro, but cheaper. That day is rapidly approaching, and when it comes I believe the future of Nova Scotia will lie in industrialization, but we shall not get that if we continue to follow policies which are preached by hon. gentlemen opposite. We need the tariff just as much as any other province in Canada.
_ Our difficulty not being the tariff, what is it? Geography. We are situated on the extreme eastern edge of the continent, and naturally those who have products to sell in competition with the provinces in the centre have a more restricted home market than the man who is in the centre and has his market on both sides. What we need are methods to counterbalance geography, methods which the Duncan commission recommended in the form of a decrease in westbound freight rates. That alone is the solution of our difficulties within confederation. We require freight rates which will enable us to expand our markets to the west and put our people who produce in competition with those in the central provinces on a parity with them. We have to-day a 20 per cent reduction in westbound freight rates. Whether that will be enough, 
we do not know. It has been applied; the benefits are already being observed, but time alone can tell whether it will prove ample for the needs of the maritime provinces. If it does not, we shall be back here again asking that our people be placed on a parity with the people in the central provinces, not by reductions in tariff, but by freight rates, in order that the position created by geography may be counterbalanced and we shall be given an equal share in the prosperity of Canada.
I shall not detain the house longer, but it seems to me that no method is more unfair to the people of Nova Scotia than that adopted by the hon. member for Hants-Kings and other hon. gentlemen who stand on their doorsteps, and turn their faces to the wall, applying themselves to a particular locality or industry and forgetting the needs of the province as a whole. We have to start with a unit, and that unit must be the province. If we bear that in mind and also bear in mind that in approaching our problems we have to pool them with the other provinces if confederation is to last, then we shall be building for the future a structure that will stand.


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on the budget, I give it as my opinion that the budget as a financial document is possibly comparatively satisfactory; but I believe it is a mistaken idea for any nation to assume that the length of its railway lines, the wealth obtained from its mines and the strength and solidarity of its commercial institutions constitute any real gauge of its prosperity. We have to take into consideration the health, happiness and prosperity of the people. About fifty per cent of the people of Canada are engaged in agricultural occupations, and it is passing strange that, in this short discussion, little or nothing has been said about the prosperity or the lack of prosperity of the farmers of this country. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) in his speech made reference to the better position of the farming industry and he suggested that in some way or another this was due to the activities of the government. I should like to point out to him that students have attributed that bettering of the condition of the farming industry to the commercial pools which the farmers themselves have organized. From practically every country throughout the world commendations have come to Canada pointing out the advantages that have accrued therefrom to the wheat growers in particular, and also to those engaged in

The Budget-Mr. Kellner
dairying. I have yet to see any such commendations in respect to any government activities, and later I shall mention instances of the lack of consideration which, I think, this government has shown to those industries.
When the minister was speaking a little while ago it seemed to me rather unusual to hear him twitting the Conservatives for actually lowering the tariff when they were in power and more or less asking for commendation from the people because the Liberals had increased the duty on coal from fourteen to fifty cents. The thought that occurred to me at that moment was that in a comparatively short time we shall likely have another Dominion election and in western Canada there will be one issue only, namely, the tariff. I wonder how many of those who in the last campaign supported this government in the prairie provinces will mention the statements made by the minister this afternoon. It would go pretty hard with some hon. members whom I see across the floor sitting for prairie constituencies, to go out and ask for support because the Liberals had increased the tariff on coal and because they had refused to reduce the tariff on some other commodities.
That agriculture generally is not in a satisfactory condition is, I think, pretty well exemplified by what we learn takes place in other countries. I read recently a debate that occurred in the British house in connection, wit the depression of agriculture. The debate was introduced by the Conservatives and discussed at considerable length. Among other things, having pointed out the great depletion that had taken place in the agricultural industry, they brought in certain recommendations to the house. Chief among those was that agricultural land and buildings should be relieved of taxes; that there should be' a marking of all agricultural products, so that the consumer would know whether he was purchasing a foreign or an English article; and the further suggestion that the forces of the crown should be supplied for at least two days a week with meat raised on the island. I would particularly call the attention of the house to the fact that it does not say meat raised within the British Empire, but raised in the island, which is considerably different from the agitation we sometimes hear for inter-empire trade. When that motion was under discussion one of the labour members moved in amendment, to leave out all the words following the word "house" and to add instead thereof the following:
Realizes that the continuing decay in agriculture is a grave national concern and should he dealt with by the government without delay, 78594-66
and is of opinion that the placing of British agriculture on a sound and efficient basis so as to yield a fair return to the farmer, -with security of tenure, subject to proper use and a satisfactory standard of living to the agricultural worker, depends upon the transference ito the state of the ownership of all agricultural lands.
In other words, we have the Labour party in Great Britain coming out with the definite declaration that the only way in which agriculture can be maintained is by state ownership.
In the United States the situation is a little different. There two bills have passed the senate for the stabilization of agriculture by what is really the fixation of prices. Both bids were vetoed by the president, and now a special session is to be called to deal with agricultural problems.
One might go on and give similar illustrations of what is taking place in other countries, in France, Italy, and Germany, in particular, where they are using every method they can to bolster up agriculture. In this country, however, our government has never been very much concerned about agriculture. Our one and only method of dealing with the problems of agriculture, apparently, is to bring in more immigrants, who will settle all the troubles that we ever shall have. There was one other thing done in this country, which, however, did not do the agricultural industry in this country any good, and that was the adoption of the Australian treaty. Some other speakers have already referred to that, and I wish to say a word or two about it.
In western Canada we have always been known as predominantly Liberal, and a good many of the representatives who have been sent from the west to parliament have come down here as supporters of the Liberal party. During the last few years they have not been quite as docile as some of the other supporters of the government, and they have insisted that the government live up to its pre-election pledges and reduce the tariff. So persistent have they been that I think the Australian treaty is the answer to their demands. The government said: We will reduce the tariff, but it will be a reduction on a commodity that affects the western farmer, and we will see if we cannot choke him off in that way. Butter coming in from Australia previous to the Australian treaty carried a duty of 4 cents. The butter produced by our western farmers was largely traded for such commodities as the farm family requires, and with the returns from their butter they would provide themselves with shoes for the children and furniture for the house. It is

The Budget-Mr. Kellner

worth while considering that on these shoes which they bought with the returns from their butter they had to pay a duty of about 22j per cent, and on the furniture a duty of about 35 per cent. The odds were against the farmer before we ever had the treaty, but after the treaty they were infinitely worse. Something like 18,000,000 pounds of Australian butter comes into western Canada every year; that was the figure for 1928. I do not think anyone would seriously argue for one minute that that importation does not very seriously affect the farmers of western Canada. You could not flood the western Canadian market with that volume of butter without very seriously affecting the price. Had other countries been giving Canada an opportunity to flood their markets with butter, if we happened to have a large stock and they a small one, it would not have looked quite so bad, but there was no preferential tariff arrangement in that regard.
Australia at present has a tariff of 12 cents a pound on butter; New Zealand, 7 cents a pound or 20 per cent ad valorem, whichever is the greater; the Union of South Africa, 4 cents a pound or 25 per cent ad valorem, whichever is the greater; the United States, 12 cents a pound, and a duty of 5 cents a pound on cheese. In addition, Australia gives a bonus to her farmers of 6 cents a pound on every pound of butter exported, so, taking into consideration the Canadian duty of 1 cent a pound, the Australian farmer has still left 5 cents per pound of government money with which to help pay his freight charges on the butter he ships to Canada. It would seem that a government that wished to do justice to the farming population would hardly pass such legislation as the Australian treaty and leave the tariffs on other necessary commodities such as I have mentioned, shoes and furniture, for instance, just where they are. The effect upon the west of the importation of this Australian butter can be readily seen from the decreased production that has taken place in the prairie provinces. In 1927 there was a decreased production of butter in Manitoba of 1,250,000 pounds, as compared with the previous year; in Saskatchewan, a decrease of over 4,500,000 pounds; in Alberta, a decrease of 3,500,000 pounds. There are a good many farmers in Alberta who cannot afford to take a drop in their production to that extent. In the northern part of Alberta the land is covered with brush, and it is a slow process to bring it under cultivation. It is the practice there, until the land is brought under cultivation, to keep a herd of milch cows, which at least

supplies the necessities of the family, but under present conditions the herd of milch cows is an additional liability, and through that district you will find farmer after farmer who a few years ago used to keep half a dozen milch cows but who to day has whittled down that number to one or two.
I omitted to mention that the United States government, as indicated by its decision to call a special session of congress, realizes that agriculture in that country is in a very critical condition, and no one would argue for a moment that agriculture in Canada could be very healthy when agriculture across the line is in such a deplorable condition.
I want to say just a. word or two with regard to this immigration policy which we are so enthusiastic about, and which is supposed to save the agricultural areas of Canada. We are frequently told that Canadians are leaving the country. I have a clipping of a statement by Bishop Lloyd giving the figures for 1928 as 81,000 odd. According to his theory about the only thing we need do to settle the problem is to go over to Europe and get more immigrants. Frankly, that is tile policy which we are following to-day:
In my poor way I am trying to show just where we shall get to if that process is continued. For instance, Canada is taxing herself to send a band of immigration agents to Europe to persuade people to come here. Then our transportation lines cut their rates and bring those people over. In the meantime government officials and others have selected the best land for those immigrants, erected buildings, put up fences and brought a certain portion under cultivation. All this having been done, the immigrants are put on these ready-made farms. The farmer already here is asked to pay taxes to bring in those immigrants to compete with himself. It is manifestly unfair to expect our agriculturists to withstand such competition, and contribute a portion of the expense as I have indicated.
And what is the position from the standpoint of our workers? For instance, suppose a Canadian gets out of work in the fall of the year, he goes to a city in search of employment, as several last fall went to Edmonton. We will assume that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company wants some employees. He goes to the railway company along with two or three immigrants and asks for a job. In the meantime the city has been feeding several hundred immigrants, but they turn them over to the Canadian Pacific Company when they find that the company had promised to provide these immigrants with work for a year. The city contended that the Canadian Pacific

The Budget-Mr. Kellner
should supply board while the immigrant was without work. The company acknowledged the obligation and supplied bread and bologna. When the Canadian citizen and the immigrants approached the Canadian Pacific officials for a joib, it is certain that the company, being a good business institution, is not going to take any chance of spending money on bread and bologna, so we know who will be rejected. One of the immigrants will be taken on and the Canadian will have to walk the streets. In all probability he is a property-owner in one of our urban centres. Pretty soon the tax collector comes around and says:	Here, your taxes are due. There
being no probability of our Canadian getting a job, the only thing that is left for him to do is to turn over his property, pay his taxes, and get out. Unfortunately our answer to any protest from him is simply this: We can go over to England and the continent and bring in other immigrants to take your place. That is the answer Canada is giving to her sons to-day.
Closely associated with the assistance we are giving these immigrants to establish themselves is the policy followed by some of our commercial institutions. For instance, I have before me a letter from the International Harvester Company, headed General Letter No. 42. Let me give it to the house:
To our Dealers and Travellers:
3,000 British Family Settler Plan In view of the fact that the above organization will purchase a sufficient number of cream separators to entitle them to the quantity discounts, it has been decided to amend our quotations and you are therefore authorized to make quotations as follows:
The 1927 one payment six months retail price less 10 per cent discount and less a quantity discount
of	$ 10 00
For instance, when quoting prices on
a No. 3 Primrose, you would take. 120 00 Which is the one payment retail
price.
Deduct 10 per cent, which is	 12 00
108 00
Less $10	 10 00
Making a retail price on this size
machine	$ 98 00
Please understand that these discounts apply to cream separators only and when sold to farmers operating under the 3,000 British settler plan.
This letter cancels General Letter No. 40 of March 31. 1927. and all letters prior to this date covering discounts on cream separators when sold on the above plan.
Yours truly,
International Harvester Company of Canada Ltd.
By F. W. Smith,
Assistant to Manager.
According to that letter, it seems to me that if you had a non-British family settler in any district, and a British family settler beside him, the one would have to pay $120 for a cream separator as against $98 charged the other. It is going pretty far to ask the established farmer to pay that extra money over the price quoted to the favoured immigrant. But I hope I have not led the house to believe that cream separators are the only things marketed in this way. I have another letter from the same company, General Letter No. 65. It contains somewhat similar preliminary comments, and then proceeds to quote prices. Let me read this portion of the letter:
Prices to Settlers: On general line (except wagons, gears, trucks and sleighs) the 1926 retail cash on delivery price less 7 per cent.
On wagons, gears, trucks and sleighs, the 1926 retail cash on delivery price, less 5 per cent.
Prices f.o.b. nearest local agent's shipping point.
The letter also contains the following:
Settlers entitled to special prices: British settlers brough out by the Dominion government under the three thousand family British settler plan, delivery to be authorized and cash settlements made by the land settlement board.
The land settlement board will have full charge of this three thousand family British settler plan, and delivery and settlement will be handled under the plan formerly governing the soldier settlers.
This is the concluding paragraph:
In view of the fact that these British settlers will not be familiar with our machines, the local agent must assume full responsibility to see that all machines are properly set up and maintained in running order, and that the purchaser is fully instructed in their operation.


An hon. MEMBER:: What date is that?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: June 26, 1926. The agreement is still in effect. Let me bring out this point in connection with the second letter. It is recognized that those immigrants are not very well acquainted with farm machinery. The result is the company instruct their agent to go out to the farms and set up the machine and show them how to operate it. But when the ordinary farmer buys a similar machine he is told to take it home and fix it up himself. He has to get along with it the best he can. It simply means that the Canadian farmer is paying for this extra service to the immigrant. If we were getting a higher type of farmer there might be some sense in such a policy, but everybody admits that the one we are bringing in cannot compete with the one we are losing, and will not come up to his standard for several years
1044
The Budget-Mr. Kellner



IS, 1929

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Marcil
where he had come from and he said, eastern Canada. They gave him twenty-four hours to get out of town, with an alternative of thirty days. On the same day there were some new immigrants in the police court on the same charge and they were sent over to the railway companies to be fed. In view of the fact that the positions in Canada are practically all going to the immigrants, and will go to them so long as there is an obligation on the commercial companies, seeing that we assume that the Canadian shall look out for himself while the immigrant is a ward of ours, I wonder why in the world the Canadian would stay. What inducement has he? The logical thing for him to do is to get out if he finds himself in these circumstances. What I started to say is this: One who has had these reverses and leaves the country, crossing the line or going to some other foreign land, must have unpleasant feelings. What must be the thought that rankles in his mind about Canada? Do you think there can be any love or affection or admiration for this land, so far as he is concerned, or will he not go away more or less with a spirit of hatred and possibly with his mind fully made up that df the time ever comes he would a good deal rather see something dreadful befall the country than see her go forward?
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I have listened with considerable attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner), who has given his views in regard to certain conditions existing in the west. I am sorry I am not as familiar with that part of the country as I should like to be in order to appreciate his statements. Some of those statements were most surprising to me, but they explain to some extent why no more energy is put into the movement to induce Canadians to go and settle in the west. In the province of Quebec for some years past a very strong opinion has prevailed that we should give to the Canadian who wishes to go west the same conditions as we provide for the immigrant. The committee on agriculture last year made, I understand, the suggestion that the railway rates should be reduced to what they were some years ago for those Canadians intending to go west. I heart, no more about it, but I am glad to know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who is a friend of the farmer, will bring this matter to the attention of his colleagues. In Quebec we are still of the opinion that when a Canadian leaves that province he should be given some inducement to go west rather than to the United States. In 1870, when Manitoba was created, the cry raised by Sir George Etienne Cartier, who introduced the bill to provide for the creation of that province, [DOT]was "Go west, young man." At that time the idea was to stem the exodus from Quebec to the New England states and divert it to western Canada. Unfortunately the west was a long way off; railway communication was difficult and other troubles presented themselves in Manitoba which induced French Canadians to go to the United States. There is a large Canadian population in those states now; it has been placed at 2,000,000 people, and they are the chief operatives in the mills of those states. Latterly, however, there has been a feeling in our province that many of those people would be delighted to go west if they wore afforded the same advantages which are offered' the foreigner. We all know that the Canadian is the best settler we can have; the man who has been born and brought up in this country, descended from Canadian people for generations, is the best man we can have and every effort should be made to induce these people not only in Quebec but in the maritime provinces and Ontario as well to go west, to counter-balance whatever foreign immigration comes into the country. We all know that if trouble should arise and Canadians should be put to the test as to their loyalty, the sons of Quebec, Ontario and the maritimeg will stand firm. For that reason I think the government would be well advised to give this matter some further consideration.
It has been said that Canada is a difficult country to govern. The day this house opened I happened to run across the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who delivered1 a very nice speech this year. He delivered another very good speech on February 11, 1901, a day memorable to me; the hon. member delivered his first speech in this house that day when he moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I had the honour of following him and seconding the address. That was almost twenty-nine years ago; my hon. friend delivered a very eloquent eulogy of the Liberal party and it was all I could do to follow in his footsteps in the French language. That debate was -made memorable through the fact that the member to speak immediately after me was Sir Robert Borden, then plain Mr. Robert Borden, who was making his debut sis leader of the Conservative party. In those days the rules of the house -allowed only one amendment to the budget speech, but during the last -few years we have changed our rules, and made the problem much more difficult.

The Budget-Mr. Marcil
The position occupied by Mr. Fielding at that time was really an easy one as compared to the position occupied by the present Minister of Finance, and I may say frankly that of the twenty-nine or .thirty budget speeches I have heard delivered in this house none has been more satisfactory to the country on the whole than that delivered on March 1 last. I am satisfied that any Canadian or any member of this house whose personal affairs were in a condition as satisfactory as that shown in the country's affairs by the Minister of Finance would foe entirely satisfied.
As I have said, in those days only one amendment to the budget speech was allowed; only one issue was raised, but under our present rules we may have two amendments to the budget speech, and the two amendments moved this year show the difficult position in which the minister is placed. The first amendment reads as follows:
This house regrets that the financial proposals of the government make no provision for reasonably safeguarding and protecting the interests of those "engaged in agricultural pursuits or in industrial" employment in Canada.
If that means anything at all it means an upward revision of the tariff; it means higher protection. Then this amendment was followed by the sub-amendment of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), which was as follows:
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 means a revision of the tariff downward, so here you have the Minister of Finance following the middle course between the opposition asking for a higher tariff and another group asking for a lower tariff. I was glad to hear the Minister of Finance repeat the statement made by Mr. Fielding nearly thirty years ago, that the policy of the Liberal party was a policy of protection for the masses but a policy of lower tariff. That has been our policy since 1879. When I came to this house Mr. Fielding and his colleagues, under our great leader of those days, was trying to get the country on its feet again after a trial had been given for nearly eighteen years to high tariffs under the so-called national policy. Those who remember the conditions in Canada in 1896, after Canada had had nearly eighteen years of so-called protection, know, and if they do not know they can easily ascertain by looking

up Hansard, that Canada was then at practically a standstill. Our great western country was being deserted by its settlers; our financial condition in Quebec, the maritime provinces and Ontario was far from satisfactory, and in fact everyone wanted a change. We had been over-protected; a group of millionaires had been created in Montreal in the cotton and sugar industries, the rolling mills and in the construction of railways, and the masses of the people wanted a change in order to make Canada a cheap country in which to live.
That was the policy of the Liberal party at that time, and in 1897, Mr. Fielding and his colleagues started out by saying that they would reduce the cost of living in Canada and would give a preference to British products. So the British preference was introduced, but I can still hear the wails which came from the old Conservative party; Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues were blamed for giving a preference to England while receiving nothing in return. The Conservative party fought this British preference; they criticized it from every angle; they said it was too low in some cases and too high in others and so on, but when they attained office they allowed the preference to remain as it was.
Then in 1911 the old parliament buildings rang with denunciations of the Liberal party when it was proposed to enter into a treaty with the United States providing for an exchange of natural products. At that time I had the honour of being Speaker of the house; I put the question day after day for nearly two months, but the Conservative party would not vote on the issue and there was no means by which the vote could be taken. Obstruction of all kinds was resorted to and finally we went to the country, but unfortunately in Quebec especially the people did not vote on reciprocity. They were a unit with regard to that question in Quebec; they were all in favour of it, but the fight was carried on in connection, with the navy which Sir Wilfrid Laurier had given to the country. It was adopted by the English provinces but Quebec was afraid that it was going to be an instrument by means of which young French-Canadians would be slaughtered throughout the seven seas in defence of the flag of Britain. We had to fight a double fight-a fight on reciprocity in Ontario and a fight on the navy in Quebec. The French-Canadians are a sentimental people, unduly carried away by sympathy, and the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and the late member for Jacques Cartier, Mr. Monk, who later became Minister of Public Works,

The Budget-Mr. Marcil
realized this in their denunciation of Sir Wilfrid, and twenty-nine Conservatives and Nationalists were elected in the province of Quebec. But that will probably never happen again in our generation. The province of Quebec was fooled on that occasion, and it was fooled in 1917, and since that time the Conservatives have only returned sufficient men to report the sad news to this house.
I have not the time to say all I would have liked to say, but I wish to put certain statements on Hansard so that they may be read by my constituents. The surplus of $69,782,000 is one which should be eminently satisfactory to the people of Canada. The estimated revenue of $454,942,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over 1927-28, and the estimated expenditure of $385,160,000, an increase of $22,332,000, leaves a surplus of $69,782,000. The debt of Canada has been reduced to $2,227,068,000, which means a net reduction in six years of $226,708,000, or a yearly average of about $37,700,000. In addi-. tion to this the rates of taxation in force in 1922 have been reduced and the sum of $241,000,000 has been remitted to the taxpayers. The interest charges which amounted to $133,482,113 in 1922 have been reduced to $117,142,100 as of April 1, 1929, a decrease of $16,340,013. The payment out of revenue of maturing loans is something new, and the reduction in taxation through the elimination of various taxes has amounted to $25,000,000 in a single year. I would like to know where, in the past history of Canada, anyone could find a more satisfactory statement. I know the people whom I have the honour to represent will be satisfied with that statement.
We have heard many wails and all kinds of complaints about unemployment in this country; about those who are going to the United States and who should be kept at home. I can only speak for the province of Quebec, and will cite the conditions obtaining in the city of Montreal as compared with those of ten years ago. There are nearly one million people on the island of Montreal at the present time, and it would be very hard to convince those people that this country is not prosperous. The harbour of Montreal is rapidly becoming one of the great harbours of the world; it is the first harbour in grain exportation. Last year 453,000,000 bushels of grain from all parts of western Canada and some parts of the United States were moved through this port. The development of Montreal has been very great but progress is not confined to that city. A magnificent system of highways has been constructed by the provincial government, covering the province from the west down to the Gaspe peninsula. There has been great development in the -cities of Three Rivers and Quebec and in the Lake St. John district. That district has been transformed through the construction of enormous water-powers, the largest development of the kind in the world. Great progress has been made throughout the whole province in the development of water-powers. Twenty or twenty-five years ago Quebec was looked upon as an agricultural province but it is rapidly becoming an industrial province. Considerable improvement will take place in the Gaspe district because our railways will be linked up with the Canadian National railways. That is something which should have been done twenty-five years ago, as was done in many other parts of the country and in the maritime provinces. In many ways Quebec has improved 100 per cent as compared with its condition ten years ago. There is employment for all who wish to work. Of course, there are complaints there, as there are everywhere else, but they are nothing to what they would have been had the state of affairs which existed in 1921 continued.
Let us look at the trade of Canada at the present time as compared with what it was, not ten years ago, but only last year. During the eleven months ending February, 1929, the merchandise entered for consumption amounted to $1,130,350,273, as compared with $988,501,781 for the corresponding period in the previous year; merchandise, domestic, exported, amounted to $1,248,848,500 as compared with $1,121,233,042 for the previous year. The total trade of Canada for the eleven months of 1928 amounted to S2,109,734,823 as against S2,379,198,823 for 1929, which considered in the light of an increase of $2,352,638 in foreign merchandise exported, gives an increase of $271,816,638. If this computation were figures for the twelve months it would show an increase in one year of about $300,000,000. Where can we find a reasonable or sensible man who will! be convinced that this country is not in a satisfactory condition when he is shown figures which prove that a country with a population of under 10,000,000 people has been able to increase its total trade by about $300,000,000? In one year's time we have increased our imports 'by $141,000,000 in round figures, our exports by $127,000,000 and the exports of foreign merchandise by $2,500,000. The budget showed a favourable trade balance of $154,100,000, and nothing could be more satisfactory than that.
There are many facts which have been given in the addresses of bank presidents, the addresses of presidents of railway companies, in commercial papers and other papers of the importance of the Montreal Gazette which I
The Budget-Mr. Marcil

would have liked to read, but time will not permit. In a very interesting publication of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Agricultural and Industrial Progress in Canada, it is shown that at the present time Canada is the fifth country in the world in point of trade. In 1927 in imports the countries in order of rank were: the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Canada. With the population that we have, that is a wonderful showing. As regards exports, Canada is in the same position and in point of agricultural trade Canada is also fifth position, the countries in order of rank being: United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France and Canada, followed by British India, Japan, Italy, Argentine and the Netherlands. We have also this statement which is a remarkable one:
In visible trade balance Canada held third place in 1927, following the United States and British India, while in favourable trade balance per capita, with $15.93, Canada led the entire world.
When I was a young lad fifty years ago I made my debut on a paper which was known then as it is now as one of the leading papers in Canada, the old Montreal Gazette. I was a young reporter in those days, under Hon. Thomas White, who was subsequently member for Cardwell in the house and Minister of the Interior. I am sorry to see that my old deskmate of those days, the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) is not in the house at this time, but we hope that he will be present before the session ends. The Montreal Gazette, which is one of the most important and influential organs in Canada, publishes every year a review of the business of Canada written by men like the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the president of the Canadian National Railways, the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, the president of the Bank of Montreal, the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce and other leading Canadians. This is a nonpolitical publication called The Annual Review of the Gazette. I find on the first page of this review for 1928 the following lines from our old friend the hon. member for Mount Royal who, let it be said en passant, is the last survivor of the men who served under Sir John A. Macdonald in the house, and we all hope that he will rapidly regain his health so that he may be able to finish his term. What does he say in this review, for he is the doyen of the Conservative party in the house? He says:
Needless to say, it has been a year of prosperity. Balance sheets work out gains. A new hope has come to the maritime provinces, crops 
have been large in the western provinces, and in the middle provinces factory production and distribution have gone beyond record. Foreign trade in value and volume outstrips precedent. Tills is the sum of the year.
That is the statement of the hon. member for 'Mount Royal, so that there is not much trouble in showing whether Canada is in a prosperous condition or not. The president of the Canadian Pacific says that his railway has gone into the construction of branch lines because it has faith in the future of the country, especially in the west. I often wonder how it is that the members for Toronto are always quasi-unanimous in criticizing the policy of the Liberal party when, under the Liberal policy, a company like the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has become the greatest transportation company in the world, is able to erect a $16,000,000 hotel in the good old Conservative city of Toronto. It shows it has some faith in the future of Canada, and that conditions in Canada are not as bad as might be thought from listening to some of the statements that are made in the house.
The president of the Canadian National Railways states that he has found satisfaction and a growing feeling of optimism throughout the whole country. It is part of his business to visit every province in Canada, and after doing this 'he says that the Canadian National this year, after paying all charges except interest charges due the government, will have a surplus of $7,000,000. Those who sat here in 1921 will remember that there was a deficit of $60,000,000 on this road. That has been changed in a very short time to a surplus of $7,000,000, showing that Canada has been making wonderful progress. The Montreal Gazette that I cited a moment ago, in publishing the annual statement of the Canadian Pacific, gives certain figures which I do not want to weary the house with, and then it has this to say:
This is a remarkable achievement, having in view the fact that so much of the company's western traffic is handled upon a low rate basis. That the gross earnings are the largest in the history of the company is evidence not only of largely increased car loadings, but of extraordinary efficiency in taking care of the traffic available.
Last year was the greatest year in the history of the Canadian Pacific. That is a wonderful thing to say, and surely we are not expected to believe that Canada is not prosperous at the present time.
Let us pass on to something else. Senator McDougald, writing in the article of the progress made by the harbour of Montreal, concludes with these words:

The Budget-Mr. Marcil
With a grand total of 423,570,557 bushels received and delivered in a navigation season the duration of which does not exceed about 215 days, not far short of an average of 2,000,000 bushels of grain passed through the harbour elevators every twenty-four hours.
Mr. A. B. Phipps, president of the Canadian Bankers Association, 'has this to say:
The calendar year just closed has witnessed a volume of import and export trade without equal in the history of the country. Abounding national revenues, record wheat production, increasing railway earnings and an unusual amount of building construction as expressed in terms of cost in the larger cities, and in fact in practically all parts of the country, have marked the year. It would be strange indeed if all this 'were not reflected in banking. Without elaborate statistics, the increase in current loans by the banks, as per return of October 31st last, of $165,000,000, or 15.5 per cent over the corresponding figures of October 31st of 1027, may be taken as indicative of the general increment in volume of banking business. If more evidence were wanted, the increment of 17.8 per cent in aggregate debits to individual accounts at clearing house centres in all Canada for the three months ended October 31st last, as compared with the like for the same period in 1927, affords corroboration nothing short of proof.
The editor of the Montreal Stock Market makes this statement:
By every possible standard of measurement or basis of comparison the Montreal stock market in the year 1928 eclipsed all prior records.
Mr. W. M. Birks, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, speaking on the mercantile situation of Canada in 1928, says this:
Judged by the basal factors which determine our mercantile situation, the year 1928 has been in the van of our entire economic progress. Whether it be cultivation, manufacturing or the development of our natural resources, each tells the same story these past twelve months of an abounding prosperity, which per se indicates prosperous commercial conditions. Unless there w'ere outlets for the products of the plough, the dynamo and the exploitations of nature, there could develop no commerce of proportions. Canada has found itself in the fortunate situation, however, where marketing opportunities of unusual dimensions, both at home and abroad, have absorbed the output of her farms, her factories and her harnessed and natural wealth. More than that, the sinews of commerce have shown remarkable strength. Given the volume of output in Canada and the more than ordinary intake of imported merchandise, the transportation companies and the competing distributing agencies have all made the flow of commerce betw'een our provinces and between Canada -and outside countries particularly easy and vigorous.
These are statements which cannot be challenged. Let us see what the president
* of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, Mr. L. W. Simms, says:
During the past year I have travelled from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and have made also a number of trips which included the principal industrial centres. These gave me an opportunity to discuss business conditions with manufacturers of various lines. The general impression I received was that Canada, on the whole, is making material progress, and that the improvement evident in 1927 has been continued during 1928.
There is no branch of activity, as I said a moment ago, in which greater development has taken place in recent years than in the electrical industry, and here is what Mr. D. C. Durland, president of the Canadian General Electric Company, Limited, says with regard to that industry:
The electrical industry has kept pace with the requirements of national expansion during a year in which more electrical energy has been generated and utilized than in any similar period of Canada's history. The great activity in hydro-electric development manifest during the last few years continues without abatement, and sufficient undertakings are either at present under construction or in prospect to insure substantial progress being maintained during 1929.
At the beginning of 1928 about 4,800,000 horse-power was being generated by Canadian rivers, and about 550,000 horse-power was added during the year. The total of 5,350,000 horse-power is twice that available at the end of 1923. In other words, the annual increase during the last five years has been about 25 per cent.
In view of this very rapid increase in production and demand, it is interesting to note that Canada's potential water-power resources are estimated to be not less than 43,000,000 horse-power, a portion of which is at present unavailable because of its great distance from populated centres. Research and inventive genius, however, are -at work devising means of overcoming even this handicap of distance, while electro-chemical and other industries are following electrical projects into country which has hitherto been considered as wilderness. A typical example of this trend is that of the Saguenay river development in northern Quebec, which is now generating 540,000 horse-power at Isle Maligne Station, or twice the amount consumed in the city of Toronto. Three industrial establishments in the immediate neighbourhood, far from any city, will utilize practically all this power. These vast power resources are becoming an increasingly important factor in Canada's progress.
Already this country has the second largest per capita installation in the world, with its 513 horse-power per 1,000 of population, being only exceeded by Norway. To-day $900,000,000, representing approximately $100 for every person in Canada, is invested in hydro-electrie plants.
Could there be, Mr. Speaker, a more eloquent, a more glowing description of Canada's progress up to the present time than
The Budget-Mr. Marcil

is contained in the statements which I have [DOT] just read? In the few minutes remaining at my disposal, I shall have to leave aside much that I should like to have said. Progress has been made all along the line, not only in the hydro-electric industry, but in farming, in the development of pulp mills, in the construction of railways, in construction generally. Here is what the editor of MacLean's Building Reports says:
During 1928 the estimated value of new construction reached a total never equalled previously.
And so on.
I have reluctantly to give up my task, but the task has been a pleasant one, and I must thank those who have done me the honour of listening to me without any interruption, probably because I have become, as Providence willed, one of the oldest members of the house. There are only four or five of those who were in this chamber nearly thirty years ago, but I am glad to know that I have been able to speak in language as eloquent as I used twenty-eight years ago, when I asked my people to remember that in putting their faith in the Liberal party they were putting their faith in the true party, because the policy of the Liberal party has been at all times the policy of the people, for the people, and by the people; and no matter what changes may take place, and changes will happen naturally in all countries governed by the party system, the fact remains that when the country gets in the lurch after eighteen years of protection, and after ten years of war, when bankrupt railways have been purchased and our national credit begins to fail, and the value of the Canadian dollar to dwindle, the country naturally turns its eyes to the Liberal party to save it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: Mr. Speaker during the progress of this debate a great deal has been said about the prosperity which Canada is enjoying to-day, and I have been rather amused at the attempts of hon. gentlemen opposite to show that in some unaccountable way this prosperity is attributable to the policy of the government. Five cabinet ministers and about twenty government supporters have taken part in the debate up to the present time, but not one of them h_.s pointed to any specific act of the administration which to any appreciable

degree has contributed to this prosperity. In my opinion Canada, blessed by her great natural resources and by a kindly Providence, supplemented by the skill and energy of her people, is prospering to-day in spite of the policy of the government. If the government would adopt a policy along the lines of that suggested in the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), a policy which would make provision for reasonably safeguarding and protecting the interests of those engaged in agricultural pursuits and industrial employment, I believe the country would be enjoying more prosperity and we would have greater reason for rejoicing.
I should like to take the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to Algoma in order that he might hear what the farmers in that section have to say about the policy of the government-a policy that permits large quantities of fresh vegetables, and fruit grown in the United States to be marketed in this country a few weeks before the Canadian crop is ready, thus giving to the competitors of our market gardeners the benefit of the high prices then prevailing; a policy that encourages the importation of New Zealand butter, with disastrous effects on our dairy industry; a policy that in the opinion of the farmers in that section of the country is very unfair to the marketing of their hay. At the present time the price of hay is a little higher on the Canadian side than it is across the line in the state of Michigan, with the result that considerable quantities of hay are being shipped from across the river to compete in our market with Canadian-grown hay, which enjoys a protection of only two dollars per ton. A few years ago this situation was reversed; the price of hay was a little higher on the American side, but the Canadian farmer was effectively blocked from participating in that market by a duty of four dollars a ton. It would be very interesting to hear wihat the farmers of Algoma have to say to the minister with respect to a policy which they feel does not give them a fair break in their own home market.
Now, sir, in his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) made reference to the development of trade within the empire. In that regard he spoke as follows:
It is gratifying to note the steady development of inter-empire trade. Canada, the pioneer of the British preference, looks on empire trade as the keystone of its external trade policy, and desires in every way to foster closer trading relations throughout the British commonwealth of nations.
We are all anxious to see trade with the empire increased so long as this increase is

The Budget-Mr. Simpson
developed on a fair and equitable basis; but it seems to me that the policy of the government does not lend itself to the development of that trade, but rather to the development of trade with the United States. Let me give a few figures in support of my statement. Our imports from the United States for the twelve months ending January 31, 1927, amounted to $675,518,000, as compared with our imports for the twelve months ending January 31, 1929, of $840,353,000-an increase of $164,735,000, or 25 per cent. From the United Kingdom our imports for the same two periods were respectively, $164,635,000 and $193,451,000-an increase of $28,816,000, or about 17| per cent. Our exports to the United States in the same period increased $31,769,000. while to the United Kingdom they decreased by almost ten million dollars. Or take another example. For the calendar year 1928, the increase in our total trade over 1927 amounted to $270,548,000. Of the increase in imports 90 per cent was attributable to trade with foreign countries, and only 10 per cent to trade with countries of the British Empire. Of the increase in our exports, foreign countries accounted for 65 per cent and the British Empire only 35 per cent. It must be apparent that the policy of the government, particularly with respect to our imports, is not developing trade within the empire.
The total trade of Canada during the past year has increased by a very substantial amount. In the conduct of his own business a man naturally is very much interested to see his total turnover increase; but he is infinitely more interested in his financial statement at the end of the year to see if there has been a corresponding increase in his profits or surplus account. Now, let us look at Canada's trading account from that angle. It may be stated by some hon. members that it is not fair to compare a nation's trading with that of an individual or a private company. In some respects I admit that it is not, but the comparison which I desire to make is, I think, an eminently fair one. The following figures show Canada's favourable balance of trade for the four years from 1925 to 1928 inclusive:
1925		 $392,905,000
1926		 275,597.000
1927		 151,664,000
1928		 151,812,000
These figures show that while we have been increasing the volume of our business, we have not been maintaining a corresponding increase in our favourable trade balance. 1 am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), being a keen business man,
would feel considerable alarm if in the conduct of his business, notwithstanding the fact that the aggregate sales or turnover was increasing year by year, there was not a corresponding increase in his surplus or profit account.
How do we account for this? The explanation is that the policy of this government encourages the export of our raw material in an unmanufactured state which commands the lower price, and encourages an ever increasing amount of imports of fully manufactured goods which command the higher price. Take an example. The increase in imports in 1928 over 1927 was made up of 75.5 per cent of fully manufactured products, 2.7 per cent of semi-manufactured products and only 21.8 per cent of raw material, while almost 75 per cent of the increase in exports consisted of wheat. And our imports are constantly increasing. Take the returns for the month of February 1929 and we find that the imports in that one month have increased by $11,000,000 over the imports for the corresponding month in 1928, over $6,500,000 of which consists of iron and its products; and our exports during February have decreased by $6,500,000. This shows an unfavourable balance of trade for the month of $14,782,710. Now last year our imports from the United States amounted to $840,000,000, at least 65 per cent of which consisted of manufactured goods, which would amount to $550,000,000, 75 per cent of which could be manufactured and should be manufactured in this country, representing some $400,000,000. What would it mean to Canada if we were manufacturing all these goods here? Let us ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to answer the question. In the very excellent speech he delivered the other day he made reference to our exports of manufactured goods, speaking as follows:
I wish to point out the value of our export
of manufactured goods. The ratio of labour to the value of the goods going out of the factories of Canada is shown to be 43.8 per cent. Hon. gentlemen who know something about industry are aware that overhead represents largely labour, expenses of sales force, advertising, bookkeeping, and so forth. All the raw material originating in Canada which goes into the factory as raw material is a finished product to the industry that produces it; therefore it represents labour. A very careful estimate-and I think it is extremely conservative-shows that for every dollars' worth of manufactured products exported from this country fifty cents is spent in the Dominion on labour in gome form or other. On this basis our total of manufactured exports represents an expenditure on Canadian labour of over $300,000,000. Allowing $1,500 as the average return for the Canadian worker, it means that 200,000 workers of this Dominion are employed by virtue of our export trade
The Budget-Mr. Simpson

in semi or fully manufactured products. Accepting the ratio of one gainfully employed in every four, it means that the manufactured exports of this country provide employment for ten per cent of our total population.
Therefore, Sir, I submit that nothing this Dominion can do is of greater importance than to assist her industrialists to find outlets for their commodities in the markets of the world; this brings employment to our working men, it brings money to our shores, and it provides markets for the raw material of the Dominion, whether wheat turned into flour, or lumber turned into sash and doors.
That is the reasoning of a keen business man who, I believe, is making an honest effort to increase the export of our manufactured goods. But let us apply that same reasoning to our imports from the United States. Last year we imported 8400,000,000 worth of goods from the United States, which goods couid be manufactured in Canada. The minister says that one half of that amount represents labour, which would amount to $200,000,000. Allowing S l ,500 as the average wage which would be pa'd, this would provide employment for
130.000	additional people in Canada-more men in this country spending their wages in the products of factory and farm. It is not hard to imagine the impetus this would give to the prosperity of Canada, and if you figure five in a family for each working man it would increase the population of Canada by about
650.000	people and would solve the problems of the Minister of Immigration over night; for no policy of immigration is better than one that provides employment for the immigrant when he lands in Canada. If you can provide the immigrant with satisfactory employment at a reasonable wage, he is going to send word back to his friends and neighbours. So that instead of spending millions of dollars to induce immigrants to come to our shores you would have them rapping at your door for admission.
I want to refer now for a moment or two to the pulp and paper industry. The development of this industry since the war has been very rapid. The production of newsprint in Canada in 1913 amounted to 350,000 tons, and in 1928 this had increased to 2,381,000, over one-third of the total world production. Canada last year exported 92 per cent of her total production, valued at $129,000,000, second only to wheat, and no small factor in the favourable trade balance which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was able to show. But as a result of this rapid development our pulp and paper mills find themselves equipped to turn out a greater quantity of newsprint than they can find a market for, so that many of them have machines idle while some have been closed down completely for an indefinite 
period. If time permitted I could tell some of the experiences which the men have had to endure in some of these centres, in Espanola, a purely paper town in the constituency of East Algoma, and in another in the constituency of Fort William. This means men out of work. While the premiers of the provinces have had consultations with the paper manufacturers and have done what they could to try to remedy the situation and bring about a more even distribution of production, in my opinion this government, if they would take action, could relieve the strain with very little difficulty by placing an export duty on pulpwood. Last year we shipped to the United States 82 per cent of the total production of newsprint, but in addition to that we exported to that country 1,500,000 cords of pulpwood. This wood was manufactured into newsprint in the mills of the United States, and to that extent supplied the demand which otherwise would have been supplied by Canadian mills. If by the imposition of an export duty 800,000 of the 1,500,000 cords of pulpwood could be manufactured into newsprint in Canada it would provide
650,000	tons of newsprint or about 25 per cent of our total production, and that would enable all of the mills in Canada to work to capacity. Canada would receive $30,000,000 more for the finished article than is paid for the raw wood, and in addition employment would be provided for about 5,000 additional men. While we have great pulpwood areas, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to get the idea that our timber resources are inexhaustible; we have arrived at a point of production now whereby vast areas are being stripped of timber each year. The 1,500,000 cords of pulpwood shipped to the United States last year would represent the pulpwood from an area of 360 miles square; Canada cannot go on at this rate indefinitely and still maintain a supply for her own mills. So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the government could relieve this situation very easily if they wished to do so.
Some person will say, " What about the settler? The settler has to sell his wood, which he cuts in the winter, in order to maintain his family until he clears sufficient land for the raising of crops." I thoroughly agree with that position; the settler must be protected, but I consider that it would not be a difficult matter for the provincial government to arrange with the pulp and paper companies that the actual settler should receive a fair market price for his pulpwood. It must be borne in mind that not over 25 per cent of the pulpwood which we export is cut by actual settlers; by far the larger portion of it is

The Budget*-Mr. Simpson
cut by pulpwood farmers and by companies which have acquired large areas of timber for the purpose of cutting and exporting the pulpwood to the United States.
Now I would like to direct attention for a few moments to the iron and steel industry. In his address the other day the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both well) devoted some time to this industry and quoted from the brief presented by the Algoma Steel Corporation before the tariff board, particularly with respect to the iron ore industry. He quoted as follows:
There are in Canada reserves of iron ores of excellent metallurgical quality, and large tonnages of these ores are available and contiguous to the Great Rakes water system, and therefore in a position to be cheaply conveyed to the consuming centres, which are also situated adjacent to the same water system, but all the known deposits of ores located in this district require beneficiation before they can be used in the blast furnace. The cost of beneficiation is in excess of the cost at which American lake Superior ores can be laid down at Canadian furnace docks at the present time, and therefore^ governmental assistance in the way of bounties would be required to firmly establish a Canadian iron ore industry.
He quoted further from the brief, as follows:
.... until increased mining costs in the American iron ore fields force the price of ore well beyond present levels, we will be unable to proceed with the development of this important future source of supply.
His comment was as follows:
That was the statement made before the tariff board. If the situation in Canada is such that it is going to cost us considerably more to use our own ore and coal in order to manufacture iron and steel, s.urely at this time it is good business for us to get our iron and steel from some other place.
The statement he read from this brief is substantially correct with respect to the iron ore situation in this counry. We have large quantities of iron ore in different sections of. Canada; in northern Ontario particularly there are large deposits of siderite and magnetite ores, but none of this ore is suitable for blast furnace use in its natural state. It has to be treated; the sulphur, phosphorus and other impurities must be removed and the iron content raised before the ore is suitable for blast furnace use. This costs money, and as a result not a ton of iron ore is being mined in Canada to-day for use in Canadian blast furnaces; the ore is secured from the iron mines of the United States or Newfoundland. However, I contend, Mr. Speaker, and I am backed up in this contention by the commission appointed by the Ontario government some years ago to investigate the iron ore situation, that it is not in the national interest for Canada to be dependent upon
another country for the raw material of such a great basic industry as that of iron and steel. This commission, having made an exhaustive study of the whole situation, recommended that a bounty should be paid in order to assist in meeting the cost of the treatment of this ore, one-half of the bounty to be paid by the province and the other half by the Dominion. So far as the province of Ontario is concerned, two or three years ago they provided for the payment of their share of the bounty, but although my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) and myself have endeavoured to impress upon this government the necessity of providing their share of the bounty, up to the present time they have not seen their way clear to do so.
Just here I would like to refer to the mining of ore from the Helen mine, when it was in operation, in order to give an idea of what this would mean to Canada. This was a mine at Michipicoten which was operated for a few years, during which time a little more ore was taken from it than was imported into Canada last year, and I will give the actual result of the operation of that mine during that length of time. The company paid in wages $1,820,000. in freight SI,642,000 and for supplies $1,020,000, or a total of $4,482,000, and it is estimated that at least $700,000 of that total was for farm produce. We must bear in mind that the cost of mining ore is almost entirely in wages and freight rates, and I contend that it would be very much in the interests of Canada to keep that money circulating in our own country instead of sending it to the United States.
Some people are opposed to the principle of bounties, and in that connection I would like to quote what Mr. Fielding had to say. As the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) stated this afternoon, we are indebted to Right Hon. W. S. Fielding for providing a bounty for the iron and steel industry about 1900, which bounty was paid for about ten years. Referring to this fact, Mr. Fielding said:
In tliis connection,, I would like to invite the attention of the house to the question of what these bounties have accomplished. I know that with some excellent citizens of Canada the idea of bounties is not popular. More than once I have met people of the very best class who shake their heads over the idea. I think, however, that it can be clearly shown that the treasury of Canada has not lost one dollar from the payment of bounties. The iron and steel industries which have been established in the country have undoubtedly had a great effect in the development of the trade in Canada. Just how far the influence of a steel industry is felt may be a matter of debate. I have no doubt that honourable gentlemen have found many cases where business has been influenced favourably a long distance
The Budget-Mr. Simpson

from the location of an iron and steel plant; I have found such cases myself; and it must be remembered that in all the principal trade centres of Canada vast quantities of goods have been purchased and sold to these steel ports, as I may describe them.
He goes on to show that the 'Collection of customs duties at ports where steel industries were established increased materially as a result of the increased business carried on after the bounties had been paid. He gives a comparison of the ten-year period before the bounties were paid and the ten-year period during which they were paid, which shows that the customs duties collected in the first period amounted to $7,708,566.69 and in the second period, $16,710,211.72. The collections at the port of Sault Ste. Marie increased by almost $1,000,000 per year for the ten-year period subsequent to the payment of bounties. From three to five million dollars was paid annually in wages, and large sums were also paid to our railways as a result of the operations of the steel mills in that city. Since the war the steel industry in Canada has had to contend with very unfair competition in its own market from the large steel industries in other countries, especially the United States. Last year I presented to this house as clearly and as frankly as I could the reasons why we considered this competition was not in the interests of Canada. I offered a concrete suggestion as to how it could and should be remedied. Time will not permit me to repeat this argument to-night, but I will read an extract from the brief submitted by the Al-goma Steel Corporation to the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, which shows that our steel industry was operating at less than fifty per cent of capacity, although equipped to manufacture practically all the steel which was imported, with the exception of some of the larger shapes of structural steel. In part, the brief reads as follows:
From these figures it will be noted that during these seven years (1921 to 1928) our steel-making capacity has been employed only to the extent of 39 per cent of rated capacity, and that in only one year did we exceed 50 per cent, vizr the fiscal year ended June last. The increase in that year was due entirely to the increased demand for standard rails and fastenings.
While our mills -were operating at less than fifty per cent of their capacity, we find importations increasing at an alarming rate. Under the heading Iron and Its Products we find the following imports:
1925		 $134,684,441
1926		 181,196,800
1927		 229,429,485
Twelve months ending
January 31, 1929.. ..	330,953,152

There is an increase of over $100,000,000 since March 31, 1927, and of 150 per cent in a period of less than four years. What does this mean to the men engaged in this industry? The following appears in the brief of the Algoma Steel Corporation:
The salaries and wages paid during this period (1921	to 1928) amounted to
$22,501,555.65, or an average of $3,214,507.95 per annum. Assuming full employment for our steel-making capacity, the additional wages paid within our own plant would amount to upwards of $2,000,000 per annum.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that those interested in building up the steel industry of this country, and those dependent upon that industry for employment, are asking for a policy which will give them a fair chance in their own market? It is not necessary for me to argue the question further. The government, and particularly the Minister of Finance, is thoroughly familiar with the whole situation. What we want is action. This matter has been before the government for three years; it was one of the first matters placed before the tariff advisory board for their consideration. What I desire to ask, and what the people whom I represent desire, to know, is why no provision has been made in the budget of this year to relieve the situation. The government cannot say that there has not been sufficient time in which to thoroughly investigate the matter. I ask the minister in all sincerity to have the courage to adopt a real Canadian policy, one which will enable us to carry on the manufacture of iron and steel within our own country and provide more steady employment for the men engaged in that industry.


Mr. D. J. COWAN (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, it is customary to congratulate the member who speaks before you and on this occasion I have very great pleasure in conveying my congratulations to one of my " fellow citizens who is also a fellow Conservative. The sentiments which he has expressed are those which are dear to my heart. The fact that there are to be no speakers from the other side of the house this evening may be an indication that we have finally tamed them into submission, or perhaps they have realized the hopelessness of answering the arguments which have been developed from this side of the house. I propose to address myself to what is not included in the budget proposals.
By the budget proposals introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) the government has invited the house to display a trustfulness, not to say credulity which might well tax the faith of the most docile and best dis-



[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Cowan
ciplined majority. One would have thought that the Liberal lions, particularly from the west, would have demanded a bigger banquet.
In view of the dangerous situation which may arise after the summoning of the congress of the United States, it seems to be the government's policy to mark time with regard to tariff changes; apparently it is the desire of the government to wait and see. The action of the government in deciding to postpone the tariff changes has caused serious and widespread disappointment. It means that all the work of the tariff advisory board during the past year has been swept temporarily into the dust-bin. Many great industrial corporations have spent thousands of dollars in preparing their case and in having it heard before that board. The steel, coal, electric-stove and foundry companies, as well as those requesting a revision and aid in the coal, steel and iron industries have all gone to the greatest trouble to collect their information. The failure of the Finance department to carry out any of the recommendations of the tariff advisory board, or to submit to the House of Commons any such recommendations or findings as have been made by that board, will be found to reflect seriously upon the prestige of the board. Unless action follows as a result of these hearings, in future the industrial companies will decline to go to the trouble and expense of preparing their case for presentation to the board, especially in view of the fact that during the last two years the board has given every indication of deciding these applications on purely political grounds. There has been at all times a juggling and shifting between the tariff board and the Department of Finance until the public and the applicants before that board do not know upon which they should place reliance, or upon whom the blame should be placed for delays or postponements. This deception is parallel to that which was practised upon the patriarch of old Isaac; when he desired to confer a blessing upon his son, through the deception of his wife another son was substituted until the blind old man exclaimed: "The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau."
The Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in his speech the other day had some remarks to make in regard to the action of the acting leader of the opposition, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I am not entering upon a defence of the action of the hon. member for South Wellington. He needs no defence at my hands, nor at the hands of anyone else, for his presentation of the arguments against the budget was one of the high
lights of the session. As we on this side of the house watched the countenances of hon. members opposite, we could not help feeling that many of them could only be said to be envious of the courage of the man who could follow his convictions. It was apparent to any observer that his amazing eloquence and convincing logic had almost forced them to exclaim as did that old and troubled Roman governor years ago: "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The present administration have not that forward look; they are looking at the past instead of at the future, and I propose during the few minutes at my disposal to discuss some of the subjects which I submit, in all fairness, should have been included in the budget.
The first matter I wish to discuss is that of highways. The subject of aid to international highways or a trans-Canada highway was introduced into the house by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner). The situation in Ontario, and particularly in the district of Port Arthur and Fort William, is one that calls for special treatment. In 1S67 confederation became .possible by the building of the trans-Canada railway. The unity of Canada may be made more permanent by the completion of a trans-Canada highway for motor cars. The motor car of to-day is a universal means of transportation of freight and passengers, and the construction of a trans-Canada highway is capable of hastening the unity of Canada, of bringing the east and the west together, of stimulating the development of Canada in a fuller measure than is possible by any other means. The motor car demands an all-weather surface highway, much as the railway train requires steels rails. Its degree of efficiency in solving the problem of transportation is in large measure disappointing owing to the absence of proper highways. All our previously accepted ideas of highways and their use must be revised in the light of the usefulness of the modern .motor car and its amazing efficiency. Experts in construction of highways admit that all-weather motor highways are of material importance, and that the greater initial expense in their construction is amply justified. Highways are a matter not only of local interest but of national importance. The whole nation gets the benefit of them. From a national point of view highways are necessary for postal service, for trade and commerce, and for the general welfare of our citizens. It has now been recognized in the transportation world 'that motor highways, meaning thereby all-weather roads, rival even the railways in the extent of their operations and the service which they render to the
The Budget-Mr. Cowan
[Stage Direction]
public. We all know that in Canada railways were early recognized as of national importance, and to supply the necessary encouragement to bring them into existence the people of Canada gave large and valuable land grants to the promoters and guaranteed their bonds as well. The people of Canada must do the same thing, but in a different manner, for the national highways. The highways when built remain the property of the public; they do not become the property of private corporations. It is not possible, therefore, to induce their development by giving land grants. It must be done by way of cash subsidies. In 1919 the Dominion government, in cooperation with the provinces, arranged a plan whereby the sum of $20,000,000 was set aside by the Dominion government for main highway construction in Canada, out of which under the arrangement arrived at, the Dominion government paid to the provinces 40 per cent of the cost of contruction, the routes for the various highways being worked out in conjunction with the provinces. I think the proposed construction of a trans-Canada highway embodies a sound national policy and should be accepted as outside and above party politics.
The federal government of the United States has, since 1917, expended more than $650,000,000 among the various states of the union to stimulate and assist them in building their main system of highways. In proportion to the effort that has been made by the United States, $20,000,000 from the federal treasury in ten years is a very small amount. If Canada were making to-day the same effort as the United States, the amount spent on highways by the federal government would amount to $60,000,000. The advantage which would accrue to Canada as a whole by the construction of a trans-Canada highway cannot be measured in dollars and cents. It is estimated that citizens of the United States spent in Canada last year hundreds of millions of dollars. Tourists will not travel in Canada unless good motor roads are provided. There are 20,000,000 motor vehicles being used in the United States of America. The people there believe in using their cars for both pleasure and business; they have built the most wonderful highways throughout the length and breadth of their immense country, and in order to attract them to our northern country we must have all-weather motor highways throughout the Dominion. There is as yet not one transcontinental highway across Canada. We realize in the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William and in the surrounding districts the advantages of having a highway between Duluth and Port Arthur.

The value in dollars and cents to the merchants, hotels and business people of those communities of the traffic coming over this route is of transcendent importance. The provincial government should not be obliged to pay the whole cost of the construction of the remainder of the road extending east from Port Arthur to Sault Ste. Marie. This is a work of national and not provincial importance, and a portion of the expense should be borne by the national treasury. I suggest in this connection one other thought; the western provinces, including the district which I represent, have a large mileage and a sparse population. The contemplated highway is a provincial asset and not merely a local improvement. Federal aid should, therefore, be granted to the provinces in proportion to the mileage to be constructed rather than on the basis of population. This highway policy which has been adopted in-the United States has worked out very successfully there and I urge upon the government of the day the advantage of adopting the same policy in our own country.
A year ago, speaking in the budget debate, I advocated the policy of the extension of our air mail routes. This method of the transportation of mail has been tried by the Post Office Department to some extent in eastern Canada. I would urge the government.to establish an air mail service from Montreal and Toronto to western Canada. I need not dilate on the necessity of rapid transportation of mail. I think the system has got beyond the stage of an experiment. Even now it is certain that a great saving in time will be achieved, and that, after all, is the primary end of air mail service. To-day the post office is a vital and indispensable part of organized daily life, and especially .of business and commerce. No possible method of making a more efficient and serviceable handling of mail can be ignored by the postal authorities. It is but a natural development in the evolution of mail delivery that airplanes should be adopted wherever possible. It requires 48 hours for mail by the present mode of transportation to pass from Port Arthur to Montreal, and 60 hours from Winnipeg to Montreal. This by a proper service could be cut down to 10 and 13 hours respectively. I understand that the advantages of the service which has been put on between Rimouski and Montreal have received favourable comment. In the United States the air mail service was put into effect on the 15th of May, 1918. It has met with a gradual response from the mailing public, and has now reached the stage where it has be-

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Cowan
come a daily factor in the business life of the communities throughout that country. Prior to February 15th, 1926, the air mail service in the United States was operated by the Post Office Department. On that date, the air mail service under contract between the Post Office Department and private individuals or corporations was established, and on September 1, 1927, the government relinquished its operation of the air mail service, and now all mailing routes are under contract. I think it is taken for granted that the service provided by airplanes would be more expensive to the department. An increase in the air mail postage rate would help to bear a portion of the extra expense thus incurred. In the United States they have adopted a rate of 10 cents per half ounce, as compared to a rate of 2 cents per ounce for ordinary first-class mail. This increase in the rate would create a fund to offset the increase in the cost to the department for transportation of mail by aircraft. Naturally every city could not have delivery of mail by aircraft, but means could be found of distribution from the larger centres to the smaller communities.
Now I turn to the question of the waterways. One of the questions which had been discussed a great deal in the press, by engineering societies, and by the people generally, is that of a highway to the sea. Should there be a deep water canal connecting the Great lakes with the Atlantic, and what should be our relation with the United States in connection therewith?
We must keep in mind the fact that the United States is insisting upon a seaway by way of the Great lakes and the St. Lawrence, and if Canada does not cooperate, the question of an alternative route through the United States must be considered. This is one of the important questions that has arisen in Canada during the first quarter of the twentieth century, and upon this important question no lead or direction has been given by the Prime Minister or the government of the day. The policy of the government seems to be one of shuffling and evasion. It is to be observed that no communication has passed from Canada to the United States in regard thereto since April 4, 1928, that no advance has been made in the matter of determining the respective jurisdictions of the provinces and the federal authorities and that at least another year will pass away before the government takes any step to reconcile the interests of the provinces and the Dominion.
If any conclusion can be drawn from the attitude and actions of the government, it
is that the water-power privileges are the dominant factor and the chief interest underlying the waterways project. This may be of interest to eastern Ontario and a portion of Quebec, but it does not take into account the long view of the interest of the rest of Canada in the canalization of the St. Lawrence river. This is certainly a work for the general advantage of Canada, and the opinion has been freely expressed that it would have been better business to have withheld action on the water-power franchises until the whole scheme had been worked out and a settled policy determined upon as regards both the water-power development and the construction of the canal. I think the time is opportune for the government to give a lead to the discussion on this subject, and that the attitude of the government should be presented to the house and to the public. According to the press reports, a great body of public opinion in the United States views with alarm the franchise proposed to be given to the Beauharnois Power and Canal Company. It is easier to retain than to regain privileges and franchises, and it is the more remarkable in view of the fact that the St. Lawrence advisory commission recommended that the cost of the construction of the canal should be paid out of the sale or earnings of the power franchises. It would appear that the day is past when the cost of the canal is to be borne in the manner suggested by the advisory board. I think the Prime Minister owes it to the house and to the country to state in unequivocal terms the attitude of himself and his government towards this enterprise, so that we shall know the position we are in, and the course he proposes to take.
I intend for a few moments to elaborate on the argument which has just been presented by my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) with regard to the iron ore situation. The importance of the iron and steel industry in Canada warrants exceptional measures being taken to make that industry as far as possible self-sustaining in regard to its supply of raw material. For* the last calendar year, and for several years prior thereto, not a ton of iron ore has been mined in Canada or used by Canadian furnaces. This is a condition that should not be allowed to continue.
The great area of northern Quebec, northern Ontario and Manitoba, known as the precambrian shield, is the most highly mineralized area in the world. Geologists tell us that in that geological formation is found all the great mines that are in existence to-day. Eighty-five per cent of the pre-
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Cowan
[Stage Direction]
Cambrian formation is in Canada and the remainder is in the United States. The 15 per cent in the United States we find in the great Mesaba range, upon which to-day the prosperity of the United States depends in regard to steel and iron products. Our balance of trade is adversely affected to the extent of over $300,000,000 by the importation of American ores during a period of twelve months.
Under the system of bounties on certain mineral products, there was paid out of the federal treasury up until the year 1911 the sum of $17,000,000. At that time a great number of blast furnaces were established' in Canada, at Hamilton, Port Colborne, Midland, Parry Sound, Deseronto, Ojibway, Port Arthur and Sault Ste. Marie, but many of these have ceased to operate as a result of the discontinuance of the bounty provided.
The advantages to be gained by the use of our own ore are apparent to anyone who has given any thought to the subject. Sufficient investigation has been made to demonstrate that there are iron ores in Canada in sufficient tonnage that could be made available immediately by some preliminary treatment. I urge that the federal Department of Mines should conduct experiments to demonstrate an efficient method of bene-ficiating our low grade iron ores, and assistance by means of a bounty would encourage the installation of extensive plants and permit Canadian furnaces to utilize Canadian ore. Researches have been conducted in the state of Minnesota to demonstrate the most economical metallurgical methods of bringing our low grade magnetites up to merchantable grades. The United States Bureau of Mines at Duluth have been experimenting on ores similar to our own, but of much lower grade, giving from 20 to 27 per cent iron content. I think the department could well make use of experiments so conducted, as they have extended over a period of years. Extensive areas have been explored in many parts of Canada, and I have no reason to doubt that concentrates of merchantable ores will be found in these ranges. This is particularly true of northern Ontario, which on more than one occasion has been referred to as the breaking point between eastern and western Canada.
The development of the iron ore industry would increase the revenue of our railways. It is estimated that at least 65 per cent of the tonnage of the railways in the United States is derived from the products of the (nines. It would help to solve the question of providing tonnage and earning power for

the Canadian National Railways. It would stimulate the development of all our mining activities, and the increment in the revenues of Canada that the proposed bounty would require would amount to only a very small tax. I would urge the Minister of Finance to take advantage of the opportunity of granting needed assistance to this industry, particularly in view of the fact that the Ontario government in 1924 passed what is known as the Iron Ore Bounty Act, for the very purpose of assisting this industry. It is to be noted in this connection that the treasury would be assuming no responsibility if no iron ore was produced). I suggest it is worthy of a trial to ascertain whether the producers with the aid of a bounty could make a success of the enterprise or not. The advantages are numerous, and the disadvantages are not evident. The Minister of Finance should, therefore, take advantage of the Ontario act, and the Dominion should contribute a sum sufficient to put this enterprise upon a satisfactory basis.
It is a striking commentary on Canadian industry that the number of men employed in blast furnaces in 1913 was 1,589 and that in 1925 the number had been reduced to 656 and is still less at this date. There are now only three furnaces in operation in Canada, and their total output is only 21 per cent of the total capacity of such furnaces.
Iron ore, coal and steel are the three main roots that give life to and support the trunk of the iron trades tree. No matter how wide-spreading and fruitful its branches, if this tree has its roots outside of Canada it is not a Canadian possession. It is time now to establish, in cooperation with the province of Ontario, this industry on a permanent and successful commercial basis. The time to begin is now, in order that it may be fairly established within the next ten years.
There are many iron ore deposits in northern Ontario that would be developed if this legislation should receive approval, and I know of no legislation of a constructive character that would be of greater advantage to Canada as a whole.
Mr. 'SPEAKER: Is the house ready for the question?
John Anderson Fraser: Before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the district that I represent in this assembly. I have listened attentively to a good deal of what has been said in regard to other parts of the Dominion, and as I represent the district of Cariboo, from which

The Budget-Mr. Fraser
you do not hear a great deal, I propose for a few minutes to give you a description of my constituency.
In the first plane,, let me tell you that British Columbia starts at the 49th parallel and extends as far north as the 60th. The district of Cariboo starts at the 49^ parallel and extends north to the 60th. Then if you take it east and west, British Columbia is about 700 miles across, and my constituency takes in only 350 miles of it. You see, sir, I represent about one-half the area of British Columbia, and therefore should have as much to say as the other thirteen members from that province.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


John Anderson Fraser: Thank you. Now, let me say also that so far as occupations are concerned, in my riding they are almost as diversified as its area is extensive, because we have there almost every kind of known occupation. We are richly endowed with raw materials, and we are developing them to sustain our population. We engage in all branches of agriculture, including wheat-growing and fruitgrowing. We have the great grain-growing area of the Peace river, as well as other graingrowing areas in the southern part of the district in the neighborhood of Kamloops, up through the Cariboo country along the line of the Pacific Great Eastern. We have in addition a large area suitable for the raising of cattle, in fact the largest area anywhere in the Dominion to-day. And I mean the raising of cattle without the necessity of providing them with shelter during the winteT time except in a very primitive way. That area extends from the Nicola valley in the south clear up to the Cariboo country, a distance of three or four hundred miles, and from the base of the coast range on the west to the base of the Selkirk range on the east, a distance of some two hundred miles. We raise a large number of cattle there, but the area is easily capable of raising three or four times the number.
Now, you will appreciate the importance of this industry when you remember that to-day the city of Vancouver provides a very good market for the beef produced from those cattle. The population of Vancouver is certainly going to grow, so there is no need to be afraid of the expansion of the beefraising industry. It is only a very few years since the city of Vancouver was founded; to-day it has a population cf 325,000, and I can assure the 'house that in the next twenty-five years it will be a city of a million people.
We have also the dairying industry, a very important industry, but it has been affected to a certain extent, and not favourably either, by the policy of this government. I hear from all the dairying centres of my constituency the same complaint that is voiced in this house, and I would suggest to the government that it would be in the interests of the dairy farmers, especially those in my county, if some remedy were applied to meet the present unsatisfactory condition. However, I shall have more to say in regard to this a little later on.
We have also an important fruit and vegetable growing industry, extending from the Shuswap lake and Salmon arm in the east all the way down the Thompson river and up the Fraser river to Lillooet. This is the choicest fruit-growing area in British Columbia, and given a fair chance a very profitable industry could be developed. But under present conditions the people there are not operating very successfully. A similar condition prevails to that which obtains in the west in regard to wheat-growing, as we are advised by members from the prairie provinces. Although they have had a big crop of wheat the complaint is general that it has not been profitable to the farmers. But the reason why we cannot grow fruit profitably in these valleys is that, to a certain extent, the policy of the government is not what it should be. Last session when the question of some measure of protection for the fruit and vegetable growers was before the house I remember distinctly that when I asserted the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had no intention of putting the dumping regulations into effect he assured me that he could act in five minutes if the occasion presented itself. At that time I said that the Prime Minister had no intention of taking action because he had sat in his place in parliament as Prime Minister for the' four years from 1922 to 1926, and there was urgent necessity during all that time to put the clause into effect, but he had not done so. What has been the result? During the whole of last season the fruit growers of British Columbia were demanding that the dumping clause should be put into operation. This was not done by the government, and consequently the fruit growers in this district have suffered very severely.
Now, in addition to these impc rtant agricultural activities we have an extensive mining industry. Not only in placer mining, which is the original form of mining, in which you discover a gravel pit, wash the gravel through a sluice box and find in the bot-
The Budget-Mr. Fraser


Alexander McKay Edwards: And that is the best they have done for seven years?


John Anderson Fraser: Yes, and let me say that in the years 1922 and 1923 the statement was made to me by one of the largest raisers of cattle in that district that the money he received for his beef would not pay the wages of his men. Now that industry is making enough to pay the cost of production, but that is not enough; they want something better.
I have occupied more time than I had expected in talking about the Cariboo district, and now I wish to take up the statement of the Minister of Finance with regard to the increase in customs revenue of $28,000,000, or 15 per cent. The claim is made by the minister that he is not increasing taxation in this country, that as a matter of fact he is reducing taxation, but what are the figures? In 1925 the customs revenue was $120,122,453; in 1926 it increased to $143,933,110; in 1927 it was $158,960,367 and in 1928 it was $171,872,768. Then how can the minister say that he is reducing taxation while the amount of money which is being collected in customs duties is increasing? And again, why is he collecting more money in this way?
I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that a certain hon. member on this side of the house is responsible in a large measure for that increase; I refer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), who commenced an agitation in 1925 for the investigation of the customs department. The increase in the amount being collected at present is largely due to that investigation, and I think it is only right and just to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that some one should mention this fact. I think the country should know that the increased efficiency in that department and the more rigid supervision really has been the result of that investigation.
The Minister of Finance also says that the policy of this government is not a high tariff but a low tariff policy. How those people on the other side of the house do love to talk about a high tariff policy; if they have anything to say about the tariff at all they cannot leave out that word "high." The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovioh), during the course of his excellent speech the other day, said that he had been investigating the difference between the Liberal and the
The Budget-Mr. Fraser


Alexander McKay Edwards: Is that Mr. Caulder?


John Anderson Fraser: Yes, from Saskatchewan. A Mr. Robinson of Quebec, discussing the reason why there had been a reduction in the quantity of milk and cream produced in this country, said:
When the farmers of this country get a price for their products which will be just a little more attractive to them than they are _ at present, then the butter fat will be forthcoming, and not before.
That is his reason for the decrease in the production of these dairy products-that the price has been too low. Why is it too low? Ever' since the Australian trade agreement came into operation we have been told that it has made no difference in the price of these products, but we have the evidence of expert dairymen to the contrary. I would ask the house to remember that members from British Columhia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec and, I think, from some of the maritime provinces, were present at this convention. They were discussing matters which pertained to their industry, and the following resolution was laid on the table for discussion:
That the National Dairy Council reaffirms its adherence to the principle of adequate protection for the dairy industry on butter and cheese.
That resolution was moved by a Mr. Berry from British Columbia. In moving the resolution he said:
The tariff in this Dominion has heen for the benefit of almost everybody but the farmer all the way down the line. There is nothing wrong, to my mind, in the farmer of the prairies asking some advantages in the way of protection. The implement manufacturer and the automobile manufacturer ask for adequate tariff protection, and there is no reason why the farmer should not have adequate protection in connection with the manufacture of butter.
Mr. Clarke, from Alberta, said:
I am sure Mr. Berry has given you exactly the feeling of the western farmers. I think it is up to us to look for protection in our own interests.
Mr. Tovell, a representative from Manitoba, said:
I am going to be quite frank in this matter and say that I believe the dairy business in Canada was more prosperous under the situation which prevailed prior to the coming of the Australian trade agreement, but I would also say that I believe we need to use all the good judgment we can in determining methods to try to remedy the present situation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Mr. ROBERT MILNE (Neepawa):: ' Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words in connection with the budget, it is not my intention to enter upon any discussion of the financial standing of the Dominion of Canada. This question has already been dealt with, and will probably be touched upon later. 1 may say, however, that the man by the roadside oannot help but be of the opinion that a surplus of practically 170,000,000 is a fairly satisfactory condition so far as the finances of the Dominion are concerned.
There are things in the budget which I like and things which I do not like. I am very glad that this year the income tax has been left untouched. I am pleased also that the sales tax has been reduced, because this is a tax which affects practically the whole consuming public. We have heard a great deal about the prosperity of Canada, and perhaps if we measured that prosperity on the basis upon which it has been measured in this house we might believe that our present prosperity has never been exceeded. But I am of the opinion that this prosperity has not been equally distributed; the primary producer has not been getting his share of it. I do not propose to pick out any extreme cases to illustrate this point. The reason why the primary producer is not enjoying to the extent he is entitled the prosperity that exists at present is because in every case he has to take what is left of the price that is paid for the commodity he has to sell. The transportation people get their share first; the distributing organizations get theirs next, and the remainder goes to the primary producer. It costs just as much to distribute grain whether it grades the highest or whether it comes down six or eight grades below the top. Last year, until a very short time before the binders were put into the fields in western Canada, we were promised an abnormal crop. Climatic conditions, however, intervened during the last few weeks of its development, with the result that a large percentage of the grain in western Canada fell into very low grades. That is, there was passing through the inspection department in Winnipeg more grain grading No. 5, No. 6, and feed, than any other grade. A few days ago I picked up a paper which gave the shippings to the head of the lakes, and it was shown that for the week ending March 8 more grain grading No. 5 was shipped than any other grade. This, according to the figures that were given, was worth about twenty-five cents a bushel less than No. 1 northern, or the top grade of wheat. The same conditions applied to oats and barley; the
The Budget-Mr. Milne

largest number of carloads were always in the lower grades, which, on the market, were bringing in oats, around sixteen cents below the top price, and in barley, around ten cents below the top price. Just to give an idea of the expense in moving 1,000 bushels of wheat from an average point in the prairie provinces to the market at Liverpool, let me quote from the 1927-28 Canada Year Book, page 286:
Railway freight	$150	00Inland water freight	
82	92Ocean freight	
62	10Commission, profits, fees, interest, loading and other handling charges....	87	03Insurance	
1526Total	$397 31
Or approximately forty cents per bushel. These charges do not vary. That is, it costs
just as much to handle a low grade wheat as a No. 1 grade, so when one deducts the forty cents from a low grade grain, it can readily see that the price the producer receives is not very large.
I might give another illustration of how the farmer has to take what is left. About the^first of March I noticed these figures in the city of Winnipeg. The consumer was paying $1.13 per bushel for Prince Edward Island potatoes. The transportation company received 45 cents per bushel for carrying the potatoes from the maritimes to Winnipeg, and I am told by some of my maritime friends that the farmers were receiving around 20 cents a bushel. There was another 48 cents that disappeared somewhere, no doubt going to the distributors. The fact that the potato market was $1.13 in Winnipeg at that particular time is no indication that the potato grower in Prince Edward Island was getting a fair price for his potatoes. I might say in passing that the people of the Dominion were subsidizing the railway companies to a certain extent to assist the Prince Edward Island growers in getting rid of their potatoes. Then my protectionist friends come along and ask for a duty on potatoes to hold the market for the potato growers of the Dominion. I maintain that 20 cents a bushel is not of much value to t'he potato growers of the maritime provinces or any other province. If it is not possible to return more to the farmer than 20 cents, it is not in the best interest to hold any bouquets in front of them to encourage them to grow potatoes. Those two illustrations are given to show that the primary producer is not getting a fair share of the prosperity that appears to exist when we measure it by the number of carloads that are shipped.

Farmers in western Canada are quite frequently accused of being extravagant and inefficient, and I want, in order to give an illustration of the so-called extravagance of the prairie farmers, to quote the census returns of 1926 for the western provinces. These returns show that the average farm buildings, which include the home, barn and necessary outbuildings to carry on farm work in the province of Saskatchewan, were valued at an average of $1,802. That amount would scarcely build1 a garage for some of my prosperous friends in the industrial sections of the Dominion.
In Saskatchewan only 1.1 per cent of the farms had water piped into their bouses. Only 1.9 per cent of the total farms had electric light in their homes. Eighteen per cent of the farmers had automobiles, and in Manitoba, the oldest of the three prairie provinces, only 27 per cent enjoyed the advantages of the telephone. In the fact of these facts will anyone accuse the farmers of the prairies of being extravagant in regard to home conveniences?
Not infrequently we hear it said that the real cause of the farmer's trouble is inefficiency; that if he would adopt the well-tested methods of the businessman, he would soon be out of the woods. This is something I have always doubted, because we have had a number of eminently successful business men try their hands at farming. They undertook to employ their well-tested methods to agriculture, only to find that their farms were a useful device for reducing their income tax. We are forced to conclude that the real dirt farmer knows a thing or two, which even a business man does not know. lYe are now comforted by seeing this opinion confirmed by the researches of the National Industrial Conference Board of the United States. Its findings were that the average output of the farm worker increased 47 per cent during the period from 1899 to 1925, and during the same period the increase per factory worker amounted to 49 per cent. In spite of our industrial miracles and our Henry Fords, the farmer has managed to keep well abreast of the manufacturer so far as improved production goes.
I am not one of those who believe that all the ills of agriculture can be remedied by the Dominion government or by any government in any section of our country. I am inclined to think that the political parties rather flatter themselves when they try to take the responsibility on their shoulders of bringing prosperity to any one particular class. No

The Budget-Mr. Milne
doubt through the system of taxation they can have an influence on certain phases of the troubles of a particular class.
I am going to outline briefly what I consider are the real problems of agriculture, and I do not think that this applies particularly to the grain growers of western Canada, because I have listened to a great many members speaking in this house and have talked with a good many of my friends from other sections of the Dominion, and I gather that what I have to say would cover perhaps the whole country from one end to the other.
I think one of the greatest costs is the cost of distribution. The next biggest cost is the cost of transportation, and the third, which might be divided under many headings, is the cost of production. I was somewhat surprised at the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), for whose judgment and opinion I have a very high regard, when he said that he could remedy present conditions with a scratch of the pen. I cannot think he was serious in making that statement. Instead of studying the actual conditions he must, I think, have been reading some fairy story about a magic pen in a wizard's hand. This magic wand of protection, together with the British flag, has been very kind to the Conservative party in the past, but in my estimation it has been of little benefit to the farmer. I am rather surprised that my hon. friends opposite should be so eager to adopt any policy that originates under the stars and stripes when they have the British flag nailed so firmly to their mast. One would naturally think they would turn their eyes rather to the British flag and imitate the ways and means evolved under it.
Let me develop briefly the question of distribution, to show where I believe there is room for considerable improvement. It is my opinion that those in charge of distribution have not increased their efficiency in proportion to the increased efficiency of the agriculturist and industrialist. When eggs, graded extras, are selling in the city of Winnipeg for 60 cents a dozen, the farmer receives for them on an average 40 cents a dozen, or he gets about 75 cents out of the consumer's dollar. Later in the season, when eggs are selling around 40 cents a dozen, the farmer and the distributor break about fifty-fifty. I maintain that that is not a fair division. Again, when dressed chickens are retailing in the city of Winnipeg at 37 cents a pound, the market quotation f.o.b. Winnipeg is 23 cents a pound; in other words, the farmer gets 60 cents out of the consumer's dollar, and out of that he has to pay the freight from where he lives to the distributing point. In this case the man who
has dressed chicken in his warehouse for a week or ten days receives more for his work than the farmer who hatches the chicken, feeds and protects it for a period of from three to six months, dresses and packs, ships it to market, and pays the transportation charges. Last week the market quotations on potatoes in Winnipeg were as follows: wholesale, f.o.b. Winnipeg, SI.10 per 100 pounds, carload lots; jobbers to retailers, SI.35 per 100 pounds; retailers to consumers, $1.88 per 100 pounds. In this case the producer, after paying the freight, gets 52 cents out of the consumer's dollar. So, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that there is more room for greater efficiency in the distribution of goods than in any other of the lines I have mentioned.
Not having access to the prices of manufactured products at the factory, I am unable to say what the spread is between the manufacturers price and the price the consumer pays, but judging from the number of drummers chasing up and down our country in automobiles and the number you see crowding pullman and dining cars I am fairly well convinced that the cost of distribution of manufactured products is about as far out of line, as is the case with the farmer's products. The farmers are attempting seriously to cope with this difficulty by the establishment of cooperative marketing organizations. We now have cooperative wheat pools, cooperative organizations for the selling of poultry and eggs, and for the marketing of live stock, all of which organizations are making substantial progress in spite of persistent opposition from the old established systems of distribution. Just to illustrate that we have persistent opposition, let me quote from the Canada Year Book, page 770:
Over one hundred complaints have been received and dealt with since the enactment of the Combines Investigation Act. Many of these have related to the basic industries or manufacturing, most have arisen as a result of rapidly changing methods of distribution, the development of chain stores, cooperative buying agencies, department stores, mail order business, and the growing practice of direct selling.
I received a letter some time ago from a wholesale concern in Winnipeg which is endeavouring to cut corners and reduce the cost of distribution, from which I quote this
sentence:
Many commodities are controlled both as to price and as to channels of distribution by agreements amongst manufacturers, wholesalers and many other groups, which tend to stifle open competition and enhance prices to the consumer.
In spite of all our difficulties we are hoping that these systems that we are trying to
The Budget-Mr. Milne

develop will return a larger percentage of the consumer's dollar to the producer, without materially raising the cost to the consuming public, and I humbly suggest that our manufacturing organizations should make an intensive study of the distribution of their goods in order to narrow the spread between the producer and the consumer.
I want to refer for a moment to the suggestion that has been put forward by the Conservative party that industry, if given adequate protection, would be able to absorb all the products of our farms. It seems to me that this is rather an unreasonable proposition, and too much to expect. In the development of all countries agriculture has always led, that is, the agriculturists open up and develop the virgin soil. After them come the industrialists and they proceed to develop industry. In this country agriculture is so far in the lead that at the present rate of progress many years must elapse before the consumption of farm products catches up even with our present production; in fact the prospect is too remote to be considered seriously. The following figures will illustrate my point. Our exports of cheese exceed our imports by 135,325,000 pounds. The average per capita consumption of cheese in this country during the past year was four pounds. It will readily be seen therefore that we would need an additional population of 33,580,000 to consume our surplus production of cheese. I was not able to get figures for our other milk products in such definite form, but all told we have an excess production of about thirty million dollars' worth. From the Trade of Canada for 1927. I secured these figures with respect to meat products. Taking our fresh pork, dry salted pork and bacon and ham, I find we have a surplus of exports over imports of 415,930,000 pounds. The average per capita consumption of pork is about 70 pounds. It will be seen that to take care of our surplus pork production we would need a additional population of 5,940.000. Our total exports of beef, including pickle, frozen and live, amount to 102,869,000 pounds. To consume this surplus, allowing a per capita consumption of 70 pounds, which is about what we average, we would require a further population of 1,460,000. Last year our wheat crops was estimated at something over five hundred million bushels. Our average consumption of wheat per capita is about 4J bushels, and it would take an additional population of 111 or 112 millions to consume our surplus production. In view of these figures I maintain that it is futile to hold out to the agriculturists of Canada the expectation that within any reasonable period of time in-

dustry can be developed to the point where our industrial population will be able to consume the surplus products of the farm.
It seems to me that our transportation has always been a difficult problem. Nearly every member who has taken part in this debate has referred to transportation, whether he represented the fishermen of the maritimes or the coal men of British Columbia. I became curious to know how the tariff has affected the capital cost of our railway system. Last session before the special committee on railway estimates a question was asked as to the comparative cost, exclusive of duty, of locomotives, box cars and passenger cars in the United States and in Canada. The figures given are for the year 1927. Locomotives, type 482, cost in Canada $94,250, in the United States $83,500, or an increased cost in Canada of $10,750,-approximately 25 per cent. Forty-ton steel frame box cars cost $2,800 in Canada, in the United States, $2,180, or an increased cost in Canada of $620-a gain approximately 25 per cent. Steel colonist cars cost in Canada $35,000, in the United States $26,000, or an increased cost in Canada of $9,000-approximately 30 per cent. Convertible ballast cars cost in Canada $3,150, in the United States $2,600, or an increased cost in Canada of $550-approximately 25 per cent.
Talcing these figures, I calculated what this excess cost would mean for an ordinary train of box cars composed of an engine and fifty care. The excess cost would be $41,750. This would mean an average increased annual charge, allowing interest at five per cent and depreciation at ten per cent, of $6,262.
Then I proceeded to apply this to the whole railway system of the Dominion. The figures are somewhat staggering, but I give them for what they are worth. I had to go back to 1926 to get the equipment figures, but no doubt there has been an increase in the equipment since that time. In 1926 we had 5,680 locomotives. Taking the average cost at $60,000-this is considerably less than the cost I quoted for type 482, but I thought some of the engines might be smaller, [DOT] although I have no doubt some are larger and more expensive than type 482-taking this average figure of $60,000 gives a total value for our locomotives of $340,000,000. In 1926 we had 6,628 passenger cars. For these I have allowed an average cost of $45,000-I think I am not too high-which gives a total investment of $297,000,000. In that year we also had 211,255 box cars, including stock cars, ballast cars and other equipment. Taking their average value at $2,000, we have a total of $424,000,000. Adding together these three

The Budget-Mr. Milne
totals we have a grand total for the rolling stock of $1,061,000,000. If all this equipment had been brought into Canada, taking the rate of duty at 25 per cent, it would mean an extra cost for our rolling stock of $265,000,000.
But I went a little further. We have forty-one thousand miles of railway track. Taking 80-pound steel rails, this would represent 140 tons of steel per mie, or a total of
5,740,000	tons. The duty on steel rails at seven dollars a ton represents a total of S41,180,000. If we add this to the 25 per cent duty on the equipment, amounting to $265,000,000, we have a total excess cost of over $306,000,000. I do not think anyone will dispute my statement that the tariff has increased the cost of building our railways and the cost of our rolling stock.
While this protection was being accorded to the steel industry, in order to encourage the building of railways, Canada gave to various railway companies land subsidies totalling more than 47,180,000 acres. She gave a cash bonus of $225,500,000 and guaranteed bonds to the extent of approximately $484,500,000. And then our good friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) comes to this house and suggests that the steel industry of Canada has not been receiving fair consideration at the hands of the government. But 1 would point out further that the steel industry of Canada had a tube to the federal treasury which sucked out in subsidy between 1896 and 1912, ten millions of pure gold. Yet we are told, as I say, that that industry has not been getting fair consideration. In 1922 the hon. member for Fort William made this statement in the house:
I admit frankly I know nothing of the details as to whether a certain article should have fifteen, or twenty, or thirty per cent protection.
I am inclined to think he has not given the question much consideration since. No doubt, after listening to high tariff advocates and preaching it himself, he has made himself believe that high protection is the only means of making possible the development of the iron and steel industry of Canada. I wonder how long he will prescribe the same medicine for this infant that has been unable to walk after all this pampering for the last' thirty-six years. The hon. gentleman in his speech a few days ago referred to the fact that something like $300,000,000 odd worth of steel and its products was brought into Canada last year. He did not tell the house that on this amount of steel brought in there was approximately $50,000,000 in duty collected, or almost half the
total wage bill of the whole industry which he included under the heading of imports of iron and its products.
In an effort to gain some information regarding the iron and steel industry, I consulted the year book and found a chart showing the production of the different minerals in the Dominion. It was headed, with nickel produced in Canada, showing 90 per cent of the world's production, while asbestos was 85 per cent of the world's production; and in the whole table iron was not mentioned. I understand that iron is not produced in the Dominion at the present time, and surely it is not for want of protection. There must be something else at the bottom of it; it must be the cost of getting the iron ore, or some difficulty in smelting. While iron is perhaps the most important metal to our industries, at the same time, in my opinion, instead of a tariff to encourage production, what should be considered is the question of research and investigation. That will help solve the problem so far as the iron industry is concerned.
We in western Canada have been struggling with freight rates ever since the Dominion Was established and we have been pressing for many years for an outlet to Hudson bay. We wish to have that construction as cheap as is possible, yet out of every rail laid and every spike driven on that line the steel industry gets its toll. In the newspapers the other day I read that three hundred cars of cement were to be shipped into the port for work at Churchill. From every shovelful of cement put into the works at Churchill the Canada Cement Company, with its head office at Montreal, calmly site by	and takes	its
slice because of the tariff.
Mr.	STEWART	(Leeds):	What is	the
tariff on cement?


Robert Milne: Eight cents a hundred
pounds.
Mr.	STEWART	(Leeds):	Did not	the
recent investigation before the tariff board show that cement was cheaper in Canada than in the United States?


Mr. BLATCHFORD:: No.
Mr.	STEWART	(Leeds):	Yes, in some
places.


Robert Milne: The report shows that the
Canada Cement Company has a monopoly in the Canadian market, and since its coming into existence it has split its stock at least twice. It is a wealthy corporation that practically has a monopoly of the Canadian cement business.
The Budget-Mr. Milne


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: I would point out
that the Canada Cement Company-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Milne: Another industry which, in
the national interests of Canada-


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he aware of the fact that Canada cement is sold at 35 cents a barrel less where there is independent competition?


Robert Milne: That was the impression
I had from reading the report, but I have not the facts before me and I do not propose to make statements I cannot verify. I maintain that cement and paint are two products that are of national importance. In the first place, cement is a substitute for wood', and we hear to-day great complaints about the depletion of our forests. If cement were made as cheap as possible it would tend to prolong the life of the forests. And paint is a commodity which is used in the protection of wood, and for the same reason I suggest that it also should receive very serious consideration. I submit that the tariff on these two items should be reduced to the lowest point. Now, Mr. Speaker, some people are of the opinion, no doubt-


John Frederick Johnston: The hon, member's time is up.


Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton):: I
crave the indulgence of the house for a few minutes. I would not take up the time of the house now but for the criticisms I have heard of the speech delivered by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in this debate. That speceh I regard as one of the best I have- ever heard in this house and I wish to congratulate the hon. member upon the able and eloquent delivery he made. One part of his speech to which I wish to refer particularly is the statement with regard to the civil service of Canada, which statement is being taken advantage of by our opponents. I would request the critics of the hon. member's speech to read an editorial which appeared in the Evening Citizen of March 15, 1929, and which I shall read in part. I quote:
Mr. Guthrie's sweeping criticism of the government on the ground of extravagance in management of the civil service has naturally attracted special attention in Ottawa. Some civil servants have felt that the attack was upon their profession. But that is quite a mistake. Mr. Guthrie, as a politician and leader of politicians, was attacking his political opponents. He declared the service to be overmanned and wasteful, but imputed the fault to the government,

not to those who compose the civil service. Let the government defend itself.
I would like to know what this government has done for the civil service of Canada. I remember the session of 1923, when I was a member of a special committee appointed by this house to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act. This committee worked hard and brought in a report on June 22, 1923, in the dying days of the session. The committee held fifty-seven sittings and examined fifty-one witnesses, but nothing has been done in regard to its report except that during the following session Bill No. 122 was brought into the house to provide for the superannuation of civil servants. The motion which brought that bill to this house was moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), but from that time to this nothing has been done by the government. I have been wondering whether at the next session of parliament the government would bring down some measures which would be of advantage to the civil servants of Ottawa, thereby securing a majority of the votes in this section.
The chairman of that committee was the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), who was very fair and efficient at all times. His report was adopted by the house, and it contained a very strong recommendation with regard to the appointment of a supernumerary staff which could be utilized by the department for rush work such as comes along from time to time in the Department of Public Works, the Department of the Interior, the Post Office department and other branches of the service. This staff was to be composed of employees who were not eligible for superannuation and who were perhaps above the age limit and unable to enter the permanent service. To my mind this plan would do away with some of the over-manning which might be noticeable in such departments at slack periods.
Now I wish to specify some cases in which the government might be of assistance to the civil service of Ottawa. For instance, I would like to ask the government what they are doing for the technical and professional branches of the service. Recently I was amused to receive an advertisement from the Civil Service Commission calling for a qualified chemist to start at a salary of SI ,800 per annum, with a maximum of $2,100; in this same branch of the government stonemasons and plumbers are receiving over $2,000 per year. To my mind this is very unfair to

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Carleton)
technical branches of the service, and we should look after these branches immediately or we will lose all the good employees.
Then we come to the Post Office department. The ordinary householder has three persons who call on him every day, the postman, the milkman and the breadman. The milkman and the bread man have a conveyance which takes them from one customer to the other and they work only about half a day, while the postman is loaded down like a pack-horse and walks from one house to another carrying c.od.'s, stamps, advertisements and everything in general. Some of these postmen carry from 500 to 1,000 advertisements on one delivery; the department receives one cent for each letter from the merchants, and so the postman makes $5 for the government in a morning with the privilege of doing the same thing in the afternoon, but he is not paid nearly so much as the milkman and the breadman.
Then there is the rural mail delivery, where we find mail carriers selling money orders, delivering parcels and advertisements to box holders, delivering registered letters and so on. A rural mail carrier covering a route of perhaps twenty miles receives some $800 a year, out of which he is supposed to keep a horse or two and a rig, and support a wife and family. After covering that route for perhaps ten years with entire satisfaction to everyone concerned, if he does not see eye to eye with the Postmaster General a good supporter of the government may come along and offer to do the work for a dollar a year less, and the friend of the government will get the contract. This is the treatment afforded employees of the Post Office department. In my opinion no civil servant in Canada should receive less than $100 per month.
Now we come to the experimental farm at Ottawa, and to reach it we pass, by the carpenter shop of the Public Works department. There we find capable and efficient employees who receive 85 cents per hour for an eight hour day, with statutory holidays off and a two weeks vacation of 88 hours with pay. Then we go to the carpenter shop of the Department of Agriculture, about 200 feet away; there we find another capable and efficient body of employees who receive 72 cents per hour for an eight hour day, with statutory holidays but with no vacation. In other words, if you are working for the Department of Agriculture instead of the Department of Public Works you are penalized to the extent of $1.04 per day in your salary and you are not given a vacation.
Then if we consider the labourers in the Department of Public Works we find that they
receive 45 cents per hour for an eight hour day, starting at 8 a.m. and working until 5 p.m. On the other hand, if we consider the farm labourers at the experimental farm we find that they are getting from 32 cents to 40 cents per hour for a ten hour day, starting at 7 a.m. and working until 6 pm. In other words, if you are a labourer for the Department of Agriculture instead of for the Department of Public Works you receive 20 cents a day less and work two hours a day longer. The argument may be made, of course, that the men working at the experimental farm are often needed urgently; I quite realize that if the weather is good and there is grain standing in the field an extra hour or so is of great value, but that argument does not apply to the men working in the greenhouses where they keep a high temperature in order to force plant growth, nor does it apply to men working on lawns, around shrubs and so on.
I notice also that men employed in the swine, cattle, horse, sheep and poultry divisions of the Department of Agriculture are paid less than they would receive from an outside individual employer engaged in the same work. Last year, while I was attending the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto, I came across a former employee of the experimental farm who was attending the fair in charge of a Guernsey herd from the United States. He was receiving twice the salary he had been paid by the Dominion government and was very much better off in every way. So far as I can see, the "only reason why these employees of the Department of Agriculture are not receiving more remuneration is because the Minister of Agriculture is going so fast in his high-powered car that he cannot see them.
I quite believe that the Department of Agriculture is doing everything it can for the agriculturists of this country, but to my mind they could do many more practical things than send out so many pamphlets which the farmers have not time to read, and which, being no more practical than the government itself, are not of great benefit to the farmer. For instance, I suggest that the experimental farm do something practical in order to show the farmer how to handle his produce better; let them show the farmer how to build a root cellar, for example, giving the dimensions and every other detail with the exception of the cost, because a root cellar constructed by the government or by any corporation would cost twice as much as it should and would cost if constructed by a practical farmer.
I listened the other night to a very practical speech on the conditions affecting vegetable production, delivered by thei member for West
1070	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Carleton)
York (Mr. Lawson). I am heartily in accord with what he said, only I would go one step further: I would put an embargo on all vegetable products imparted from the United States which could be produced in Canada. Perhaps I would be told by some people that if that were done the customer would have to pay dearly. But it does not work out in that way, because if the farmer or the agriculturist is making a profit otlheTS will come into that line of business and production will regulate prices.
There has been considerable discussion in the house with regard to the tuberculosis test of dairy cattle in restricted areas. A question asked by the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) on March 14, 1929, appears on page 939 of Hansard, the latter part of which' is as follows:
3.	As money for this is not available until after the estimates are voted, can anything be done in the meantime?
The Minister of Agriculture answered this question as fallows:
3. No. Nothing but wait patiently.
How can the farmers wait patiently? I know farmers in my constituency who have had all their herds slaughtered. What does that mean to the farmer? It means that he loses the revenue from the cattle for the length of time he has to wait for compensation. If a farmer is sending $350 worth of milk per month to a dairy and he is shut off for three months, he loses SI5O5O. It seems to me that it would be only fair to give compensation to the farmer immediately his herd goes down. If not, his herd should not be tested until such time as the government has the money. When the Conservative government were in power they compensated the farmer to tihe extent of $150 and salvage for purebred cattle; this government reduced that compensation to $100 and salvage. The Conservative government paid $60 per animal and salvage for a grade cow; the Liberal government has reduced that to $40 and salvage. That is the extent to Which the government has benefited the farmer.
I would like to touch upon another phase of agriculture

the poultry business. We have gone ahead very rapidly in the poultry business. Our production in 1927, as compared to that in 1911, was increased 226 per cent, anid we estimate that the total production of eggs for 1928 will amount to three hundred million dozen eggs. From 1911 to 1927 the per capita consumption of eggs in Canada has increased from 17.5 to 29.26 dozen, which is the largest per capita consumption in the world. These figures would

go to show that we could not have better possibilities in the future than right in our home market.
The following suggestions for improving the situation appear in the Canadian Poultry Review of March, 1929:
1st. If we could induce the British government to put on an extensive campaign to encourage larger consumption of eggs in the United Kingdom there would be undoubtedly a place for our eggs, and I believe would be the easiest way to solve our difficulties.
2nd. It being compulsory from now on to stamp all eggs being imported into the United Kingdom, I would suggest that our federal government establish a uniform marking for all Canadian eggs exported to Great Britain.
3rd. I would suggest that our association request our federal government to open negotiations with Australia and New Zealand for the removal of the duty on Canadian eggs entering these countries. During April, May and June the selling price of eggs in Australia and New Zealand is such that without the handicap of duty eggs could be exported from Canada profitably.
4th. Someone has suggested that the marketing of all Canadian eggs through one selling agency in the United Kingdom would prove beneficial. It is argued that we are often bidding against each other for the same business, and a common agency would avoid this. I am not prepared to express an opinion as to the plan. It has its advantages, possibly some disadvantages, one of the disadvantages being that many of us have our own established connections which we might not care to dispense with. If it were possible, however, to have 100 per cent cooperation in this scheme, I believe it would he advantageous.
5th. In Germany before the war, and I believe since the war to a lesser degree, the government, realizing that their only hope of industrial supremacy depended on their being able to trade successfully on all foreign markets, established a bonusing scheme, whereby on certain conditions industries received financial aid from the public purse on exports to foreign markets.
I might mention that the above was the result of a meeting of egg producers which was held recently in the city of Toronto. Eggs coming from the United States at the present time have to pay a duty of three cents per dozen. The following is the result of a conference held by the National Poultry Council of the United States:
After repeated conferences in New England, New York and Washington, the following tariff rates are the ones requested by the tariff committee of the National Poultry Council when presenting its evidence before the ways and means committee of the house. It is felt that on a basis of these rates the poultry farmers of America will receive protection against the unfair competition, especially that from the Orient.
1.	Birds, poultry, live, including geese, ducks, turkeys, chickens, guinea fowl; also live poultry not otherwise specially provided for; 10 cents per pound. When imported for breeding purposes, $2 each. Baby chicks, 4 cents each.

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Carleton)
2.	Birds, poultry, dead, dressed or undressed, including geese, ducks, turkeys, chickens, guinea fowl, and every variety of water fowl or game birds; also all fowl not otherwise specially provided for; 10 cents per pound.
3.	Eggs, poultry, in the shell, 10 cents per dozen. Eggs, frozen or liquid, whole eggs, mixed eggs, yolks, albumen, melange eggs, yolks, 12 cents per pound.
To my mind, that would leave the poultry industry of this country in an awkward position. With this duty of 10 cents you have a rise of 7 cents against you before you start. I should like to comment on the large number of baby chicks which are coming into this country from the southern states. We in Canada, both in the provincial and the Dominion departments, are doing everything we can to stamp out diseases. The provincial government should be commended for its stand in connection with the testing of poultry stock for tuberculosis and white diarrhoea, and in only allowing school fair eggs to be purchased from hens which are so tested. This will have a far-reaching influence upon the stamping out of poultry diseases. But there is no use in the provincial government doing this work when the Dominion government permits these southern chicks to come in when they are contaminated with these diseases.
I desire to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the purchase of the Booth farm adjoining Jhe central experimental farm at Ottawa. In the house last year I said that I considered that that was absolutely necessary. I also said I thought the government was not going quite far enough, that they should buy the adjoining 180 acres or so to the west of the Booth farm. In his remarks at that time the minister tried to convey the impression that this property was quite a distance from the present experimental farm, but as a matter of fact it is only 66 feet, or the width of the road, from the farm. I really believe, looking to the future, that if this property can 'be bought at the present time the government are making a mistake in not purchasing it. If that were done the central experimental farm property would be bounded by the Prescott highway, the Ottawa-Kingston highway and the Ottawa sururban road. I wish the minister would reconsider his decision in this matter. I presume the government, seeing that it has demolished so much property in the heart of this city, must be sincere in what it says with regard to the future of this great capital. As a citizen of Ottawa I am glad to see the capital beautified, but we are not so anxious to see it beautified at the expense of the ratepayers. As a local man who lives two miles away from the centre of the city and whose property is not much increased in value by the demolishing of these buildings, I see no special benefit to myself.
I was -amused the other day at a remark made by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). While the hon, member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) was making his speech, the hon. member for Weyburn asked: "What has the dairy industry to do with the poultry industry?" I looked up the Parliamentary Guide and to mj^ surprise I see that the hon. member for Weyburn is listed as a farmer. Surely the hon, member must have known better when he asked that question. If he did know better and was asking the question only to take up the time of the house, he could have been more usefully employed in some other way. If he does not know that the poultry industry is very closely associated with the dairy industry, he would be wise, in his Saturday afternoons off, to take a few poultry lessons at the experimental farm.
I should like to place on record a list of the properties that were demolished for park and other purposes by the present government, and the assessments pertaining thereto. The figures are as follows:
Assessment of property expropriated by the Dominion for park purposes, etc.
Wellington street south and Sparks street
north, at present demolished:
Land	 $256,850
Buildings	 55,700

Sparks street south and Queen street north: Russell House block:
Land	 $740,450
Buildings	 156,700

Bate building, Canal street:
Land	 $34,500
Buildings	 20,000

Birkett building, Canal street:
Land	 $30,000
Buildings	 22,000

Ottawa. Transportation building:
Land	 $18,600
Building	 4,500
23,100
International Paper Company, Sussex st:
Land	 $168,300
Building	 175,425

The totals are as follows:
Total value of land	$1,248,700
Total value of buildings.. ..	434,325
Grand total	$1,683,025
The Budget-Mr. Descoteaux

It will be seen that the total assessment amounts to $1,683,025. This may have been of some use to the property owners Who sold the property, but to the ratepayers there is a loss in taxes which, on an assessment of this amount, is quite an item. I cannot see what was gained by the demolishing of this property. There might have been some justification for tearing down the first Mock of property which was demolished, and also the property further along the canal, but I fail to see the justification for demolishing a hlock such as the Russell House, assessed at nearly a million dollars, thereby tearing down an hotel to make a park when immediately across the street an extension to an hotel was made on a park.
This is all I have to say with regard to the budget. I will close by remarking that the trouble with this government is that its wishbone is where its backbone dhould be.


Mr. J. F. DESCOTEAUX (Nicolet) (Translation) ::