AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the names of Messieurs Dunning, Glen, Ralston and Stewart (Edmonton West) be respectively substituted for those of Messieurs Gervais, Jacobs, Morin (Bagot) and Denis, and
12S8
Major Gustave Lanctot

also that the name of Mr. Malcolm be added on the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By leave of the house,
shall the motion carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: I wish to direct the attention of the
Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) to Hansard of yesterday, page 1231, where there appears a series of questions put by me which were supposed to be answered. I direct the minister's attention to the last question:
Will the Canadian government pay Major Lanctot's salary and also his travelling expenses and living allowance while he is representing the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Authors' Association at various functions of a private character in Paris?
The answer to that question is:
No information.
I submit that that is no answer. at all. Surely the Secretary of State does no.t want me or the house to believe that, with respect to a question of that kind, the government are not prepared to say whether or not they are going to pay Major Lanctot's salary. Surely the question is very simple and one which, it seems to me, should be answered. I protest that the answer given is no answer at all, and I have not been accorded the courtesy which a question of this kind calls for.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I am surprised that my hon. friend
should take this stand. The questions were most extensive and in the few days at our disposal we endeavoured to deal with them all. I repeat that we are not aware that Major Lanctot is going to Paris for any other purpose than to represent the archives department at the French exposition.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I rise again, to a question of privilege if you like. I will put the question again to the Secretary of State:	Will the Canadian government pay
Major Lanctot's salary and also his travelling expenses and living allowance while he is representing the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Authors' Association at various functions of a private character in Paris? I submit that the Secretary of State can answer, yes or no, whether the government intend to pay Major Lanctot's salary.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is not a question but rather an innuendo, and I am not informed that the facts are such as insinuated therein. That is why I replied officially that there was no information that Major Lanctot was going abroad for any other purpose than to represent the archives department at the French exposition.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Again I protest, this time against the word used by the Secretary of State. There is not a particle nor a shadow of an excuse for him to refer to my question as an innuendo. It is a simple question, put as plainly and clearly as possible. If the minister is not prepared to answer or if he does not intend to answer, very well; I can quite understand that, but I want to protest against the minister saying that any words used in that question are intended as an innuendo. The minister has sufficient knowledge of the English language to know that he 'has no right to use that word as he did use it, and I protest against such use.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will admit I have no right to use the word as my hon. friend now uses it, but let me repeat that I have no information that Major Lanctot has gone abroad for any .otheir purpose than to represent. the archives branch. If, while in Paris, he chooses to attend one meeting, go to one theatre or visit one museum for a few moments, surely my hon. friend will not protest against that. The main purpose of his trip is to represent the archives branch.


Mr. BENNETT:: At the public expense.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Naturally, since the archives branch is a branch of the public service. Further, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is all out of order.


Ernest Lapointe: May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 113 of Beauchesne, from which I read as follows:
The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the house. A question may not contain statements of facts unless they be necessary to make the question intelligible and can be authenticated; nor should a question contain arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets or controversial or ironical expressions.
I think the question was out of order.


Alexander McKay Edwards: On the point of order raised by the .Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), I submit that it is rather late to say the question is out of order, after the government have undertaken to answer it.


Ernest Lapointe: Out of courtesy.

Post Office Department



VISIT TO WASHINGTON OF MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the orders of the day are called I desire respectfully to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce which I do not think he adequately dealt with in the answer he gave yesterday. In the Washington Daily Star and in the New York Journal of Commerce, despatches appeared, which have been reprinted in Canada, having to do with his visit to Washington, and in the Philadelphia Public Ledger, a very old and most reputable paper, the staff correspondent directed attention to the visit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the following words:
Negotiations are under way for an agreement .to leave American tariff rates on Canadian farm products where they are in consideration for Canada's signing the St. Lawrence waterway treaty.
The Canadian Minister of Commerce, James Malcolm, is in Washington on what is described as a purely social visit. He called on President Hoover and on various other American officials. And there is very little doubt his coming to Washington has to do with the feeling in Canada over the projected increase in tariff rates upon the farm products.
If these statements are erroneous, Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make a clear and unequivocal statement with respect to them, because a few days ago he was very anxious about statements appearing in a Canadian journal, written by a Canadian correspondent. So I suggest that it is highly desirable in the interests of the people of Canada that they should know exactly what if anything has transpired in connection with his visit to Washington.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not had an
opportunity to see the article in the Philadelphia Ledger referred to by my hon. friend, but my visit to Washington had nothing to do with any negotiations with regard to tariff or waterways matters. My visit was purely social; I called upon the president out of courtesy, he being the only official of the American government upon whom I called.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Canadian ambassador accompanied the hon. gentleman.


James Malcolm: Surely; he introduced
me to the president.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The photographs indicate that.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: I would like to ask the Postmaster General whether any action has been taken with regard to increased remuneration for employees of the Post Office Department including railway mail clerks, letter carriers, postal clerks and mail porters.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: In reply to my hon. friend I might say that in regard to mail clerks and porters I repeated to the Civil Service Commission this year the request I made last year, when I recommended that they take up the question of further compensation to these employees of the department. I received a reply from the Civil Service iCommisison under date of March 9, 1929, as follows:
Your recent communication confirming your previous recommendation for higher compensation for the classes postal clerk, letter carrier and mail porter, has been placed before the Board of Civil Service Commissioners.
After full consideration of the subject matter in your letter the commissioners have decided to confirm their decision of May 2, 1928, which was communicated to the Deputy Postmaster General by letter of the same date, that further increase in the compensation of these classes is not justified.
This letter is signed by W. Foran, secretary. With regard to higher compensation to railway mail clerks, this question was taken up last year bj^ the commission and at that time nothing definite was decided. During the summer vacation I again took the matter up; after consultations here in Ottawa between the executive of the railway mail clerks and the officials of the department a certain agreement with regard to the classification or grading of railway mail clerks was arrived at. That agreement was submitted to the Civil Service 'Commission for their consideration, and after some considerable discussion the question was finally decided by a system of grading in connection with the railway mail clerks. Under this system the clerks are divided into two classes, class A and class B, being railway mail clerks in charge of runs, railway mail clerks assisting and so on. The commission accepted that grading, but excluded a certain number of railway mail clerks, whom they did not grade. There are about 1,300 railway mail clerks, and under the system of grading adopted by the Civil Service Commission I think 242 of these clerks were not included. When that was reported to the Post Office Department I took
The Budget-Mr. Heaps

it up with the Civil Service Commission and asked why these 242 clerks were not graded and why they received no consideration with regard to increased compensation.
In my first letter to the commission I suggested that all railway mail clerks should receive an increase of at least $60 per annum according to their grading, but they gave an increase of forty cents per hundred miles to the higher grade and twenty-five cents to the minor grade instead and in that way granted what was considered by the executive to be sufficient compensation. When the commission refused the minimum increase of $60 per annum which I suggested for the 242 clerks mentioned, I proposed that they at least give those 242 men, who were not included in the new classification, an increase of fifteen cents per hundred miles. The Civil Service Commission refused to consent to that. The railway mail clerks who were affected favourably have accepted the decision of the commission, but they are asking that the 242 left out be considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has referred to certain correspondence and has read in part from communications; will that correspondence be laid upon the table of the house?


Peter John Veniot: I intended to say that that correspondence would be laid on the table.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The explanation would
have been much better had it not been prearranged between the minister and the hon. gentleman who asked the question.


Peter John Veniot: Under the rules of this
house I was entitled to make the explanation.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 4, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, a good deal has been said during the course of this debate with regard to coal, iron, steel, apples, onions, potatoes and tomatoes, but in carrying on the discussion I do not intend to deal particularly with the question of commodities but rather with what I would term the human factor. We are apt to gauge prosperity, if such exists in this Do-fMr. Veniot.l
minion, by the yardstick of how much is being produced in a given period. The mere fact that production has increased is taken as an indication that prosperity is general throughout the length and breadth of this country. When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) spoke in this house the other day he said that there were some people who were loath to believe that prosperity really existed in the Dominion of Canada. I am one of those persons, and there are many millions of people in the country who are of the same opinion. In his effort last year to prove that we had prosperity in Canada, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) called the bankers, financiers and industrialists to his assistance. He does not bring those gentlemen forward as witnesses this year to prove that there is prosperity in this country, but satisfies himself with the term "we are prosperous." I would like to know who the Minister of Finance believes is the "we." There may be some people who will say that there is a certain prosperity, but it is w*hat I would term a one-sided prosperity. I would like to know if the minister, or those who agree with his statement, would say that the men engaged on the farms, the mechanics and labourers, are prosperous at the present time. I do not think anyone will deny the statement that the banks, financial institutions and railways are prosperous, but the fact that they are prosperous does not mean that the general body of the people are sharing in that prosperity. Most of the shareholders in those institutions live outside of Canada, and if there are any juicy melons to be cut they are the ones who receive the portions. I do not know what portion of the melon the average man or woman in Canada would receive, but all the average workingman, labourer or agriculturist would get out of the melon would be just the pip. The Minister of Labour quoted figures to show that the volume of wages paid to-day to the men employed on the railways was greater than that paid a number of years ago. I feel constrained to reply to that, because of the fact that a statement made by a minister of the crown may, and probably will, receive wide circulation through the various avenues of publicity which a minister commands. He said that the wages paid on our railways in the year 1923 amounted to $253,320,000; in 1927 to $254,386,000; and that for 1928 the estimate was $276,000,000. In other words, there has been an increase in the wages paid during that period of approximately nine per cent. But the minister neglected to point out one fact. The official Year Book shows

The Budget-Mr. Heaps
that 157,771 were employed on the railroads in 1923, and that that figure had decreased to 144,176 in 1927, or a reduction of 13,595 in the number employed during that five-year period. The question arises in my mind: What has become of those men who are not now required by our railroads? It is quite true that more money is being paid out in the form of wages, but the fact that a comparatively large number of men are receiving a slight increase in wages does not offset the fact that there are a large number of men who are without employment to-day. According to the figures of the minister, the wages paid on the railways in 1923 amounted to an average of $115.50 per month, and this average had increased to $126 per month in 1926. According to the figures submitted by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), the number of cars of freight loaded in 1923 was 2,851,000, and in 1928 that had increased to 3,696,000; in other words, there had been an increase in the number of cars loaded amounting to 845,000, or approximately 30 per cent. If we take into consideration the fact that a larger type of freight car is being used at the present time, it would not be out of place to say that there has been an increase of approximately 40 per cent in the freight haulage, and yet wages have only gone up 'nine per cent in the same period.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was good enough last year to give some advice to the people of Canada. He said the people should work and be thrifty; that was the sure road to success and prosperity. Unfortunately or fortunately, I do not know which, the people of Canada have not heeded altogether the advice given by the Minister of Finance, because, since the budget speech of 1928 the gambling that has been indulged in by the people of Canada has been unparalleled in the history of this Dominion. Consequently I can well understand why he is not offering any advice in his budget speech of 1929. But the minister -I do not know whether it was because they did not accept his advice-has this year gone so far as to tax those people who gamble in stocks and bonds and I heartily agree with his action in that regard.
When, however, the Minister of Finance tells the people that there is a wave of prosperity throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion, I feel constrained to take issue with him. One can go from the Pacific coast right to the Atlantic and have great difficulty in finding traces of that prosperity amongst the masses of the people. I know it is quite true that when we consider the figures of banks, railroads and
other large institutions, there is prosperity; large dividends are being paid. But that form of prosperity in the way of dividends and the clipping of coupons is not shared by the great masses of the Canadian people.
The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Plunkett) told us some days ago of conditions in the city from which he comes. The minister himself visited Victoria last year during a by-election and in order perhaps to give a little more prosperity to the people of British Columbia or more particularly of the city of Victoria he had to make them very large promises. One thing I think the government ought to be thankful for was that the Liberal candidate was not elected in Victoria.
The members from Alberta have told us of conditions in their province. In fact, the discussion which took place in the house in regard to the grain act just prior to the Easter adjournment was in itself sufficient indication of conditions amongst the agriculturists in western Canada. The Minister of Finance did Winnipeg the honour of paying it a visit last summer. I do not know whether he found evidences of prosperity amongst the masses of the people there, but I am glad he visited Winnipeg because I heard that during the time he was there he was introduced to the Seven Sisters.
I come now to the province of Ontario What do we find there? We find amongst industrial workers as well as amongst the farmers the same conditions as we find in western Canada. We have had in the house instance after instance of the conditions that exist there, of the conditions of industrial workers and of the strikes that have taken place. One instance to which I wish to allude at this time is the condition that now prevails in the city of Oshawa. Last year I brought to the attention of the house conditions in that city where the men had been out on strike and where they had had their wages reduced to the extent of approximately 40 per cent. On that occasion I tried to show how little that 35 per cent protection we give to the automobile industry really means to the men employed in that industry. This year, according to statements I have had given to me and letters I have received, I find that wage cuts have been made by the General Motors Corporation; that men have been discharged for no other reason than that they happen to belong to an industrial organization, and that men have been brought in from Germany and other parts of Europe to take the place of men who have worked for that company during the past twenty
The Budget- Mr. Heaps

years. As I said a moment or two ago, I have received several communications and I am going to read extracts from one or two that have come to me within the past few weeks. This one, which is dated Oshawa, March 13, reads:
Instances can be proved where Canadian citizens have been let out of their jobs and these imported Germans being put into their places. One reason for this is probably due to the fact that the Germans have agreed to pay back to the company the full amount of their passage money at the rate of $25 per month.
That is an indication that the passage money for these people was paid by the company to bring them from Germany so that they could take the places of men employed at the Oshawa factory of the General Motors Corporation. The writer continues:
With reference to wage reductions throughout the plant, it is a fact that there have been wage reductions ranging from around 20, to in some cases, 50 per cent. The speed-up in some departments is so bad that men working in the paint department, the stamping plant, the assembly lines, the enamel plant, in fact the whole plant is speeded up to a point where the men are showing signs of physical exhaustion. In spite of the fact that the company agreed not to discriminate against union men, they have persistently followed a policy of intimidation and victimization and have in every instance denied the men any opportunity to clear themselves of such charges that might have been put against them.
I have in my file of correspondence a communication from a man who has worked in the General Motors Corporation for twenty years. He was discharged at a moment's notice and we are powerless in the house to do anything in regard to the whole situation. There is another case of a man who worked there who, when he was told his services were no longer required, was informed that he should go and see Jimmy Simpson who happens to be vice-president of the Trades Union Congress of Canada.
This is the case of a man who worked there for quite a long time and who was told to go and get his discharge slip. This is what he writes in regard to what happened when he went to the office:
I was given a gold badge for long and satisfactory service, and was told that my services were no longer required.
Another man who had been there for three years was hired again by the company, and when they found that he had been formerly employed by them, his services were also no longer required. In the Oshawa papers and in papers in other parts of the country, you do not find a word being published in regard to conditions at the Oshawa plant.

I come now perhaps a little closer to Ottawa than. Oshawa in order to examine some of this so-called prosperity with which members of the house are being continually regaled, and in which I am loath to believe. We are meeting here within a stone's throw of the city of Hull. Speaking in the Quebec legislature not many weeks ago, the provincial member for Hull Mr. A. Guertin had this to say about the prosperity in the city he represented in that legislature:
The minister did not tell us that barely a month ago the Eddy Company warned the city of Hull that it could barely carry on unless reduction of civic taxation was granted. It formerly employed 2,000 hands, whereas it now has only 1,025, of which difference the abandonment of the match industry only accounts for 500. There are 2,000 unemployed in the city of Hull under the era of perfect prosperity boasted of by the government.
A little further on the same provincial member says:
Continuing, the member for Hull deplored the many restrictions visited on the Gatineu district, whose inhabitants might no longer hunt game, carry firearms, enjoy freedom in fishing, or other liberty. All that they were offered in exchange was work in the shanties of the International Paper Company at a wage varying between $25 to $40 per month. Contract work was no better and generally ended in overwhelming debt for the man that took it on.
I have no need even to go to the city of Hull. I think of tihe statement made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in this house only a few minutes ago. When we are boasting of a surplus in the budget this year of approximately $70,000,000, the Postmaster General informs us that some of the lowest paid men in the Dominion of Canada, postal employees, cannot have a slight increase in their pay. Will the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) or any other minister tell me that these postal workers are enjoying some of this so-called prosperity? Yet the government sits there hopeless and powerless to intervene in a simple case of that character.
I feel satisfied that if the government were determined to give tihese postal employees decent and reasonable wages they could somehow or other find ways and means of overcoming the civil service commission.
I will leave this part of the country now, and discuss conditions in Nova Scotia and . the maritime provinces. I do not think that any member of this house, no matter on which side he sits, who has seen conditions in the [DOT] maritimes with his own eyes, will say that there is prosperity in those provinces. I was in the maritime provinces myself just a few months ago, and I saw conditions in cities like Sydney and in towns like Glace Bay

The Budget-Mr. Heaps
and I want to say to this house that any Canadian who sees for himself the conditions of the masses of the people there is bound to bow his head in shame to think that such conditions can exist in the Dominion of Canada, where we are boasting of our so-called prosperity. When you go into a place like Glace Bay and see young children ill-fed, ill-clothed, going about in the mud in the streets, with the sewage running down a little gully made right in front of the homes of these people, I say tve have no right in this house to talk about prosperity until such conditions are remedied. We all have a responsibility in this matter, and I would go a long way myself to see that conditions in the maritime provinces are remedied in a real and proper way.
What are some of the conditions in the maritimes? Last year a committee of the ministerial asociation of the maritime provinces investigated conditions in the Dominion Iron and Steel works, and on the 5t'h day of November, 1928, they published their findings. I will read just one or two brief extracts from their report, and then perhaps my good friend the Minister of Labour will understand why I am one of those who are loath to believe that there is prosperity in the Dominion of Canada. The report says:
The ordinary work day at the D.I.S. Co. plant is ten hours-from 7.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., with thirty minutes at noon for lunch. For night duty there is a twelve hour term, with thirty minutes at midnight for lunch. For the continuous operations, consisting of the coke ovens, blast furnaces and open hearth departments, involving approximately 1,000 men, the day term is eleven hours and the night thirteen throughout a seven day week.
That is, the men in this department work an average of eighty-four hours every week, sixty-six hours during the week on day duty, and one hundred and two hours for the week on night duty. A little further on the report says:
Your committee cannot help feeling that this is a very cautious and moderate statement. We believe that the plight-it can scarcely be called other

of the some 1,000 men in the contimious operations is a scandal and a shame. To be on night duty, under the most favourable working conditions, from eleven to thirteen hours were trying enough, but when we know the necessarily almost intolerable conditions in which these men have to work, heavy manual labour in gas, smoke, heat, and in some cases, exposure to the elements summer and winter, the situation is nothing less than appalling, and their treatment utterly abhorrent to the dictates of humanity.
I will give my last quotation from tihis rather lengthy report:	[DOT]
For the year ending June 30. 1928, as gleaned from the published statement of the corporation, there was an operating surplus of $2,200,000,
as compared with $1,500,000 for the previous year, a total for the two years of the receivership of $3,700,000. (This before anything was set aside for interest on bonds or depreciation.) Now, of that amount, $2,000,000 has been retained for depreciation, $1,000,000 per year, the balance presumably being available for interest charges on bonds, and so forth.
What suggests itself is this-Should $2,000,000 of the profits of the industry which the men at least had helped to make, be set aside, not for repairs (these were taken care of in course of the operations and charged to them), but for future replacements, while not a cent of this amount has been allowed for the better condition of the human element in the industry? It does cost money, doubtless a great deal, to replace the machinery of steel making. Unfortunately, it costs the industry little or nothing to replace men-there is nearly always a surplus of labour.
These are the wages paid in Sydney in the month of November last: The labourer, who we have just heard works from eleven to thirteen hours a day, receives 33 cents per hour; helpers, 36J to 38J cents per hour, and their hours are ten, eleven and thirteen hours per day, according to the shift they happen to be working; handymen, 42J to 50 cents per hour; mechanics, 52 to 57 cents per hour. Mr. Charles Schwab, of the United States Steel Corporation, said recently before the United States investigating committee that the average wages in the United States for a similar class of labour averaged about 63.08 cents per hour.
It has been pointed out by several of the ministers and others that there has been an enormous increase in production in the Dominion of Canada. That is perfectly true. I do not think anybody will deny that there has been a great increase in all lines of industrial and even agricultural activity, but, of course, that does not mean that the people who have produced those commodities are necessarily any better off than they were previously, and I shall try to prove that in a moment or two. Labour efficiency has increased enormously in the last few years. About three years ago I placed figures on Hansard which showed that over a period of about eight or nine years the individual industrial efficiency had increased by approximately 40 per cent. Professor Michell, of McMaster university, Toronto, has made some rather interesting calculations along the same lines, and he arrives at somewhat similar conclusions to those at which I arrived when I made this study a few years ago. He points out that from 1890 to 1900 the value of production per worker increased 15.5 per cent, or 1.55 per cent per year on the average; from 1900 to 1910, the increase was 58.5 per cent or 5.85 per year; from 1910 to 1920, the increase
The Budget-Mr. Heaps

was 7.3 per cent, or 0.73 per cent per year; from 1920 to 1927, the increase was 52.8 per cent, or 8.8 per cent per year.
Now, he shows further that from 1920 to 1927, while production had increased by 52.8 per cent, on the average wages increased only 13 per cent. But even those statistics are not complete in themselves and therefore I shall add a little to them. According to our year books I find that the total wages paid in 1917 to men and women employed in industry was $420,094,869; in 1925, $452,958,655; an increase in dollars-not necessarily in purchasing power -of $32,863,786. In that same period the cost of living increased from 100 in 1917 to 116 in 1925. Therefore if we compare the purchasing power in 1925 with that in 1917-and these are the latest figures available in the Canada Year Book-we find there has been actually a reduction in purchasing power to the disadvantage of 1925; and if the purchasing power of the wages were calculated on the 192o basis real wages would be considerably less than in 1917, the figures, as I make them out, being approximately $34,551,000. In that same period the number of persons employed had decreased from 552,968 to 466,602-a difference of 86,366.
It is quite true, as has been pointed out, that wages may have increased to the individual, but I might give a very simple illustration of how they have been increased. Let us imagine, for instance, a factory employing ten men, paying out ten thousand dollars a year in wages, and producing, say, forty thousand dollars' worth of commodities annually. At the end of one or two years let us assume that two men have been discharged, the remaining eight producing, say, forty-five thousand dollars' worth of commodities, but receiving nine thousand dollars in wages. Then there would be a relative gross reduction in the wages paid, and the general purchasing power would be correspondingly reduced, with the result that the ten people could not purchase the same quantity of commodities as before. This would leave the ten men, in a relatively worse position than at the outset, while those who owned the factory would be getting the benefit of the increased productivity, and the reduction of staff.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a word or two in connection with the amendment to the amendment that was moved by my hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) and seconded by myself. In this subamendment it is suggested that we give an increased preference to the people of Great Britain. I believe that is a policy that ought to commend itself to prac-
tically all the members of this house. The Conservative party have been preaching that doctrine for a number of years. We in this corner of the house, who have so often been accused of unfriendliness towards the mother country, to-day desire to give practical expression of our true friendship for the people of Great Britain by extending to them the benefits of a much increased preference.
There is another and perhaps a more important reason why we should give an increased preference to the people of Great Britain. At the present time both the public men and the press of the United States are expressing their intention of raising the tariff against commodities manufactured or grown in Canada. Well, if the people of the United States are not anxious to deal with us, then at least we can transfer our trade to those who are willing to trade with us. And Canada has no better customer than Great Britain. Indeed, our Conservative friends have been telling us in season and out of season, in this house and throughout the country, that we are buying many hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods from the United States in excess of what we are selling to them. For this reason it is claimed we should erect a barrier whereby the adverse balance of trade will be reduced if not entirely wiped out. If that doctrine of the Conservative party holds good in relation to the United States, then certainly it must hold good in relation to Great Britain. We sell to Great Britain far more than she sells to us. That being the case, I think Great Britain would be justified in complaining against this adverse balance of trade with us just as insistently as hon. members of the Conservative party complain about our adverse balance of trade with the United States. Therefore one means of overcoming that difficulty would be to grant an increased preference to Great Britain. In this way we in turn may become one of the best customers of the mother country.
In this connection, however, I wish to make one statement that I regard as of particular importance. It has been freely stated in the press, without any denial by any member of the government, that Canada might enter into a trade arrangement with the United States by bartering away our rights in the St. Lawrence waterway. I hope and trust that statements of such a character are entirely without any foundation. If we are to negotiate with the United States on matters of tariff, then we must confine the negotiations to tariffs. The waterway question should in no way be made a bargaining point between the two governments. If the United State*

The Budget-Mr. Cahan
wants to use water-powers which may be international in their character, that question must be settled on its merits, and no extraneous question must be allowed to interfere in any such negotiations.
If the United States does not want to deal with the Dominion, then we must find other avenues of commerce. I think my colleague who moved the amendment pointed out one of the avenues of trade now undeveloped is Russia. This country to-day is doing practically no business with Russia; whereas Great Britain, in spite of her diplomatic difficulties with the soviet government has still, I am informed, about twenty-three trade agencies doing business on behalf of the Russian people. Now, Canada has not within its confines one single trade representative of Soviet Russia.
I cannot understand why our Minister of Trade and Commerce, who seems so anxious to develop our trade in all parts of the world, has allowed the occasion to slip by of adding a Canadian representative to the British trade delegation which is now visiting Russia.
A moment or two ago, Mr. Speaker, I referred to our trading with the United States. As I said, if the United States is not anxious to trade with us I am not anxious that we should trade with them. On the other hand, I view with considerable misgiving our entry into negotiations with the government of the United States for the joint development of the St. Lawrence waterway. Let me give my reasons for this disquietude. Two years ago, speaking at a banquet of the United Press in New York, the then president of the United States, Mr. Coolidge, made the following significant statement:
The person and property of a citizen are a part of the general domain of the nation, even when abroad.
One well known citizen of the United States, Mr. Yanderlip by name, commenting on that opinion used some rather caustic language in condemning the speech then delivered by the president of the United States. I should hate to think that where there is United States capital in this country the United States government might claim it to be a part of the United States domain. If that were the case then a great part of Canada would be to-day a portion of the domain of the United States. However, I do not believe that to be the true voice of a very large section of the people of the United States. Nevertheless, when the president of the republic uses language so emphatic, and we witness the subsequent actions of that country in places like Nicaragua, Haiti and elsewhere, we in this country ought to be
extremely careful before bartering away any of the rights and heritages we may have in this Dominion. I rather prefer the United States of Abraham Lincoln, as represented by him on many occasions, and perhaps I might be allowed to quote a few sentences of his spoken on one famous occasion when he referred to labour in his country. I much prefer the United States of Abraham Lincoln to the United States of ex-President Coolidge, and as my time has about expired I will conclude by quoting this great American:
Labour is prior to capital and deserves much the higher consideration. Who and what is labour? You are labour, if you work for a living. You till the soil, you mine the coal, you write the books and spin the yarn. You invent cunning machines, you serve and sell across counters and you build the dwellings of men, all the world over.
In America you are the great majority. All that serves labour serves the nation. All that harms labour is treason to America! No line can be drawn between these two. If any man tells you he loves America yet hates labour, he is a liar. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labour, he is a fool. There is no America without labour, and to fleece the one is to rob the other.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrenee-St. George):: 000,000; and it was equivalent to one and six-tenths of the value of the entire field crops in Canada in the year 1928. You will find that so long as activities of that character prevail there will be on the surface a fictitious prosperity which never reaches the homes of the great body of our citizens.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) has stated the policy of this government to be exclusively-I do not think the word exclusively is a misrepresentation -to devote the activities of that department to find markets abroad for Canadian products, and that policy is to be commended in so far as it deals with the surplus of production in this country. To that end, as he has told us on different occasions, we made a treaty with France in September, 1923. But I find that our exports to France have fallen in the fiscal year 1928 to about $5,000,000 less in value than in 1925. We made a treaty with Italy in January, 1924, and yet I find that our exports to Italy in the fiscal year 1928 were $4,000,000 less in value than in 1927. We made a new treaty with Belgium in October, 1924, and in our fiscal year 1928 we had increased our exports to Belgium by $4,000,000 over our exports in 1925; but that was $2,000,000 less than in 1926 and $550,000 less than in 1927. We made a new treaty with Finland in August, 1925, and I am glad to see that we had increased our exports to Finland by $800,000 in 1928. We made a new treaty with Australia and also gave new trade concessions to New Zealand in 1925, and in the fiscal year 1928 our exports to Australia were less than in 1927 by $4,700,000. Our exports to New Zealand in the fiscal year 1928 were $3,700,000 less than in 1925. We made a new treaty with the British West Indies in 1925, and our exports to these islands in the fiscal year 1928 were only $473,000 more than in 1926. I may say by way of comment that I have visited the British West Indies more times than I can remember, and I went through them with some care about fifteen months ago. So that I know something of local conditions; and while I hope to be disappointed, and while recent arrangements made by this government with the West Indies may be commended as a step on our part towards imperial unity and the assisting of dependent colonies of Great Britain, nevertheless-and I think I am a practical business man-I can see no hope during my lifetime at least for this country receiving any return from that trade, any compensation, adequate to cover the expenses of operation of the new ships costing, I believe, $10,000,000, as I pre-

dieted two years ago in a discussion with the Minister of Finance, together with a meagre allowance for depreciation and the annual interest on the capital expenditure. Therefore, while we may be commended for extending a hand to these colonies by reason of our imperial sentiments and our desire to promote and assist colonies of that kind, yet in my opinion we cannot hope for any adequate financial return from that undertaking. If we wish to do anything for the West Indies we must assume control of the administration, placing in charge competent. men who will see to it that the productivity of those people is rapidly increased and that they assume a higher standard of living than they have ever enjoyed up to the present time.
British Gu.ana gave our export trade a preference from March 1, 1927, and our exports to that country for the fiscal year 1928 were $124,000 less than in 1927. We made a new convention with Czecho Slovakia in September of 1926, which was extended in January, 1927, and our exports to that country for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928, were only $962,000 in excess of our exports for the previous year. I do n.o,t disparage these efforts, in many cases futile, on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to extend the foreign and external trade of this country, but it must be remembered that the net result of the intensive activities of this government in negotiating these trade treaties and conventions, on the whole, does not show a very great improvment in our export trade to these several countries, although there may have been some minor increases during the fiscal year.ending March 31, 1929. Any slight improvement in our export trade to these countries was only attained by granting very liberal tariff rates on their exports to Canada.
I believe that the whole difficulty is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his colleagues on the government benches unfortunately are actuated by the mistaken opinion that the scope of their official duties and responsibilities excludes domestic trade and embraces only the foreign or external trade of this country. Since I have 'been in this house I have seen no evidence that either the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture have been actuated by any strong desire-and if they have had the desire they have not exerted the corresponding effort-to increase the domestic productivity of this country upon which its real welfare must always depend. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that we are represented throughout the world by groups

The Budget-Mr. Cahan
of trade commissioners as intelligent and aggressive as any country could desire. That is very good; I hope they possess these qualities. I am sorry the minister is not in his seat, because I like to look a man in the face when 1 ask him questions, but what has his department, ever accomplished by way of extending the domestic or internal trade of Canada? What means has he taken to further, even in part, the production in Canada of the $1,220,000,000 worth of commodities which were produced abroad and imported for consumption in Canada during the last calendar year? If the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the staff of officials under his direction should devote their intelligence and their energies to promoting the establishment in Canada of industries which would produce commodities to the value of $500,000,000 of that total of $1,220,000,000 imported, which we could readily produce here but which we now bring in from foreign countries for our domestic consumption, chiefly from the United States, in a few years there would be an increase in employment throughout Canada sufficient to maintain an additional population of at least 1,250,000, and in my opinion, soon Canada would be enjoying increasing industrial activity of every sort and description from the Atlantic to the Pacific. As yet, however, sitting in this house for the last three years, I have never seen evidence of any honest effort on the part of the government, the members of the government or the officials under them to meet and solve this pressing problem of our industrial future. And when I say "industry" I do not mean manufacturing only; I refer to industry of the farms, the fields, the mines and the fisheries as well.
I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce has largely abandoned his real vocation, in devoting the high intelligence which we admit he possesses and the energy of the officials of his department to the extension of our external trade which, under existing conditions, is now of less importance to the general well-being and prosperity of Canada than the internal or domestic trade of the country. In fact, one who attempts intelligently to study the economic conditions of Canada cannot but regret to observe an ever-increasing effort on the part of the government and its supporting public press to overemphasize on aid occasions the importance of the increasing foreign trade bf Canada, Their arguments, it seems to me, are based on the undoubted fallacy that an increase in foreign trade is always indicative of the increasing general prosperity of the whole country. The real truth is that an increasing import trade
often implies a deplorable decrease in domestic productivity and a corresponding decrease in domestic employment. I suggest that the principle which should gutide the government and a parliament of this country has been long established by the experience of the most prosperous nations, namely, that the domestic or internal trade of a country is more profitable for the country as a whole and should be first considered, continuously conserved and never sacrificed merely to extend the volume of our foreign trade by unnecessarily increasing the quantity and value of our importations from abroad.
The surplus of our production in Canada over and above the domestic demand, and those foreign commodities for the production of which our own soil, climate and other conditions are unsuited, are the legitimate subjects of foreign trade, but a foreign trade which exceeds these reasonable limitations and sacrifices domestic industry to promote foreign industry is conclusive evidence that the country is not utilizing its own industrial resources and productive activities to the best advantage to its own people. It seems to me that no greater economic fallacy can delude the minds of men than that which measures the general prosperity and industrial welfare of the Canadian people solely or even chiefly by the extent of our foreign commerce, without serious regard, at the same time, as to whether those imports which swell the volume of that foreign trade might not be produced profitably in Canada.
It seems to me that the highest statesmanship of this country should seek to ensure the production in Canada of all commodities which can be produced from our own natural resources or from such raw materials as are readily available for the use of our industries, with as little labour as would be required to produce them in foreign countries and transport them to Canada. Our surplus home products could then be carried to foreign markets to pay for our purchases abroad. Commodities such as iron, steel, woollen, and cotton clothes, hardware and utensils of many kinds and descriptions can be produced in Canada with as little labour as elsewhere. They should be produced here, at least to' the extent of our increasing domestic demand for such commodities. It is certainly the duty of Canadian statesmanship to promote such domestic production, primarily for domestic consumption and then any surplus which may be available could be sold for foreign consumption.
If Canada were unable to grow grain the volume of our foreign trade would be greatly increased, to the great disadvantage of this
The Budget-Mr. Cahan

country. There would be first the necessity of importing grain to feed our own people; and secondly, the necessity of producing in and exporting from Canada a surplus of other commodities wherewith to purchase abroad and pay for the grain so imported. It seems to me that the increase in our foreign trade through the selling abroad of our raw materials, produced here by unskilled labour, in exchange for foreign manufactured commodities, produced by skilled labour, is a menace to the continuing prosperity of this country which should receive the attention of the government. The production by cheap domestic labour of low-priced raw materials for use in foreign factories leaves the producing country impoverisred and compels its skilled labour to seek employment in other countries. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I desire to say that by raw materials I mean those which are subject to further refining processes abroad after they are exported and which refining processes could, under favourable conditions, be effected by skilled labour at home. The exportation of raw materials, produced by cheap labour, is characteristic of a stage of civilization which is but a short advance from barbarism. It results in the slow but sure depletion and exhaustion, without adequate compensation, of the natural resources of the country which so devotes all its energies to encouraging such practices, and it also results in a lack of domestic employment for highly skilled labour which must then emigrate to seek a higher standard of living in other countries.
The people of new and only partially developed countries such as ours, which show the largest relative volume of exports and imports, very rarely enjoy such a considerable measure of comfort and prosperity as is enjoyed by those countries which encourage domestic production to meet the demands of the domestic markets. The motto of always buying where you can buy the cheapest and selling where you can sell the dearest can never form the objective of successful statesmanship in a country such as ours. This country is largely undeveloped and it can only retain the natural increase of its population by creating a diversity of domestic employment. It seems to me that the best interests of Canada can only be fully conserved when each and every citizen shall consider not only his individual welfare, but the welfare of the whole body politic.
The question of cheapness cannot be determined by single transactions, as the apparent interest of an individual purchaser is not always identical with the best interests of the community. The general prosperity

of the whole country is expanded as its industrial activities are increased and its sphere of production enlarged and diversified, even though higher money prices are paid from time to time for domestic products over and above the prices which prevail in foreign markets. It is a fundamental law, with casual and special exceptions, that although the Canadian farmer may buy his clothing and other textile products for fewer dollars in England, Belgium or Trance, he can buy [DOT] them upon the domestic markets in exchange for fewer bushels of grain or vegetables when their manufacture in Canada is encouraged and facilitated. When the Canadian buys or sells upon the domestic market he saves in a large way the costs of transporting his own products to a foreign market, as well as the costs of bringing the foreign products to the Canadian market. The money price paid is not the only material element in the transaction. The net profit is greater if he sells upon the domestic market a smaller quantity of his own products at a better price.
The prime objective of Canadian statesmanship should ever be to provide increasing, diversified and remunerative employment for our Canadian people. There are commodities such as wheat and pulp and paper which require a special exception. We are producing them in large quantities and the prosperity of this country depends to a large extent upon their continued production and sale abroad. But to devote our entire energies to their production, to the exclusion of encouraging and facilitating a vast number of domestic industries for the production of commodities for consumption at home, is, I think, a fallacy, and will only lead, as I said, at the outset, to a deplorable retrogression in the industrial life of this country.
For the great majority of Canadians employment at remunerative wages is the prime necessity. Their continued remunerative employment at home is a matter of paramount economic importance to them and to the nation as a whole. The elevators of this country may be full of wheat, but they offer no relief to idle men and women who are compelled to emigrate to foreign countries to seek the employment which they have failed to find in Canada. The people of Canada are becoming convinced that that economic policy is bad for Canada which tends to deprive them of employment in Canada while opening wide our extensive and profitable Canadian markets to commodities -**produced by foreign workers.
One can go back and ask the question again: Why should we not produce wool on the

The Budget-Mr. Cahan
farms in Canada and work it up into cloth in the woollen mills in Canada, instead of sending our raw wools to foreign countries to be worked up into cloth and re-imported to clothe our own people?
Why should we mine raw mineral products in Canada and send them to the United States and other foreign countries to be refined and manufactured into metal products, and thence import manufactured metal products of foreign factories into Canada to supply the demand of our domestic Canadian markets as we are doing?
We must all agree that ever-increasing domestic employment is the only preventive against increasing emigration from Canada, and that increasing domestic employment in Canada is the only incentive to desirable immigration into Canada. Our existing fiscal and economic policies compel our sons and daughters, who have intelligence and education, to seek new homes in the United States, while we expend millions upon immigration to induce unskilled and uneducated immigrants from abroad to undertake for low wages the production of raw materials in Canada for export to more prosperous countries.
The people of Canada are persistently asking in their homes, in their public debates, in their social intercourse: "Why should our sons and daughters be obliged to leave Canada for the United States to earn a living there, while we annually send hundreds of millions of money to pay there for the goods which they produce in the United States, and then sell to .their fathers and mothers to be consumed at home?"
It is therefore true, I think, that to the extent that we Canadians import from abroad commodities which, under favourable conditions, could be produced in Canada by our own people, to that extent we impair the available domestic industrial employment of our own .people and become .more and more dependent upon foreign workers. Every million dollars in value of commodities annually imported, which could under favourable conditions be produced in Canada, deprives Canadians of $1,000,000 of annual revenue. Moreover, when we lose our home market for this million dollars' worth of domestic products, we can be compensated only by opening up new foreign markets for $2,000,000 worth of our own products. We can be compensated for our loss of domestic trade only by obtaining a double equivalent in our foreign or external trade. Therefore, if we purchase abroad $100,000,000 worth of products which have been or could be produced at home, we are not compensated by our sales in a foreign
market to the extent of $100,000,000 in value of our own products. To be fully compensated, and to afford equal employment to our own people, we must find additional foreign markets for at least $200,000,000 of Canadian products per annum.
The impressive fact is therefore that whenever we import, instead of producing commodities which may readily be produced1 in this country, Canada is the loser by the change until our additional exports of our domestic products double the value of the new imports; and this loss to Canada will be decreased only by .the percentage that the cost of purchasing and importing the foreign commodity is less than the average price in Canada of the domestic product, which is, in fact, a very small percentage indeed, especially when the contribution which the domestic producers make, as sales taxes, business taxes, income taxes and the like to the public treasury of the country for the purpose of carrying on and maintaining the administration of public affairs, is taken into consideration.
The entire value of any commodity produced in Canada is spent in Canada in its production, and yet ever reappears in the form of a new product. The expenditure of that value in its production not only gives employment in this country to its producers, but also serves to maintain all other classes of workmen and traders throughout the country, by furnishing a demand and market for their other diversified productions, especially for all our farm, dairy, and other food products. The foreign producer bears no part of the burden of maintaining municipal, provincial or federal governments in this country. He makes no contributions to the general development of Canada.
On the other hand, while producing in Canada, the Canadian producer spends in Canada, and yet the thing produced retains its entire value and thereby doubles the economic productivity and the increasing potential wealth of the whole country. The production of goods in Canada for consumption in Canada, instead of the importation of the same goods from foreign countries, for consumption in Canada, affords twice the employment in Canada that is given by the .production in Canada of goods to be exported from Canada in exchange for foreign commodities which could be produced in this country. Therefore it seems to me that the government is going on an entirely wrong principle; it is adopting an entirely erroneous policy if it has a view to the permanent welfare and development of Canada and its future industrial and commercial prosperity.
The Budget-Mr. Cahan

I had intended to show in a brief review conditions which prevail in our trade relations between this country and the United States. The United States, with a total population of nearly twelve and one-half times our own, imports less than twice the amount of fully manufactured goods that are annually imported into Canada. In fact, Canada imported in the fiscal year 1928, $720,090,000 of fully manufactured goods, while the United States imported only $1,312,345,000 of fully manufactured goods, in their fiscal year ending June 30, 1928. If the people of Canada imported fully manufactured goods per capita only in the same proportion as the people of the United States, our annual import of such goods would have4>een reduced from $720,090,000 in 1928, to about $186,880,000; and we would now be manufacturing annually in Canada $533,200,000 worth of goods which we now import from foreign countries; and we would also be maintaining in Canada, in active employment, at least 300,000 more workmen with families, representing over 1,200,000 more people than we now have in Canada.
Canada's imports for consumption during the calendar year 1928, amounted to $1,222,318,000 or $126.56 per head of our estimated population of 9,658,000. The imports for consumption in the United States in the same calendar year amounted to $4,077,451,000, or less than $34 per head of their estimated population of 120,013,000. And yet there are some people in this house and in this government who seem to be so unsophisticated as to believe that the fact that Canada imports $126.50 per head of our population, as compared with the United States imports of $34 per head, is an evidence of Canada's increasing prosperity as compared with that of the United States. That is the whole burden of one or two of the addresses that I have heard from the opposite benches.
Each family of five in Canada, on the average, pays annually about $632.50 to maintain, clothe and feed the families of the workmen and workwomen of foreign countries, while each similar family in the United States pays only $170 for the same purpose, resulting in a proportionate annual saving for the United States of at least $462.50 for each and every family of five resident in that country.
If we merely maintained workmen in foreign countries in the same proportion as do the people of the United States, we would have had $1,021,000,000 more money annually to distribute in Canada last year for the maintenance of an ever-increasing Canadian population, and this sum of $1,021,000,000 is nearly 
twice the value of all the grain and grain products exported from Canada during the calendar year ending December 31st last.
I have the figures here of Canada's annual production of both primary and secondary Products, as given by the statistical branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and it is now approximately $3,600,000,000 annually, or nearly $400 per head of our population, and yet of this $400 per head of the annual revenue of all the people of Canada from all their industrial and other activities, we sent abroad during the calendar year 1928, $126 per head to purchase foreign products; or in other words, we sent abroad nearly one-third of the revenue derived from all the productive activities of Canada to assist in maintaining foreign workmen in foreign countries, and, in particular, we sent abroad nearly 23 per cent of our entire revenues from the aggregate productivities of Canada, to support the industries of the United States.
When you look at the importations from the United States, you find that we spent during the calendar year ending December 31, 1928, in the United States the enormous sum of $826,000,000 to purchase United States products, or more than 67 per cent of our entire importations for the calendar year 1928. How can anyone imagine that we can maintain this country in a happy, prosperous and progressive condition When we send to the United States annually $826,000,000, giving employment to the people of that country to that extent? Is it any wonder that our sons and daughters desert us to engage in the industrial activities of the neighbouring republic?


Mr. GEORGES BOUCHARD (Kamour-aska):: Mr. Speaker, as I am the only member of this house who had the good fortune to listen to your lectures at the Sorbonne in Paris, and to witness the increasing interest taken in them by an illustrious audience, I wish to join with the country in extending to you my most hearty congratulations. May I express the hope that this series of lectures, which has deserved the highest praise of outstanding men of letters and of statesmen, be printed for the benefit of those interested in Canadian questions on both sides of the ocean? I am sure that the reading of these lectures will bring to the mind of every Canadian the French saying: "Yous avez bien merite de la Patrie, Monsieur 1'Orateur."
My congratulations naturally go to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for the encouraging budget which he has introduced in the house this year. A net surplus of approximately $70,000,000, and a substantial reduc-

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard
tion of $25,000,000 in taxation, means something in relieving the people of this country, who, shortly after the present administration took office, had the pleasure of seeing deficits turned into surpluses. However disparagingly the hon. members of the opposition may regard it, I do not see that a reduction of 33J per cent in the sales tax, and the removal of taxation on railway tickets and telegrams, together with a lowering of the tariff, could alarm even the very few who are not directly benefited thereby.
While abroad I was proud to proclaim that Canada, which ranks twenty-seventh in population among the nations of the world, stands fifth in its export trade, which amounted in the year 1928 to $648,000,000.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in his able speech was free to admit that " Providence has continued to shower upon the country unbounded prosperity." It is with no little gratification that we on this side of the house, as well as the country at large, realize that Providence has made use of the Liberal party as the medium or agency through which the country has been relieved of the depression caused by the policies of our opponents.
During this budget debate we have not had the explosion of pessimism from hon. gentlemen opposite which has marked previous budgets. With muted strings, this year the opposition strikes the doleful note of " blue ruin." Enlightened by their experience in the past, they know that they cannot delude the country to the extent they delude themselves. There is not a note of political anguish of which our friends opposite are not masters. This year they repeat one after the other that to be wretched is the destiny of the Canadian farmer. The opposition know that their " whisper of death " has not prevented the country from rising to a greater national activity. The mournful warning about the closing of automobile and farm implement factories has not been borne out by the facts.
I read, for instance, in the Montreal Gazette of March 24, 1929:
For the ten months ending October 31, 1928, the cumulative production of automobiles in Canada was 221.188 cars, having a sales value, f.o.b. plant, of $139,909,876, as compared with 169,331 cars valued at $110,736,126 made during the corresponding period of 1927. The increase this year amounted to 31 per cent in number and 26 per cent in value.
I will quote now from Agricultural and Industrial Progress in Canada, in its issue of February, 1929:
There is no doubt but that to-day Canada is one of the most fortunately situated countries 78594-83
of the world, enjoying a degree of comfort and prosperity paralleled in few other places. The Dominion has completely recovered from all the effects of the war in more rapid manner than most nations involved, and having made up the distance lost during the period of hostilities, is taking yet more lusty strides upon a broader road leading to a greater destiny than she previously visioned.
I read again fro-m the Montreal Gazette of March 18, 1929:
Purchasing power of the people of Canada increased by half a billion during 1928,-
And so f orth. Here is another quotation of March 23, 1929, from the same paper:
Canada's foreign trade expanding. Volume nearly 85 per cent greater than at outbreak of war.
In regard to the tariff, the government evidently has not departed from its ordinary course. The Minister of Finance in introducing his fifth budget said:
The policy of this administration is not a high tariff policy; it is a low tariff policy.
In 1924, under similar circumstances, while the tariff was reduced mainly in relief of four of our basic industries, the Minister of Finance said:
Of these basic industries I would place agriculture in its various branches first; next to agriculture I would put our forests, our minerals and our fisheries.
Mr. Fielding, when introducing his last budget in 1923, said:
The tariff as it will be when the changes proposed come into effect will be a moderate tariff, and probably as low as the country can afford to have under present conditions.
The speech of the then acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) was, on the contrary, a well-qualified high-protection speech. Certainly his speech was heard with much more pleasure than profit. Its manner is no doubt better than the matter. But high as it may stand in oratory, this speech will, I am sure, have no bearing on the economic life of Canada. May I compare it to a seedless orange? -sweet to swallow, but deprived of all reproductive power. In other words, this speech, so brilliant in form, is frail in the undierstructure, its foundation being on the quicksand of higher protection. I wonder to what extent the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), with all his broadmindedness and his keen sense of national responsibility, would like to use his colleague's speech as a lifeboat to keep him safely afloat on the endless sea of golden wheat in the western provinces. This speech, echoed in every corner of the house occupied by the Conservative party, has rekindled the zeal of high tariff worshippers.



The Budget-Mr. Bouchard
I propose ito deal particularly with the agricultural side of the policy enunciated by the hon. member for South Wellington and by other hon. members opposite, who repeated the keynote of high protection struck by him as the only solution of the problems which confront the farmer.
When we come to consider the tariff issue in Canada we must bear in mind that high protection is a menace ito our farming class, and even to our national unity. There is no country in the world where agriculture is so vital to the national well being as it is to Canada's, and therefore I propose to study the effect of the tariff on our farming class. Public prosperity may be compared to a tree. Agriculture is its root; industry and trade are the branches and leaves. If the root is injured, the leaves fall, the branches break off and the tree dies. Therefore we must look first to the welfare of the root of our national prosperity. It will be generally agreed that we can never do too much for the agricultural class. But is high tariff a solution for any of their problems? I think not.
The prosperity of the United States has been cited as an argument in favour of high protection, and though we cannot deny this prosperity, yet the extent to which American farmers have profited by it may be very much questioned. In spite of the fact that nearly all the protection possible has been given to the American farmer, his present situation does not give him much satisfaction. The cry for relief coming from the farming class of the United States and heard over the border does not speak well for the policy advocated by the members of the opposition. This cry shows at least that if high protection has showered prosperity on the United States, the farmers have benefited by it much less than the other classes of the population. They were far from getting their share of the questionable (advantages of that policy.
And if high protection does not properly serve the interests of the agriculturist in the United States, a nearly self-supporting country, how can you logically press it in a country like Canada, which needs outside markets for the greatest bulk of its farm products? In this connection I may be permitted to quote from an article in the Journal of Farm Economics for January, 1928, entitled, Which does Agriculture need-Readjustment or Legislation? It is written by Professor G. F. Warren, of Cornell university. He is a recognized authority on economics. But lest it be objected that- he is merely a theorist, I may add that he is also a very successful farmer. He writes:

Statistical evidence indicates that we are in the eighth year of the most serious agricultural depression ever known in the United States. The depression involves primarily the producers of staple foods.
Throughout the whole article I fail to find any argument in favour of high protection. Evidently he does not think that high protection is the medium by which the farmers of the United States can be relieved. The subject of the article is also discussed by three other well-known professors, and apparently they reach the same conclusion as Professor Warren.
Now coming to the situation among the farmers in the United States, I would refer the house to the Congressional Record of the United States for the year 1928, page 7787. Mr. Blease, by unanimous consent of the senate, put on the record certain excerpts from various publications relating to the subject of farm relief and the farm loan system, and in an editorial appearing in the magazine Cooperation, published by the Cooperative League, New York City, on the question of relieving the farmer, the following comment is made;
Last year 2,000,000 people left the farms in the United States. More than half the population of this country is now living in towns and cities of more than 2,500 population. Only about one-fourth of the people are on the farms. The mortgages on the farms, unlike the people, are steadily increasing. The farms are slipping out of the hands of the farmers. The farmers are slipping away from the farms.
Senator Caraway, speaking in the United States Senate, is reported in the Congressional Record of 1928, at page 3614, as saying:
In 1919 the invested capital in agriculture was more than .$79,000,000. In 1926 it had shrunk to less than $59,000,000.
And Mr. Greenwood, on May 24, 1928, is reported in the Congressional Record, House of Representatives, at pages 9736-37 as follows :
During the period of depression . . . 171,000 farms were sold at forced sale. It is estimated that almost 1,000,000 people have been forced to leave the farms because of these sales and failure. It has always been emphatically declared by some political economists that high protective tariff schedules spell prosperity, it is time for the farmer to come out of this
deceptive delusion	 Suffice it to say that
I am not a free trader, neither do I believe (l using the taxing power of the federal government as a means of robbery of the many for the benefit of the few. High tariffs cannot raise the price of commodities of which there
is an exportable surplus	 The export
price controls the domestic price.
Mr. M. Nelson, of Missouri, on March 2, 1928, is reported in the house Congressional Record as follows:

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard
Hoping to secure first hand information, I have just gone through replies to questions submitted to some 500 Missouri farmers.
Let me quote a few typical answers given to the questions:
Why have so many farmers failed in business since 1920?
Some of the answers given are:
Depletion; slump in the farm values and prices in everything produced on the farm; low buying power of the farmer's dollar; high cost of production; protective tariff; because the tariff cannot be made to do as much for tile farmer as for the manufacturer.
And in reply to the question, " Would legislation by congress help the farmer?" some of the answers given are:
Repeal or reduce the tariff, thus placing agriculture and all other industries on the same basis.
Gradually take away protection from the so-called "infant industries" which have grown to be powerful and arrogant.
The final question was:
If not legislative action, what then is the greatest need of farmers?
To this question 26 per cent answered, organization, while 24 per cent replied, cooperation.
Whatever the political expediencies of the United States may be, we find that the leading economists of that country are taking a stand against the principle of high protection, particularly for the farmers. The prevailing, not to say unanimous, opinion is that high protection does not benefit the farmers. In a book written in 1924 by Professors G. F. Warren and F. A. Pearson of Cornell university, entitled The Agricultural Situation, we read at page 293 that the protective tariff in the United States protected only the sheep industry, flax growing and certain varieties of wheat. The protective tariff on other matters is said to have conferred no benefit upon the farmers.
One may read in the Journal of Farm Economics, of January, 1925, the views of Professor Hibbard, of the Agricultural college of Wisconsin. At pages 143-44 this authority writes:
What the situation will be a generation hence we do not know, but at present a tariff on blitter and cheese is about as effective as Wonter Van Twiller's campaigns against the Swedes by proclamation. The conclusions, mainly adverse, do not mean that the tariff on dairy products should be repealed. They merely mean that not so much is to be hoped from the tariff on dairy products in the way of relief.
Now I wish to quote from the Gazette, a " low tariff newspaper " published in Montreal, certain views with regard to dairy products. Under date Washington, December 29, 1925,
there appears an article under the heading, Cattle Tariff is Declared Futile, and a statement is made by:
Dr. Lynn R. Edminster, of the Institute of Economics, Washington, speaking here to-day at a conference on the tariff question called by the People's Reconstruction League.
The article in question reports this gentleman as follows:
Dr. Edminster believed the present duties, if continued, will gradually tend to raise domestic prices, resulting in substitution of other foods for beef, and cutting of profits to producers. He contended that efforts to stimulate the cattle industry through tariff will impose upon industry, as it now does, a burden which comes from support of general policy of protection in which the cattle man concedes much and gets little in return.
When we come to consider the condition of agriculture in the United States and measures taken for its improvement, we might refer to a report of the Business Men's Commission on Agriculture, published jointly by the National Industrial Conference Board and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, 1927. At page 169, on the question of tariff readjustment, the following appears:
The principal effect of the protective tariff upon the American farmer is to restrict the market for those products of which he produces a surplus above domestic needs. The tariff in agriculture, as in other fields, is a double-edged and dangerous weapon.
Let us turn for a moment to France, another self-reliant country, to find out what the rural economists and the farmers there think about that matter. In his book Economic Rurale, Professor E. Jonzier, at page 74, says:
Waves of protection, having spread over a country, rarely bring about any other effect than the imposing of a tariff duty on all commodities and under such conditions there is no longer protection for anybody or anything.
What do the farmers think about protection, even in France, a self-supporting country? The National Congress of Agriculture in France, which met in 1925 and in 1927, was unanimous in recommending the lowering of the tariff on manufactured products, and an increased tariff for agricultural products was sought only in the event of the tariff on industrial products not being lowered. Just here let me quote a sentence from the Journal d'Agriculture pratique of April 16, 1927: Agriculture and tariff reforms.
The National Agricultural Congress for the study of the customs' Act, organized by the .National Federation of Agricultural Associations, was held on. April 11, at Paris, in the Salle des Agriculteurs de France, under the chairmanship of Mr. Jules Gauthier, in the presence of a large number of distinguished guests.

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard
Various recommendations follow, among others, the following:
Lower the duty on industrial products. And to the repeated applause of the entire audience, Mr. Garcin was able to assert that this was the desire of all French farmers who do not belong to the Agrarian party and only claim a moderate protection. If this reduction of duties on industrial products1 was impossible, then, but then only, the French farming community would request a higher protection on its products.
The farmers, he adds further on, request Parliament to work towards restoring tariff equality by a general increase of duties protecting farming products, if the proposal to lower the duty on industrial products cannot be effected.
In the course of a speech delivered on March 17, 1926, the Marquis of Vogue, speaking of an ex-minister of agriculture in France, said:
Mr. Meline had never erected the protection tariff as a tent for slumbering.
Then he went on to say:
We cannot think for a moment of bottling ourselves at home like in a closed urn: selling abroad or rather bartering our products is of the utmost necessity to us.
If a policy of high protection is declared by the best authorities and by the farmers themselves to be unsuitable for self-contained countries such as the United States and1 France, how much more so is that the case with regard to Canada, which depends so greatly on export markets? Protection for Canadian farm products can be effective only where no exportable surplus exists, and even then a surplus will be soon created to render protection inefficient. As soon as under-production is turned into over-production the prices fall; the alternation of ups and downs in the prices of produce, which would take place every few years, would discourage the farmers.
In order to present these facts I would ask permission of the house to place on Hansard statements showing first the agricultural and animal products which, according to their origin, do not enter into competition with domestic products, and secondly, agricultural and animal products the production of which considerably exceeds the consumption:
Agricultural and Animal Products which, According to their Origin, do not Enter into Competition with Domestic Products.
Imports For twelve months ending Deeem-
Fruits,	fresh	ber, 1928Apricots, quinces and	nectarines..	$	122,611Bananas	
5,253,414Grapefruit	
969,288
Guavas, mangoes, plantains and
pomegranates	 14,723

Agricultural and Animal Products which According to their Origin, do not Enter into Competition with Domestic Products.-Con.
Imports For twelve months ending Deeem-
Fruits, fresh-Con.	ber, 1928
Lemons	 1,778,485
Limes	 1,639
Oranges	 10,748,085
Pineapples	 469,331
Other fruits, fresh	 6,999,027
Total fruits,	fresh	 $26,356,603
Fruits, dried
Currants	 $ 829,788
Dates	 775,699
Figs	 351,618
Other fruits,	dried	 4,352,039
Total fruits, dried	 $6,309,144
Fruits, prepared, n.o.p.
Total fruits, prepared, n.o.p		$3,744,380
Fruit juices
Total fruit juices	 $199,932
Nuts
Total nuts; other nuts, not shelled;
other nuts, shelled	 $5,315,996
Vegetables, fresh
Potatoes, sweet	 $128,907
Grains
Rice, uncleaned, unhulled	or paddy. $1,432,073
Rice, cleaned	 647,460
Total rice	 $2,079,533
Other grains
Sago and tapioca	 $123,925
Oils, vegetable for food
Total oils, vegetable,	for food ..	$1,060,129
Sugar and its products
Total sugar and its products .. ..	$34,466,567
Tea, coffee, cocoa and spices
Total tea	 $12,325,650
Total coffee	and	chicory	 6,825,629
Total spices	 1,628,329
Total cocoa	and	chocolate	
4,223,421Total	tea, coffee,	cocoa and spices. $25,003,029
Beverages, alcoholic
Total	distilled beverages	
$43,898,992Total	wines	
3,440,933Other	beverages,	alcoholic	
507,895Total beverages, alcoholic	
$47,847,820
Gums and resins
Total gums and resins	 $3,283,802
Oils, vegetable, not food
Total oils, vegetable, not food .. .	$9,923,214
Rubber and its products
Total rubber and its products .. .	$23,611,543
Bone, iovry and shell products Total bone, ivory and shell products	 $518,965
Total	$189,973,489

The Budget-Mr. Bouchard
Agricultural and Animal Products, the Production of Which Considerably Exceeds
the Consumption.
Grains
Production	Imports	ExportsFor year	For twelve months	For twelve months1928	ending Dec. 1928 '	ending Dec. 1928Barley	$ 76,112,000	(n.o.p.) $ 2,648	$ 26,584,465Oats	1,637,555	10,335,193Wheat	140,039	433,767,578Buckwheat	13,873	336,888Peas, whole	
4,786,000	(n.o.p.) 128,968	296,58SRye	116.882	11.350,170Other grains	16,554,154	615,804Total grains	$18,594,119	$483,286,686(Beans, corn and	rice included)	Milled products	Total milled products.	$ 1,217,702	$71,134,868Vegetable products, n.o.p.	Hay	$ 106,482	$ 1,285,960Animals, living	Total animals, living, less animals	for exhibition purposes	$ 3,147,632	$17,098,988* Fishery products	Total fish, fresh or frozen	$ 909,092	$10,927,370Total fish, dried, salted,	, smoked or	pickled	$ 942,739	$10,514,680Total fish, preserved or	canned,	n.o.p	$ 1,473,348	$13,517,079Other fish products.. . .	221,127	1,329,107Total fishery products, n.o.p	$ 3,546,906	$36,288,236
Total furs.
Total meats.
Furs
Meats
Milk and its products
Total milk and its products,
(1928)	 253,736,605
Seeds
Total seeds, (1928)	 14,933,940
16,744,956
5,391,288
6,580,915
2,167,819

We also have a class of other agricultural manufactured, which is practically of no inter-or animal products, manufactured or partly est to the farmer:
Fruits, prepared and jellies Total fruits, prepared, n.o.p. and
jellies		$ 3,744,380	$ 664,031
Prepared foods and bakery products		
Total prepared foods and bakery products		$ 1,547,926	$ 2,609,693
Oil cake and meal		
Total oil cake and meal		$ 334,267	$ 1,059,978
Hides and leather		
Total hides and skins	
Total leather unmanufactured	
Total leather manufactured	$14,750,106 6.293.559 4,902,774	$11,530,456 10,926,870 1,044,604Total hides and leather	$25,946,439	$23,501,930Oils, fats, greases and waxes	Total oils, fats, greases and waxes 	$ 1,896,816	$ 2,533,252
The Budgel-Mr. Bouchard
When we are asked to increase the duty on butter, cheese and eggs, we diould remember that during the calendar year 1928 we exported 140,000,000 pounds of cheese as against our exports of 100,000,000 pounds of cheese during the previous year, but before discussing the Australian treaty I would like to consider for a few moments the opinions of the farmers themselves. I have in my hand the report of a delegation from the Canadian Council of Agriculture which came to Ottawa on April 2, 1924, from which I will read one sentence:
The need for immediate and substanial reductions in the customs tariff as a measure of relief to the agricultural industry ....


Mr. GOTT:: What date was that?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: April 2, 1924. The following comment was made at the twentieth annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, held in Winnipeg on February 25, 1929:
-Canadian farmers should be warned insistently against the danger of allowing themselves to be drawn into the vicious circle of protectionism. The farmers of the United States have listened to the specious plea that agriculture is entitled to receive the same protection as is accorded to other industries. Equal protection for all industries is impossible of attainment. It would, in fact, mean that none of them were protected. By an endeavour to share in the alleged benefits of protection the Canadian farmers must inevitably be the losers.
I would like to quote the remarks of two of the leading rural economists of the province of Quebec. In 1927 Professor Bois of the agricultural college at Oka said:
We levy, he says, a tax on goods which we wish to keep out of the country. But why and how are we to protect by means of the tariff a system of agriculture organized especially with a view to exportation?
We sell our butter and cheese to England and on foreign markets: how can we expect that a customs tariff will improve our situation?
The tariff is an excellent measure, inasmuch as it helps to develop the necessary industries which are too weak at the outset to compete with the older and more firmly established foreign industries, however, we must acknowledge that the tariff has also had the effect of allowing artificial industries to establish and maintain themselves in the country: we must also acknowledge that the tariff has had the effect of maintaining the high cost of living.
And so forth.
The tariff, however-
We shall return to this subject later on.
-perhaps may be of some benefit to the vegetable growers or market-gardeners. Here again, we must not exaggerate but remember two

things: that in the country, there also exists both an urban and farming class and that the former is equally entitled to be treated as fairly as the latter. Excesses are detrimental to all.
Professor Charles Gagne, of the agricultural college at Sainte-Anne de la Pocatiere said:
To the question: Have our farmers an interest in claiming protection for their products? he answers: On the whole, we do not think so.
He bases his opinion on the two following reasons:	A protective tariff, he maintains,
can at the most but relieve temporarily the market on some of our farming products.
Everybody is aware, he states, that Canada exports more than it imports of these products; this simply means that the price is fixed abroad and not in this country. Therefore placing a protective^ duty, on products entering this country and of which we export a surplus can in no way be effective. The Americans or at feast their economists realize now that protection is useless for the products of which they export a surplus.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard) will pardon me if I do not follow him in the various recitations which he quoted from different articles in opposition to a tariff for farm protection. His remarks might be effective here but they certainly would not be across the line. The American farmer knows what he wants and he knows what he is after. He wants higher protection, and any argument put forward by the hon. member against that protection would have no effect so far as the United States is concerned.
For many years the annual presentation of the budget was looked forward to in all parts of Canada. The people were anxious to learn to what degree they would be relieved of the burden of taxation, or of other burdensome conditions which might apply with regard to their business or calling. After several years of disappointment that interest has died out and the present budget has practically passed unnoticed throughout the country.
We have heard a lot regarding the prosperity of Canada, and we on this side of the house rejoice in any measure of prosperity which there might be. But this prosperity should be general all over the country, and it is the duty of the government to do everything possible to remedy any condition which oppresses any section of Canada or any class of our people, whatever their calling or trade may be. Thanks to Providence, we have had large crops in most parts of Canada, but in many cases the crops have not been profitable to the farmer and the

The Bud-gel-Mr. Arthurs
chief benefactor has been the transportation company. The mining industry has had a very good year, and the increased valuation of some of our mining stocks, as well as some of our other stocks, has had a great deal to do with the apparent prosperity.


Mr. DUNNING:: They have gone down
as well.


James Arthurs: They are still much
higher than they were. After a slight set back, our pulp and paper industry is progres.- ing and is giving employment, directly and indirectly, to a large number of people. But these three industries, agriculture, mining and paper, are to a large extent independent and are not controlled by this government or its lack of policy. This would also apply to the tourist trade, which has been growing year by year and is at present one of the most important assets of this country.
The exception to this rule is the agricultural industry, especially the fruit, vegetable and dairy sections. They have been asking in vain for protection in their home market, but owing to the opposition of certain members to the right of the gentlemen opposite, whose support is very necessary to the government, although their appeals have been heard they have passed unheeded. Every year we see more of our factories and workshops closed owing to the lack of fair protection against the products of cheaper labour and the competition of others who, after supplying their own markets, are allowed to bring in or dump their surplus stock upon the Canadian market. No new factories are being built in our smaller towns because it is impossible to get men to invest where our own markets are not assured and where a neighbouring country can and does raise its tariff overnight when we commence to export any article which can be profitably produced there. It is very hard to believe that this country is prosperous when we see the large number of factories in our smaller towns and cities which have been closed. Those factories were once busy, but the workmen who were employed there have mostly followed the industry which is now located outside of Canada. The result has been a loss of population in the towns and cities and the placing of a greater tax burden upon those who have remained.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and other speakers on his side of the house, boasted that there had been a surplus and a reduction in the debt, but they did not say that this was owing solely to increased taxation. The government collected more from the people this year than ever before, even
during or subsequent to the war, and almost all by taxation. A comparison of some of the figures will be very interesting. According to the Minister of Finance the income from taxation, leaving aside all other sources of ordinary revenue, will be 1391,050,000 for
1928-29 as compared with $319,926,013 in 1922, the last year for which the Conservative party was responsible. Taking the year 1921-22 as a basis, we find that during the six-year period before and including 1922 we collected $525,808,963 in war taxes. This does not include customs duties. During the next six years following 1922 we collected $974,618,136. In other words, during the war and up to and including 1922 we collected on an average $87,634,823 per annum, but after the war, from 1923 to 1928, we collected on an average $162,436,356 per annum. Thus after the war was over and after our expenditures for the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, hospitalization, physical training, war gratuities, and so forth, were practically over, war taxes nearly doubled; they increased on an average $75,000,000 per annum. This means an increase of $8 per capita, or $40 per family per annum, while the minister has been telling parliament year by year that he is reducing taxation by $25,000,000 or $30,000,000.
We also had a sales tax in 1921 and 1922, the average receipts for those two years being $49,818,907. But after the present government came into power this tax was doubled, and during its six fiscal years, 1923 to 1928, the average was $89,534,934, or an increase of over $4 per capita for every man, woman and child in Canada per annum on the sales tax alone.
Let us consider our customs tax, which is the bete noire of our Progressive friends. Our receipts in 1922 amounted to $105,686,645, while our receipts in 1928-29 will ,be more than $185,000,000. If the argument put forward by our Progressive friends were sound, that for every dollar collected by the government three dollars were collected by the manufacturers, we must be in very bad shape, because no such collection has ever before been made in Canada, even in war time. But the real reason for the increase in the customs is that by the steady withdrawal of the necessary protection but the retention of a duty, our factories have been closed and the goods that were previously made in them are being imported. There has been no reduction but rather, in many cases, an increase in price to the ultimate buyer while our factories are closed and our workers are out of employment.
The Budget-Mr.' Arthurs

There was nothing in the fiscal year 1927-28. As a matter of fact, none of these payments should be charged to the war. It was abscn lutely essential that they should have been made in any event, and the increased debt to that extent should not be charged against the war.
Our friends opposite, in boasting about the reduction in debt, should remember that they have received large payments by way of reparations, repayments and so forth, every dollar of which should have been applied directly to the reduction of the debt which was contracted in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or paying reparations. Mr. ARTHURS: These payments were as
follows:
Reparations	 $6,314,500
Imperial government	exchange.	8,199,333Imperial government	exchange.	632,500
Redemption of bonds... 8,305,760
German reparations	 659,311
Payment by Greece	 479,526
Payment by Roumania	 3,520,636
German reparations.... 1,593,503
German reparations.... 1,756,704
German reparations.... 6,791,479
Housing	 9,768,440
Repayment of loan by Belgium.	4,528,336
Repayment of loan by Greece.	195,000

The Budget-Mr. Arthurs
From 1922 up to the present time there has been received by way of reparations and repayments of loans, $52,745,000, every dollar of which should have gone directly towards the reduction of the debt. In addition we have received very large sums by way of repayment of soldier settlement board loans, for which there is no account in the Auditor General's report.
So far as expenditures are concerned, some are warranted and others are not. The payment of about $3,000,000 to reduce maritime freight rates is justified, but if we continue to meet out of the public treasury the deficits on the eastern branches of the Canadian National Railway these deficits are apt not only to occur regularly, but to increase, especially in the case of the newly acquired lines. I am firmly of opinion that these deficits should be a part of the ordinary business administration of the Canadian National Railway, and should not be chargeable directly to the people of Canada.
Our grants to the provinces for old age pensions are necessary, but I still think, as I said at the time the act was passed, that this Dominion should have assumed the whole burden, and in that way we would not have two sets of overhead expenses. It would also have resulted in a uniform law, and the poor and aged could then get a pension, when otherwise entitled, without regard to residence in any particular province.
The payment of $2,190,000 to the Federal District Commission, largely for the improvement of certain small squares in Ottawa, cannot be justified, at least at the present time.
We are all anxious to do what we can to build up Canada and Canadian trade, but there is a vast difference between giving, not loaning, $2,873,000 to Quebec harbour, and spending $1,000,000 to cover deficits of the Canadian government merchant marine. The Canadian government merchant marine is exploring new channels of trade, and has been very successful in that work until other steamship lines have been prepared to supply the service. The sum is small compared with the subsidies which have been granted by the United States under the camouflage of mail subsidies.
The tariff changes proposed in this budget are very slight and will not affect the ordinary man to any considerable extent. This is also true of the proposed war tax reductions, which are all in favour of the wealthy man and the larger corporations.
The small reduction in the tax on railway tickets and the large reduction in the tax on sleeping and parlour car tickets are both direct benefits to those who can best afford to travel. The man on the farm or the
workingman may save 3 cents a year on the average, but the brokers, the banks and the large companies will get the greatest benefit from the removal of the tax on telegrams and cable messages.
The sales tax, which should have been abolished long ago because it is paid by the poor man, has been reduced by one cent on the dollar. This reduction is so small that it cannot be passed on to the consumer, and it will benefit only the middleman. This tax should now be entirely abolished, in which case the consumer would receive the benefit of approximately 5 cents on the dollar in the purchase of all articles which are affected by the tax.
Another instance of how this government taxes the poor man and relieves the rich is shown by the tax on the transfer of stock shares. The minister proposes a tax of one cent per share on stocks up to the value of $3. The minister knows as well as I do that there are no $3 stocks on the market of a par value of $3. All these shares that are below $5 or $10 are SI stocks. The minister knows also that the great majority of these stocks are sold below an average price of 40 cents, but if we take the average at even 50 cents a share, the tax amounts to 2 per cent on each transfer. I might add that many of the best mines we have in Canada had their stock placed on the market in the first place at around 10 cents per share, stock today which is very, very valuable. It is almost impossible to float a company with the stock placed at a very high figure. Every mining company requires capital for its initial operations, and the stock must be issued at a low price. On the other hand, if the tax upon 9100 shares, the average price of which would run up to $200, were on the same basis of 2 per cent, the $100 shares would be taxed $2 per share, whereas the minister proposes to collect only 4 cents on each transfer of these shares. The thing is absolutely absurd. The minister is proposing to tax the lower priced stocks from fifty to one hundred times as much of their market value as he taxes the higher priced issues.
A short time ago a friend of mine read to me a parody on a great poem, which I think is quite pertinent. You all remember that verse of Longfellow's Psalm of Life:
Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time.
My friend's parody reads:
All King budgets tell our workers,
They should work at every chance,
But each year they wear behind them Larger patches on their pants.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
1310	COMMONS
Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 20, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Power to increase capital.
Charles Avery Dunning: Section 1 as amended, Mr. Chairman.


The CHAIRMAN:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 62, respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company-Mr. Dickie-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time for completion.
Charles Avery Dunning: This bill has been
amended.


John Frederick Johnston: Yes, it has been
amended in committee, and section 1 now reads:
1. The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company, hereinafter called "the company", may within five year's after the passing of this act complete and put in operation the line of railway which it was authorized to construct by section two of chapter eighty-three of the statutes of 1919, as amended by section one of chapter eighty of the statutes of 1924, namely: -from a point between Port Alberni and Bain-bridge on the company's railway from Parks-ville Junction to Port Alberni, thence in a northwesterly direction, via Great Central lake and the valley of the Ash river, to Comox lake; and, if the said line of railway is not so completed and put in operation within the said period, the powers of construction conferred upon the company by parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line of railway as then remains uncompleted.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I gave notice on the order paper of some amendments which I proposed to move either at this stage or at the third reading. The amendments were for the purpose of putting into effect certain suggestions I made on the second reading to render the bill a more workable one, and to provide for a better guarantee of the early completion of the work authorized. My suggestions were couched in temperate language and were made in a spirit

of helpful, constructive criticism. At the time I asked the hon. member in charge of the bill (Mr. Dickie) to convey those suggestions to the promoters. To my surprise I found myself the object of immediate attack by hon. gentlemen opposite, as the house may recall. They accused me of an endeavour to prevent the building of this railway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "attack" is not parliamentary.


Alan Webster Neill: Also I was accused of making misrepresentations. Further, I was accused of baiting the corporation for political effect. These charges were made at a time when it was impossible for me to reply to them. But I do not feel called upon to do so now when I have the opportunity. Considering the source from which those charges emanate, I think they are more amusing than important. It was the same hon. gentleman a few years ago who told a committee of this house that I represented four thousand bolsheviks. Perhaps to his mind I did, because his idea of a bolshevik is somebody who differs from him in political opinions. However, I do not propose to be too hard on the hon. member. We must remember it is as natural for human nature to be true to type, as it is natural for water to run down hill. There is a certain form of mentality, Mr. Chairman, which at the first hint of opposition, or even of expression of a divergence of opinion from its own, throws reason to the winds, forgets logic and resorts to personalities rather than argument. That apparently is what happened in this case. I do not propose to reply in kind to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie). I prefer to preserve the dignity of debate; and besides, no one has yet discovered a method of throwing political mud without dirtying his own hands. I prefer to leave the hon. member in that position, to derive what sordid satisfaction he can from the methods he pursued on that occasion.
But, Mr. Chairman, I will answer the whole of the charges by putting forward a question. Did you ever hear of a member of parliament opposing the bona fide construction of a railroad within his riding when the promoting company was the only company that could reasonably undertake the work, when the railway was much needed for the development of a large area, and when it meant the expenditure of three or four million dollars in his constituency? I think the answer to this question is the answer to the charges to which I have referred.
Now, sir, finding I ocmld get no eympathy from the hon. member who was endorsing the

The Budget-Mr. Arthurs
bill, and who would not even consent to hand on my representations to the promoters -a courtesy I never saw refused in this house before-I took my courage into my own hands and approached them myself. I found them, as I expected, men of broad vision, men of affairs, and entertaining no idea of opposition because I happened to have ideas different to theirs, and certainly not the class of men to allow themselves to be baited by me or anybody else. The result of the little conference we had was that they agreed to introduce and did introduce into the bill in the railway committee certain amendments which gave me nearly all that I suggested on the second reading. They did not give me all I wanted-I never expect to get all I want or deserve for my constituents; we shall not get that until perhaps we reach a happier sphere. However, there is sufficient to justify me in saying that the bill is much improved and that there are better prospects of an early commencement and completion of the work. In other words, it is a reasonably fair compromise and enables me to accept it on behalf of my constituents. I therefore will not move the amendments I had intended submitting. I wish the bill godspeed in the hope that it will result in a reasonably early construction of this railway, which will do a good deal to develop an important part of my riding. This is something we shall all appreciate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 78, respecting a certain patent of Zebulum Colvin Ketchum.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 79, respecting a certain patent of Jean Baptiste Hurteau.-Mr. Duff.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 83, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Totzke.
Bill No. 84, to incorporate The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.-Mr. Young (Saskatoon).


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) for committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
James Arthurs: In representing one department of this government as more inefficient than another, I cite the Department of Immigration. I have no desire to attack any particular officials of that department; individually they are hard working men. But without proper direction, and without any settled plan or policy, they are helpless and the results are most deplorable. The people of Canada are aware of this and are demanding some real results from the large expenditure on immigration.
This year's estimates provide, in this connection, for $5,162,900, apportioned as follows:	Immigration, $3,462,900; Land Settlement Board, $1,400,000; health branch in connection with immigration, $300,000. This does not include upkeep or rental of offices and buildings or of quarantine, or what may be in the supplementary estimates, nor does it include the very large sums spent annually by the Canadian National Railways and by the Canadian Pacific Railway, amounting to approximately $1,500,000; neither does it refer to the amount expended by certain of our provinces who maintain their own immigration officials. It does not cover the cost to and the labour of various charitable and religious organizations which have operated so successfully in past years.
The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) claims credit for every immigrant brought over to this country or coming of his own accord. Let us see what the situation is. According to the government report, from 1910 to 1920, which included four war years, our immigration was as follows:
British.. .. United States European. .	.
687,215
821.490
466,738
Total	 1,975,443
Average per year	 197,544
During the next period, from 1920-21 to
1924-25, our immigration was as follows:
British	
United States European.. .
273,887
135,750
161,648
Total
571.285
Thus it will be seen that during this period approximately one-half the immigrants entering Canada were British. During the following year, 1925-26, the immigration was as follows:
British	 37,030
United States	 18,778
European	 40,256
Total	 96,064
In other words, the immigration from European countries was much greater than
The Budget-Mr. Arthurs

the British immigration, for the first time. During the following year, 1926-27, the immigration was as follows:
British	 49,784
United States	 21,025
European	 73,182
Total	 143,991
During that year the immigration from European countries was greater than the combined British and United States immigration. Then we take the last year for which we have a record, 1927-2S, and we find the following figures:
British	 50,872
United States	 25,007
European	 75,718
Total	'.. ..	151,597
Again the European immigration is equal to the combined British and United States immigration. We must also remember that the immigration to Canada from the United States is not composed1 entirely of Americans; the great majority of the people coming to this country from the United States are classed as aliens in that country. The United States Labour department returns 'for 1928 show that of the 25,007 people who left the United States for Canada 14,797 were aliens passing through the United States to this country. Thus we see that although we have spent millions of dollars more each year we are getting less immigrants and a lower proportion of British and United States citizens.
According to the returns of the United States Labour department 673,683 Canadians entered that country as immigrants during the last six years, and our returns show that over the same period we brought into Canada from all countries approximately the same number. The United States returns are for native Canadians, born in this country, fit physically and not criminals, so really we are expending over $5,000,000 a year in immigration in order to substitute for an average of 110,000 good Canadians an equal number of immigrants most of whom do not speak our language or understand our laws. I have nothing to say against any immigrant who comes to Canada to make a home for himself, but no matter how good he may be he cannot be as valuable to this country as one of our own young men, thousands of whom are still leaving our land through lack of employment caused by the neglect of this government. What this country needs is a policy which will tend to have our raw materials manufactured at home; we should keep our

home markets for Canadian farm products and natural manufactures, thus giving employment to Canadians in Canada and making room for the proper class of immigrants from other countries, especially from Great Britain.
A few days ago I read a very illuminating editorial in the leading Liberal newspaper of Ontario, the Toronto Globe. This editorial deals with immigration. I am not going to weary the house by reading it all, since it occupies over a column of space, but I would like to read' just a couple of short sentences:
If Hon. Robert Forke's speech in the House of Commons on Friday is to be regarded as a major attempt at placing the immigration situation before the public, it must be considered as an unqualified disappointment. It carried too many alibi earmarks, found too many excuses and obstacles for which no solutions were offered, while it lacked the ' clear, ringing note in behalf of British immigration which the country has a right to look for, in view of the many professions of recent months that Canada wanted British blood and was prepared to use every effort to get it.
Further on the editorial continues:
Has the trepidation of government supporters, depending upon the foreign vote for their seats, caused the minister to waver? His own loyalty to the British principle has not been questioned. Something must have happened to cause him to weigh the subject as he did with such evident desire to placate discontented interests.
That editorial appears in the Toronto Globe of March IS, 1929. This government has had over seven years in which to forward the policy which I have enunciated, that of manufacturing our own goods at home, but they have utterly failed in their task and conditions in Canada are worse so far as the working man or the farmer is concerned.
There is a motion on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Rose.town (Mr. Evans), and although we cannot discuss it at present I wish to read it to the house:
Whereas the Board of Grain Commissioners have failed in the administration of the Canada Grain Act, and particularly the so-called Campbell amendment; and,	.
Whereas as a consequence there is widespread distrust of this body among the farmers of the western provinces;
Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the members of the present board should be dismissed forthwith and a new board appointed.
If we substitute the words "government of Canada" for the words "Board of Grain Commissioners" and make a few corresponding changes, the resolution then would read as follows:
Whereas the government of Canada have failed in the administration of Canada; and,

The Budget-Mr. McMillan
Whereas as a consequence there is widespread distrust of this body among the farmers and working men of the provinces;
Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the members of the present government should be dismissed forthwith and a new government substituted therefor.
I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that this amended resolution would receive the approval of the great majority of the electors of this country.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron) :: Mr. Speaker, -in view of ifhe fact that the leaders of the Conservative party have once more -pinned th-eir faith to a policy of high protection, and in view of the further fact that when my time was -called on the evening of March 11 I had just entered into a discussion of the conditions prevailing in Canada during (the latter part of 1920, as they related to sugar, I propose to continue my argument at this -time.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope the hon. member
will confine his remarks to the subamendment.


Thomas McMillan: I intend to speak on
the subamendment. In view of all -that has been said, -and in view -of the fact that they have been preaching their policy of high protection, I propose to show just what effect high protection had upon the price of sugar during the year 1920. At that time the refiners, evidently believing that the price of sugar would continue high for many months, -made large purchases of raw sugar with the expectation of further profits. But for once they were mistaken. American sugar took a sudden drop and it began to flow into Canada at greatly reduced prices. The refiners became alarmed, they appealed to the government for assistance, and the members of the cabinet evidently decided that an avalanche of cheaper sugar coming into the homes of the Canadian people must be prevented at all costs. They became alarmed lest perchance some of our boys and girls might- get a teaspoonful of cheap sugar and, in Scottish parlance, it might "push-ion" them, so they at once invoked the dumping clause of the customs tariff, which had been devised for a very different purpose. Penalties were levied upon several consignments -of imported sugar, but still the inflow of sugar con, tinued. The government brought the board of -commerce, which they had appointed, into operation. It made the amazing order of entirely prohibiting the importation of American sugar for the time being, and set a price of 21 cents per -pound for Canada when sugar was selling at 12 cents per pound in the city of Detroit. Does anyone think that
that board of -paid civil servants would have m-ad-e any such order had they no-t been coached -by someone higher up, someone in sympathy with the refineries? But tremendous protests arose, in which even the government press joined, the government itself took fright, suspended the order, attempted to disavow all-1 previous knowledge of it, laid the entire responsibility upon the hapless board of commerce, and set October 20, 1920, as a date for hearing the appeals of those who had appealed against that particular order. What were the fa-ots? If we consult the press reports of that day we will find that-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is perfectly obvious
that the remarks of the hon. member have nothing to do with -the subam-endment.


Mr. CAHILL:: The remarks of the previous speaker had nothing to do with the subamendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He spoke on the main
motion.


Hewitt Bostock: I have already ruled that where an amendment is moved to a main mot-ion, and then a su-bam-endment is moved, hon. members are entitled' (to speak on each separate amendment as if it were a distinct m-otion by -itself. In fact, -all the authorities say that it is a motion by itself, but they also state -that when an -hon. member speaks for the second time on one of the amendments he must speak on th-at *very -amendment and not refer to any other -matter. The main motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is:
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go (into committee of ways and means.
Mr. Guthrie, seconded by Sir George Perley, moved -an amendment thereto. Then Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Irvine, moved an amendment to the amendment 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."
The hon. member spoke upon the amendment. He is now speaking for the second time, upon the subamendment, and his remarks should be confined to that particular subject.


Charles Avery Dunning: The phrase "as a step
towards freer trade relations" appears in the sub-amendment, and I would gather from the remarks of the hon. member that he is advocating that freer trade.

The Budget-Mr. McMillan
Mr. MeMILLAN:	I assure Your Honour
that I will respect your ruling, as I must do, but I desire to make it very plain that the subamendment moved by ithe hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) is in the direction of freer trade relations and has a very particular bearing upon the requirements of household life. Sugar is one of the things which is used in every household, and before continuing my argument along this line I will address myself particularly to the subamendment.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The hon. member for
South Huron (Mr. McMillan) must obey the ruling of the Chair. The only question which he has discussed since commencing his remarks has been the importation of sugar from the United States. The sufoamendment deals with the enlargement or the increase of the British preference; he has not discussed that at all. The hon. member is simply playing with a ruling of the Chair, and he should be stopped.


Mr. CANNON:: Without discussing the
ruling which His Honour has just given, in fairness to all members of the house I would point out that if a strict interpretation of the rules of the house is given it should apply not only now, but later on in this debate when the subamendment is disposed of. I understand that the members who have not spoken already will be allowed to speak on the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment. W'hait position will they be in when the subamendment is disposed of and they are allowed to speak again?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They must be limited.


Lucien Cannon: If they have not spoken
on the main motion and the amendment, what position will they be in when the subamendment has been disposed of?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They can no longer speak.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly they can speak.
Mr. SPEAKER. Last year I gave a ruling on the question whether an hon. member could speak on the amendment and the subamendment. I ruled that members could speak on each, confining their remarks to the subject matter. My ruling was appealed from and sustained by the house, hut I was not satisfied with that. I instructed the Clerk of the house to wnte to Mr. Webster, Clerk of the House of Commons in England, in order to find out exactly his views on the subject. By leave of

the house I might read what he wrote in reply; it will answer the question which is now put. The letter is as follows:
28th March, 1928.
Dear Mr. Beauchesne:
Your letter of the sixteenth March reached me this morning. The decision referred to is certainly in accordance with practice here. After an amendment has been moved and seconded, the question on the amendment is proposed, and any member who speaks after that question has been proposed speaks to it and not to the main question. When the amendment has been disposed of and the main question is again proposed, any member can speak who has not already spoken on the main question, whether he spoke on the amendment or not. The mover and seconder of the amendment having spoken to the main question cannot speak again to it. The same rule applies of course to the case of an amendment to an amendment. The mover and seconder of an amendment are not penalized as compared with other members, because they speak both to the main question and the amendment which they are moving or seconding, in one speech. Briefly if there are three questions, members can make three speeches.
Yours very truly,
T. Lonsdale Webster.
So that every member can speak on each amendment, but it goes without saying that the speech must be relevant to that amendment. Otherwise we would start a new discussion covering the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps recall-your last observation directs attention to it-that on the question of relevancy the speaker's attention must be directed to the subamendment or the amendment under consideration, and it is dear that when a member speaks to the amendment and the main motion in one speech, and he does not reserve his right to speak on the main motion but makes his speech in terms referable alike to the amendment and the main motion, he is exhausting or should at any rate be held to be exhausting his right to speak in the debate. But if he is to speak two or three times he should at least direct his remarks positively to the subject matter of the question then before the house, which question is, in the first instance, the subamendment, in the second, the amendment, and, in the third, the main motion itself. There is no doubt about that in the world.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon. gentleman to direct his remarks to the subamendment itself. Of course the question of amendments and main motion is very involved

The Budget-Mr. McMillan
but if we do no,t want to make chaos of the whole debate, hon. members must support the Chair in the principle that on each amendment the only question debated is the subject matter of that amendment.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the question of relevancy I submit that very broad latitude is permitted by the very terms of the subamendment itself. The language of it is as follows:
-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.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The subject matter is the British preference.
Mr. DUNNING': Surely my hon. friend is at liberty to discus the nature of the step proposed in the subamendment, what its implications are and what its advantages might be, his speech of course being directed to the subamendment.


Thomas McMillan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the first place I would call your attention to the fact that Canada has now a British preference with the West Indies and Australia, which are both sugar-producing countries. The subaimendment reads:
That this house 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.
I would expect a subamendment such as that to come from my hon. friends across the way, but I am surprised that they would be sponsors o-f it if they would think seriously for one moment. Do they not think that the members of this government are giving this matter continuous consideration? If I was going to find any fault, I would find fault with the fact that possibly they are considering it too much. But apart from that observation I have no particular objection to the wording of the subamendment. I will, however, oppose it for the following reasons: the substance of the subamendment is now one of the cardinal principles of Liberal policy-the keystone of freer trade, not only with the motherland and the other British dominions but as well, with the world. Canada is the one nation since the war that has led the way in a policy of gradually lowering trade restrictions, thus demonstrating that she realizes she has now become one of the foremost countries in the world, and is willing to encourage international trade with all the world under fair, equitable and generous terms.
Second, the subamendment as introduced is simply a vote of want of confidence in the government. Does anyone believe that these hon. members who have sponsored the subamendment would think of driving this government to the country on an amendment such as this? They know there is no danger of this subamendment being carried, and that is the only reason why they moved it. The fact is that if they thought there was any chance of carrying this subamendment, every member who has sponsored it would be searching every nook and corner of these parliament buildings to try to get a hole big enough to crawl through in order to get himself out of the predicament.
Finally, I stand on Liberal principles, and endorse Liberal policy. My whole being has burned to lend some assistance to the onward march of human progress, and while we might deplore the snail-like pace at which our hon. friends are rumbling towards the promised land, yet when I cooperate with anyone, I pray God that it will be with those who manifest some real possession of principle rather than with the paragons of virtue who are continually parading their professions to the housetops and at every convenient opportunity are ready to place those professions on the public bargain counter, or, as in June, 1926, desert themselves, break the solemn bond of cooperation to which they had pledged their honour along with Liberals to put through the program of the government, and then join up with that shadow cabinet in their effort to put over the most indefensible act of power usurpation ever attempted in this house. When they could not succeed-


Mr. KENNEDY:: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Did any member of this group in 1926 enter into a solemn compact or otherwise to whitewash corruption in administration?


Thomas McMillan: I might answer the hon. gentleman in this way, that there was a committee appointed to investigate the customs administration, and my hon. friend along with eight other members was on that committee. While they were in committee a certain resolution was proposed to censure the late Minister of Customs, Mr. Boivin. My hon. friend voted against that motion in committee, and yet when it came into the house he voted for a similar motion.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is not so.


Thomas McMillan: There was an agreement, and they deserted.

The Budget-Mr. McMillan


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Lest there be any misunderstanding, I wish to deny that satement.


Thomas McMillan: I well remember the
late member for North Huron-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman has just stated that when a motion was proposed in the committee in 1926 to censure the then Minister of Customs, I voted against it. There was not a motion proposed in the committee to censure the Minister of Customs that I voted against. There was a motion to report the Minister of Customs to the House of Commons, and I opposed that until the investigation should have been completed.


Thomas McMillan: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I read that motion in the proceedings of the committee to-day, and if it does not convey the meaning that I have placed before this house, I did not read it aright.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Hear, hear.


Thomas McMillan: Let me continue. As I said, not only my friends opposite, but everyone who claims to support Liberal principles entered into a solemn agreement to try to put over the program which was placed before the house, and I well remember the late respected member for North Huron, Mr. King, coming into my office and telling me that there was such a split among the Progressives, so many of them had deserted, that he wondered what they would do. The moment he asked me I said at once, "Go back and tell them that above everything else you are going to respect yourself, respect the solemn bond to which you have pledged yourself." But that is what these gentlemen did not do.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. The hon. gentleman is far from the British preference.


Thomas McMillan: No, Mr. Speaker. I
said a few moments ago that for three reasons I intended to oppose this subamendment, and I am now discussing my third reason. I have said that when I cooperate with anyone, I trust it will be with those who show some real possession of principle and will stick to their solemn bond of cooperation. But when these gentlemen saw that they could not sustain the movement which they had begun to keep that "two-penny ha-penny" outfit in power, the biggest scurry I have ever witnessed in this house in my time was the scurry of these hon. gentlemen to try to get back under the coat-tails of the Liberal party, rather than face their constituents. If 
those gentlemen were the only real champions of Canadian agriculture we might well cry out Lord help Canadian agriculture.
I dp not wish to dispute the ruling of the Chair, but I do feel, so far as remarks which I made on the sugar question are concerned, that it must have been clear to every member of the house that I was about to touch a shoe which pinched very severely the members of the Conservative party and their record in days gone by. Not to carry that any further I will just say that I feel we ought to proceed even more rapidly along the lines of a well-considered tariff reduction. In that respect Canada has led the way in many lines, and she is leading the way to-day, although it may be very gradually, along the very lines which have been proposed in the subamendment moved bj' the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). I really think myself, in face of the fact that Canada has a British preference with the West Indies and Australia, both sugar-producing countries, that my remarks should come within the bounds of this discussion upon the subamendment, but in view of the ruling of the Chair I shall not proceed any further along that line. In view of that ruling, I presume I am not allowed to do as the hon. gentleman who preceded me this afternoon has done. He devoted a great deal of his speech to the record of the financial administration of this government. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if I shall be in order in considering the financial record of the government any further?


Mr. MANION:: Surely; it needs consideration. Go ahead.


Hewitt Bostock: No. The hon. gentlemen must address himself to the subamendment.


Mr. O. B. PRICE (Westmorland):: I am
very much honoured to-night by the presence of so many ministers of the administration, and I am particularly glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. 'Lapointe) in his place. It looks like old times with him back in the house, and I am sure that if the session continues we shall see a little more of the spirit which he used to exhibit in days gone by.
This debate has been rather lengthy, and it is not my intention to take up very much time, but coming as I do from a potato country, I may say that we had hoped for a budget that would give more relief to the labouring classes. In days gone by the great Liberal party always posed as the friend of the masses and not of the classes, but this budget has clearly demonstrated that the present administration have forgotten the policy

The Budget-Mr. Price
which they formerly advocated in favour of the masses and the necessity for looking after their welfare.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in presenting his budget gave a catalogue of the so-called achievements of this government. To my mind this budget does not safeguard the interests either. of agriculture or of industry. If anything has been done along that line, I fail to recognize it.
We imported from the United States last year something like 465,000 bushels of new potatoes, which came into competition with our own crop, and it looks as if this year would be a repetition of last year. Our present market for disposing of our potatoes is very poor. In my constituency, and I think this applies throughout Canada, the potato crop last year was a good one, but it has been very difficult indeed to find a market for it. If there is one thing lacking, it is adequate protection. When our farmers have a large crop, if something could be done by means of the tariff to stabilize the industry and enable the farmers to stand on their own feet, it should be done. I think the rail-ways are to be commended for the special rates that they have put into effect. They acted promptly. In the St. John valley district both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National have done what they could to relieve the situation; (hey have reduced the freight rate to a certain extent. Along the Matapedia valley they have also reduced the rate by something like 25 per cent. While it is not really impressive from the standpoint of percentage reduction as compared with what was given in other districts, still I do not think we have very much cause to complain, because the crop in the Matapedia valley has been a very poor quality one, and it has been very difficult indeed for the people to get their potatoes to the market. However, I do feel that a little more protection would be better, and that we should not rest until we are at least "brick for brick", as the saying is, with the Americans. I believe we should take that course in the interests of our own people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is a great need in the country for better export and import traffic through the maritime ports. I think everyone will give credit to the administration for having done something along this line. I believe they have endeavoured to assist the ports of St. John and Halifax, and really have done something to put the National Transcontinental railway to some use. As we all recall, an enormous expenditure was made for the construction of that railway, I think upwards of $173,000,000, 78594-84
and if it can be put to work, if we can nationalize our ports in the maritime provinces and get our shipments through those ports-the	administration have already
started this movement and I trust they will see that it continues-it will be of tremendous advantage to the maritime provinces in particular and to Canada as a whole, for it will convince us that we must be selfdependent and stand on our own feet in this regard, particularly when we have at our command an excellent railway with a four-tenths per cent grade.
The Farm Loans Act was passed a couple of years ago, and we are anxiously waiting for the board to function. The province of New Brunswick has already enacted such legislation as is necessary in cooperation with the federal administration.
While in the past our ports have been developed and, as I say, to a certain extent encouragement has been given both to Halifax and St. John, the adoption of Halifax as a port of call for the White Star line was a move in the right direction. I believe it was only necessary to call the attention of the White Star management to the fact that they could utilize Halifax as well as Portland to cause them to make the te9t with the liner Regina. This turned out so satisfactorily that they at once determined to make Halifax a permanent port of call, and to discontinue Portland for this purpose, the latter port having hitherto been utilized by them for Canadian overseas traffic.
It is most- regrettable, sir, to notice that recently the Montreal Com Exchange persuaded the council of the Board of Trade of the city of Montreal to oppose strenuously the application to the Board of Railway Commissioners by the Halifax harbour commission and the maritime board of trade for a reduction of 35.5 cents to 19.34 cents per hundred pounds on grain for export over the all-rail route -from Fort William, Port Arthur and Armstrong via the National Transcontinental railway to St. John and Halifax. The resolution passed by the Board of Trade of the city of Montreal was as follows:
Resolved, that the Montreal Corn Exchange Association urge the Council of the Montreal board of trade to strenuously oppose the application to the Board of Railway Commissioners by the Halifax harbour commissioners and the maritime board of trade for a reduction, from 35J cents to 19.34 cents per 100 pounds, in the "all-rail" rate on grain from Fort William, Port Arthur and Armstrong, via the National Transcontinental Railway, to St. John and Halifax, for export, for the following reasons:

The Budget-Mr. Price

1.	That the granting of the application would not increase the amount of grain handled through Canadian ports, for the reasons:
(a)	That the export movement during the winter months (when lake and river navigation is closed) is actually conducted on the basis of "water and rail" rates, by reason of the great storage facilities established at Buffalo and Canadian bay ports, from which the winter requirements of the export grain trade are drawn and from which rates to the seaboard are equalized.
(b)	That the all-rail rate applied for from Fort William and Port Arthur is considerably lower than that available via other routes to the Atlantic seaboard, i.e., water to Buffalo and rail to New York, or water to Georgian bay ports and rail to St. John and Halifax.
(c)	That every seaport on the Atlantic in Canada and the United States is in competition, one with the other, and the rail carriers serving the different ports will not long permit any particular port to enjoy discriminatory freight rates.
2.	That the only practical export rate basis which would be competitive with United States ports has been in effect to St. John and Halifax for a great many years, and any action which would upset this competitive rate basis would be fraught with the greatest possible danger.
3.	That a reduction in the grain rate would seriously handicap the milling industry in Canada, especially those mills located west of Fort William.
4.	That the ultimate result would be a serious loss of revenue to the Canadian railways and other transportation interests.
This old bogey, Mr. Speaker, that has been used many, many times, that the cut in the all-rail rate would mean retaliation on the part of the American railroads, is again to the front. The Montreal board of trade favours American ports at the expense of those of the maritime provinces. They also point out that the rate is lower than comparable rates to other ports. This is not wholly correct. At times, owing to fluctuations in lake rates, insurance charges and canal rates, this may occur, but only for short periods. The same old cry of retaliation was raised when the rate was lowered over the National Transcontinental to Quebec. What was the National Transcontinental railway built for? It ccst the people of Canada upward of 8173,000,000, and was built for the very purpose that the maritime board of trade is now urging. Apparently Montreal is not satisfied with handling the grain during the summer months, but when that port is frozen over during the winter they take the unpatriotic stand that it would be far better to patronize United States ports. Eighty-five per cent of the manufactured goods brought into the maritime provinces are supplied by Quebec and Ontario. I note with much satisfaction that the Toronto Globe is very fully in sympathy with the request made by the maritimes that 
the grain rate be reduced in order to give fair treatment to the ports of Halifax and St. John.
In that connection, sir, I may add that the city of Quebec at the present time is desirous of being included in the Atlantic region. As you are aware, Levis is included. Quebec now is seeking admission, and we only hope that the request will be granted, because we have much in common with the city of Quebec, and we trust that the Atlantic region will be extended on to the city of Montreal, where in cur opinion it should be extended.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take up some other matters which are of interest not only to the people of my constituency, but I think to the government itself. First of all, I wish to deal with the Department of Public Works. Year after year in this house I have asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) to consider the construction of a post office in the city of Moncton. With a population of 22,000 the post office turns into the treasury over $1,000 a day net profit. The gross revenue was $482,578.82. After paying salaries to staff, postmaster, assistants, postmen, postal transfer agents at the Mtoncton depot, and allowing for contingencies to the extent of $1,741.13, there was a total expenditure of $116,300.98, leaving a net profit of $366,277.84. I think that record should commend itself to the minister. When you consider the dilapidated condition in which this building now stands, built forty or forty-five years ago, the unsanitary state of it and the unsatisfactory conditions generally under which the employees must work, it is very difficult indeed to think that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott), with a treasury overflowing, should not be able to see his way clear to set aside one year's profits in order to construct a post office building in Moncton, a building which would really look like a post office and be a credit to the administration. I cannot stress too strongly the condition of that post office at the present time. There is one department for stamps and in another building money orders are sold, and so on; the various departments are so separated that it is exceedingly difficult, particularly with people who are not familiar with the operations of the office, for anyone to get service at all. I am asking the minister again to take the facts into account.
I would also direct his attention to the fact that at a place called Cape Bald, the fishermen at the present time are utilising a breakwater which has a T top on it, behind which they can go with their motor boats when storms are raging. That is the only place they have for shelter along a coast line

The Budget-Mr. Price
of thirty five miles, and when a storm breaks they are obliged to put in there. They require an extension of 100 feet. This would cost only about $10,000 and the work should be undertaken. I am aware that considerable repairs are going on from year to year, and this has always been so with cement work in salt water. But this is a matter that should receive the minister's attention. We come to Ottawa and see the government spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in connection with a canal embankment, the work going on all winter, and we wonder therefore whether it is not possible for them to consider these weary fishermen who have to work their way along the shore in rough weather in an effort to find some shelter. If the minister would undertake the expenditure of $10,000 it would provide a shelter along the shore for these poor fishermen, and they and their families would greatly appreciate it. This is a humane proposal and I urge it upon the minister. I notice that in the city of Ottawa some very large expenditures are being made in connection with the work of the Federal District Commission. I wonder how the general public throughout Canada will like this. There are places in this Dominion where public buildings are in very poor condition to-day and where the public really require some assistance; they are looking for a do-something policy. Yet at the same time the Federal District Commission can spend $200,000 per annum. And who is benefitting by this expenditure? You are simply cutting a pathway, a strand, down through this portion of the city from Connaught place, and you have destroyed one of the best theatres in the city, the only place where a real opera could be presented. A very good hotel building has also been demolished. It seems to me that the government will have something to answer for when they go to the public, because the people, who are reading the papers carefully every day, are taking note of what is going on. Later on the government will be taken to task severely for the manner in which they are spending millions to-day, while they are failing to provide for the needs of the general public. I cannot understand a government going on with these enormous expenditures while the public is crying out for support for the vocational schools. What is the idea of starting to support these schools and then withdrawing your assistance? Is the same thing to be done later on with the old age pension system? After the system has been inaugurated, is the assistance to be withdrawn? Is it something of that nature? The people would like to know about these things.
78594-84*
They would like to know whether the government are going to continue as they have been carrying on in the last few months.
I wish also to direct the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) to an important matter, and I am sorry that he is not in his place. To-day the government are carrying out a system of closing smaller customs houses. They have closed one in Kent county with the result that the people there are obliged to go into Westmorland county to do business. And now they are talking of closing the Shediac customs house. If they would appropriate the rake-off as between the man from whom they rent the building in Moncton and the original owner, they would have enough left to maintain the customs building in Shediac. I have not the figures at hand, but the government are paying something like $160 a month for the building to which I refer; they pay for so much floor space. Now the man who rents the building to the government pays to the man who owns the building something in the vicinity of $60; therefore he has $100 off the top. This is a situation which the government might look into with a view to providing the people of Shediac with a proper service. It does not cost more than $1,200 a year to maintain that service.
I regret that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) is not present. Ministers visit the maritime provinces when there is an election, and I do not know what keeps the hon. gentleman away. It has not been the custom in the past for the Minister of Railways to absent himself from that section of the country; as a rule, the Minister of Railways has visited the maritimes regularly. And particularly should a minister visit that part of the country to fix things up after making the statement that there are four things which the people of the maritime provinces do, namely: first, to be born; secondly, to get a free ride on the Intercolonial railway; thirdly, to get married; and in the fourth place to die. The minister on some occasions denies this but he is not denying it to-night. Now it is claimed that the Canadian National Railways are out of Politics. This government is paying its percentage towards the conduct of a labour bureau in Moncton. The government pays its share, the province of New Brunswick is paying its share, and the city of Moncton is doing likewise. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be absolutely impossible for a stenographer, a clerk or any ordinary clerical worker to obtain employment through that labour bureau; all such appointments must be made through the
The Budget-Mr. Power

Liberal committee. I might say to the minister that there are other matters in connection with patronage into which I do not care to go to-night, but do not let him say that the Canadian National Railways are clear of politics.
I think without doubt the government of . the day is the most extravagant government we have ever had in Canada. I have noticed statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that this is not an extravagant government and that they are practising economy, but I find that we have a tariff board which costs us $120,000 a year. The members of this board were not specially prepared for this work, and I think it is the opinion of the Minister of Finance that their findings are in accordance with their preparation. Then the government spent $542,000 for automobiles for one season; I hope they do not back into something
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to delay the house at this late hour; there are other matters which might be taken up but I do not wish to detain the house further to-night, so I will reserve my further remarks until the estimates are brought down.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to interject a word into the debate, if I may be permitted to do so, in order to ascertain from you just what interpretation we must place upon the rulings which have been made with reference to speeches delivered during the budget debate. I simply wish to call your attention to an apparent anomaly which seems to exist. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken discussed the affairs of the country generally, as he had a perfect right to do and for which I have no quarrel with him. However, I gather from your decision that having made this speech on the subamendment, as soon as that subamendment is voted down or otherwise dealt with, the hon. gentleman may rise again and discuss in a general way the government of the country. Then, the amendment having been disposed of, on the main motion he may make a similar speech, so we have this situation: A man who speaks towards the close of the debate on the subamendment may make three general speeches, whereas a man who speaks on the main motion at the beginning of the debate may speak only once. I must confess that I am somewhat mystified as to the course of jurisprudence in this matter, and for my own satisfaction and information and for the information of the members generally, I think it would be well if a definite rule were laid down as to just how many general speeches may be made during the budget debate.

My interpretation of your ruling may not be correct, sir, but I have discussed this matter with a number of my colleagues and they have come to the same conclusion. It would appear to me, therefore, that if we are to follow this practice there will be nothing to prevent any man who so desires from speaking for not 40 minutes but 120 minutes, and so the rule which we put into force some two years ago after so much study will be set at naught. For that reason I rise and interrupt the course of the debate, and while I do not expect you, Mr. Speaker, to give an answer immediately, I do urge that you and those who have to do with the conduct of this house endeavour to straighten out the matter so that it will be quite clear to all members of the house.


Hewitt Bostock: Last year I gave a ruling on that point, and that ruling was sustained by the house. I have consulted the highest authority in the realm, the Clerk of the English House of Commons, and he agrees with the ruling I gave. This evening I directed the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) to speak on the subject matter of the subamendment, because he had already spoken on the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie).
It is not so difficult to understand the ruling. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken made general reference to the policies of the government; he indulged in general criticism, and if he so wishes he is entitled to speak at another time on the amendtnent, but then he will have to speak directly to the amendment.


Charles Gavan Power: When the hon. member
comes to speak on the main motion I have not the least doubt but that he will be able to discuss the affairs of the country generally, because if there is one thing which we do understand in the workings of our constitution it is that when the budget is brought down every member of parliament has a right to discuss all subjects which may be properly laid before parliament. So on two occasions at least the hon. gentleman would have the right to speak generally. I am not quarrelling with your decision, Mr. Speaker; on the contrary I am rather inclined to agree with it, but I wish to point out that if we are prepared to follow that practice we will set at naught the rule which we laid down two years ago that no member should speak more than forty minutes on one subject. I want to point out that the situation should be so cleared up that it may be understood perfectly by the members of the house that one speech on the budget, of whatever length, should be sufficient for any member.

The Budget-Mr. Johnstone


Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, before the
debate is closed I would like to make a few remarks, although at this late date, after the great- flow of oratory which has issued from the lips of the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the discussion, there is not very much left for me to say. Especially is that the case since the budget itself contains so little for us to consider.
While t'he budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) contains a very glowing picture of Canada's prosperity as evidenced by the financial statement, and while it may give a large portion of Canada a feeling of satisfaction, I can assure the minister that it does not touch a responsive chord in the hearts of the people of the maritimes. They, as usual, have been practically ignored. The minister holds out no hope for the steel and coal industries, and it must seem very strange to the people of Canada, as I know it does to the people of the maritimes, that in the budget no mention is made of those two great industries.
In addition to this, not a word is said as to what the government will do with respect to the Duncan report. From the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) down the members of the government know very well that the Duncan report found in favour of the maritimes on some thirty counts, and this report was handed to the government in September of 1926. As a result, the absolutely unjust freight rates which then existed have been reduced and the government has carried out the recommendation of the commission in giving Nova Scotia a special annual subsidy of $875,000, to be paid until such time as the proper -annual amount shall be arrived at. So far as I know, no effort has been made to arrive at that final sum which will be paid, not only to Nova Scotia, but to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. There does not seem to be any intention on the part of the government to do a single thing to put the Duncan report into effect in its entirety. That is a gross omission on the part of the Minister of Finance and it cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed.
It is a well known fact that the people of the maritimes have less of this world's wealth than the people in other parts of the Dominion. Nova Scotia was probably the most prosperous of the four provinces which originally entered into confederation. Their shipping brought them in great wealth. At that time the shipping tonnage in Nova Scotia was greater per capita than that of
any other country in the world. In every village where shipbuilding was carried on beautiful homes were to be found, and other evidences of luxury were to be seen. The sea brought them wealth from every portion of the world. But those days are long .past. Since 1867 conditions have changed entirely, and the maritimes have been-steadily losing their population. Prince Edward Island has a smaller population to-day than in 1871, the date of the first census. In 1921 the population was over 20,000 less than in 1881. Since 1871 the population of the province of Nova Scotia has increased 35 per cent; in New Brunswick there has been an increase of 36 per cent, while Quebec has increased 100 per cent and Ontario 81 per cent. During the same period the population of Manitoba increased from 25,000 to 610,000, and that of British Columbia increased from 36,000 to 524,000. In 1901. Saskatchewan had -a population of 91,279, which had grown to 757,510 in 1921, and the population of Alberta increased from 73,022 to 588,454. These figures show conclusively the situation in the maritimes as regards the relative growth of Canada. The average per capita wealth of the three maritime provinces is $1,443, while the average per capita wealth of the three prairie provinces is $3,259, or more than double. The figures for 1927 make the comparison between the maritimes and the Canadian west still worse.
In spite of these conditions the budget has nothing to say regarding the situation in the provinces which have suffered so much as a result of the union. This suffering is due to the fact that the contract made at that time has not been carried out. How can the government of this Dominion expect a virile people, nearly all of Anglo-Saxon and French-Canadian blood, to rest content under a treatment which is discriminating against them and reducing them to poverty? Justice has been refused in every direction. The budget holds out no hope for relief or fair dealing. Those who have will hold, and those who have not, that which they have shall be taken from them. Is this a treatment which a proud and patriotic people is expected to receive and submit to without protest? Let me assure this government that it is making a great mistake. The maritimes have no intention of being the outcast portion of the Dominion, nor will they submit forever to injustice.
The confederation agreement entered into in 1864, and later made effective by an imperial act, came into force on July 1, 1867.

The Budget-Mr. Johnstone
in 1925. We expect the Duncan report to be implemented in full. We expect that the maritimes will be put upon a fair and equitable basis with the rest of Canada. That is all we ask, and less than that we shall not be willing to accept. That we demand and we want redress without delay. Probably our people are to blame for their negligence in not pressing their demands far more actiyely than they have done, but the government may rest assured that the maritimes are awake to-day; that they intend to secure these things that are rightfully theirs; that they will never be satisfied until they achieve these results and, furthermore, that they do not intend to wait another sixty 3'ears before justice is meted out to them.
Before I close I wish to summarize some of our demands. Mj' desire is not to criticise every little matter with which I do not agree in the budget speech. I wish, however, to emphasize those things in which our provinces are vitally interested. You have been told, Mr. Speaker, how the population has decreased, and that the per capita wealth of our people is much less than one-half of that of all the west of Canada and just one-third that of Saskatchewan. Those two facte alone should be enough to warrant the government in having something important to state as to their policy towards the maritimes.
The terms made in 1867 regarding transportation have been deliberately and intentionally violated for half a century. If our provinces, and especially Nova Scotia, were to have their claims adjusted from the time they came into confederation, as has been promised Manitoba, it would take a large slice of the national revenue to compensate them for their tremendous losses. Our greatest loss, however, is in the loss of our native-born population. Hon. gentlemen know how well the natives of these provinces have done when they have gone afield. Members from our prairie provinces, I feel sure, will endorse my statement that the maritimers uTho have gone to the west are a very valuable factor in their population. It is acknowledged that they have done a great deal toward the upbuilding of the United States.
Look at the port of Halifax. It was expressly stated by Sir John A. Macdonald that that city should be one of the great emporiums of the world. Sir George-Etienne Cartier went further and stated that the traffic between Halifax and Liverpool would look like a ferry across the Atlantic once the traffic of Canada was directed through the port of Halifax. Until the last two years, however, one-half the time our harbour was almost without a sail or a smokestack. The

fact that this wonderful natural port, which requires so little to make it the greatest port in the world, has been neglected now for over fifty years, is one of the things that anger the citizens of Nova Scotia. They know they were deceived. The promises made respecting this development were positive and definite. It was agreed that the trade developing in Canada, passing across the Atlantic during the winter period, must come through Halifax or St. John. That was one of the conditions of confederation.
The conditions of the coal trade need not be referred to. There again definite promises were made which, if carried into effect, would have made the mines of Cape Breton a hive of industry. More American coal is used in Ontario twice over than is produced in Nova Scotia. This, we are told, is a matter of freight rates. The freight rates can be so adjusted that business can be done. This trade was promised, but the steel industry is languishing because it cannot get fair treatment at the hands of parliament.
When we look, Mr. Speaker, at our ruined industries, our neglected ports, our half-developed coal fields, we see a monument to the injustice of the federal government. We see the trade of Canada steadily directed towards the United States. We see our resources gradually falling into their hands. A change must be made, and a change will be made I hope in the very near future. Our natural resources and our raw materials must be kept at home for our own people to develop, and I am sure that if that were done, we would have our young men and women, who are educated by the Canadian ratepayers, staying at home and building up their own country, instead of. as they are doing now, helping to build up a foreign country. So I say Mr. Speaker, let everyone in this fair country of ours have for his motto, "Canada for Canadians."


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: I would be very glad indeed, Mr. Speaker, to support the subamendment but for two or three things. The subamendment in principle would perhaps be acceptable to me if it were slightly amended. It now reads 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."
I presume that the object of the mover and the seconder of this subamendment is to help the people in the prairie provinces, and

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
I am quite agreeable to that. We in British Columbia are very much interested in the welfare of the prairie provinces. When they have good crops and get good prices for them, we directly reap the benefit of that in British Columbia. The prosperity of British Columbia is very much tied up with the prosperity of the prairies. We are their Pacific seaport. We get many of their people when they have made enough money to retire or desire a change of climate, and we are very glad to have them. We therefore certainly do not wish to do anything that would hurt the people of the prairie provinces.
It seems to me that the wording of the subamendment might be changed a little. In the first place, it proposes that all the material words in the amendment be stricken out. That, of course, is something to which I cannot agree because the amendment sets out the policy of our party, and I think all the members of the Conservative party in this house are solidly behind the amendment. We therefore could not consistently vote for a subamendment which strikes out all the words of our own amendment. If instead of striking out the words of our amendment, the subamendment had been added to the amendment, then I think I could have voted for it except for one reason.
I am quite in favour of increasing our trade with the other nations of the empire. I think we do not- do enough business now within our own family, as it were, in this great empire of ours. I think that Canada could afford to do more business with our sister nations of the empire, could afford to buy more goods from them, and to sell more goods to them. We all know what has been accomplished by the empire marketing board, which is being financed very largely by the people of the old country. As a result of the work which they have already done, the trade between the dominions and the mother country within the past three years has been very largely increased, and particularly is that true of the mother country, because year by year in the last three years she has purchased very greatly increasing quantities of the products of the dominions of the empire. I would be very glad indeed to see any resolution passed which would tend toward increasing Canada's trade with the empire, and I would therefore suggest adding to the words of the subamendment, after "as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations" the words "of the British Empire." If we had the amendment to the amendment in that shape, I think I could support it. As a matter of fact, I might go so far as to say that personally, and speaking only for myself I would
like to see some form of reciprocity among the countries within the empire if it could be worked out. I think it would be a good thing all round; the empire would be self-contained in every way, and we here in Canada would not have to 'be at all concerned with any tariff changes that might be made by the United States or any other country. At the present time, of course, we are looking with some degree of concern towards certain tariff changes which might be made in the United States. That is their business, and we have no right to criticize any changes they may make, but similarly we have a right to look after ourselves.
I notice also that Japan only recently has increased her tariff, and some of those tariff changes are aimed directly at business which is at present being done by Canada with Japan and by the United States with Japan. I am referring particularly to the lumber industry. The Japanese representatives have said that the reason for making these tariff changes is to assist the lumber industry of Japan, that there is no attempt on their part to attack any of the other nations or to injure them in any way, but that they are making these changes in a spirit of self-preservation, to build up their own timber industry again. We cannot object to that.
I think that the great majority of the people of British Columbia, irrespective of their political leanings, are in favour of the amendment which has been moved in this debate. Someone has said that the tariff is a matter of geography. That may be so. So far as British Columbia is concerned I have only to paint out that in the last Dominion election the people of that province sent to this house twelve members of the Conservative party as against one member of the government party, and that one member happened to be a minister of the crown, Which, of course, gave him a little higher standing.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Of course they have seen their mistake since.


Ernest Lapointe: They have been very sorry for it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I may say that at the next general election that lonely Liberal representative will be missing, for he had a very narrow majority at the last election. There must be some reason for this practically unanimous Conservative representation, because it cannot be supposed that the people of British Columbia are not capable of intelligently judging the issues presented to them in the election campaigns. I will tell you the reason-the tariff. British Columbia

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
is in favour of a fair measure of protection for its agriculturists and industrialists. I represent about 65,000 people. They are industrial and agricultural. I presume that I have more farmers in my constituency than are represented by any other member from British Columbia. Of course my constituency is one of tlhe best in the province. I have been sent back here four times with large majorities. At the last election I got over a thousand votes more than in the previous election. In every campaign I have preached more than anything else protection for our farms and our industries. And that is what the people out there want. My fanning community borders on the United States. We have a main, paved highway running down into the United States, and our farmers every day see coming over that highway large truck loads of the products of the farms south of the boundary line. So they know how their market is being interfered with.
Now, you may turn up statistics and tell me: Yes, but we get a comparatively small amount of those products from the United States. But please remember that just across the line from us they have a very great advantage climatically; they are two or three weeks ahead of us. Consequently they can bring in their products that much ahead of our products and get the cream of our market. That is occurring every year. Our farmers know it, and they do not like it. We as their representatives have been urging on the government for many years the necessity of at least equalizing our tariff with that of the United States. Nearly everything that is produced in British Columbia is unfairly treated by the United States tariff. I do not propose to go over the whole list, although I have it before me and if desired shall be happy to put it. on Hansard. Let me refer particularly to some of the chief products of the farm. For instance, butter: the Canadian tariff is four cents a pound, the United States tariff, twelve cents a pound. Eggs: the Canadian tariff is three cents a dozen; United States tariff, eight cents a dozen. Hay: the Canadian tariff is two dollars per ton of 2.000 pounds; the United States tariff, four dollars a ten of 2,240 pounds. What does this mean? That it pays the Americans to Bend their products into the British Columbia markets and pay only a veiy small duty; whereas if our farmers desire to get into the Seattle market, for instance, the tariff practically debars them.
Many times I have had occasion to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to these items. It is said
"he knows his onions, and is very familiar 
with other varieties of vegetables" but he does not seem to recognize the necessity of giving the people of Canada a fair deal. He simply throws up his hands and says, Oh, we cannot do anything at the present time. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) is kinder to us, and when he was out in British Columbia the last time he told the people that so far as he was concerned he would like to see the tariff on those items equalized. Well, if something of the kind is not done the people of British Columbia will not send a single Liberal to represent them in this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about the prosperity of the Dominion. I am not going to say that conditions are not prosperous in British Columbia. But in some lines we are not doing as well as we1 might. For example, we are producing a lot of eggs. My experience has been that the poultrymen of British Columbia are not making even a reasonable living from their poultry. We have some very large poultry farms m the province. Recently the poultry farmers formed a .pool, and I notice that in a press report of a meeting held at New Westminster the other day those present owned 771,000 hens. It must be remembered that there were no more Conservatives at the meeting than there were Liberals, but they passed a unanimous resolution demanding that the tariff on eggs be equalized. As to beef cattle, our herds have been decreasing from time to time until now we do not produce as many beef cattle as we did a few years ago. The reason is lack of proper protection. I could go over the list with practically the same result. I do not think the protection we want is going to hurt the farmers on the prairies. I think gradually they will come to see that the policy of the Conservative party is not only the best for Canada as a whole but the best for themselves. I am confident that as the years go by we shall find that the prairie farmer wants protection just as much as the farmer in British Columbia, that is, when he goes in more for mixed farming. He is doing that already and he is noticing that he needs protection. I might point out another thing. When any of these prairie farmers remove to British Columbia they immediately change their ideas about the tariff and come out and support the Conservative party; a good many of them have done that for me in the elections in which I have been a candidate. As I said before, we should not spend as much money in the United States as we do. I am not going into the figures; they have been repeated here time after time. But the fact remains that we buy a great deal more from the United States than they buy from

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
us, and the proportion seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. The people of the United States are business people, and they would take no exception to our putting the tariff of this country on such a basis as we might consider necessary to protect the Canadian people. As a matter of fact, I think they rather make fun of us for the weak-kneed stand we are taking at the present time. I have spoken to several former residents of the United States and they complain that the tariff of Canada has not been rectified.
I have mentioned a few items. I have another one in connection with dressed Iamb. This is a resolution from the British Columbia Wool Growers' Association. That is not a Conservative organization, but at its annual meeting held on March 6 of this year it passed the following resolution:
Be it resolved that the Canada Dumping Act, customs regulations thereunder, and other related acts if any which in their present form cannot be invoked to bring relief in this and other similar situations confronting the producers of agricultural products in British Columbia be so amended, at the earliest possible moment, in order that they may be applied whenever conditions warrant it. It is urgently suggested that when amendments are enacted they provide for the application of duties on an ad valorem basis.
In British Columbia we are very much interested in mines. I am afraid there has been perhaps too much speculation in mining stocks lately, and in that connection I think possibly the Department of Mines might do something more than it has been doing. I quite appreciate the work that has been done. I appreciate also the fact that the Deputy Minister of Mines is a very capable official, and other officials of the department are doing their best. But it is necessary for the government first to adopt a policy. There are too many wildcats in this country, and so far as I can see the government is doing nothing to discourage people from putting their money into wildcat propositions. I think it is quite necessary that mining stock should be sold on the markets of this country, as otherwise we should not be able to get the money requisite for the developing of the mines of Canada. At the same time, I do not think it is right that stocks and shares should be sold when they have nothing behind them. I do not think it should be possible for any company to put on the market stock behind which there is only a hole in the ground. The government in its annual report should, after proper investigation, expose all those wildcats which they are able to discover and locate. Something should also be done to assist prospectors. There
can be no doubt that the mines which we know of in Canada at the present time do not represent a very large fraction of the mines which might be discovered. I have on other occasions urged on the government that something should be done to assist prospectors, to grubstake prospectors if you like. I know that is done in other countries, and I know it has been very successful. I would therefore suggest that the Department _ of Mines might do something in that direction.
In British Columbia we are also greatly interested in the fisheries. Last year the fisheries of British Columbia in the coastal waters represented some 827,000,000, or about half of the total revenue from fisheries in the whole of Canada. But the fishing industry of British Columbia is not in very good shape at the present time. Some of our varieties have become extinct. For instance, we had the sturgeon, a fish that produced a lot of revenue at one time. That fish when mature weighs from 1,000 to 1,200 pounds, and it would sell at 8 cents a pound. Large quantities of sturgeon were caught in British Columbia waters, but there are practically none there at the present time. They are all gone. Then the salmon of British Columbia are also becoming depleted. On the Fraser river, which was a few years ago the greatest salmon river in the world, one of the main runs, the sockeye run, has become practically extinct. In 1913 on the Fraser river alone they packed over 800,000 cases of sockeye salmon; last year they packed about 29,000. With sockeye salmon worth about $16 a case you see what the loss has been to the country. It seems to me that the Minister of Fisheries should take an interest in the British Columbia fisheries. I do not think the present minister has done so. So far as I am aware, he has made no survey of the British Columbia fisheries. I do not think he has ever been along the coast of British Columbia; I do not think he has ever been on the Fraser river; I do not think he has ever shown any interest at all in our fisheries; and I think I am safe in saying that the Minister of Fisheries has never attended a meeting of the marine and fisheries committee. That is all wrong, and I trust that if this government appoints a minister of fisheries it will appoint a man who knows something about fisheries, a man who will at least take some interest in the industry. Possibly I should not blame the present minister too much, because he is also Minister of Marine, which is a very large department in itself; and it is possible that by reason of his duties as Minister of Marine he has not had any time to devote to fisheries.

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
I have mentioned salmon; there is also the halibut. Halibut as well is becoming depleted. The halibut fisheries of British Columbia are very important, and you need not accept my own statement that there is a very marked depletion in those fisheries. If you care to look up the reports of the joint international committee, formed some three or four years ago, you will find that their last report calls attention to the very serious depletion of the halibut fisheries on the Pacific coast. I do not suppose the Minister of Fisheries would know the difference between a halibut and a salmon; I believe we should have some one as Minister of Fisheries who knows something about these matters and who will take an interest in his department.
I have mentioned sturgeon, salmon and halibut, and in addition we have the whale fisheries. That is an important industry as well, and those fisheries are becoming depleted also. There are a great many matters to engage the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and I think it would be proper to appoint such a minister from British Columbia, or at least we should have a man who would take an intelligent interest in this work.
We have our cabinet minister from British Columbia in the person of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King, Kootenay). I think I can say that the minister has been paying a good deal of attention to the matter of pensions, but I am afraid the government is not so liberal as it might be in dealing with persons claiming pensions. I believe it is the desire of this house, and that desire has been evidenced whenever the matter has been up for discussion, that liberal treatment should be accorded the men who served overseas or to the dependents of such men, but I am afraid that the policy of this government or of the officials who are looking after that work is rather to keep such men from getting pensions if possible. I have come to that conclusion as the result of a number of cases which have been brought to my personal attention. I must say that whenever I have gone to the minister, as I have done in a number of cases, he has done the best he could under the circumstances and has adjusted some cases, but still I think there is room for improvement in that department.
However, I wish to deal more particularly with the Department of Health. I do not believe that department is doing very much to justify its existence, and in fact I do not know what it is doing that is of very great benefit to the country in comparison to the amount of money expended. I am afraid the government is not very considerate of 
the patriotic men and women who are trying to do work which really should be cared for by the government, and in this connection there are two organizations to which I would like to refer. The first is the Victorian Order of Nurses, and I think it is unnecessary for me to detail the important work done by that association. I need only say that one of their objects is to provide nursing service to poor people who otherwise would not get it, and they are carrying on that work in a great many cities and districts throughout Canada. They are enabled to carry on largely through contributions which they receive from private individuals, and the government assists them only to the extent of a grant of $10,000.
Then there is another similar organization, the Canadian Red Cross Society, which is doing a wonderful work in connection with the health of the Canadian people. That society cooperates with the government; I believe it takes care of all the immigrants who come into Canada. Up to and including last year it cared for some 130,000 immigrants, and it is estimated that this year will bring the total up to some 200,000. That organization has forty outposts throughout Canada and does a magnificent work, but it receives no ffrant at all from this government. Applications for such a grant have been made time after time without result, and I think it is a crying shame and disgrace to Canada that the government should be so parsimonious with regard to such an important matter.
There is also another question which is engaging the attention of the people of Canada; I refer to full time health units.
I have before me a copy of a resolution which I have received from a great many women's organizations in British Columbia, as follows:
Whereas it is expedient that the control of communicable diseases, and of maternal and infant mortality in childbirth, as well as the medical inspection of school children throughout the smaller towns and villages and rural areas of the Dominion of Canada should be made more efficient;
And whereas the most satisfactory method of securing this result has been demonstrated in the province of British Columbia and Quebec and in many of the states of the United States of America, to be by the establishment of county or district health units in rural areas, such health units consisting of a full time medical health officer, sanitary inspector, public health and school nurses, and a secretary in charge of the clerical work;
And whereas such units at present established are financed by half the cost thereof being borne by the local districts, one-quarter by the province in which the district is situated, and one-quarter by the Rockefeller Foundation;

Questions
And whereas the grants from the Rockefeller Foundation are of a temporary nature for a period of three years only;
Be it therefore resolved that the government of the Dominion of Canada, through the Minister of National Health of the Dominion, be requested to provide for financial assistance to the provinces of the Dominion in the same manner as is at present provided for the control of venereal diseases, to the extent of one-quarter of the cost of maintaining such local health units and thus assume permanently the portion of the cost of such units covered by the temporary grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.
I notice also that the Canadian Council of Agriculture has adopted a resolution along the same lines. That is something which might be taken up, and I hope the minister will seriously consider it.
Now, to ohange the subject, there is another matter to which I would like to refer, and that is the absence of an airport in the vicinity of Vancouver. This is urgently required. The government will do nothing to assist in establishing that airport, and I think it is making a mistake. It would be a great asset to Canada and is something which is absolutely necessary. I regret also to learn that the government does not propose to extend the air mail this year to the Pacific coast. An air mail over the mountains would be a great convenience and I think it would form one of the most important units of the system. The government should consider the matter and decide to continue the air service to the British Columbia coast.
I am very much pleased to note in connection with the Canadian National Railways that it is proposed to do certain development work in the vicinity of New Westminster. I congratulate the government, or perhaps I should say the Canadian National Railways, for adopting that program. I believe they are interested in New Westminster as a port because there is a saving to them of one cent per bushel on the grain shipped through that port. There is no argument about that; that is admitted. No grain coming over the Canadian National railways should be shipped through Vancouver at all. That may seem a rash statement, but the fact is that they do not enter Vancouver over their own tracks.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Monday, April 8, 1929