[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Georgina Linda Melndoe	Howard.-Mr.	White (Mount
Royal).
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Antonio Poliseno.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Dorothy Gertrude Silcock Wilson.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Beulah Isobel Phillips Eakin.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 58, for the relief of George Seymour Dixon.'-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Audrey Meredith Mann Redpath.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Ethel Seigler Nissenson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Questions

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes):
Ottawa, April 11, 1932.
Dear Sir,-
I am informed that the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Comptroller of the Treasury have discussed the transfer of accounting staffs and are in agreement.
Therefore, under the authority of P.C. 14/360, dated March 10, 1932, and section 36 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, I designate the following accounting officers on the staff of the House of Commons to be transferred to the Department of Finance, under the direction and control of the Comptroller of the Treasury, in accordance with the terms given in the order in council already referred to:
Sherwood, B. W., chief accountant, $4,140.
Jarvis, H. A., assistant clerk, $2,340.
Bissonnette, E. A., clerk, grade 3, $1,380.
Yours faithfully,
Edgar N. Rhodes.
The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I desire to lay on the table of the house orders in council Nos. 813, 814, 815, 816, 888 and 911, passed pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, all relating to the payments of money.



PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex) moved that the first report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament, presented to the house on April 20, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 61, to amend The Companies Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. CAHAN:: Several provinces have in recent years enacted legislation requiring assignments of book ddbts to be registered locally, and in order that section 85 of The Companies Act of Canada may be brought into consistent operation with the provincial legislation dealing with the same subject, I am proposing a slight amendment to that section.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BOTHWELL:: 1.	What was the cost of printing the Stamp commission report?
2.	What number of copies were printed: (a) how many were sold and what amount was realized; (b) how many copies were distributed free?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I answer this question orally, as I have just received the reply from the King's Printer. In so far as respects the Department of Public Printing and Stationery:
1.	$2,144.73.
2.	Total copies, 14,850. (14,350 English, 500 French), (a) 12,057 copies sold, $2,441.89 realized, (ib) By Department of Pulblic Printing and Stationery: 100 copies English, 50 copies French.


BOYAL CANADIAN AIK FORCE
Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	When a large number of officers and other ranks of the Royal Canadian Air Force were let out of that service recently, was the headquarters staff of the Royal Canadian Air Force reduced in proportion to the reduction in active flying officers and flying personnel of other ranks ?
2.	How many officers and other ranks were attached to the Royal Canadian Air Force headquarters and other staff positions as of March 31, 1931?
3.	How many officers and other ranks are attached to Royal Canadian Air Force headquarters and other staff positions as of March 31, 1932?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1, 2 and 3. The recent reduction in the Royal Canadian Air Force was not effective until April 1, 1932. On that date three officers and six airmen were released from headquarters. The transfer of several officers is now pending and additional officers and airmen will be transferred to the outside service as, and when, reorganization proceeds.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1. What are: (a) the names; (b) the years of service; (c) the salary or wages; (d) the number of dependents, of all employees of the Publications branch of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa who have been let out of their positions in the said branch from the 1st January, 1932, to date?

Unopposed Motions for Papers
_ 2. What are the names of the said employees, if any, who have been taken back into the government service either: (a) in their former positions; or (b) in new positions?
3.	What are:	(a) the names of all new
employees, if any, who have been taken on in the said branch; (b) the date of their appointment since the 1st January, 1932, to date; (c) the number of dependents of every one?
4.	If any such employee who has been taken back replaces in said branch a former employee (one who has been let out), what (a) was the salary of said former employee; (b) is the salary of such new incumbent?
5.	Upon the recommendation of what officer of the said branch, and upon the approval of the said recommendation by what further officer of the said branch, were the said employees let out of the public service?
C. (a) what were the reasons for such releases; (b) what principle, if any, was followed in selecting the employees who were released as aforesaid?


DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR-WATER POWER BRANCH
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	How many employees of the Water Power branch, Department of the Interior, have (a) been actually let out, or (b) have received notice that from and after a certain date their services will no longer be required?
2.	How many of such employees (a) are civilians; (b) has active overseas service?
3.	What are the number of dependents of every such employee?
4.	What is in every case of active overseas service the disability, if any?
5.	(a) what is now the total number of employees in said branch; (b) what is the number of employees with overseas active service?
6.	Of the total number of employees now in said branch how many are (a) single males; (b) single females; (e) married males; (d) married females; (e) civilians; (f) active overseas service?
7.	What is the length of military service separately of every A.O.S. employee that has been released or has had notice that after a certain date his or her services will no longer be required?


RESIGNATION OF POSTMASTERS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	To how many postmasters, in each province, since August, 1930, have the letters and forms shown at pages 6 and 11 inclusive, of the file 244, S.P. No. 257, of April 1, 1932, been forwarded ?
2.	How many postmasters, in each province, forwarded their resignation, after having received these letters and forms?
3.	How many postmasters were dismissed, in each province, after having duly filled and readdressed the said letters or forms to the Post Office department?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. ILSLEY:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports and other documents exchanged
between the Department of Public Works and any person or persons in Nova Scotia regarding the expenditure of public money under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, on the construction of a wharf, and on repairs to an existing wharf, both at Great Village, Colchester county, Nova Scotia; also a copy of the payrolls, showing the amount expended in labour and how expended; also a copy of the accounts showing prices paid for iron, logs, ballast, ballast poles, timber and plank, and from whom purchased.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I move to amend this motion slightly. I find that the place is Spencer's Point and not Great Village. I move that in the fifth and sixth lines the words "and on repairs to an existing wharf, both at Great Village" be struck out and the words "at Spencer's Point" be substituted therefor.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? It must be by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of the report of the commissioner appointed to investigate the charges against the postmaster of St. Jean i'Evangeliste and Nouvelle, county of Bonaventure, together with copy of the evidence in each case.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Charles Marcil: For a copy of the paylists for unemployment works in the parish of Bonaventure, county of Bonaventure, during 1932.


Mr. BENNETT:: These reports are not
divided into parishes. The best than can be done will be done, but there is no division of work by parishes.


Charles Marcil: I understand that a certain amount has been allowed, to be spent in that parish, the Dominion contributing one portion and the province and the municipalities the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the county of
Bonaventure, not the parish. We will give such information as we have.
ST. NAZAIRE d'aCTON MAIL CONTRACT


Mr. DUMAINE:: For a return showing a copy of all tenders, the names of each person tendering, the amount of each respective tender and the date of its reception, the name of person to whom contract was awarded and on whose recommendation in connection with the mail contract on rural route No. 1, St. Nazaire d'Acton, in the county of Bagot; also a copy of all telegrams and correspondence exchanged in this respect

Radio Broadcastin g
between the Postmaster General or any official of the Post Office Department and Mr. Leon Gauthier, M.D., of Acton Vale, Quebec.



LUCIEN I.ACASSE

Mr. LAPOINTE:: Dor a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, investigations, evidence, reports and other documents concerning the dismissal, in March, 1932, of Lucien Laeasse, an employee of the Department of Marine, in the city of Quebec.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF-ST. EMILE, QUEBEC

Mr. LAFLECHE:: For a copy of all correspondence, in connection with unemployment, exchanged between the Minister of Labour, and Mr. Emile Provost, mayor of the parish of St. Emile, county of Montcalm, Quebec.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF-NOVA SCOTLA

James Lorimer Ilsley: For a copy of all accounts, vouchers, payrolls and other documents showing all the expenditures under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, on the wharf at Arichat, Nova Scotia.
For a copy of all accounts, vouchers, payrolls and other documents showing all the expenditures under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, on the shore protection at D'Ecousse, Nova Scotia.	*
For a copy of all accounts, vouchers, payrolls and other documents showing all the expenditures under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, on the wharf extension and shed repairs at West Arichat, Nova Scotia.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. ELLIOTT:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memo-danda, reports of the inspector, and other documents, in connection with the post office vacancy at Ailsa Craig, Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would indicate the dates to which he has reference; as the motion now stands, it is rather general.


John Campbell Elliott: I refer to the date when
the vacancy occurred.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) if he will advise the house just why he is unable to introduce the bill respecting the trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand reference to which

appears on the orders of the day. It would have been of advantage to some of us had we had this agreement before the completion of the debate on the budget.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Comiherce):: Mr. Speaker, the agreement will be tabled to-morrow evening between ten and eleven o'clock. By doing this we will synchronize with the tabling of the agreement in New Zealand, which will be at about three o'clock on Wednesday afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will probably synchronize also with the closing of the budget debate.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
will the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) advise if it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation during this session on the subject of radio broadcasting and ownership control?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, until the report of the
committee dealing with this matter is tabled in this house, obviously I can make no announcement with respect to this matter. The question asked by my right hon. friend affords me an opportunity to say that my attention has been directed to a report in the newspapers indicating that certain discussions took place during a caucus of the government party. What transpires at caucuses is not supposed1 to be a matter of discussion and I have pleasure in informing the house that this matter was not discussed in any way. The government would not anticipate the action of the committee by suggesting what the report of the committee should be. It is obvious that a committee composed of the gentlemen who compose this committee would not take kindly to any such suggestion, even if it were made as it will not be. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and the former Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) are sufficient guarantee of the fact that this committee would not appreciate a suggestion from the government as to what its report should be, even assuming that such a suggestion were in the minds of the government, which it is not.


Mr. EULER:: I assume that that statement covers the report that the Minister of Marine

Pension Act
(Mr. Duranleau) was in Montreal the other day in order to discuss going on with the proposals made by Mr. Beatty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly does.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the inquiry of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) and other hon. members as to whether the government proposes to introduce legislation to amend the Pension Act during the present session, may I inform the house that the government has given very careful consideration to the statement submitted by the associated veterans in connection with the operation and administration of the act. Representatives of the five service organizations concerned were heard by the government on April 23, and the view taken by the government is indicated by a letter to Major J. S. Roper, chairman of the associated veterans, which reads:
Ottawa, April 23, 1932. Major J. S. Roper, M.C., K.C.,
Dominion President,
The Canadian Legion of the
British Empire Service League,
(Chairman of the Associated Veterans),
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-
With reference to the legislative proposals submitted in January and to the hearing held to-day by the government at which were present representatives of the associated veterans, i.e., the Amputations Association of the Great War, the Sir Arthur Pearson Club of Blinded Sailors and Soldiers, the Canadian Pensioners' Association of the Great War, the Army and Navy Veterans in Canada, and the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League:
Under the amendments to the Pension Act of 1930, the Pension Tribunal has operated for only eighteen months and the Pension Appeal Court for fifteen months. When the legislation of 1930 was passed, it was suggested that it should at least have a fair trial before further amendments were made. The government is of the opinion that it can hardly be said that the time it has been in operation has afforded a real opportunity to test its effectiveness. Every effort will be made to improve the administration of the act and to expedite decisions being made. Our information warrants the belief that, when parliament again meets, we should be in a position to definitely determine the weakness of the present act and desire that every effort should be made to ascertain what amendments may be necessary.
The government will be pleased to refer the whole matter to a committee of the associated veterans' organizations, in conjunction with a committee appointed by the government, the report to be presented to the government before the first of, say February, 1933.
On behalf of the government, I desire to thank you and your officers and members not
only for the spirit in which you have approached the matter under consideration, but also for the real assistance you have been in the administration of the act, and to express the hope that, as a result of cooperative effort, the conditions of which you complain may disappear.
Believe me, I am,
Yours faithfully,
(sgd.) Murray MacLaren, Minister of Pensions and National Health.
The reply from Major Roper reads as follows:	*
Ottawa, Canada,
April 24, 1932.
Colonel the Hon. Murray MacLaren,



C.M.G., P.C.. M.P.,

[Stage Direction]
Minister of Pensions and
National Health,
Daly Building,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sir:-
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your very courteous letter of April 23, regarding the legislative and other proposals affecting exservice men and women in Canada submitted to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and members of the government of Canada by representatives of The Army and Navy Veterans in Canada; The Amputations' Association of the Great War; The Sir Arthur Pearson Club of Blinded Sailors and Soldiers; The Canadian Pensioners' Association of the Great War, and the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, hereinafter referred to as the associated veterans.
Since these proposals were presented in January, a survey has been made of the complaints arising from the operation of the present act from one end of Canada to the other. On investigation these complaints resolve themselves into three major classes, viz.: complaints re (a) the congestion of cases in the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada and the Pension Appeal Court; (b) the length of time it takes to get a final decision; (c) the unnecessary appealing of cases by commission counsel. The associated veterans are pleased to have the assurance of the government that every effort will be made to improve the administration of the act and to expedite decisions being made. This will in a measure satisfy some of the complaints.
The associated veterans have further taken into consideration the proposition made by the government to refer the whole matter to a committee of the associated veterans' organizations in conjunction with a committee appointed by the government, the report to be submitted to the government before the first of February, 1933. After taking into consideration the statements made by the government to the associated veterans yesterday and having due regard to the times through which Canada is passing the associated veterans while realizing the necessity of immediate remedial action, have come to the conclusion that they should accept this proposition provided that the report is made to the government when complete and any necessary legislation evolving from the same is presented to the next session of parliament. This also will enable a very close study to be made
Pension Act
[Stage Direction]
during the summer of the act by all parties interested. The associated veterans, however, are of the opinion that no time should be lost in appointing this committee and they are prepared immediately to meet together and name their representatives. In conclusion we wish to thank this government and its predecessors in office and the parliament of Canada for its kindness and consideration in days gone by and at the present time and to assure them that the ex-service men of this country to-day as in the days from 1914 to 1918 are willing to do everything in their power to assure the peace, order, and good government of Canada.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
(Sgd.) J. S. Roper,
Dominion President, Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League on behalf of the Associated Veterans named in the body of this letter.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): May I say I listened to the reply of the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and I want to thank him for the definite and satisfactory answer that he has given to the many questions asked him this session in connection with pensions and returned men. But I should like to ask him whether, when the committee is appointed for next session, soldier settlers will be included by the government in the investigation?
Murray MacLaren: No; this subject does not come under the purview of the investigation.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I might say that it was connected with the pension question in 1930, and I should like to impress upon the minister the importance of not overlooking the interests of the soldier settlers next year when the question is investigated.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has not the right to make a speech.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is not my intention to make a speech.



PURCHASE OF FERTILIZER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: In answer to a question asked on Friday last by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean), my information is that no such resolution has been received.



PRIVILEGE-MR. NEILL APPEAL FROM RULING OF MR. SPEAKER-RULING SUSTAINED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I rise to a question of privilege under authority of
fMr. MacLaren.]
standing order 16 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and also of Bourinot, pages 303 and 304. Both these authorities lay down the rule that any question of privilege must have a reference to a member of parliament and to his functioning as such. The matter I wish to take up very briefly comes under that definition, so I presume I am in order. On page 2295 of Hansard of April 22 will be found two definite misstatements, both concerning myself. Both are intended and one of them is calculated to prejudice my political record and reputation. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) was referring to a debate in 1925 in connection with railway matters and he read to the extent of half a column the exact words of a speech made on that occasion by the present leader of the apposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), then Prime Minister of Canada. A little later on he used these words, referring to me:
Well, the hon. member himself sat in this house during the session of 1925. I have gone very carefully through the debate to which I have referred-
Please note the Ultima Thule of caution. He had gone through it, not carefully, but very carefully.
-but I cannot find that he offered any suggestions to the then government, nor did he support the Conservative members from British Columbia who demanded justice for their province with respect to freight rates.
He then, to the exent of about half a column, bases on that statement an attack against me. My answer is that his statement is entirely wrong. I did speak in that debate-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I call the hon. member to order. So far he has given the house nothing that indicates he is speaking to a question of privilege. I have looked up the debate to which he refers. The hon. member for Fraser Valley says:
I have gone very carefully through the debate to which I have referred, but I cannot find-
And so forth.


Alan Webster Neill: But I am now going to proceed to show that is a gross misstatement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: 
Alan Webster Neill: If refuting a misstatement is not a question of privilege, then I appeal from your decision, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is not a question of privilege and it is not a proper statement to make.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I appeal from your decision. I have not even been allowed to state the question. Am I permitted to continue?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member can appeal from the Speaker's ruling if he wishes. I rule that it is not a question of privilege, and it is an attempt on the part of the hon. member now to continue a debate which, so far is he is concerned, is closed.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I appeal from that decision. While you are looking up the points of order, perhaps I may be allowed to state the question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am looking up the procedure in regard to appealing from a Speaker's ruling. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni having quoted from the speech of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, as reported in Hansard of April 22, 1932, at page 2295, and on a question of privilege undertaking to reply thereto; the Speaker having ruled that the same is not a question of privilege and that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is out of order, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni appeals from that ruling.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Robert Weir: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. YOUNG:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


John Campbell Elliott: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BOULANGER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


My. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I was paired with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 21, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. N. Rhodes (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 Mr. Ralston, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gardiner.
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, previous to the adjournment of the debate, on Thursday evening, I compared certain statements made by our friend, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) in the course of the elections of 1930 and 1931, with the recent statements he made in the house. I did so not simply to be disagreeable to him, but for the sake of truth. Ever since our hon. friend has held a responsible post in the council of the nation, he would gladly have forgotten and, especially, have people forget certain pledges and statements which he made at election time. There are certain historical facts in his political campaigns which it is but right to consign to Hansard, so as to refer to them when the opportunity arises.
There is, sir, an argument set forth by the hon. Postmaster General in his speech, on April 19, last, to which I want to reply. At page 2178 of Hansard, the hon. Postmaster states:
Our opponents forget also to mention that, under their regime, in 1905, farm products sold cheaper than they do to-day. Pork sold at $5 per cwt. and hay at $4 and $5 per ton; poultry 50 cents a pair.
Urquhart,
Mackenzie
(V ancouver), Dupuis,
Power.
Deslauriers,
MacLean,
Young,
Moore (Ontario), Bradette,
Marcil,
Ralston,
Desrochers,
Roberge,
Lacroix,
Taylor,
Seguin,
Heenan,
Casgrain,
[Stage Direction]
Fraser
(Northumberland), Hepburn,
Hall,
Beaubien,
Weir (Macdonald), Brasset,
Malcolm,
Motherwell,
Brown,
Vallance.

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
What a fine argument, sir, for a person who contends that he is in earnest and what a consolation for farmers who are obliged to practically give away their products nowl The scope of such an argument is unbounded, the hon. Postmaster General might just as well have gone back to 1832 and stated: "A hundred years ago the price of farm products was less than to-day." He might have gone as far back as the deluge! However, what does it prove, and especially, what relief can this afford to farmers? I trust that the hon. Postmaster does not look upon farmers as idiots; I hope that he is aware that farmers realize that 27 or 28 years ago, if the price of farm products was about the same as that of to-day, the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar was greater than at present. The farmers are aware also that the taxes they paid 27 or 28 years ago, were ten, fifteen or perhaps twenty fold less than now. The farmers equally know that in 1905 labour was cheaper, that the price of necessities such as farm implements was much less than to-day, in 1905 or 1896, the rate of interest on farm loans was lower than now. Therefore, I think it is childish to say to farmers, as a small compensation: "Cheer up, do not complain, the prices of commodities are about the same this year as they were in 1905 or 1896."
Instead, sir, of having to resort to such arguments and discuss Quebec's provincial affairs in this house, our friend, the hon. Postmaster General, who likes to pose as an expert in farm matters, would be well advised, with the help of his Quebec colleague, the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), to formulate an agricultural policy, one agreed upon and definite, thus brushing aside the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who, to my mind, seems helpless to devise one himself. While our Quebec cabinet members busy themselves in petty and insignificant political squabbles, while they waste their time in ordering dismissals or discussing party questions with reference to political favours, our western friends who are organized and well represented in the house, help themselves to the treasury funds.
Joseph-François Laflèche: They have been doing so for a long time.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Let me point out to an incident which recently happened in my county and which proves that our western friends, thanks to their excellent organization and the fighting spirit their worthy representatives display in the house, have practically emptied the treasury; there does not even remain a paltry $1,000 for the Quebec farmers. A few days ago, the
municipal council of the small settlement of Ste. Sabine, in the upper part of my county, along the Maine border, wrote to me to inquire whether it would be possible to obtain $1,000 to purchase seed grain for the poor settlers of the parish. This parish was settled about ten or fifteen years ago; the farms are not yet in an advanced state of cultivation and the returns are not sufficient to afford a livelihood to those on the land. Previously, these settlers worked in the lumber camps, across the border, however, within the last few years, the United States government has closed the frontier to Canadian woodcutters; the result is that farmers from Ste. Sabine, as well as those from the surrounding country, are now destitute. The municipal council forwarded to me a resolution requesting a grant of $1,000. This is not a large amount, $1,000 only, to relieve these poor settlers, at Ste. Sabine, when compared with the ten or eleven million dollars paid as a bonus on the western wheat or again with the fifty million dollars or thereabouts expended in the west to relieve the farmers and guarantee the bonds of the western provinces, which are practically bankrupt. I referred this matter to the Minister of Agriculture and the director of unemployment. The following is my letter to the latter:
Ottawa, April 12, 1932.
Mr. Harry Hereford,
Director of Unemployment,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-
I have the honour to enclose a copy of a resolution from the Municipal Council of Ste-Sabine which was forwarded to me by Mr. Edmond Mercier, secretary-treasurer of the council.
As you will note by this resolution, the farmers of that parish request a grant of $1,000, in order to purchase seed grains.
I suppose that such a request can be granted pursuant to the special Unemployment and Farm Relief Act (eh. 58, 1931).
The parish of Ste-Sabine is a settlement where the land has not yet been sufficiently improved to afford a livelihood to the settlers. Formerly the farmers of Ste-Sabine worked, in winter, in the lumber camps of the state of Maine, they earned enough to purchase their seed grain. For the last two years, the United States have completely closed their frontier and, owing to this, distress prevails now among the Quebec parishes along the frontier.
I -wish to strongly support the request of the settlers of Ste-Sabine, and let me assure you that by granting this request you will be performing a good deed.
Yours faithfully,
Oscar L. Boulanger, M.P.
My letter to the hon. Minister of Agriculture being similarly worded, there is no need of reading it. I shall now read the answers.

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger

The first is the answer of the director of unemployment:
Ottawa, April 15, 1932. Mr. Oscar L. Boulanger, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-	_
I wish to acknowledge your letter of April 12, enclosing copy of a resolution of the parish of Ste-Sabine, referring to a grant of $1,000 which the municipal council request in order to assist the farmers in purchasing seed grain.
This is not a matter which can be dealt with pursuant to the agreement concluded with the province by virtue of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. However, I think this matter is entirely relevant of the provincial authorities.
You are aware, no doubt, that the Dominion government has concluded an agreement with the province in connection with the measures to be taken to relieve unemployment. However, this agreement does not cover such matters as the purchase of seed grain.
Kindly accept, sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.
Harry Hereford,
Dominion Director.
The letter of the hon. Minister of Agriculture is as follows:
Ottawa, April 16, 1932. Mr. 0. L. Boulanger, K.C., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Boulanger,-
I received your letter dated the 12th inst. enclosing a petition from the farmers of the municipality of Ste-Sabine who request a grant of $1,000 so as to help them in purchasing seed grain.	,
Unfortunately, we have no fund from which we could draw to give this kind of relief. Moreover no distribution of seed grain is made by the Dominion government. I would invite^ you to advise your correspondent to communicate with the provincial authorities on this matter.
Yours faithfully,
R. Weir.
I do not know, sir, pursuant to what agreement or understanding our western friends succeed in obtaining seed grain and I am wondering why this agreement favouring the western farmers does not also apply to the eastern farmers. If the hon. ministers who represent us in the dominion cabinet would bestir themselves in the interests of the Quebec farmers, it seems to me that we could obtain the same advantages as those granted to other sections of the country. I note by this correspondence that it has become a habit with the Dominion government to throw the blame on Quebec. I thought at first that it was the hobby of a few young back benchers on the government side, but I discover that our hon. friends, the Postmaster General and the Minister of Marine are also playing this game and endeavour to saddle the errors and

blunders of the Dominion government upon the province of Quebec. It is more than time that Quebec should be left in peace; I think the Dominion government has enough serious and difficult problems to deal with and to occupy the great intellectual powers of the cabinet. They could devote their entire time, resources and ability to settling the problems which necessarily befall them; and allow Quebec to look after her own affairs, without interference.
Furthermore, the latter has shown that it was able to manage its own affairs. Quebec has given evidence of moderation and common sense, it proved this in the last provincial election by again reposing its confidence in statesmen who may have erred in the past, but who have the interests of the public at heart and offer guarantees of integrity and ability.
Do not interfere with Quebec and she will continue to set the example to others, to trace the path and lead the way. The other provinces of the Dominion would be well advised to follow in her footsteps and manage their affairs as she does; if they had followed her example, perhaps we would be better off.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): We do not come to Ottawa to beg.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The other day I extended my congratulations to my friend, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). Again, to-day, I do so, on the score of his having set aside the habit of belittling his province. He is clever and he soon discovered the errors of his ways and ceased following in the footsteps of those on the government side, who cannot rise in the house without saying something disagreeable about their province. While I am referring to my hon. friend, the member for Dorchester, he may perhaps allow me to make some suggestion to him. He requested the other day the cooperation of the opposition. He stated that the cooperation of those sitting on your left, sir, was needed, that the cooperation of all men of good will was required to save agriculture, which he admits is greatly in distress. However, I well recall what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated a short while ago, when he exclaimed in an angry tone:
It is not the opposition that rules in the house, it is not the minority but the majority.
I am therefore compelled to advise my friend, the hon. member for Dorchester, to make his suggestions, which are excellent ones, I admit, to the right hon. Prime Minister and his cabinet.

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman
With reference to pledges made to farmers by hon. members opposite, may I, sir, consign to Hansard a statement made by the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois), in the course of the election last August. The hon. Postmaster General was discussing a bonus on butter, but the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice went one better than him by promising a bonus on cheese. According to "La Victoire" a newspaper published solely for the occasion, since its issue has been discontinued; our hon. friend stated.
On August 8, 1931, at Three Rivers-evidently the following are his words, since a friendly photograph of him adorns the first page-
If you will put your trust in me, and favour me with that share of influence which necessarily will result from an election under the present circumstances, I shall work with all my energy to obtain from the Dominion government a bonus on cheese made in our rural sections, thus fostering the dairy industry which forms the basis of our economic agricultural system.
May I inquire from my hon. friend who is listening, also from the hon. Postmaster General who is in the house, what has become of this famous bonus on butter and cheese?
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Carry out
your pledges!


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Since
we are discussing the Three Rivers' election, may I refute the statement often made-I think the hon. Minister of Marine repeated it in the house, last Thursday-that the Three Rivers' election was an endorsation of the government's policy. Well, to contradict this assertion, I have but to quote the newspaper to which I have just referred and in which I see in large head lines, covering the width of two pages, the following:
We shall discuss politics in four years, for the present let us vote for Bourgeois and the government.
We must conclude, therefore, if no mention of politics was made, if the electorate was not called upon to vote on the government's policy, the people evidently could not approve of that policy. To explain these large head lines, two paragraphs follow. One appeals to the business men:
We, in business, feel the reaction of this far flung crisis. There should be no question of politics in this election. Our business and interests take precedence. We shall talk politics when business has picked up.
And just next to this paragraph the other appeals to property owners.
41761-146S
Property owners we are burdened with taxes-
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): And to be sure we are aware of the fact!


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: -the government invites us to cooperate in carrying out works. It places unlimited amounts at our disposal. Let us not send to Ottawa an enemy of the government, but Bourgeois, the friend of ministers, he will get us our quota of the public funds. Our interests take precedence over that of politicians.
I repeat it, sir, our opponents did not discuss politics, they did not request the people to give their verdict on the policy of the government. How can they, to-day, state that the government's policy was approved by the people in the Three Rivers-St. Maurice election.


Joseph-François Laflèche: It cannot be so!


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that at this late stage in the debate I find it necessary to take part. Such would not have been my plight had I been present at the time the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) made his speech and proposed his amendment. Had he been interrogated across the floor of the house I venture to say he would not have made the misstatements which were made and upon which he hinged his argument. That those misstatements were grave there is no doubt, and I cannot possibly realize how the hon. member could have made them. I refer only to the tariff and currency features of his address. The Department of National Revenue was brought into this debate in no very commendable manner. I am sorry the hon. member is not in the house, because he will find himself in the unfortunate position in which I found myself.
I must say, however, that the alleged facts which he presented to the house were, in many respects, wholly wrong. I realize that in connection with tariffs he and all about him protest against the artificial barriers formed by the tariff and its ill considered increases, and suggest that it is manipulated. That is not the worst of it; he says we juggled with the currency. Page 1894 of Hansard for the present session discloses that the hon. member had before him an order in council and a survey of the facts. He states emphatically that on September 28, a date soon after England went off the gold standard, an order in council was passed providing the value for duty purposes. But he is not content with that statement. Later on in a cross-fire
The Budget-Mr. Ryckman


Edward James Young: What w'as done?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On what
authority did the minister act?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The minister did not act; that is the point. The ministry acted on the 29th of September and passed an order in council. It did not revoke what had been done before. It provided that the pound should be as the pound has ever stood since this trouble, at $4.86j; and the value for duty ever since, notwithstanding what the hon. member said, has been and is to-day $4.86j. To make such an attack and embody it in an amendment, in effect saying that we walked up the hill and then walked right down again, when there was no foundation whatever for the statement, seems to me to ibe something that an hon. member who values the good opinion of this house should not indulge in.
At page 1894 the hon. member said that that was not all, that we passed an order in council to the effect:
We will not hold sterling up to $4.80|, but we will hold it up to $4.40.
That has no relation to the fixing of duty in the ordinary sense, and the hon. member must have known it.


Edward James Young: Had it any effect on the
duty paid?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It had no effect whatever, and never has had, except on the special dumping duty. It had on that, but that is not what the hon. member said. He led the house to believe-you cannot read it in any other sense-that that was for fixing duty as determined by order in council in the ordinary course of business between Canada and England.


Edward James Young: It had an effect on the
amount of duty collected.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As I have stated, it
relates to the special duty. It takes on an

altogether different complexion when you consider why that was done, but he did not tell the house, and no one seemed to be anxious to interrogate him or to find out the facts. At the time the order was made fixing $4.40 as the value of the pound on the 23rd of October, general business in England had improved, so had wholesale values, and in dealing fairly with England we were bound to fix the value in the neighbourhood of $4.40. I heard with pleasure Sir Josiah Stamp address members of parliament not so long ago in this building. He said at that time, as I understood him, that the increase was about 8 per cent. I have, read myself that the value as fixed by a writer in The New Republic was something over 7 per cent. In those circumstances plainly a change had to be made in a proper accounting for dumping duty. What was done? We favoured Great Britain and took off 10 per cent. We have been told since that 8-8 would be an accurate estimate. We deducted 10 per cent off the pound and called it roughly $4.40. That was used for dumping duty and for nothing else, notwithstanding the express statement of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth.
Then he objected to the blanket power which he said we have. At this session we seem to be troubled very much with blank cheques, blanket power and so forth. It is amusing to me when I consider how our tariff policy is belaboured by our hon. friends opposite. The tariff power we have is no more than that exercised by those who preceded us. It is no more, except in detail, than was evolved from the principle laid down by the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding himself when in 1904 he put on the dumping duty and explained it very fully in his budget speech. The principle of that duty, which is objected to so strongly by many hon. members opposite, is distinctly of Liberal origin. It has been developed under Liberal governments. It is no different now from what it was at any time during the Liberal regime, except for the slight amendments made last session and the session before. Therefore, when objection is taken to the powers of the governor in council, or when it is said that the Minister of National Revenue is acting too widely when he acts under the order in council, it is just simply hitting at what was done by the Liberal government. I do not think there is any one who will say for a moment that what has been done has not been done with the intention of making it applicable successfully to business in Canada. That it

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman
has brought about success there cannot be any doubt whatever, as I hope to show before I am through.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the
Liberal legislation did the law extend beyond the application to natural products?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes, it did; my right
hon. friend must remember that fir doors are not natural products, and when he was Prime Minister action was taken with relation to fir doors, as the ex-Minaster of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) can tell him.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend states that
there is no difference in principle between what is done now and what was done then. Would he not say that the power to fix values which the minister now exercises has no limits? The government can fix values for duty purposes at any figure they please, four or five or ten times the invoice value, whereas under the old law the price in the country of origin was the basis and could not be exceeded.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Not with regard to
items such as were fixed by my hon. friend's government not so long ago. As I recall it, the order dealing with fir doors fixed the rate at 77i per cent.


Edward James Young: That was not an order in council.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes it was; I beg my
hon. friend's pardon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend give a definition of dumping as it was under the Liberal legislation and as it is at present?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I can give this definition, given by the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding himself, who said that it was a special duty or what might be called a slaughter duty. My right hon. friend will find that statement made-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a
designation, not a definition.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -in 1904. But on the tariff side as well as on the currency side my hon. friends are finding fault with what was put on our statute books at the instance of the Right Hon. William Fielding, who was regarded as their patron saint.


William Daum Euler: That is far-fetched.


An hon. MEMBER:: Be fair.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is the fact. In
addition to that, the hon. member for Shel-bume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) said that we
were sitting over in the east block so that we might fix values; that we were fixing valuations for duty purposes in connection with all these cases, and he refers to a list quoted at page 1895 of Hansard. Looking at that list, I am very much surprised that the hon. gentleman should have mentioned these articles. The first is sheets of iron or steel; no action such as he speaks of was taken	with	relation	to	that.	Fruits andvegetables: Yes; and the former government	took	action	in	the	same way,during the years 1926,	1927 and 1928.Common and colourless window glass:	Wefixed no values; we took them off, so that the statement in that connection is incorrect. Fir doors: The government of the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) showed us the way, as appears from order in council P.C. 80/2398, passed on December 21, 1927. We did the same thing and did it more effectively and with better results. High-starting torque silent type electric motors:	No action whatever was taken inthe way suggested, or in any other way. Then, to fill up space, mention is made again of sheets of iron or steel: No action was taken by the government, as I have pointed out. Sugar above No. 16, Dutch standard in colour: No action was taken by the governor in council or by the minister. Single ply veneers of cedar:	Action was taken by thedepartment after investigation in the home market as to what was the home market value, and that was all. No action was taken by the minister or by the governor in council. Cotton fabrics and artificial fabrics:	Action
was taken, but not under the British preference.
At the close of this section of the hon. gentleman's address he referred slightingly, as I think one must gather, to thumb tacks and furniture nails, cotton wiping rags, pot cleaners and baby pants, described as sheet rubber goods, and lamp shades, electric lighting fixtures, and so on. Now I desire to read a few letters to show what the business people of Canada think. I will take, first, thumb tacks, in regard to which the hon. gentleman made some facetious remarks. I have here a letter from the Dominion Tack & Nail Company, Limited, of Galt, addressed to myself and signed by the Secretary-Treasurer, Mr. C. M. Taylor. I can read only extracts from this letter, because I have a good many letters which I should like to quote from.
We thought you might be interested in learning the effect which the fixing of these values on our products has had on our business.
Previous to these values being fixed, and owing to large importations of these tacks from
232C

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman
Germany at prices which were, in some cases, little more than the cost of our raw material, the part of our plant manufacturing these lines was operating only thirty-five to forty hours per week, at a reduced scale of wages, and with a very reduced staff.
From surveys which we had made, we found we were getting only a very small portion of the Canadian market, particularly on thumb tacks, and what business we were getting was resulting in a loss to us owing to extremely low prices. We were actually selling thumb tacks in Australia and New Zealand at higher prices than we could obtain in Canada.
The plant and machinery making furniture nails and thumb tacks represents an investment of approximately $75,000 and the equipment is sufficient to take care of the Canadian market. Unless we had received protection now given us when we did, we fear this investment would be practically idle now and certainly a number of men would be out of employment.
We have made no upward revision of prices on thumb tacks, but rather have been able (in anticipation of increased volume) to reduce our prices slightly. The consumer is paying the same price, or less, for these tacks, although, naturally, certain importers (with no investment to speak of) are possibly paying a little more than the former absurd importation price.
We therefore wish to take this opportunity of thanking you and of complimenting you, and the government you represent, for taking the necessary step to protect Canadian industry and the employment of Canadian men and women.


Edward James Young: Did I understand the minister to say that no action was taken with regard to fixing values for duty purposes on sugar?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: None such as described.


Edward James Young: I have here a bulletin-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend may be referring to the action which was taken with regard to refined granulated sugar, which permitted of six thousand farmers being employed in the sugar beet industry. That action was promptly taken by the government, but that has no relation to the subject mentioned by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth.
The following letter was received from Arrow-Hart and Hegeman (Canada) Limited: Toronto, Ont., April 20, 1932.
Hon. E. B. Ryckman,
Minister of National Revenue,
Ottawa, Ont.
No doubt it will be of interest to you to know that the Arrow-Hart and Hegeman Electric Company of Hartford, Conn., who have been exploiting the Canadian market for the last twenty-five years with merchandise manufactured in the United States, decided in December, 1931, to manufacture within the British Empire and picked Canada as the seat of their operations.

We are now established here under the name of Arrow-Hart and Hegeman (Canada) Limited, with office and factory at 310 Spadina Ave., Toronto; production in this plant starting March 1, 1932.
Previous to the establishing by your government of the values for duty purposes on wiring devices, it was not felt expedient that we take this step. However, since these values came into effect, it became absolutely necessary, if the American company wished to protect the business they had at that time in Canada.
We are very anxious that you do not assume that these values for duty purposes are having a tendency towards enhancing prices of this class of material to the consumer. This is not the case. The prices established by our company are strictly competitive with other Canadian manufacturers long established here, and in some instances are lower than the present domestic selling price in United States.
The Canadian company, at the present time, is employing approximately thirty hands, all of whom are Canadian born with one exception, that of the factory superintendent, and quite naturally, our employment of Canadian labour will continue to increase.	.
Being aware of the attitude of the Prune Minister and yourself towards the policy of attracting industries to Canada, I thought you would be interested in having before you a voluntary letter giving tangible evidence of the fruits of your policy.
That letter is signed by the managing director of the company. Under date of April 21 I received a letter from the Amalgamated Electric Corporation, Limited, of Toronto, manufacturers of wiring devices. It reads in part as follows:
We have been enabled to obtain our porcelain and bakelite parts within Canada and have transferred all moulds and had new moulds made up for both porcelain and bakelite parts which heretofore was entirely imported, and in doing this help make it possible for the Hamilton potteries to set up to manufacture this type of porcelain in Canada.
We have made up dies and tools for metal parts formerly imported, and whereas our purchases of such parts formerly amounted to approximately $125,000 per annum, they now are practically nil.	,
Our business is greatly affected by volume ot building, and although this volume is now down to approximately one-third of the regular building program, due to developing our own lines and making in Canada instead of importing, we have been enabled to keep our entire factory staff (and in fact add a small number) with very little loss of time to our employees, while we can truly state that under former conditions -that is, the flooding of the Canadian market with foreign-made devices-our plant would not be in operation this year.
It may surprise hon. members, but the fact is that there are in Canada eleven concerns engaged in the production of wiping rags. The principal competition in this commodity comes from the coolies of China and Japan. It has been stated that the rags which come from those countries are not of the best as far as

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman
good health is concerned, and there is no doubt that they were destroying the home market.


Edward James Young: On whose authority does the hon. gentleman say that?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If my hon. friend prefers the dirty rags from China and Japan, he can have them.


Edward James Young: That is not answering my question.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Upon investigation by
the officials of the department it has been found that this industry is expected to employ three hundred men whereas previously they employed only two hundred. This will prove to be an important contribution to the relief of unemployment.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Are they
employing three hundred?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They said they would.


Edward James Young: Oh, oh.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My hon. friend laughs,
but I have found that these gentlemen tell the truth. I have found that they do not overstate the facts. In connection with women's and children's clothing, I received a letter under date of April 21 from the Canadian Association of Garment Manufacturers. The letter reads in part:
During the time when these goods were flooding the Canadian market a number of Canadian factories had to close their doors. Since the regulations fixing higher values on these goods have been in effect many factories have reopened and others have taken on large numbers of additional employees. In addition to this the cotton mills in Canada, who had lost most of the raw material requirements of the Canadian trade, have taken on hundreds of extra emplo3rees and some of them are now running three shifts, twenty-four hours a day.
These regulations have had a very definite effect on the unemployment situation in Canada. They have given additional employment to thousands of people.
It is a fact that, owing to the greater volume of Canadian business which manufacturers in Canada have been able to obtain, they were able to reduce their prices and we believe it can be shown that the consumers are buying ready-made cotton dresses as cheaply to-day as before this regulation was put into effect.
We believe the retailers, even those who had previously been buying these dumped goods from the United States, are entirely satisfied with the present situation. These fixed values have been of advantage to manufacturers and retailers and have given increased employment to thousands of workers without increasing prices to the consumer.
I have other letters, both before me and in the office of the department, which I could read. These letters which I have read were not picked out, but were quoted simply to show the true condition in connection with certain items referred to by hon. friends opposite.


Mr. POWER:: If the hon. member reads
many more it will be found there is no unemployment in Canada.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: These letters should
demonstrate that an effort is being made to stop the importation of goods which are of no benefit to the consumer and to give to the manufacturer of Canada the right to sell his goods in this country. Only this morning I received a letter from the Dominion Textile Company Limited, and hon. members know the attitude taken by this company. If I had the time I should be glad to read this letter to the house. I received another letter from a concern manufacturing sheet rubber goods stating that this fixed valuation had given them a chance to do business without the necessity of increasing the price to the consumer. I have been very particular to see that there shall be no increase in price. However, these manufacturers are honest men; many of them were doing business at a loss and it was not necessary to ask them to engage in a special agreement as to prices; they voluntarily offered to protect the consumer. There is just as much assurance that these men will keep their promise as there is that hon. members will keep theirs.
A short time ago I was approached by a gentleman, who shall be nameless, who wanted to import misses' dresses from Czechoslovakia. These dresses could be manufactured very theaply and the value for home consumption would be ordinarily about one dollar, but if ten thousand dozen were taken they could be sold for thirty-three and a third cents each. The real value would have been $120,000, but this gentleman would have had to put up $40,000 to obtain these dresses. However, the tariff regulations prevented his flooding this country with ten thousand cheap dresses. I do not think any fair-minded man will say that the action taken was not the right one. It might be said that this is similar to the hypothetical question asked by Mr. Fielding when introducing the dumping principle. He said:	Oh, some will object:
but why should we not get cheap goods? Yes, he said, if we can have a continuance of the cheap goods; if they will enter into a contract for fifty years to furnish us with cheap goods, all right, but the moment this
The Budget-Mr. Ryckman

supply dries up, then you pay and you pay heavily. It will be said that the transaction which I instance of the dresses means a tariff increase of 200 per cent. That is so. If hon. members are in favour of keeping out those dresses, then they are in favour of a tariff of 200 per cent, and if they are in favour of a tariff of 200 per cent, then they will find that the cases cited by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) simply move out of the picture because they are not to be considered. They are in the same class as the misses' dresses, to which I have referred.


Edward James Young: What value did the minister set for duty on those dresses?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That point was not reached. They never came in. On page 1897 of Hansard a list of goods is given with apparently very high duties and the hon. member says:
I need not say those figures include sales tax, excise tax, the exchange rate and the arbitrary fixing of the value for duty purposes by the Minister of National Revenue.
I wish simply to say that I had nothing to do with any of those items, so I think it is unfair-


Charles A. Stewart: Who fixes the price for duty purposes?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -in eagerness to make out a case, to utter, with regard to a member of the government, statements which are wholly untrue.
I should like to point out that the principle laid down in the amendment was not followed by my hon. friends opposite when they were in power. We have heard the comments upon it. When they are in opposition they are against the tariff; when they are in power they keep the tariff going. The general trend of the tariff is pretty nearly the same with hon. gentlemen opposite as it is with the government at the present time, and I venture the assertion that if by any chance a Liberal government had been in power when England was driven off the gold standard and when we had this pressure in the sale of distress goods, action similar to that taken by this government would have been taken by them or, indeed, by any government that had the interest of Canada at heart. If hon. gentlemen will visit the office of the Department of National Revenue, I can show them lists of houses that are selling or trying to sell nothing but distress goods. If prices are kept down-and no one is complaining that they are too high-and if employment is given to Canadian men and women, surely it is in the

interests of the country to follow this line of tariff protection inaugurated by a great Liberal and carried on by a great Conservative.
I would also point out that this method of dealing with the currency springs from the time when the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding was Minister of Finance. If hon. members will turn up the statutes of 1922 and look at chapter 18, they will find he was wise enough to establish the structure-and pretty complete it was too-of the present proceeding in relation to currency.
It is suggested in the amendment that the action taken by this government has been detrimental to the interests alike of producers, importers, distributors and consumers. They have inserted the middleman twice; they have left out nobody; they say that this plan is a benefit to no one. I am fairly familiar with inquiries that have been made of me as to the attitude of the chain store people and others who are willing to import as long as they see a chance, if they can import, to make at the expense of the Canadian consumer a handsome profit on the imported goods because of the distress in the country from which they come. That is contrary to the policy of the Conservative .party, and I believe also to that of the Liberal party. I must add this: I have heard complaints, as I am sure others have done, of those in our towns and cities who have had to close up their shops because of the chain store, because of its immense buying power, because it can go to a man who, on account of some driving exigency, must have the money, and compel him to sell his goods to it at less than their value. Hon. members know that sort of thing takes place. The condemnation of the chain stores, which at one time subsided somewhat but perhaps has been revived on account of the hard times, is that it was felt in the hearts of -people that they were losing out because there was in the business a bigger man with more money who could undersell them. These big institutions can go to countries where they can buy goods for a fraction of their cost. The case I cited was one-third with 200 per cent. There are cases of ten per cent; I know of one case of 25 -per cent discussed with me. Those of us who have found in towns and cities that the chain stores have driven out popular business men who simply could not continue, ought to say: We are not now going to give some special privileges or lay down any of these barriers that have been erected by a former government and by this government to -prevent the importation of goods which are not being merchandised in accordance with good faith in business. This government stands for

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
that; it is what we have tried to do and I know we have had success in doing it. Some are dissatisfied, 'because of course one cannot please everybody, but I am of opinion that businessmen who are asked to decide what should be done would not think for a moment, after September 21, when England went off the gold standard, of allowing any man with money to buy large quantities of goods, as the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth said, at the rate of five shillings worth for a dollar. These people were intent on buying the goods; they would have brought them in and our concerns would have been put out of business. I am thoroughly convinced that if one month had gone by without our taking refuge in our statutes, originating as I have indicated, the country would have suffered and most likely have become bankrupt. I could elaborate the matter further, 'but I think from what I have said my attitude with regard to it will be understood.
Before I sit down there is one other subject to which I wish to refer. I believe in every man having a fair chance in business so far as it is passible for any government, especially a Canadian government, to give it to him.
I wish to say a word about the ten per cent cut. I think it can hardly be said, if I may mention a personal matter, that I ever cut anybody's salary, and I was opposed to this cut until I thought about one compelling thing, but now, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the best thing that this government did in the way of the budget, and this is not language of exaggeration, was introducing that cut, and I will tell the house why. There has been brought about by that cut a special sense of real financial responsibility that goes throughout the whole civil service. The cut is from the Prime Minister down, and there is an attitude now towards expenditure such as there never was before and which never could have been brought about except for that cut.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Is the minister in
favour of the exemptions?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will tell you that when the voting comes. But in case that answer is too short, I will say that I am in favour of everybody paying who can reasonably be made to pay.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is better.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have a reservation
with regard to the judges but I am not debating that now. I think my argument is a sound one and would carry conviction.
There has been extravagance, great extravagance. This is a country with thirty-one billions of resources, and the thought may have been, why should not one who is employed by this government be generous in expenditures?
I have found out since I came here, and it is not by the Department of National Revenue alone that I am judging because I believe that in this respect the National Revenue department is the best of the lot because our estimates are never made up with the idea of getting more than we need but rather working up to what we do need-I have never seen anything like the expenditures that go on for stationery supplies, telephone and telegraph charges. There is no business in the world that would put up with the telegram policy of the government. There is never any thought of sending a night message when it would do just as well as a day message, and long distance telephone calls, no matter how unim-' portant they may be, are made and carried on without apparently any consideration of length of time-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. minister, but he has spoken forty minutes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think I have conveyed the idea, Mr. Speaker, that I wished to convey.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to join with those who have preceded me in. offering my congratulations to the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on the very clear and businesslike budget statement which he presented to this house and to the country on April 6. Dealing with the situation under our present system he made an excellent case, and from that standpoint I have very little criticism to offer. He hopes to accomplish what most Finance ministers have done or tried to do, namely, balance his budget, by cutting down services and increasing taxation. It is the orthodox system, but in my opinion it will only tend to aggravate the present very serious unemployment situation with which we are confronted. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, as if there were very few members amongst the two old parties who fully appreciate that important changes have taken place in our social and economic life within the past decade, and that new methods are essential to cope with the changed conditions. I was particularly struck by some remarks made by Mr. Andrew W. Mellon, the new American ambassador to London, when he was speaking before the Pilgrims' Club in London a few days ago He is reported in part as follows:
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

Mr. Mellon declared that one of the world's greatest difficulties in the solution of this crisis is that those who are left over from the last century still look upon the past decade as merely a prolongation of all that went before.
"But really the years since the end of the war were the beginning of a new era. Just as the flames of the French revolution brought an end to the ordered, satisfied world of the 18th century, so the guns of the world war marked another stage in human history."
I am afraid that the Minister of Finance has been following the stern lights of the ship which only light up the past, instead of being guided by the search light at the masthead which probes into the mists which lie ahead, as was so beautifully described by Sir Josiah Stamp, the noted economist, whom we all had the pleasure of hearing a few days ago. May I pause here to thank the Prime Minister for the hospitality and the opportunity which he afforded on two occasions during this session for hon. members to meet two very distinguished visitors from the British Isles, the Right Hon. Mr. Winston Churchill and Sir Josiah Stamp. Listening to the inspiring addresses of these two gentlemen, one more readily realized why it is that Great Britain has played such a dominant part in world affairs. As Mr. Churchill pointed out in connection with the results of the recent British election, perhaps never has the stage been so well set for the successful conclusion of an Imperial economic conference. I am sure that after listening to Sir Josiah Stamp one could not help but feel inspired with new hope and new confidence that with such men working on our complex machine there was at least some hope for the future.
I am not one of those, Mr. Speaker, who believe in belittling the outcome of the coming Imperial economic conference. I think that we have a right to expect important developments. Not only the people of Canada but the people of all parts of the British Empire are looking forward to this conference with the hope o<f some constructive action being taken, and I think we should serve notice on all those who will take part that they cannot and must not allow that conference to be a failure. The success of the conference will depend largely upon the attitude of those who take part in it. If they meet in a spirit of compromise, each one ready to sacrifice something for the good of the whole, success is assured. If on the other hand, they meet in a spirit of selfishness, with each trying to get something at the expense of the others, the conference is doomed before it ever starts. I would like to say to this government that having accepted full responsibility for Canada, and as they will assume and should be accorded a full measure

of credit for whatever success may ibe achieved, so will they be held accountable if the conference proves to be a failure.
On February 9 last I introduced a resolution into this house asking that a substantial increase be made in our income tax. The principle of that resolution was accepted by the house, and I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance for embodying that principle in his budget. It is true that he might have gone further, and in support of that statement I should like to give a few figures showing the relative rates of income taxation in 1921 as compared with last year and the new tax this year. The figures are for a married man without dependents:
Tax
Income 1921	1931	1932$ 3,000	$ 40	....	$	12	005,000	126	$	32	60	9010.000	619	232	354	9050.000	9,649	6,704	8,962	80100.000	32,749	19,064	25,248	30500.000	318,349	162,952	214,183	20
It will be seen from these figures that there is still a considerable distance to go before we reach the rates in effect in 1921. There is a matter to which I called the attention of the Minister of Finance when discussing the resolution referred to, namely the taxing of bearer bonds at their source. When the budget comes before the committee I trust he will see that provision is made to carry this into effect.
There is another suggestion I should like to make, namely, that during this depression, or as long as the government finds it necessary to keep in force the ten per cent reduction in salaries, tax free bonds in Canada should come under the income tax regulation. If I remember correctly, when speaking on the salary reductions the Minister of Finance argued that this was not actually a reduction in salaries, but simply a contribution for the time being, an effort to help out the country in this time of distress. My suggestion is that the government would not be breaking faith with those who hold tax free bonds, but on the other hand that those people should make a contribution in these times when money is needed. I cannot see why a man who is drawing a wage should have to make a contribution while a man who is living on an income from tax free bonds should go scot free.
Among other expenditures enumerated in the budget statement I find the sum of about $11,000,000 in payment of the wheat bonus. Out of this amount the province of Alberta, from which I come, received the largest share.

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
I wish to take this opportunity of saying to the Prime Minister that the farmers of the west appreciated very much the wheat bonus, and I hope he will see his way clear to continue it another year. If it could be worked out so that payments would be made on an acreage-seeded basis, this would be fairer, as all those who put in a crop would then be treated alike.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) on the very excellent speech which he made in this debate. The greater part of it was of a very high order and to my mind at least proved that the minister was giving a great deal of serious thought and study to the subject in an endeavour to find a remedy for present ills. It is a hopeful sign when we hear a cabinet minister expressing such views, and he has set an example which might well be followed by hon. members from all sides of the house.
Concerning the amendment moved by the Liberal party I have only this to say: It does seem rather strange that in a time of stress such as we are passing through that great party has nothing to offer but the same old tariff argument which has been before the country for the past fifty years. As has been pointed out already by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), a Liberal policy was in effect in the year 1930, and yet it did not prevent the depression coming on. The amendment moved from this corner of the house at least presents something new, and offers what we believe to be some constructive suggestions. By the national control of currency it does not necessarily follow, as some people have suggested, a turning on of the printing presses and the printing of unlimited quantities of paper money. As has been already shown in some European countries, that would be calamitous. I think hon. members will agree with me when I say that never in the history of the world has there been such an abundance on all sides, and yet never has the distress been more acute.
More and more the opinion is developing that the root of our trouble lies in our financial system, and the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce would indicate that he recognizes that fact. So, Mr. Speaker, believing as we do that finance should be controlled by the people, we have offered an amendment to that effect. If we go back far enough into history we come to a time when no money existed, and what trade there was was carried on by a system of barter. This was a cumbersome method, and could not be applied to our complex system in use to-day. As I understand it, money was first introduced
as a convenience for a medium of exchange. I should like to add that the person who first introduced it as such gave to the world the greatest labour saving device which has ever been invented.
The three essentials for the life and comfort of man are food, clothing and shelter. Money, as money, adds nothing to these; we can neither eat nor wear it. It is very necessary however as a convenience, or as a medium of exchange. Instead of keeping it as such we have converted money into a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. And, worse still, we have legislated into the hands of a few people the right to control it. May I be permitted to quote a short excerpt from one of Professor Soddy's works entitled The Inversion of Science, at page 44:
Democracy, in its struggle with autocracy, has failed to recognize that, of all the prerogatives of government, the issue and regulation of the currency is the first, if not the only essential, and it is not necessary to look further for the cause of its hopeless failure to give to the world a system of humane government. The coining of money can in no sense be defended as a legitimate form of private enterprise. Here at least we may claim to be upon ground that not even the most extreme individualist can dispute.
But passing from theory to practice, we have seen how our inverted ideas are fast making it the only form of private enterprise. Quite unwittingly and because of the confusion of economists between wealth and debt, democracy has given to the financier of to-day powers which never yet in history have been wielded by the most absolute autocrat. Irrespective of peoples and parliaments, kings and cabinets, the control over the manufacture of money has put into the hands of a few men absolute power over industry, and with it the very life of the nation. Industrialized nations are so heavily in debt that industry is being administered as a bankrupt concern in the interests of its creditors, and its primary purpose to produce wealth is more and more becoming secondary to this. Shylock has us all in his grip, scientific men and inventors, black coat and artisan, farmers and labourers, editors and journalists, teachers and professional men-all are being brought under a centralized financial domination. But thought is still free, and, despite the press, let us hope some remnant of it may persevere in our ancient schools and universities.
I do not wish it to be understood that I am accusing our bankers and financiers of being dishonest, nor do I suggest that they are breaking the law. I find my views on this point fully expressed in an address delivered before the Wakefield, England, Rotary Club by W. Bell, an associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects, from which I quote as follows:
It would be idle to assume that the big financier-bankers are the unregenerate villains of the tragedy of the industrial crisis for our modern Shylocks-both Jew and Gentile-have
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

every right to manipulate the money market for their own ends so long as we permit them. They are not in business for the good of their health any more than we are. It is the system that is at fault, and not altogether the men who handle it; and I blame the public at large for submitting to such an iniquitous system as the private control of credit, since we are all victims of its unchallenged sway.
It is the system, Mr. Speaker, that is at fault, and it must be remedied if we are to meet the new conditions under which we are now living. Mr. Bell, in another paragraph of his most excellent address, points out that credit is like the sap which flows from the roots and gives life to the tree; interfere with this free flow and the tree becomes sickly and stunted, and if the condition is not remedied it will soon wither and die. Mr. Bell goes on to say.
The present industrial system may be likened to a tree, the branches of -which are capital, labour management, transport, mining, and so on; all of which are useless without the sap of credit which rises from the roots through the trunk of finance to the most distant branches. At present the sap is not circulating from the roots and thus purchasing power is lacking. The industrial tree is therefore languishing because the proper conditions are denied it for functioning naturally. It is suffering from bad circulation of its sap, credit, which is the symbol of life in any healthy tree.
Credit, being the sap of our industrial tree, should not be in the control of any private individual or group of individuals but should be scrupulously guarded and controlled by the state.
We hear a great deal these days about a managed currency. In my opinion, we have now a managed currency, but it is managed in the interests of those who control it rather than by the state in the interests of the people. To bring about the changes which we advocate may require some radical departures, it may require breaking well-established precedent. The Minister of Trade and Commerce in his admirable speech stated:
If we could restore the levels of 1928 for wheat, copper, paper, lumber and fish, we would restore prosperity to Canada.
He states again there must be a stabilization of price levels. That is true. But we must go farther; there must also be established a parity of price levels, in other words a fair exchange value between commodities. If we have to get back to the price levels of 1928 to bring back prosperity, in my opinion it can be brought about only by a measure of inflation; but, Mr. Speaker, if we should again reach 1928 price levels, the then important task before us will be to see that we have a state controlled currency to prevent these ever-recurring cycles of depression.

Sir Josiah Stamp said that every change in the price level means a change in the distribution of -wealth. He also stated that the world was not ready to abolish the metallic base for currency at the present time.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce asked the question, on page 1909 of Hansard: *
What is the cause of this drop in commodity prices?
And then he answered his question as follows:
Prices are expressed in terms of currency and in the leading countries of the world the value of currency is attached to gold. If gold is scarce or is being hoarded, if gold is in abnormal demand for debts, then inevitably commodity prices will fall, simply because people will be anxious to dispose of their commodities in order to secure gold to meet their obligations. We are confronted with this situation, and it is admitted by everyone that gold is scarce.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if gold is scarce, and if Sir Josiah Stamp is right in saying the world is not ready to abolish the metallic base, then the question arises how can we, in face of the shortage of gold, increase this metallic base so we may issue more currency to restore the 1928 price level. My answer is: by adopting the -bimetallic base that served the world from time immemorial, and -which was only abolished some fifty-five years ago. Even with a nationally controlled currency as suggested in our amendment and in order to meet the world requirements, it would -possibly require a metallic -base, and so I am going to suggest that the remonetization of silver and a return to the bimetallic standard would approximately double our currency and thus materially improve our present situation.
The hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young), speaking in this debate a few days ago, made this statement as reported at page 2123 of Hansard;
Gold was chosen as the standard of value because in every country, in every age and under all conditions it was the one commodity that men -were willing to take in exchange for whatever they had to sell.
I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member make that statement, for I am sure he must know that prior to its demonetization silver was also freely accepted as a measure of value for what people had to sell. It seems almost impossible to reach an agreement amongst the nations of the world as to a new world currency, but may I say that when Britain over a century ago decided to abolish bimetallism and go on the gold standard, she did not wait for the rest of the world, but started out alone, and eventually

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
the rest of the western world followed suit. And so to-day, I believe, that if the British empire at the coming conference were to take the lead in restoring silver to its ancient and well-established position, it would not be long until the rest of the world followed her example. In 1816 following the Napoleonic wars Great Britain endeavoured to go on the gold standard, but from 1816 to 1873 a substantial portion of the British currency was used in the form of silver. In 1873 Germany collected the French indemnity of one billion dollars in gold bullion and promptly went on the gold standard. In the same year Great Britain and Germany closed their mints to the free coinage of silver, and they were followed by France, Italy, Spain and other countries. As a result in a few years silver was denied access to the mints of the world. This was an arbitrary act and was the cause of the very serious slump in the price of silver. In 1873 the price was approximately $1.30 an ounce; in 1883, ten years after demonetization, it had fallen to $1.11, in 1893 to 78 cents, in 1894 to 60 cents. During the war it jumped again to $1.30, due to the fact that the warring countries of Europe, or as we might say, the countries of western civilization, Europe and North America, had an insufficiency of gold and of course, owing to the war there was a lack of movement of gold, so that they could not make their purchases of supplies in Asia; and silver was once again absolutely essential to the carrying on of business between Europe and the Asiatic countries, and it leaped back to about $1.30 an ounce. But when the war was over it again fell, and in 1920 it had dropped to $1.01, in 1921 it dropped sharply to 62 cents, in 1929 to 53 cents, in 1930 to 30 cents, in 1931 to as low as 26 cents, and to-day it is around 28 or 29 cents an ounce. It will be noted that the price of silver dropped steadily from the time it was demonetized in 1873.
A vast section of the world still continues to use silver as money, but it is not accepted freely by other countries. Silver is still the money of India and of China. India, in part, is endeavouring to use a paper rupee based on gold, but only with a varying degree of success. Not for generations but for centuries the oriental has been accustomed to the use of silver as currency. When Britain in 1893 closed the Indian mints to the free coinage of silver and attempted to force them on to the gold standard it was not received kindly.
Mr. J. F. Darling, who is an authority on the silver question, and whom most of us had the pleasure of hearing last year, said, in part:
Gold is the rich man's money; silver is the poor man's money; and there is a great disequilibrium between the values of the two metals. How great this disequilibrium is the following figures will show. The relative values used to be, and for hundreds of years, that silver was worth from fourteen to sixteen times that of gold. The value of gold to-day is seventy times that of silver, ratio of production of the two metals has not altered. It is about fourteen to one. There has been given to gold a purchasing power which is much greater than it ought to have, and you have made the other metal, silver, much less. The problem of the world to-day is how to restore equilibrium between those two metals, which are the foundations of the world's economic structure.	.
And may I quote also a gentleman well known to this house, one of the keenest minds in our public life to-day, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. Speaking on this question before the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association at their annual meeting in Toronto last year, he said, in part:
Mr. Darling is an authority we cannot lightly cast aside, and certainly in support of his principles there may be named many leading figures in the world. Julius H. Barnes, chairman of the United States Chamber of Commerce, is authority for the following words:
"The fatal mistake was made of treating silver as a commodity, although it still represented resources and capital and credit to more than half the population of the world. Silver, which had been the standard money of the world for twenty centuries, was in a few months to be treated in the market as a commodity, without mature consideration as to the effect on the initiative and confidence of a thousand millions of people. A price of silver which fluctuated from $1.45 some few years ago to thirty-five cents to-day, and yet symbolizes the credit and resources of great people, could not but harm the business structure of the world."
Mr. Meighen continued:
Restoration of natural values between gold and silver would undoubtedly right the balance between Orient and Occident and help set going the vessel of the world's industry which is lurching very badly now. The power thus secured to enlarge the world's monetary supplies would undoubtedly tend to an improvement in commodity values, and, therefore, to a return to the old honest relation between debtor and creditor; that is to say, to the relation upon which the debts themselves were contracted.
The Romans fixed the parity between silver and gold legally at 12 to 1, and for several hundred years prior to 1873 Great Britain and France had fixed it at 154 to L so that the relation as to price remained fairly steady throughout the centuries when both metals were on a monetary standard.
When Great Britain attempted to place India on a gold basis, they could not give them gold, but only a gold certificate-which was paper money. The oriental mind looks on paper currency as false, and consequently it
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

has not been freely adopted. These people want a metal currency which they have been accustomed to for centuries, which they can feel, which they can hoard, -bury, if necessary, and which will not deteriorate. Take the case of India and the ornaments which are possessed by the women of that country. It is only in the personal form that the women of India are allowed to hold anything. Prior to 1893 when the British government closed the mints of India to the free coinage of silver, in times of stress these ornaments, which amount to an enormous sum, could be turned into the mint, and they would get value in coin for them; with the low price of silver to-day, they are practically worthless, and it is thought that the low price of silver is responsible for a lot of the unrest in India at the present time. The people of India are in somewhat the same position as the farmers in western Canada, who have millions and millions of bushels of wheat which are of little value. Restore the value of wheat and a lot of the farmer's troubles will disappear. And if the value of silver is restored you -will restore the purchasing power of approximately one-half the population of the world and if this were done, in my opinion, a lot of the unrest in India would also disappear. Everyone recognizes to-day that one of our great problems is the question of markets. The western world is so industrialized that each country has a surplus, and as a result we find each country trying to retain its home markets through tariffs while at the same time trying to dump its surplus on the other fellow's market. In the oriental world, which represents half the population of the world, we find possibilities for unlimited markets if only their purchasing power were increased. In this connection I would quote Mr. A. W. Palmer, writing in the Empire Review of London. He says in part:
. It has been worked out that in India alone, if the standard of living there increased by a penny per day, it would mean an annual additional purchasing power of approximately 400 millions sterling. Imagine what that means when the same principle is applied to Burma, Siam and Malaya, and to that country destined to become _ one of the greatest countries of the world-China.	A market totalling another
2,000	millions sterling annually awaits development.
I should also like to call the attention of hon. members of this house to a speech delivered in Vancouver on August 26, 1931, by the Hon. Herbert M. Marler, the Canadian Minister to Japan. A study of that speech will show the tremendous possibilities for the development of trade in that vast country, the orient. If our currency to-day is issued

on the basis of the supply of gold, and if you double the base, which is what would happen if we adopted the -bimetallic standard, you would double the amount of currency and thus it -would -be inflation to that extent and would without doubt increase the price of commodities. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given a great deal of study to this question, and I hope he will see that it is brought before the coming conference for a decision.
I know there is a feeling amongst the members of both the old parties that the members in this corner of the house are visionary, and that, being chiefly farmers, they are not competent to deal with financial questions. But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there is now almost a complete disillusionment amongst the people, as to our bankers and big financiers being the omniscient supermen heretofore believed. At this point, let me quote what I consider a gem from the lips of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. This is from the same speech from which I quoted a short time ago:
There are some who hold up their bands in fear at any suggestion which affects fundamentally the vital arteries of currency. Everything in the mind of these people is radical which tends to improve values, and everything is sane and conservative which tends to bring them down. From this mentality-call it what you will, the gold mentality or any other-it is surely time we were rescued, if other remedies can be proposed, let their protagonists come forward, but do not let us sit idly by and proclaim ourselves helpless in the face of a dilemma which we ourselves have created. Do not let us conclude it to be natural and inevitable that men, women and children the world over [DOT]should be suffering from peculiar and worrying deprivations in the midst of an abundance of all those things of which no worker by brain or hand should be deprived.
Someone said not long ago that the world's great bankers had always been right. The world's great bankers are not always right any more than the world's great statesmen or great warriors; hut whoever has been right and whoever has been wrong, there has been error, and momentous error, somewhere, or we would not he in the morass we are in to-day. Why should we sit in eternal adulation at the feet of those who have brought us where we are?	It seems to me more practical and
sensible to clear our minds of predispositions, to analyze our problems at their roots, knowing that something helpful can he done and to find out what it is.
The group in this corner of the house recognize, as does every thinking man today, that the old system is not functioning properly, and we are prepared to cast old beliefs and prejudices aside and face the issue squarely. It is only in this way that progress will be made.

The Budget-Mr. Denis
Before I close, there is another suggestion which I should like to make, on two grounds: first, on that of economy, and secondly, to improve our parliamentary institutions, the latter being the more important. Everyone is aware of the great interest that is being centred in the other chamber of parliament at present, and I am going to suggest that the time has come to bring in a measure of real Senate reform. The opinion is being strengthened by recent disclosures that some action should be taken if our 'parliamentary institutions are to hold the respect to which they are entitled. The leaders of both parties in the Senate, at the beginning of this session, stressed the fact that the Senate was and should be a judicial body. With this I heartily agree. But, Mr. Speaker, how can it function as a judicial body when the party spirit is fanned and kept alive amongst its members? We find that both the old parties go to that body for their chief political party organizers. We find senators taking part in political campaigns, and the party spirit is kept at such a pitch that when a matter of grave concern comes up for decision, a decision which may cast a reflection on one party or the other, then that decision is not made on judicial but on strictly party lines. Therefore I am going to suggest, first, as a measure of economy, that our constitution be changed, cutting down the number of Senators from ninety-six to fifty-two, allowing six senators for each province, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, which would retain four as at present. The United States, with a population of 120,000,000, have only ninety-six senators, or two for each state irrespective of size or population. Secondly, to eliminate partyism and get a more judicial body, I would suggest: first, that the dominion and the provinces each have the right to appoint half the number. Secondly, that when a person accepts the position of senator he be disfranchised and not allowed to take part in any political activities, a position similar to that occupied by our judges. Thirdly, that senators be not appointed for life, as at present, but that a retiring age of seventy-five be established. I have not the time to go into details but I believe that if these suggestions were carried out the Senate might serve a very useful purpose as a judicial body and would come to be held in high esteem by the people of Canada.


Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I must, first express
my astonishment in seeing our Conservative friends so garrulous, for they deprived us
during eighteen months of the pleasure of listening to their speeches. The government must be very unrestful, to be obliged to call upon its followers to help out its policy which has placed the country in such a critical situation.
We must, sir, congratulate ourselves and, at the same time, congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for having appointed a Finance Minister which we requested on behalf of the people's rights. We regret, however, that the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has to bear all the economic and unconstitutional blunders committed by his predecessor. The first act registered by his predecessor was to abolish the former tariff commission whose members, with all due deference to our Conservative friends, were better qualified than the Prime Minister to decide upon questions relating to customs. Their advice would have been of great assistance to him, however, he was deprived of it. It is true that, shortly after, he found out his error since he created a new commission similar to the former one. We still await the appointment of its members; no doubt it will come with time. Meanwhile let, us be satisfied with the appointment of the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated, as he has been very fortunate in his choice. We must now caution the hon. Minister of Finance not to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor; otherwise we are lost and the future of the country is for ever endangered. I am aware that hon. members opposite do not share these views, blinded as they are by party spirit and satisfied with temporarily feeding in the manger.
I listened to a number of their speeches. Their attitude can be explained. They accepted the budget such as it was. A different stand would have compelled them to admit with us that their administration had not been very flourishing, that our national debt had greatly increased since the country was under their regime, that our trade had alarmingly dwindled owing to their high protective tariff, which resulted in helping the manufacturers to realize unfair profits to the detriment of the workmen, whom they threw on the streets, depriving them entirely of their purchasing power. Thus the consumers were burdened with new liabilities and must pay additional taxes to cover the deficit resulting from the protection granted to a privileged class of a protectionist government which, at present, directs our destinies. They would also be forced to acknowledge the deficits which the government must cover by levying new taxes or increasing some of the old ones,
The Budget-Mr. Denis

and by adopting a horizontal cut of ten per cent on all civil servants' salaries, excepting those of judges, military men and the Royal Mounted Police-


Joseph-François Laflèche: It is coming.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Which is a
most crying injustice, a cut which affects far more the small salaried employees than those who are highly paid. They would have to admit also that, to solve the unemployment problem, the government dismissed hundreds of civil servants, and thereby increased the number of unemployed. They would have to admit that in having large amounts voted for works to relieve unemployment, the government acted hypocritically, since it reduced, on the other hand, the regular appropriations by an amount almost equal to the two-thirds of the amount voted for unemployment.
In Montreal, the government discontinued the work in connection with the Canadian National Railways, thus depriving the unemployed of almost $10,000,000, per year, work which was necessary and which was set aside to please the former municipal administration of Montreal which was defeated at the last municipal election. The government also stopped the expenditure of $1,500,000 for repairs to the Montreal harbour.
I could, sir, continue this enumeration, but I shall not do so. It suffices to prove to the house and the country how greatly the Canadian people erred by reposing their trust in those who now govern. Faced with siuch a failure, what excuses does the government offer? The only one, is that the crisis is world-wide-a contrary statement to that which was made at the last Dominion election. They then pledged themselves to find markets for our products, to bring back prosperity, to give work to all who needed it and, to our dear Quebec farmers, for whom the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) felt a sudden frivolous liking during the electoral campaign, they promised better prices for their butter. They made all these pledges, knowing fully well that they could not fulfil them, but they were intended, however, to deceive the people and capture their votes.
When we, in the opposition, basing our contentions on the budget provisions, iblame the government for ruining the country, we are charged with making false representation; the hon. Postmaster General himself charges us with using abusive and regrettable language, when criticizing the government. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing to take back, here or elsewhere. However, may I point out

that if such language has been used in the house, the Postmaster General can blame himself. Allow me, sir, to prove this statement. Contrary to what was said in the house, the Liberal party does not advocate free trade. All are aware of this, we are moderate protectionists; we believe in a tariff for revenue to protect not only the manufacturers and industrial interests, as you do, but the consumers who have a right to expect some consideration from legislators. This is called abusive language. The Postmaster General has miscontrued truth in making false statements to help the cause he is championing. This is again regrettable language, for as a member of the government he is held to state the truth. Let me give a further proof; he charged the Quebec government with having enacted in 1922, a measure similar to that adopted last session by this government to relieve the unemployed and farmers. The Quebec government never had a similar measure enacted, it never sought the authority to dispose of enormous sums through a blank signature, or to have recourse to armed force in order to maintain good government, peace and order.
Nowhere, neither here nor elsewhere, can there Ibe found a precedent for such legislation. By this blank^signature act, it is possible to amend the whole of our statutes, and some have already been amended; the prerogatives of parliament have been assailed. The hon. Mr. Taschereau never had such legislation enacted. The Postmaster General's language is abusive and regrettable. Do not interfere, please, with the Quebec government's affairs; if you have petty scores to settle with Mr. Taschereau, this is not the place to do so. You have more important business to look after in your own department, for instance the dismissal of postmasters for supposed active political partisanship. You are better qualified to carry out this petty job than to administer the province of Quebec. The advice can equally apply to the friends who surround you. This discussion on the Quebec government makes you appear more ridiculous than interesting. A word to the wise is enough!
It is true, I have not had as much experience as the hon. Postmaster General, however, like himself, I have never believed that insults and abusive language are becoming a man of good political education. On the other hand, I wonder whether the hon. Postmaster General has a right to lay down principles which are pleasant to hear, and then set them aside at the first opportunity. I will recall the advice he gave the post office employees

a few days after his appointment to the cabinet. " Have no fear, he stated, you will not be dismissed from the service, providing you fulfil your duty." How many of these employees were dismissed, since then, because they had the misfortune of having a Liberal relative, or again, worse, because they carried a red handkerchief in their pocket?
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Shame!
shame!


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Principles are worth more in their application than on one's lips. Let the hon. Postmaster practise both and his fairness will be greater.
There is, to-day, one fact certain: our country is passing through a very serious crisis. Notwithstanding what the Postmaster General may think, this crisis is more acute to-day, than it was in 1930. It had only begun at that period, in 1932, it has become alarming. Why? Because the government did not fulfil the numerous pledges it made to the people in order to attain power. The remedies which they had promised to apply have not produced the desired effects. What is the result? The patient is worse and they have gained the reputation of being quack politicians. They still criticize the former government w'hieh gave the country ten years of prosperity. Do they think that the people will- place faith in their word? No, the people have become wise; they are aware that the high protective tariff has been their ruination and that the discordant note sounded by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), in London: Canada First, greatly harmed our foreign trade.
The hon. Postmaster General calls this an economic necessity. For him, international brotherhood is a word void of sense; it should not exist. Countries have no need of it.
I could, however, point out to one case among a thousand, where the hon. Postmaster General thought so much of brotherly love as to suppress his spirit of patriotism even in the administration of his own department.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Shame!
shame!


Joseph-Arthur Denis: It is in connection with the purchase of Canadian stamp obliterating machines. His department preferred to rent American machines, paying S18.000 per year, and even more owing to exchange rates, rather than use Canadian machines, acknowledged as superior, since his department has made use of seventy of them, distributed among the various post offices in Canada.
41761-H7
The Budget-Mr. Denis
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Shame!
Shame!


Joseph-Arthur Denis: In acting thus, he obliged this industry to close its doors and throw on the streets a large number of employees. This is what is called Canada First, and helping our industries. In this transaction the hon. Postmaster General took the advice of party lawyers, probably paid by Americans to depreciate the value of Canadian machines, he was the dupe of his friends, and many of our people are unemployed since then. That is his- brand of patriotism.
Previous to closing my remarks, sir, may I address- a few words to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), with reference to his comments on immigration. Before criticizing the Liberal government for having given too much encouragement to immigration and thereby being somewhat responsible for unemployment, I would suggest to him that he read the speeches delivered by his friends, in the house and elsewhere-
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Hear, hear!


Joseph-Arthur Denis: -to especially peruse the speech of the chief organizer of the Conservative party, in the last election, the hon. Senator McRae, who wished to bring to this country 300,000 English immigrants each year; also the comments made recently in the house by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). Had he read these speeches, he might, perhaps, have reproached himself instead of us. If, to-day, immigration ha3 decreased, I do not think that the Conservative representatives of Quebec are entitled to take the credit of this, for what we have noticed about them, since they occupy a seat in the house, is a blind submission to the autocratic will of their leader. Their influence is nil and their presence here will be short. Far be it from my thoughts to trouble their peace, however, their days are numbered. The Canadian people await but the opportunity to cast in the cold shades of the opposition those who deceived them at the last dominion election. The country will have no more to suffer or to pay for their bad administration.


Mr. CHARLES BOURGEOIS (Three Rivers-St. Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I feel diffident in rising to make a few remarks in this debate, but I trust they will be received with the courtesy extended to me by both sides of the house when I spoke at the beginning of the session.

The Budget-Mr. Bourgeois
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock,
I was referring to those who had abandoned the land where they could have earned a livelihood but preferred to live miserably in cities where they increase the congestion. One may argue that the reason they left the countryside was because they could no longer earn a living, the price obtained for their products was too low to permit them to continue farming. I deny the truth of such an argument. In most cases our country folks were attracted, lured to the cities by the hope of finding an easier livelihood. However, it was a deception; too often they met hardships, sometimes ruin, financial disaster, or became physical and moral wrecks.
One should never cease to proclaim the fact that the French Canadian, owing to his traditions, fitness and physical strength, is especially adapted to live on the land, and I have no hesitation in stating it is one of the noblest occupations and most necessary to the existence of a nation. It is as a farmer that the French Canadian contributes his greatest share to the nation's activities.
But what means must we resort to, may be asked, in order to induce the farmer to return to the land of his forebears which he sold often for a mess of pottage, or unfortunately lost. There is no lack, in Quebec, Ontario, or the other provinces, of charitable institutions, philanthropic associations who would voluntarily take charge of distributing relief which might be supplied, they are in a much better position than our government organization to seek the unrooted farmer in cities where he idles away his time, inquire into his former life, his fitness, his means, the members of his family and what help may be expected from them; then through the assistance given by the government, reestablish him on the land where he can build again a home and live in relative comfort. It is all that he can hope for and there is nothing to prove that the farmer, with average ability, possessing health, energy, and leading a good life, cannot find on the land his food, clothes and a shelter.
I have endeavoured to describe, in its outlines the government's past policy which, to my mind, has borne fruit, also, perhaps, its future policy as I see it, and, may I add, as I would wish it to be. The first duty of the state is to balance its budget. This task, the government is fulfilling, notwithstanding our difficult situation. The government must also, in a period of unrest as the one we are under-

going, relieve the sufferings and poverty which necessarily appeal to the public. This task which is strewn with difficulties, because in fulfilling it the government risks burdening too heavily the treasury and, on the other hand, it must also increase the load which the ratepayers have to bear. Those, however, who are at the helm of affairs not only did not shirk this duty but in fulfilling it they displayed a zeal, a capacity for work, a business manner with which 'the moderate and sound opinion of. the public will fully credit them.
There is a limit, however, that the state must not go beyond in carrying out its work, moreover it would be overstepping its bounds: it behooves the government, not to so mould the minds of the people that they will be prone to expect everything from the state. In alluding to this conception-which I think only right-of limited state interference, I have no intention to give a warning to the government which I support and in which I have faith. A government which is conservative and gives protection as this one does, can give rise to no fear that it will break the .most cherished traditions of its party. What I wish to point out, is the part that, under present conditions, the people themselves have to play in their own sphere.
I referred a moment ago to this law known as social equilibrium. Weighing all the views exchanged in the house on questions which more or less directly relate to the budget, one realizes to what degree of deep perturbation the centre of gravity of the economic structure of the world has shifted. It is that centre of gravity which must be found and set in place. By its displacement, collectivities which abused of their own prosperity, relying on an unbounded optimism, are taught a sharp lesson. Neither have we escaped it. However severe it may be and however short we desire it, it must inevitably be of benefit in the first place to those who have been most affected.
Without this awakening of the conscience of nations to the laws of "the bread earned by the sweat of one's brow", of thrift, justice to all, charity and sacrifices, the most enlightened and best directed governments will remain powerless. In requesting the government, as it is done in certain countries and even among us, since certain members of the extreme left have advocated it, in the house, to check our insolvency by resorting to state measures, would simply mean adding government disorder to social disorder and thus pave the way to anarchy or revolution.
What strikes me most, in the midst of the present distress and what seems to me to herald better times, is that we are gradually returning to the path over which our fore-

The Budget-Mr. Bourgeois
bears trod happily along. Things were then cheap: eggs, butter, meat, clothes, wood and coal cost very little, the fees of notaries and doctors were small. A cent was highly valued and had to be earned by the sweat of one's brow. That cemt was appreciated and when possible it was preciously placed in the family chest, there was no hesitation however in giving or lending it to the neighbour to rebuild his house or bam that had been burnt, because there was a greater love for the neighbour than for the cent, even when earned by hard work. In those days, one knew how to serve and be served; thus the intercourse between servants and masters, employees and employers, workmen and capitalists was marked with a true human spirit which constituted for society an equilibrium of invaluable stability.
There was, therefore, a better distribution of worldly goods and less misery to be found. Much happiness then reigned over Canada.
I am not astonished, sir, that prices are falling, especially when they denote, as they do, a superabundance of wealth. The years following the war had created a somewhat fictitious prosperity resulting from a restless activity, alarming and unsecure, regardless of the needs and cares of the future. Through this activity rose a kind of Babel tower where capital and labour, industry and agriculture, wealth and poverty, injustice and charity carried on the confusion of languages and threatened to engulf all in a universal catastrophe.
Prices are falling. The cent is hard to earn. In the saving, the lending or the giving, it must be the outcome of the sweat of one's brow. Capital resting in its banks flanked by colonnades or pyramid shaped buildings, must, if it does not wish to crumble, fill the abyss which it has created between itself and labour and itself earn its millions. Work must also learn again to serve, so that there may exist real servants on the farm and true women servants in the home. Thus order will appear amidst this chaos where monstrous and fraudful wealth irritates the entrails of harassed and provoked poverty. What so many human beings rightly look upon to a degree, as an injustice of social life will turn itself to a little charity too long forgotten. There will then be stability. We shall hear no more of 20,000,000 unemployed in a civilized world. Governments will then peacefully carry out their work and their task of balancing the budget will be made easier.
I shall now close my remarks. All are aware that near the mouth of the Saguenay, that giant stream which, at Tadoussac, rushes
to meet the majestic St. Lawrence, there are to be found two twin rocks, two formidable rocks whose foundation seems to rest at the very centre of the earth and whose lofty summits appear to be lost in the clouds. These two capes, Cape Trinity and Cape Eternity, have the appearance of two sentries of the infinite, mounting an eternal guard at the gates of our country, and which the sun bathes in rays or squalls unceasingly endeavour to root from the foundation bases. To all travellers that chance, work or pleasure bring to this region, it is an unforgettable spectacle and all agree in saying that it is one of the most marvellous landscapes that nature has strewn over our country with such fairylike prodigality. I see therein an allegory.
Through the storm we are passing we must, to strengthen our faith, assure our prosperity and safeguard our future, follow in the footsteps of our forebears and, particularly, in those of the two greatest creative minds and statesmen that our country ever had, among us French Canadians, Jean Talon, and among you English Canadians, Sir John A. Macdonald.
Secondly, we must rely on our efforts and say to ourselves that we are able to pursue a broad and happy existence, providing however that we display, as our forefathers did, an unshakable energy, for our soil still thrills with the future crops it hides, as it is ready to give up the wealth of its numerous and various mines and the spoils of its gorgeous forests. We must, however, entirely retain an unalterable respect for our laws and institutions, not follow the example of agitators but guard ourselves against the pestilent preachings of communism and sovietism. To follow the example of our forefathers, pursue with energy the development of our national resources, respect our laws and institutions, that is our Cape Trinity. It says; I trust.
But as we are only human, weak, limited in means and discouraged by a trifle, since we are like dust in space and time, we shall repose our faith in God who, in His everlasting power and infinite fecundity, will know how to bring our present sufferings to an end. Cape Eternity whispers: I have faith.


Mr. GEORGE SPOTTON (North Huron):: This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that I have had the pleasure of addressing the house during the present parliament while you have been in the chair, and I wish to congratulate you, sir, upon your elevation to your present position. I also wish to congratulate you upon the impartiality with which you have presided over the debates of this house. I think you should also be congratulated, Mr. COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Spotlon
Speaker, for burning the midnight oil while learning the beautiful language of our compatriots. Right here I wish to say to our French Canadian friends from Quebec that I am delighted that I have lived long enough to hear the French language spoken from our side of the house. It was rather lonely to l?e sitting in the old parliament listening to the eloquent French addresses from the government side of the house and not knowing whether what the speakers were saying was correct or not; but now we are glad we have such a gallant band of able men from our sister province who will take care of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, and glad that those battles of passion and prejudice will no longer hold sway.
In the short time allotted to me, Mr. Speaker, I suppose I shall do as all other hon. members have done-discuss everything else but the budget. So far as the budget is concerned, I think it suits my constituency very well. I suppose the principle of taxation is that it should be borne by those best able to bear it, and the increase in the income tax, the tax on corporations, comfortable chairs in railway coaches, compartments, staterooms and telegrams would seem to be fair and equitable. In connection with the tax on telephone messages, I should like to say not many local calls in the country districts bear tolls greater than fifteen cents. About the only place our people will feel the effect of the increased taxation is through the six per cent sales tax. They were quite used to that under the Liberal regime, and apparently in my county they liked it because they supported the King administration. Therefore so far as the budget is concerned I think it will be well received in the constituency of North Huron.
Most of the budget speeches of the present session were made during the discussion on the unemployment relief measure. I do not know about conditions in any other province, but in the province of Ontario I have heard practically no complaints about the handling of relief moneys. In my county relief measures were placed in the hands of the municipalities, regardless of politics. A Liberal mayor selected the ten men who went north from my home town, and we were all satisfied. The councils of the various municipalities in my county handled the relief problem in an eminently fair and efficient manner. I wish to give a few impressions I have gathered from listening to the debate. When I heard my right hon. leader being traduced, as he has been during this debate, and when I have seen during the course of every debate opposition speakers trying to enhance the glory of

the leader of the opposition, it seemed to me that their attitude was fully set out, and that they had given an indication of their future campaign methods throughout the dominion. Having studied his well prepared address I have come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) made it abundantly clear what their method of campaign will be. He approached the different subjects with which he dealt very carefully. After laying a foundation he approaches his next point with some such expression as: "I do it with some reluctance." During the course of his speech he said:
This is a matter which I find it somewhat distasteful to discuss, since it has been my practice ever since I entered politics not to indulge in or discuss personalities.
This was an admission that he was going to discuss personalities.	.
But on account of the peculiar circumstances of the case, in that it is proposed, as I hope presently to be able to show, to entrust to one man supreme power in this country, and in that this one has, partly of his own volition and partly on account of the extravagant and exaggerated adulation of his followers, thrown his personality into politics so that it has become almost a political issue, we who take a definite stand on this matter must discuss that personality as any other live political issue.
He goes on to show that that personality was the moving spirit in the last campaign, and gives it credit for the winning of the general election. He then proceeds to state that the personality to which he has referred is as unstable as the shifting sands, has the manners of a Chicago policeman and the temperament of a Hollywood actress. He even goes to the race track to get the word "welsher." It is not necessary for me to repeat the personal attacks which have been made upon the leader of this government. But let me say this: In 1930, rightly or wrongly, the people of Canada dismissed the old physician and took in a new one; and I presume he will be in his place, prescribing for the next three years. We have been elected for a five-year period, and I think the people of Canada are sick and tired of political parties slipping to the country whenever they think the psychological moment has arrived. I agree with the platform of the United Farmers of Canada that legislatures elected for a definite period should have the nerve to stay during their full term of office, and appeal to the people at the end of that time. They should not strive at any particular time on some special issue to throw up a smoke screen, but should wait until they have served their full term, and then face the country on their record.

The Budget-Mr. Spotton
If the opposition think they can take a certain line of argument and hon. members on this side of the house are so infantile, puerile, or senile that we will take it lying down and will not meet it, then I purpose to disillusion them to-night. We in the province of Ontario are prepared to meet the campaigners right out in the open, whether they come from Vancouver or any other section of the dominion. When a man mounts the platform and makes the statement that the leader of the government entered into conspiracy with the chartered banks of Canada to put the provincial savings bank of Manitoba out of business, such a statement should not go unchallenged. That matter may rest with the hon. members from the province of Manitoba, but it also is of interest to hon. members from Ontario.
I shall give an example of the arguments used. I cannot understand the mentality of a public speaker who looks into the faces of an intelligent country audience and thinks he can get by with the political twaddle and clap-trap that has been handed to the people of Ontario during the last six months. One hon. member opposite visited Picton a few days ago. I happened to be in that place two days later, and found that the high school boys were talking about the remarks the hon. member had made while there. Speaking to a body of farmers on a Saturday afternoon he said, "There are two hundred cars in front of this hall to-day; had it not been for that wicked Tory party with their policy of high tariffs you could have bought each of those cars for $500 less, and you would have been able to feel in your pockets the $100,000 of which, because of the tariffs of the Conservative part}', you have been robbed." Mr. Speaker, I imagine at least half of those cars would be Fords. If bought new they would cost S650, so that if they could have been bought for $150 it would be marvellous indeed. I presume, too, that not many new cars were bought last year, and that most of these were purchased under the King administration during its eight or nine years' tenure of office. And yet they thought they could inflame public opinion so that listeners would go back home and say, Mr. So-and-so told us to-day that owing to the high tariff policy of the Conservative party the cars around there have cost $100,000 more than they should have.
Then we find hon. members on the other side getting up in this house speaking about
the millionaire cabinet ministers. I hope they are all millionaires. The only difference between themselves and myself is that they are on their second million-I am on my first. I know there are some hon. gentlemen opposite who are averse to having any money, and if a rich aunt left them $150,000 they would not sleep until they had spread it out among other people. Well, if a rich aunt leaves me any such sum I will keep it a few days at least and run it through my fingers. But we have hon. gentlemen opposite appearing on the public platforms in my province and declaring one of the first acts of the Bennett administration was to raise their own salaries $2,000 a year. That is in a measure true but it is a half truth which is ever the basest of lies. Think you, sir, that we are going to let anything like that go by? I have tried to refrain from speaking in this house, on the advice of my physician, but when I heard that statement I thought: That is one thing we will have to nail anyway. The people of Ontario can rest assured that most of the statements of those hon. gentlemen are of the same character. I asked for a return. I shall not have time to go through all the details, but I will deal with the former Prime Minister's car. Hon. gentlemen opposite forgot to tell the people that when the Bennett administration assumed office the eagle eye of the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) glanced around to see where he could curtail expenses. Some of you gentlemen perhaps have been commercial travellers at some time or other, or perhaps some of you have had men on the road, and you know that little travellers' book they call the "swindle sheet"; you will see commercial travellers figuring in it at night or while going from station to station to see if they can level up their expenses a bit so they will have a little extra for Sunday. Well, looking over the travellers' expense sheet of the old cabinet the Minister of Finance saw that a considerable saving could be effected, and I presume he said: Now, we will cut out these expensive cars driven by liveried chauffeurs from Dan to Beersheba, sometimes with the cabinet ministers, sometimes without them, and we will effect a great saving. Then I do not know what conversation took place, but anyway it was arranged that in lieu of the chauffeurs and the cars each minister would get $2,000 per year, and that henceforth they could go about on foot, on bicycle, on horseback, by taxi, aeroplane, or in any other way
The Budget-Mr. Spotton

they liked, but they would have to do it at show what has been saved in the case of the their own expense. The following table will leader of the opposition:
Year	Repairs, etc.	Gas and oil	Chauffeur's uniform	Chauffeur's salary	Depre- ciation	T otal$ cts.	S cts.	S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1922-23	2,774 48	* 485 08	152 15	1,501 93	1,037 50	5,951 141923-24	1,652 27	714 14	320 50	1,532 00	1,037 50	5,256 411924-25	882 13	573 50	109 65	1,440 00	1,037 50	4,042 781925-26	481 80	568 31	193 15	1,440 00	1,037 50	3,720 761926-27	:	002 61	541 81	84 50	1,515 00	1,400 00	4,143 921927-28	281 43	440 05	213 45	1,657 05	1,400 00	3,992 431928-29	596 23	438 47	209 52	1,770 00	1,400 00	4,414 221929-30	465 24	536 02	268 25	1,770 00	1,400 00	4,439 511930-31	503 81	451 71	124 92	1,770 00	1,400 00	4,250 44Total expenditure for the nine-year period	$ 40,211 61


An hon. MEMBER:: Whose car?


George Spotton: William Lyon Mackenzie King's.
That is the return of the expenses of the ex-Prime Minister; but in it 1 have computed the depreciation which I believe is fair. I have asked for outside figuring on this, and hon. gentlemen will kindly check these figures. In 1923-24 a Cadillac was purchased for 87,150, less S300 allowed for the old car. We are charging up the $7,150 because that is really the purchase price of the car. In 1927, that car was traded in valued at $3,000 towards the cost of an $8,400 Pierce Arrow. Subtracting the $3,000 from the original cost of $7,150, the depreciation on the Cadillac for those four years is $4,150. Dividing S4,150 by four we get the depreciation for each year -$1,037.50. I do not know whether that Pierce Arrow bought in 1927 for $8,400 has been sold or not, but it would be fair to say that a car five years old would not be worth more than $1,400. I doubt if any one with $1,400 cash in his pocket would give more for a Pierce Arrow five years old, even though a prime minister-the grandson of a grandsire-had ridden in it. That represents a depreciation of $1,400 a year for five years on the Pierce Arrow, plus a depreciation of $1,037.50 for four years on the Cadillac. In other words, this spendthrift government has stricken out an item of S5.951.14 and substituted therefor S2.000; next year it has struck out 85,256.41 and substituted therefor $2,000, and so on down the line, the figures being' $4,042.78, $3,720.76, $4,143.92, $3,992.43, 84,414.22, $4,439.51, $4,250.44. The total cost of keeping the car and chauffeur for the exPrime Minister for the nine years-the entire upkeep-was $40,211.61. Under the new arrangement it would be $18,000 for nine years. I regard that as pretty fair financing. To draw a pen through $40,211.61 and to

substitute therefor $18,000 is something commendable. That represents a saving of $22,211.61 in nine years, or approximately $2,500 annually.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


George Spotton: If it is short.


Frederick George Sanderson: His figures are very
interesting. Has he also the figures relating to the cost of improvements of a private car on the railways for the present Prime Minister?


George Spotton: I am very much surprised that my hon. friend should ask that question. He may go on talking about railways; I am talking about cabinet ministers raising salaries. We will now take up the Minister of Immigration. He was the man who had led the economy group-and I am not throwing stones at the United Farmers, because I know the organization well enough to know that the so-called Progressive group who put their hand to the plough and looked back are entirely different from the United Farm group that put their hand to the plough and did not look back. One was a real conversion, the other a mock conversion. The figures for the Department of Immigration are these: 192728,	$4,554.42;	1928-29,	$4,503.63;	1929-30,
84,115.28; 1930-31, S4,404.85. In other words, in four years there was a total of $17,796.94, almost $18,000; and now the government that substitutes therefore the sum of $8,000 is said to be doing a wrong act. Take the Department of Finance. In eight years we find the total of $40,910.71 as against $18,000, a saving of $22,000 in that period. In the Department of Agriculture in eight years the total was $28,854.12 as against $18,000. I will not go into depreciation here. A Cadillac bought in 1924 was turned in in 1927 for a Pierce Arrow.

The Budget-Mr. Spotton
I have asked the department whether this included the joy ride which that minister made when he took the Pierce Arrow over for its health, giving it a sea voyage, but they tell me that it is not included. The figures for four years for the Department of Trade and Commerce are $15,739.03, and now it will be $8,000 for four years. I am glad to know that the hon. gentleman came from my section of the country; I am glad to know that he kept his chauffeur well-liveried so that the people would know he was a great statesman when he passed by. The sum of $722.61 was spent on rigging out the chauffeur during four years, but when the hon. gentleman got to his county the chauffeur was left in the garden and the cabinet minister got into his Ford car and drove around the constituency. I give him credit for it. As regards the Department of Railways, I will just give the figures by fiscal years. They are:
1924			$3,465 44
1925	
3,050	431926	
3,486	651927	
3,234	821928	
3,515	551929	
3,791	701930	
3,701	861931	
3,919	16
Those are the different years for the Department of Railways. Lest anyone should think that I am just selecting the worst of the departments, I am prepared to give any other department asked for.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Department of
Marine.


George Spotton: In the Department of
Marine the total was $44,732.79 in nine years.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: He was no piker.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
Postmaster General?


George Spotton: He used a car belonging
to the department. Someone I believe has asked for the Minister of Labour's department. The Minister of Labour did pretty well for a man who pleads for a fair wage clause and who is going about shedding crocodile tears seeing that the working man gets a fair deal. When he started out, like every young traveller, his expenses were light. As they get educated, however, travellers' expenses grow, and that is so here. In 1928 it was $4,216.59; in 1929 it was $5,137.42; in 1930 it was $6,701.84 and in 1931 it was $5,975.18. Gasoline was an exceptionally heavy item, amounting to over $1,000 in one year and over $1,100 another. The others were much more modest. In this department a Willys-Knight was bought for $4,500 in the
year ended 1927. That was traded in in 1929 for a Cadillac costing $5,724.25, an allowance of $1,800 being made on the old car.


James Dew Chaplin: What uniform did the
Minister of Labour's chauffeur wear?


Mr. VALLANCE:: Tell us about the
budget.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will my hon. friend
permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Frederick George Sanderson: Just one question; I
am sure the hon. gentleman will permit it.


George Spotton: With all due respect, 1
must ask the hon. member for South Perth to take his seat.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is a simple question.


George Spotton: My time is nearly up and I must ask the hon. gentleman to wait until I have concluded.


Frederick George Sanderson: As one hon. member
to another, surely the hon. gentleman will answer my question.


George Spotton: The clever accountants
on the other side of the house can analyze the figures I have given, but by this one act the Dominion of Canada, on the number of cars that were running around this country, has saved approximately $50,000 per year. I may be a little out either way on that figure, but I cannot be far wrong. The only thing that might be questioned would be my figures on depreciation, and I am told by liberal garage men they are eminently fair. For four years the Minister of Labour averaged about $6,000 a year; now the present Minister of Labour will manage on $2,000 per year. I have been warned that my time is about up.


John Vallance: Is the hon. member running out of material? He should tell us about the budget.


George Spotton: I am a little hard of hearing but I think I hear braying somewhere. During the last day or so I have noticed that the groundhogs are beginning to come out.


John Vallance: It does not look like it.


George Spotton: I do not take up a great deal of the time of the house, perhaps because I am not as competent to do it as many hon. gentlemen opposite, but hon. members might allow me to use the few minutes at my disposal. Speaking for my people in North Huron, I know they are not expecting us in this house to be bickering back and forth
The Budget-Mr. Spotton

with small political arguments during this time of stress and strain. I would not have attempted to go into these figures had it not been that they were being broadcast throughout this chamber and the province of Ontario. When arguments such as these are presented I feel like saying to hon. friends opposite: Canada is passing through a crisis; drop your petty politics and come let us reason together. An hon. member gets up and says that two hundred factories have closed, and we hear actual applause. During the next campaign I should like nothing better than to have a sound picture of these proceedings to show how seriously the opposition has been aiding in the work of this session. When we go back to our people we will say: Regardless of whether or not our party is elected, we shall do our best and give our support to all necessary legislation, no matter whence it comes. Perhaps not the majority, but many of the opposition sit there chuckling and hoping that Canada will become more depressed so that hard times may cause the defeat of the government. The old farm which was left us was in a terribly run down condition. The roof was off the barn, the fences were all down and the soil was impoverished; it could not be expected that there would be a good crop the first year, but we are cleaning up the soil and we shall be able to give a good account of ourselves.
Considering the load he is carrying, the Prime Minister should be given every encouragement. I am reminded of a story in connection with a train climbing the Caledon mountains. With much chugging and puffing the engineer finally brought his train to the top of the grade. The brakeman came along and the engineer said, "I never thought I would make the top." The brakeman replied, "You wouldn't have made it if I hadn't put on the brakes." We hear hon. members saying that they hope the economic conference will be a success, but they know it will not be. What father would place his hand on his son's head and say, "My boy, I am sending you off to college but I know it is no use"? I claim that has been the attitude of the opposition during this session.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with the hon. menfber for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) when he says that there was possibly a great deal of claptrap during the last election campaign, but I think he will agree with me when I say that this side of the house does not hold a first mortgage upon that commodity. The hon. member discussed the depression as affecting automobiles; I am going to discuss the depression of human

values which has taken place since the inception of this parliament. I hope that the contribution he made to this house will go to solve the conditions under which the agriculturists of this country are suffering.
With other hon.. members, I compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on his presentation of his first budget. However, I contend that the budget itself is nothing to cheer about, and I do not think that this dominion will be able to stand many more like it. It places an added burden of $5.50 on every man. woman and child in this country, an additional burden of $27.50 on the average family of five. In my opinion it lacked the only sound method of taxation, the taxing of those who can best afford to pay and the placing of the burden where it is best able to be borne. The sales tax has been increased, and after all, we might just as well call it by its proper name- the buyer's tax. This tax increases the cost of every conceivable article used in the homes of this country. The same thing might be said of the excise tax, which has been increased by 200 per cent, enhancing the cost of well nigh everything that goes into the home of the ordinary citizen. There is plenty of money in Canada, and in this time of stress, when every individual has to face a decrease in wages or a shortening of hours, all of which causes a reduction in his buying power, it would have been in the best interests of this country had the government gone, like the Quakers, to where the money i3. Two-thirds of the money to be raised will be taken out of the pockets of the average tax payer.
This afternoon one of the speakers broached the question of a change in the constitution of the Senate. I am opposed absolutely to an appointed Senate. I feel we have reached that stage in our legislative development when the Senate should either be abolished or elected; we have reached that stage in the development of our democratic institutions where every individual who fashions or makes the laws should be directly responsible to the electorate. If we must have a place wherein to put those who have passed their sphere in this chamber, the best thing to do would be to provide some sort of pension. I say this in all sincerity because after all some sacrifice is made by those who participate in public life; and when they give the best years of their lives to the service of their country they are surely entitled to some consideration in their declining years. I believe that would be a far better way to deal with the problem than the spectacle we have before us to-day.
The question of inflation has been touched upon during the debate. Rather than express

The Budget-Mr. Mitchell
an opinion of my own, perhaps it would be better if I gave the viewpoint of a well known economist. Coming here in the train from Toronto to-day I picked up a copy of the Mail and Empire. That newspaper should be respectable enough for some, and to make the viewpoint doubly impressive, there is in it a clipping from the New York Times carrying the fallowing article:
The abandonment by Great Britain of the gold standard is looked upon by John Maynard Keynes, the British economist, as the possible starting point of world economic recovery, in an article in the May issue of the Atlantic Monthly. Great Britain's policy has already stopped the decline of prices, measured in terms of national currencies, over the large part of the world allied with sterling, and has brought about the abatement of the deflationary pressure in Great Britain itself, Scandinavia, Australasia, India, Ceylon, Malaya. East and West Africa and Egypt and, in substance, in South America, Canada and Japan, Mr. Keynes writes.
As a result of quitting the gold standard, Mr. Keynes says, Great Britain is to-day "decidedly the most prosperous country in the whole world." Mr. Keynes predicts that the forces released by Great Britain's abandonment of the gold standard will in time undermine and destroy the creditor position of France and the United States.
The article further quotes:
"An almost collapse of the financial structure of modern capitalism" can be averted by a policy of inflation and by ceasing the "competitive panic" for liquidity. ... He recommends a similar policy for the United States.
And so on. I should like to make this observation: After all is said and done, inflation is only a form of assignment. A man in business assigns at fifteen cents on the dollar, or whatever the rate may be. Nations inflate or repudiate. I appreciate the fact that we are going to inflate whether we like it or not, but I would point out that inflation is not the solution of the ills from which we are suffering. Let us make no mistake about that. We may get some temporary relief from it, but the problem goes far deeper than mere inflation of currency. Many hon. members have noted the additional factories that have been constructed and put into operation since the last general election. Listening to a repetition of this statement one would be led to believe we are in the midst of a boom in our industrial era. I come from an industrial riding and it has been my good fortune in the last twelve months to meet men and women in many other industrial constituencies. Moreover, I have in my hand correspondence from other industrial centres in Canada, and I should like to cite the conditions that actually exist so far as relief is concerned, in Hamilton, the fifth largest and the
most highly industrialized city in the dominion. I take this from the official figures for the week ended March 26, 1932, issued by the relief department of that city over the signature of J. II. McMenemy, relief officer.
Commodity Groceries (orders) . Milk (pints) . . . . Bread (loaves) . . . Fuel (orders) . . . . Shoes (pairs) ..	.
Underwear	
Quantity Amount 4,514	$15,221	0024,410	1,748	9033,722	2,023	321,061	5,821	00751	1,910	20
263	60
Total

Recently the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) spoke of people crowding into the cities and expecting to be spoon-fed by the government, but the figures that I have given show very clearly that there is very little spoon-feeding being done. We can assume that the average rent in the city for the class of people doing tins work would be twenty-five dollars per month, so it will readily be seen how much chance a man would have of making both ends meet when the total wages earned for relief during the year were only $103. The amount expended in direct relief has doubled in the last twelve months. Quoting from the Child and Family Welfare bulletin for January, 1932:
Civic relief in December, 1931, showed an increase of one hundred per cent over 1930- expenditure of $102,956.64 on 5,350 families and 14,421 dependents. against $49,750.58 in December, 1930. This was for groceries, fuel, shoes and underwear. "Made" work, providing three days work per month for the married men was netting about $13.20 per month per family.
Going further east, I find that this resolution was forwarded to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), and I presume to the government, from Trenton, Nova Scotia:
The employees of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, Limited, Eastern Car Company, Limited, and other citizens of the town of Trenton met to consider the serious conditions of unemployment. We much regret to make these representations but the grave circumstances of the people are certainly worthy of any effort on our part.
We find that approximately 45 per cent of the families of the above named employees are in need and 40 per cent are in dire want. Men and women have not suitable clothing to go to church and other places of social interest, children cannot go to week-day school or Sunday school for the want of clothes and proper nutritious foods.
Now% sir, this is a deplorable state of living for Canadian citizens, and one which we firmly believe should not exist in Canada to-day, and we resent any method of administration which allow'S the same to continue.
Providence has provided sufficient food, clothing shelter, wealth and all the necessary things for human life, so all might enjoy a measure of life as life was meant to be, but what do wre find to-day-men walking the streets deprived of the privilege to work while their wives and children suffer starvation. Such conditions will only create an atmosphere detrimental to Christian citizens.
The above statement is not exaggerated; it sets forth the facts as they actually exist at present, and we have endured this suffering for the last ten months in silence, but we are now compelled to make these facts known.
We make these representations to you with the hope that you will use your good offices immediately and place some work with the plants at Trenton. Direct relief is not adequate to meet the needs of the people; providing

work is a much better method, and one that would promote human welfare which should be considered at this time.
It concludes:
We only ask for the right to work in order to live, and we believe your government has the authority and the right to grant the above request.
John C. Reid, Chairman.
Rev. P. C. Lewis.
After all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, these men are only asking what was enunciated in the declaration of the Lambeth conference, a meeting of bishops from every civilized country in the world, held in the city of London in the year 1930, which laid down the guiding principles of the faith until the next conference. The language used in this declaration, it is true, is possibly more polished than that employed by these men and women of Trenton, but it carries the same message and the same criticism of present conditions. Dealing with the present social system it says:
This change can only be effected by accepting as the basis of industrial relations the principle of cooperation in service for the common good in place of unrestricted competition for private or sectional advantage.
We gladly recognize an improved relationship between the different classes engaged in industry, and a better realization of the meaning of cooperation in service, but we cannot say that society has even yet come to believe that industry exists for man, not man for industry.
It is not the business of the Christian church to suggest technical remedies. But it is our duty to rouse dull consciences and to turn the attention of all Christian people to the moral background of the picture. It is a strange paradox that the capacity of the world to produce more than it needs of almost everything should coexist with extreme poverty in large areas of population, and the "discordance between consuming and producing power" calls for hard thinking and courageous action.
From what I have said, and I say this in view of the fact that the government has under advisement its policy in connection with unemplo3''ment relief, it will be obvious that there is a dangerous situation existing in the cities of this dominion. Only last week the firemen in the city from which I come were sworn in as special constables. We see thousands of men and women in straitened circumstances for the first time in their lives, men and women who placed their faith in thrift, hard work and honesty, and who invested the product of their thrift in what they believed were sound securities for the provision of comfort in their old age. To-day these people find the value of their securities gone. I live amongst them and I know the conditions. They find themselves out of work and losing their homes. They are in the position

The Budget-Mr. Mitchell
in which the industrial worker has often found himself, of not knowing where to look for their next meal. I can understand these conditions existing fifty years ago, but when people are hungry in a land of plenty; when farmers are unable to sell their products and, men in industry cannot use their strength and skill in the production of the things that the farmer so badly needs, I think all will agree that such conditions are a challenge to our good sense and to our courage; and that courage should be exercised notwithstanding the psychological state of many who still persist in looking through the spectacles of 1870 at the problems of 1932. It is useless to declare against the present dole, because after all is said and done, I say to those who would not have the dole in this country, that you have the dole-an unqualified dole. It is not much use grumbling about its cost, because after all, these men and women on the streets must live, and even if we have failed to provide them with work, it is the duty of the state to see to it that they suffer no undue hardship through conditions over which they have no control.
For years labour has propounded the idea of unemplo3'ment insurance as the only scientific way to deal with unemployment. I admit that such a measure would be only a palliative, but I think most hon. members will agree that in view of conditions which have obtained during the last two years some such scheme is necessary. Three years ago industrialists said: "We do not pay' our men to be idle; we pay them to work. We do not want any dole system such as that followed in Great Britain." I left industry only three days before I took a seat in this House of Commons, and I can say that the men and women who work in industry have come to the conclusion, because of their experience with intermittent employment, that some form of insurance is necessary against the greatest curse which enters the workingman's home- the fear of unemployment.
After all, scc.fety never moves until it has suffered. It has always been necessary to get out into the rough sea, to find ourselves in rough waters before we could really accomplish anything. One of the greatest benefits to be derived from the depression is that we have been taught to think. We all know that to cope with this period of distress through which we are passing many great fundamental changes will have to be made. Undoubtedly some form of unemployment insurance will be one of them, and if Labour members in this house could assist in bringing about such a change, their efforts, especially in view of
their small numbers, would be most commendable.
I listened to the splendid oration by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who spoke about the necessity for thrift and economy. I do not for one moment question that the hon. member was under the romantic spell of early Quebec. It has often occurred to me that perhaps the most stable form of economic organization was that which existed between the feudal system and the industrial era as we know it to-day, where the labour of the man in the field balanced the labour of the man engaged in industry-the blacksmith, the shoemaker and so on. Whether we like it or not we are up against the problem of mass production in agriculture and industry. We are in the midst of the greatest period of transition the word has ever witnessed. In my opinion economy is the antithesis of mass production. Every move in the direction of economy intensifies the troubles from which we are suffering. If carried too far, these economic measures which are being promoted all around us will have the power to shake the very, foundations of our social structure.
There are many to-day who talk economy and practise it as a moral obligation. I venture to say there is not one in a million who really understands the direction in which he is heading. Why do we fool ourselves? Right in this city of Ottawa in which the House of Commons is situated wre are witnessing a "spend more" campaign. We are told to spend more in the city of Ottawa, but to save more in the House of Commons; save more by cutting wages, laying off men, and any other possible form of economy. I do not deny the existence of a problem in connection with federal, provincial and municipal financing. I do say, however, that measures of economy and the necessity for economy, so far as governmental organizations are concerned, are but symptoms of a disease. Our real difficulty lies in the maldistribution of wealth. That is the terrible mess in which we find ourselves because of our Iaissez faire attitude and our failure to recognize the existence and the enormous influence of science as expressed by mass production in agriculture and industry.
The real wealth of a nation is expressed in the ability of its people to consume the output of the fields, the factories and the workshops. For that reason labour stands for a policy of high wages. Probably at this point I should make a comment in connection with the present policy which is common in the city of Hamilton. My remark concerns St. Paul's cathedral, that magnificent structure in the heart of the British commonwealth which was
The Budget-Mr. Mitchell

designed by the brilliant architect, Sir Christopher Wren. As we walk into that building we see a tablet on the wall which bears the inscription, "If you desire to see the achievements of this man, look around you." If you desire to see the achievements of economy in the midst of mass production, just look around you.
I should like to put the case of the municipalities before the house. If it is to be the deliberate policy of the federal and provincial governments to deny any assistance to the municipalities in connection with relief works, the problems of the municipalities will be greatly intensified. Many men are looking forward to relief works upon which they may ' earn sufficient money to pay the rental, on the homes in which they and their families live. I question very much whether the municipalities can carry their burdens very much longer. We must remember they have only two major sources of taxation, namely real estate and income. Speaking for the province of Ontario, there is no doubt we have just about reached the maximum, so far as taxation on the homes of the people is concerned. I believe the government will be well advised even to increase their contribution to the municipalities for these purposes. Such a policy is absolutely essential, particularly in view of the fact of the many avenues of taxation that the provincial governments and this government have in comparison with the few that are open to the municipalities.
We have had several committees sitting dealing with subjects referred to them by this house, but none of them have dealt with what I consider are vital problems. I think we should have set up a special committee to study the best means of introducing a system of unemployment insurance. I readily understand that such a system will have to be based on the peculiar needs of this country, but study and preparation are required before any action can be taken, and I am of opinion that in view of the basic need for unemployment insurance the first duty of the government was to set in motion a special committee for this purpose. Then I think the government might well have taken hold of the suggestion embodied in the resolution of the member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) for the establishment of an economic research council. I am convinced that before we get out of this depression the need for such a council will be imperative. I believe the resolution contains the germ of an idea that will be of great assistance in approaching the

problems that have to be solved if we are to climb back to prosperity.
I have a number of other suggestions to make, but time will not permit. I say to the government that the people are ready for leadership-not leadership backward, but forward. The people are willing to take chances.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have taken too
many.


Humphrey Mitchell: Someone on the other
side says that they have taken too many chances. Well, you have played pretty safe, you have not taken any chances so far in regard to solving the major problems confronting the dominion. It is all very well to be favourable to banks, insurance companies, and power companies, but governments do not exist merely to be paternalistic to such corporations. The people of this country are ready for a real progressive policy initiated by this government.


Mr. D. B. PLUNKETT (Victoria):: It is gratifying to note that the budget has been received throughout Canada in a very commendable manner, and I belive it is worthy of consideration for its complete and clear review of the country's present obligations and future necessities. Perhaps the best evidence of its favourable reception by the country is the very weak criticism of the budget offered by hon. members sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker. It is noticeable that in any criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite no solutions have been offered or positive suggestions made that are any better than those brought down by the government. Particularly is this so in reference to the care or relief of the unemployed.
During the debate it has been suggested by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), and in this he was supported by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), that all deposits over S20,000 in the savings banks should Ibe taxed for the direct benefit of the state. As political publicity this may sound very weli at the present time, but what faith or confidence can the people be expected to have in this country if those who by hard work and industry have saved some money and deposited it in our savings banks are to have those savings absorbed by the state? What incentive would there be for anyone to work and save his surplus money for future contingencies if such proposals were to become law? Our banks are the custodians of the people's money, and the only money actually owned by any banking institution is its capital stocks and reserve funds. The capital stock usually consists of the bank's office buildings

The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
and other property; its reserve funds are usually invested in government and other first class securities. Usually neither of these is available for loans; for this purpose banks rely generally on the money entrusted to them by their depositors. Deposits may !be divided into two classes: deposits payable on demand, which appear as current accounts; and savings accounts, on which fifteen days' notice is sometimes required before withdrawal. It will therefore be seen that it is a primary duty on the part of banks that they protect their depositors' funds. No business or industrial venture is so susceptible to fluctuating conditions as the banking business. I wonder how many hon. members would make good bank managers?
Let me make this comment on the taxing of incomes over 320,000. A contracting firm handles big contracts, sometimes running into millions of dollars. We will suppose that after a contract has been completed, and the contracting firm has paid off all the debts incident to the contract, it has a balance running anywhere from 3200,000 to 3600,000. It may have to wait a considerable time before it gets another contract, and in the meantime deposits a portion of that money, say. 350,000, in savings account in a chartered bank, Well, if the suggestion made by the hon. member for Acadia were put into practice, 330,000 of that deposit would be taken by the state. Would that be a good thing for the commercial life of this country, or would it not? That is one of many things that must be given due and fair consideration before we could adopt the plan proposed by the hon. gentleman. He has said our banking institutions do not consider first of all the welfare of the people. I wonder what reception he would get if he were to make that statement in the United States. Many depositors in that country who have lost thousands of dollars through the failure of their banks would think the Canadian a funny person who would make such a statement. To-day in the United States they are marking their return to normalcy by the fewer number of banks that have failed this month as compared with the preceding month. To deride or belittle the banking system of this country is not doing a service to Canada. That could have been done in times of prosperity as well as in times of adversity. Take the provincial savings office of Manitoba; that was a government-conducted affair. I do not think I need to comment upon it, but I submit that it was a splendid thing the banking houses of Canada were able to absorb and save the depositors in that province. What of the American money that is coming
into our country now for deposit? Would that money come in if the American people did not have faith in our banks? While there may be an increase in deposits in the savings banks of the country, it will be found on inquiry that a part at least of that increase is coming from the United States, and it is coming here for safety and for no other reason. When the history of this depression and of these hard times is written, the brightest spot in it will be the conduct of the financial and credit system of Canada as it was maintained by the Prime Minister and his government; and I have no doubt that his successor in that very high office, the present Minister of Finance, will be equal to all that is put upon him.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has said in this house that our forefathers, when they built their homes in Canada, believed that they were founding a democracy. I agree with that statement, but I have sometime? wondered whether our forefathers would have permitted some of the speeches that are being made in this country to-day. And when I hear men going up and down the county saying, "The state owes me a living," I would reply with this: They owe something to the state. Many of them are living better in Canada than they have ever lived or ever will live in any other country, and the social legislation of this country is burdening the taxpayers to the limit. Let us not forget that the taxpayer is the best citizen, for he keeps the wheels of government running.
I now wish to make a few remarks with regard to unemployment relief in British Columbia, a subject which has been forced upon the attention of the house by hon. members opposite. It has been a surprise to me, if there were any real maladministration of affairs in British Columbia, that some hon. members from that province should have so graciously permitted the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) to present such rumours, for they are rumours inasmuch as none of them are facts. Or was it their policy, with their larger experience in political life, to accept no responsibility for unproven statements which might become embarrassing later on, and which the hon. member for New Westminster, in his enthusiasm, was willing to assume? The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn) have had considerable political experience, both having been members of the British Columbia legislature. These hon. gentlemen were supporters of the late Liberal administration in
The Budget-Mr. Plunkett

that province when that government had control of the political destinies of British Columbia. And what is the record of the Liberal government there? When the Liberal party came into power in 1917 the public debt of British Columbia was 825,521,000, and when the Conservative party took office in 1928, after nearly twelve years of Liberal rule, the debt was $117,452,000, or an increase of $650,000 per month. That was the extent to which the public debt was increased by the Liberal administration of British Columbia. The present leader of the Liberals in that province is Mr. Pattullo, formerly Minister of Lands, the one who has been instrumental in saddling on that province a land policy' that has left a debt on the people of British Columbia of over $12,000,000. The four projects he fathered when Minister of Lands were Sumas, South Okanagan, Merville and Cres-ton. These gentlemen were enthusiastic supporters of that government which was so extravagant in provincial affairs, and responsible for these tremendous expenditures. But they want to have the taxpayers forget their past, and so they point to the Conservative administration of British Columbia and say, "Just look at their administration. Forget about our past. Our future is bright; wash us and we shall be whiter than snow." And so, passing down the political highway of adventure, they come to Ottawa, where they find that their party is not altogether immaculate nor above reproach; for as they pass through the valley of humiliation someone whispers "Beauharnois." But posing in a superior attitude they hope that their own weakness and failures in the past will be forgotten if they make an attack on the present administration in British Columbia. Inferences, innuendoes and generalities, spoken without reliable evidence in writing, are not statements of fact and should be very carefully considered by hon. members.
The unemployment situation in British Columbia presents difficulties which other provinces have not to contend with. In the last eighteen months eleven thousand outsiders have come into British Columbia from other provinces. This is a considerable burden for a province with a population of only a little over six hundred thousand, about the size of Toronto. In the report issued by the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief it will be found that British Columbia leads all the provinces in man day's work given for the expenditures made. To control these people who came from other provinces was very difficult, and had they not been given relief in some cases, hon. gentlemen in this

house, whose hearts are so sadly torn for the working man, would possibly have said, "You made them swear that they' did not need money; y'ou put them through a third degree to be sure whether they needed it or not. Was that right?" I will read you a few' extracts to show what some of these working men have done. I am sorry the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) is not in the house, because this might interest him:
Relief Case Investigated Vancouver Man Who Applied For Work Had Three Houses and 320-Acre Farm
Vancouver, March 22.-Investigation of the case of a man who applied for relief work from the Vancouver relief department has disclosed:
He owns his own home with a clear title.
He has clear title to another house which he rents at $18 a month.
He has a third house that is mortgaged.
He has a 320-aere farm at Weyburn, Sask., which he values at $4,500 and which has $2,500 against it.
His two daughters, which he claimed were dependents, are earning a total of $166 a month.
Relief Officer H. W. Cooper, reporting the case to the civic relief committee yesterday, stated the man in question had registered under the provincial government scheme, made an affidavit that his real estate, negotiable securities or cash, consisted of a house, etc., assessed at $2,000 and enumerated his dependents as being a w'ife, three daughters and two sons.
Mr. Cooper stated he had written the provincial government for instructions regarding prosecution.
Then in Victoria, British Columbia, a man was convicted and it was shown he had $3,222 in a Winnipeg bank, $115 in the Canadian Bank of Commerce, and three shares of British Columbia Electric Railway valued at $100 each. A nominal fine was imposed for his having made these misrepresentations. I shall not give the name of this man, but if any hon. member desires it, I shall be glad to furnish the information.
If hon. members desired to criticize the administration of unemployment relief in British Columbia, would it not have been fairer to send these facts to the British Columbia government? If hon. members did not desire to send them through to the Conservative government,' the information could have been furnished to the leader of the opposition, and no doubt he would have investigated these matters while the house was in session. But hon. members did not do that, they saw fit to make statements-they were not statements, that is my mistake; they were rumours-three thousand miles away from those who were being attacked, thus making impossible a fair defence.

The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
I shall refer particularly to some allegations made by the hon. member for New Westminster, speaking in this house on March 16. I shall read a letter dealing with these allegations, and I am sure it will foe found to be illuminating and of value to hon. members of this house. Under date of March 23,1 received the following letter from Hon. R. W. Bruhn, Minister of Public Works at Victoria:
For your information. I am enclosing memorandum from Mr. Philip to myself, in connection with the statements made by Mr. Reid in Hansard of March 16. I also enclose one of my speeches which I delivered in the house here, giving further information in regard to unemployment relief in British Columbia.
As there have been some comments on the cost of lumber, for your information I may say that the average cost per thousand feet of lumber, delivered at the camps, is $20.60. The average cost per camp, including equipment, per man, is $36.16. This is considered rather low.
The statements made by Mr. Reid and other speakers are without foundation, and you are quite safe in making that statement should you have an opportunity to do so, as the unemployment committee here has so far found nothing to warrant such statements.
The following is the memorandum of Mr. Philip, chief engineer, to Mr. Bruhn:
With reference to the speech of Mr. Thomas Reid in the House of Commons, page 1283 of Hansard.
Employment of men:	We have employed
almost 25,000 on unemployment relief works, instead of 16,000.
Twenty-three Delco plants were purchased, some of them second-hand, not 100 as given to Mr. Reid by a truck driver. Possibly if Mr. Reid would apply to the proper quarters for information his data would be more reliable.
With reference to the water supply; it is true that a well was dug where the supply was insufficient owing to the dry weather at a cost of $75, and another well was dug on which a total of $22 was spent. It was not necessary to use this well as the water became plentiful in the first one which was dug, owing to weather conditions. This is the scandal Mr. Reid takes the time of the House of Commons to investigate.
As to the manufacturer who told Mr. Reid that he had sold 50.000 blankets and "It took him out of the red." The facts are that 7,700 pairs of blankets were bought new and 420 pairs second-hand, making a total of 8,120.
As for the steel wheelbarrows, he may have counted these in one camp for distribution throughout other camps. As to a man appointed to regulate their use, this is too ludicrous to even discuss.
With regard to the coal: This was bought locally in Mission and hauled to the camp for cook-house ranges. It was found when these ranges were purchased that they had coal-burning grates but this was rectified as soon as possible. No coal was purchased by the carload.
As to the tenders for cutting wood, this refers to Allco camp. At one time the supply ran out and no available wood could be had less than three miles from the camp, which had 41761-148
to be delivered on the logging railway. A small contract amounting to one or two hundred cords of wood was advertised in the regular way and some local settlers took the contract.
With regard to the government road foreman who had $50,000 in the bank: We have no knewledge of this, but if the information given by Mr. Reid is as reliable as the blankets, wheelbarrows, the water supply, the coal and the grader which was unable to turn on the road, then I submit that very little attention should be paid to the hon. member, Mr. Thomas Reid.
That is the memorandum of Mr. P. Philip, chief engineer and Deputy Minister of Public Works.
I should like to make a passing reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). One statement was as follows:
One might say they were equipped almost luxuriously with hot and cold water shower baths, electric lighting plants, and I am informed even radios have been supplied in some cases.
A reply to this statement is made by the Minister of Public Works at Victoria in the following words:
Camps were built according to standards laid down by provincial health regulations of 1920. Shower baths with hot and cold water were put in in permanent camps as called for in these regulations. Showers were in the proportion of one to twenty or twenty-five men. The cost of these showers was approximately $7 each, and consisted of lumber and tarpaper stalls, with platform of slats and timber drain.
There were twenty-three lighting plants purchased or enough for approximately ten per cent of the camps. Some of these plants were bought second-hand and have a high salvage value. The cost of lighting by electric light *was carefully estimated and when the period over which the lights were to be used and the salvage value of the plants were considered, it was found that in large permanent camps electric light was cheaper than coal oil or gasoline lamps.
Misinformed as to radios: There were none purchased.
Another statement by the hon. member was as follows:
The tools were furnished on a scale never known before in connection with roadwork. Every man had a wheelbarrow; every man had a ten-foot saw, which was entirely unnecessary, and everything was done on a lavish scale.
The answer is as follows:
Regarding tools: The statement that each man had enough tools to suffice for tefi, is a very loose statement and is entirely contrary to fact. Public works inventories show that for the number of men to be employed, namely 16,000, there was one wheelbarrow for every 7 men and one cross-cut saw for every 11 men.
Perhaps one can hardly blame hon. members for making such statements when it is considered that the former provincial Speaker and



The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
Attorney. General apparently has accepted similar rumours. The following article dealing with the piano story appeared in the Victoria Times, a good Liberal paper, of March 17:
Camp Piano Story Refuted Also Nothing in Carload of Radios Rumours, , Manson Tells Committee
The mystery of the piano at the Blue river relief camp, which has been causing politicians so much concern, has been solved.
A. M. Manson, K.C., M.P.P., who had the matter up last week, announced at Wednesday's session of the legislature's unemployment investigation committee, that he had had telegraphic inquiries made and that " The piano story arose from an old piano taken into camp."
"As for the carload of radios, which people report having seen come in, there is nothing in it," said Mr. Manson. "It is only proper when a member gets information sent to him in connection with matters like these, we should clean it up."
I hope hon. members of this house will take cognizance of that statement. The article continues:
"It was not fair for any member of the committee to present the piano story in jest," said J. W. Berry, M.P.P. "We are deluged here with this kind of stuff-reports about the way moneys have been expended," Mr. Manson went on.
The following article appeared in the Colonist of March 23:
'Cousin Rumour Goes by Board Another Myth Exploded at Public Accounts Hearing
Joining the "carload of radios" and the "Blue :iver piano" myths, which had been previously exploded before the unemployment committee, another choice bit of gossip was dissipated yesterday before the public accounts committee, with another retraction from A. M. Manson, K.C., who had introduced the subject to the committee on the strength of a letter from a citizen at Coalmont.
As it reached the committee the rumour was that a cousin of the Minister of Mines had made a good thing out of renting some machinery to the government on Tulameen roadwork, with machinery he was supposed to be buying on time purchase from the government. Examination into the rumour showed that the man in question, B. L. Hatfield, was no relation to the Minister of Mines and that he did not rent machinery to the government for this work.
The hon. member for New Westminster, speaking . in the house on April 19, stated that his information in regard to blankets was given to him by a prominent business man in Vancouver. Surely it is time that a letter verifying these statements should be presented to the house. If I were to give in the house all the statements that I hear on the street or from business men, I am afraid we would need a: greatly enlarged Hansard. He further made this observation:
[Mr. Plunkett.1
This would seem to indicate that, generally speaking, all my statements were accurate, or eleven of them would not have been left unchallenged.
The hon. member has something to answer now.


Mr. MUNN:: May I ask a question?


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: The hon. member can
make his speech later. I have very little time.


Albert Edward Munn: I should like to say this-
Mr, PLUNKETT:	I do not interrupt
any hon. member when he is speaking, and I hope the same courtesy will be extended to me.
The hon. member for New Westminster, speaking in the house on these questions which he considered to be of such moment, missed something good regarding his own port. I should like to help him out; I want hon. members to know that New Westminster is a great and growing port and it is going ahead even in these dull times when everybody is visiting the wailing wall in Jerusalem. This is from the British Columbian:
March export of lumber best for more than year. March was the best month for lumber exports from the Fraser river for more than a year, according to the month's figures issued at the harbour board office to-day. The export of lumber totalled 18,638,989 feet, as against some 14,000,000 in March, 1931.
There were twenty-nine ships in port in March, as compared with twenty-six in the corresponding month last year. For the first three months of this year there were eighty-two ships, as against seventy-five in the first quarter of 1931.
Export of shingles also showed a marked increase. being 8,236,800 in March this year against some 2,000,000, in March, 1931. Canada salmon was another product that showed an increase. 13,447 eases this March against 1,300 in March last year.
There are several other figures given, but my time is almost up.
I wish to make just one remark in regard to educational methods in Canada. It was not long ago in British Columbia that the college students went on strike because the provincial government had reduced its estimates by $250,000. I sometimes think these days that education has gone a little too far; that we must stop at the public or high school point and let those who desire a better education pay for it. It has become such a burden upon the people, it is almost unbearable. University students of to-day seem more capable and informed upon communism, atheism and companionate marriage than they are upon political economy or any national virtue which would help in the advancement of our citizenship or the relief

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
of the taxpayer who has to pay the bills. We have all read the essays and theories of economic experts and we know of what little value they are. None of them has evolved anything which could help us out of our present dilemma, and I do not know what may happen to us as a nation if all our citizens should receive an academic education ; for I find few, if any, of such people ever work at manual or laborious work except by way of talk, theory and writing. And while they talk, the taxpayer works to meet the obligations that conserve our institutions and advance the nation.
Many suggestions have been made by hon. members to the left of the Speaker, with regard to what we should do. Many of them have come from the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). It is only right to expect that the mind which knew when England was going off the gold standard, would be more full of facts than any other. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) gave some suggestions; so did the hon. member for New Westminster and also the hen. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). But not one of them said in the house that he had the endorsation of his leader. Is it going to be a part of the Liberal policy that every one can dictate it?


Albert Edward Munn: We have a certain amount of freedom over here.


Mr. ROBINSON:: And they show it, too.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: I can only say this, that they may have a certain amount of freedom over there, but at the same time I am looking to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Mackenzie King) as their leader because he is drawing the salary. Perhaps they are dissatisfied with him; perhaps they are not; but some of us on this side consider that as long as he is their leader, he is something of an asset to the Conservative party and I think it is the unanimous wish of us on this side that he continue to occupy that position for years to come.
As a nation we should have no doubt about the future, for the following reasons:
The decisive action on the part of the federal and provincial governments, municipalities and our two great transcontinental railways, to stop unnecessary and wasteful expenditures, and the realization of our citizens, that, if Canada is to prosper, extravagance must end.
The present outlook and possibilities for good crops and the knowledge that came by those engaged in agriculture that the growing of wheat alone, to the exclusion of other farm
products, does not guarantee a living or assured financial returns.
The coming Imperial conference with all its future possibilities for increased trade to all parts of the British Empire. This conference we hope will be a great success.
Therefore we should, with assurance, expect that Canada will be carried through this time of trouble and economic warfare by the character of our people and the intergrity of our institutions.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I cannot find it consistent to vote for either of the amendments offered by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I shall give my support to the main motion.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, making and listening to budgets is a rather disappointing occupation at the present time. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has received so many compliments and congratulations regarding his presentation of the budget that I am sure he will pardon me if I sympathize with him instead of congratulating him. I know the difficulties he has in the position he holds in a government that does not intend to change from the beaten path it followed when conditions were so different. I said that budgets are disappointing to the people who hear them, and I can assure the house that this one is a great disappointment to me. It is disappointing in that it does not take into consideration the changed conditions under which we are living, the fact that the class which has assumed the prerogative of supplying the needs of our people has fallen down on the job, and the fact, as stated in the words of his own leader during the election campaign of 1930, that the first duty of the Canadian government is to provide work for Canadians.
It is rather to be regretted that the hon, member for Victoria (Mr. Plunkett), who has just taken his seat, should have gone out of his way to take a slam at the unemployed in general as well as at other hon. members. As long as he confined himself to hon. members, he was quite within his right, but when he went out of his way to infer that because one or two unemployed people were found imposing upon the local authorities, all the unemployed were in the same position, he was going rather too far. I say that he will not make the same statement before a meeting of the unemployed in the city of Victoria. The time is long past when anyone should have the gall to say that men are unemployed because of their own fault. Let me quote
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis

from a letter that I received recently from an alderman in the city of Vancouver:
I represent, as you well know, a district composed of workers of an excellent calibre from the standpoint of citizenship-skilled mechanics; men who have in better times operated thriving little business ventures but who have lately been forced to the wall; labourers who by a maximum of effort and self-denial have gotten together a little home and up to the present have succeeded in bringing up their families respectably. These men are those who do not appear in unemployment parades. They are men who will eke out their small savings to the ultimate cent before they apply for relief, and these are the men who, I assure you I am not exaggerating, call on me or 'phone me not singly or in pairs but sometimes as many as sixteen a day, begging me to to something to help them over the hump. And what can I do?
If the member for Victoria has any solution for this problem, if he believes that the majority or even, a small minority of the unemployed are sponging on the local authorities he should make that known to the people who are charged with investigating those who apply for relief, and I am sure that they would Very soon tell him that not one man in five hundred of those who come before them comes until all his resources have been dissipated.


Mr. HEAPS:: Does a capitalist ever sponge on the public?


Angus MacInnis: month of 1931. In Nova Scotia there was an increase of one per cent over the previous year.
I should , like to say a few words concerning the budget, the Liberal amendment, and the amendment to the amendment proposed by the group in this corner of the house. First I shall refer to the Liberal amendment, and in doing so may I congratulate the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) upon his masterly criticism of the policy of the government. However, a very definite flaw in his criticism is that it compares conditions in the years 1922 and 1930 with those prevailing to-day. Liberal members-and it would seem with a great deal, of right on their side-have on occasions drawn attention to the statements and promises made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign of 1930. It seems to me we have to admit that conditions during the last two years either are or are not comparable to those prevailing in the years immediately preceding the last federal election. If they are not comparable with the situation which existed prior to 1930, what is the use of saying, "We did this or that during our term of office"? Whatever was done, and with whatever success, was accomplished out of the material conditions of that time. If those conditions cannot be duplicated now, they cannot do the same things as were done in the years prior to 1930.
However, it is when we come to consider the amendment of the opposition that we learn, and as far as I am personally concerned learn with a shock, that the events of the last two years have taught them very little. One is inevitably driven to the conclusion that the only solution they have to offer for the very serious situation in which we find ourselves at the present time is a reversion to things as they were in 1930 before the present government came into office. In the years preceding the last general election things of course were not so bad as they are to-day, but I had been connected with the civic affairs of Vancouver some time before 1930, and I can very well remember that we had a rather serious unemployed situation there for every year from 1925 down to 1930. While I had nothing to do with civic affairs in the years preceding that period, I am sure we had recurring unemployment during every year the Liberal party was in power. In 1930 the Conservative party was going to put an end to the depression by increasing the tariff. I point that out at this time because that is the only thing that the Liberal amendment has to offer-another alteration in the tariff. By thus increasing the

tariff the Conservative party was to make it impossible for foreign-made goods to come into the country and so conserve the market for our own manufacturers. But our conservative friends overlooked the fact that taking production as a whole very little profit can be made by producing for a local market; that if profit is to be made by the manufacture and sale of commodities, such commodities must be disposed of in other countries than the country in which they are produced; that is, you must have a foreign market. The reason for this I will explain to the house.
I referred a moment ago to the number of unemployed in this country. We have them to-day in every industrial country in the world. If an unemployed man in the city of Ottawa or anywhere else goes out looking for a job to-morrow, and finds one, he will find it on one condition, and one condition only; or at least this condition is implied when he gets the job -that he will produce more for the person employing him than that person will pay him in wages. That is, the value in goods he produces for his employer will be greater than the value his employer pays him for his labour. That, I repeat, is implied in the contract of every man who goes to work for an employer. What relation the values received and the values produced have I will not go into at this time, but it has been stated on the floor of this house that it is about four to one; that is, if a man receives one dollar in wages, he produces four dollars in goods. Evidently then the person so employed cannot buy goods to the value of four dollars with the one dollar he receives; so that for every one dollar of commodities that a worker can consume there are three dollars' worth that must be disposed of in some other way. There are other people in the communit}', howTever, besides the working class. There is the owning class or the employing Class, the buyers of labour, or to be more correct, the buyers of labour power; they will consume some of it. They are not so numerous, but their purchasing power is relatively greater. So we may say they will dispose of another dollar's worth of commodities. But we still have one half the total product to dispose of, and it cannot be disposed of where it was produced because of the limited purchasing power of the working classes and of the limited consuming capacity of the employing class. That is the reason why this government has its trade commissioners in every country in the world looking for a market for our goods, and it is the reason why every other industrialized nation has its trade commissioners in this country seeking a market for their goods. Every country to-day is reducing the wages of the workers in every line

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
of employment, hoping thereby to reduce the cost of production and obtain an advantage in the markets of the world. This, however, is a vain hope, as the people who cannot buy the commodities produced in their own country because of insufficient buying power, for the same reason will not and cannot buy the goods produced elsewhere.
Another intended result of the tariff policy of the present government was to attract foreign capital-of course to the benefit of the country. That always seemed to me a peculiar kind of reasoning. On the one hand we raise the tariff to shut out competition, and on the other hand we beckon to our competitors to come in to continue the competition-and of course send their profits to the countries in which their head offices are situated. I think it is pretty generally admitted by every thinking person to-day that the industrialized countries of the world are overequipped with production machinery of every sort, and that any further agricultural or industrial development without increasing purchasing power will only intensify competition and add to unemployment. If the people of Canada produce more than they can consume individually, for the reason already stated, and if the people of the United States, France, Germany, and of all other countries produce more than they can consume individually, for the same reason they cannot consume these commodities collectively, even if the circulation or passing of commodities from one country to another be as free as air. You cannot increase trade except by increasing the power of the masses of the people to draw on the products of industry.
The Liberal amendment suggests a change in the tariff policy, which change I suppose would be a reversion to the policy of that party up to the election of 1930. The depression set in in the fall of 1929, after the Liberal party had been at least seven years in office. If they were not able to stave off depression during that time, by what logic can we suppose that what they could not prevent then they can cure now? Of course, it seems reasonable to me that the power to set the prices of imports for duty purposes, as at present exercised by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man), is a detriment to trade; but at -the same time I submit that the root causes of the depression are so fundamental in character that the removal of surface irritations, such as the tariff or its regulation, will not have any effect in removing those causes. I have said in this house before, and I repeat it now, for it cannot be stated too often, that the world depression is not due to the fiscal policies of governments. In my opinion it is due to defects inherent in
the system itself. If it were due to fiscal policies, surely there is somewhere in the industrial world to-day a government that would have sense or business ability enough to carry on its affairs without being affected by the conditions that are now prevailing. If it were m the power of government to prevent or to overcome this depression, I am sure that there is enough business ability in the ranks of the present government to do that, and that there was enough business ability in the ranks of the preceding government to have prevented it. But in my opinion it is due not to the fiscal policies of any government, but to the inherent defects in the capitalist system itself.
I pointed out a moment ago that when a person entered industry he did so on the understanding that he would produce for his employer more than his employer paid him in wages. Now, what he produces for his employer over and above what his employer pays him in wages is termed in political economy surplus value. And surplus value is the life blood of capitalism. So long as this surplus value can be put back into industry as new capital, then capitalism can and will continue; but the moment that surplus value cannot be put back into industry as new capital, that moment capitalism will languish and die. And that moment has arrived. Very little new capital has been invested in industry in the last few years. Let me point out to those who tell us that conditions will improve and that Canada will come back on a high tide of prosperity very shortly, that unless new capital can be put into industry in such measure as the world has never known before, prosperity will not return. In its growth, capitalism has materially changed the social relationships between man and the methods of satisfying his needs. It has placed the means of production in the hands of a few, and in doing so it has created a huge propertyless population without the means or the skill to produce its sustenance from nature, as our more primitive forebears have done. In the last one hundred and fifty years the world's population has increased manyfold. The large majority of the world's peoples are congregated in cities without contact with the soil out of which life can be sustained.
In face of the present situation, a world well equipped with industrial and agricultural machinery which cannot be used, a farmer class that is crushed with a burden of debt which it cannot pay, and a superabundance of produce that it cannot dispose of, and an ever-increasing army of unemployed, the Liberal amendment is no solution.

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
The amendment to the amendment differs from the government's policy of doing nothing, in waiting for good times to come, God knows how or when, and it differs also from the policy of the opposition, who hope that by a slight reduction in the customs tariff we shall be able to bring back the prosperity of the golden age between 1922 and 1930. Our amendment differs from both these policies in that it points out that we have in this country, this Canada which we members of parliament represent, abundant natural resources to supply all the primary needs of the people; that we have developed an industrial machine that is capable of producing more than is necessary to meet the requirements of the people; that all that is necessary is that the abundant natural resources of the country and the machinery of production should be organized, controlled and directed so as to meet the needs of the people. Further it points out the dominance of finance in the economic life of the world to-day, and that as a first step towards economic reconstruction the nation must have control of the issuance of currency and credit. We insist that currency and credit is too important a factor in the everyday life of the people to be left in the hands of private interests, to be manipulated for private gain. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Plunkett) said that it was a fine thing that the banks of the country were able to absorb the provincial savings bank of Manitoba when it got into difficulties. That is one of our objections to the banks- their tendency to absorb. As a matter of fact, they have absorbed about everything that is loose in the dominion, including the affection of some politicians. While the amendment to the amendment aims at the stabilization of the price level that is not the end itself but merely a means to the end,-just what we say it is, a first step. The end we have in view, what we want to bring about, is a reorganization or reconstruction of the economic life of the country on the basis of use and not of profit.
On motion of Mr. Sanderson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Manion the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.



END OF VOLUME II.