PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland) presented the first report of the committee on Public Accounts as follows:
Your committee recommend that the quorum of this committee be reduced from twenty-one to eleven.
He said: I 'beg to move:
That the first report of the select standing committee on Public Accounts be concurred in.
Mr. STEVENS:: What is the effect of this report?


Mr. LOGAN:: The report has already been read. The effect is to reduce the quorum from twenty-one to eleven. The difficulty of securing a quorum in committees of this House has become almost a scandal. Last year we called this committee four times in succession, but were not able to secure the quorum of twenty-one. This year we have had the same experience, and this morning we h-ad to wait nearly an hour to secure a quorum. We were able to secure it only after sending to all parts of the building and trying to get members out of other committees. In order to carry on the work of this committee, it has been found necessary to have the quorum reduced, and I think eleven will be quite sufficient.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) the other day asked a question -as to whether the government had received a copy of a resolution passed by the Alberta legislature relative to a federal farm loan scheme. I have not the memorandum
Questions

here, but I have looked into the matter, and as far as I can find out no such resolution has been received by any department.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What was the amount paid by the government in connection with the investigation and report made by Sir Henry Drayton in regard to the North Atlantic Steamship Conference and ocean rates?
2.	What is the amount already paid and payable to Mr. W. T. R. Preston in connection with his investigation and report with the said matters?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Sir Henry Drayton was carried on the pay-list of the Board of Railway Commissioners for the period from July 31, 1913, to September 21, 1913, when he was employed on the ocean rates inquiry, and he was paid during the inquiry his regular salary rate as Chief Commissioner, namely $12,500 per annum, and $1,074, expenses.
2.	Expended to January 21, 1925, Mr. W. T. R. Preston, Travel, $S64.85; Remuneration (February 28 to June 1, 1924, 94 days less 7=87 days at $15), $1,305; Living allowance (February 28 to October 24, 1924, 239 days at $10, $2,390; Sundries, $310.23; Total, $4,870.08.
Accounts on hand, pending supplementary vote: Travel, $208.68; Remuneration (June 2, 1924 to January 23, 1925, 236 days less 32= 204 days at $15), $3,060; Living allowance (October 25, 1924 to January 23, 1925, 91 days less 18=73 days at $10), $730; Stenographic services, $216; 'Sundries, $17.77; Total, $4,232.45, and for such additional time as he may be actually engaged in the work of the ocean freight rate inquiry.


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	When does the Pelagic Sealing Treaty expire?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to renew it?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The treaty is to continue in force for fifteen years from December 15, 1911, and thereafter until terminated by twelve months' notice in writing given by one of the parties to all of the others, which notice may be given at the expiration of fourteen years or at any time afterwards.
2.	The matter will receive consideration.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Having reference to reply to questions on Hansard, page 1317, March 24, stating that Quebec Board of Harbour Commissioners had not overdrawn its appropriations, how does the government account for an item of $11,881,350.58 appearing on page 11 of the Public Accounts, 1924, schedule L, and shown among miscellaneous investment (non-active) in the balance sheet for March 31, 1924, page 2 of the said Public Accounts?
2.	Is the said sum of $11,881,350.58 in excess of, and to be added to a further sum of $8,426,800 shown in the said answer on page 1317 of Hansard, as having been advanced to Harbour Commissioners for harboui improvements, and on which no interest has been paid?
3.	Do the above items, added together, represent the amount advanced for Quebec harbour improvements?
4.	Has any interest been paid on the said amount, if so, how much?
5.	Has any report been made by the Board of Audit, or by J. W. Tribble?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	The item of $11,881,350.58 referred to as taken from the Public Accounts 1924, Schedule L, is the total amount charged to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners for expenditure on improvements to the harbour of Quebec at March 31, 1924. $4,154,195.68 of this amount is old expenditure paid through other departments and charged against the harbour commissioners. This expenditure was authorized by various statutes passed previous to the reorganization of the harbour commission on its present basis in 1912, while the balance of $7,727,154.90 was expended under the authority of acts passed since 1912, which authorize a total for advance to the commissioners to date, of $8,500,000; of which amount at March 31, 1924, there remained available the sum of $772,845.10, and the Harbour Commission of Quebec could not have been considered to have overdrawn its appropriation, as provided for by parliament, until this amount had been exceeded.
2.	No. The sum of $8,426,800 represents the amount advanced to the commissioners out of the total authorized by the acts passed since 1912, above referred to.
3.	No. The amount stated on page 11 of Public Accounts represented the total advanced to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners for harbour improvements at that date. The total amount advanced to date amounts to $12,439,195.68, of which $8,426,800 has been advanced out of the total of $8,500,000 authorized for advance since 1912.
4j, Advances -were made to 'the Quebec Harbour Commissioners between the fiscal years 1873-4 to 1909-10 amounting to $4,156,550.58. Interest on these advances was paid between the years 1873 to 1891 to the amount of $1,068,45849.	From 1892 to 1898 pay-

Questions
merits were not made on account of interest but interest was charged in the books to the amount of $1,305,315.01. This amount was written off by the authority of parliament in the revision of the balance sheet in 1908. Interest accrued and outstanding on the 31st March, 1925, on the $4,156,550.58 amounted to $5,640,463.68.
New advances were authorized and commenced in 1913 and on the 31st March, 1925, amounted to $8,426,860 which added to the amount advanced prior to 1909-10 namely $4,156,550.58 would account for a balance of $12,583,350.58 which will appear in the balance sheet, March 31st, 1925. No interest has been received on the new advances which on January 1st, 1925, amounted to $2,437,498.87.
5.	A report has been made by the Board of Audit.


CUSTOMS-ANTI-DUMPING CLAUSES
Mr. McTAGGART:: 1.	How many times were the provisions of the antidumping clauses of the Customs Tariff Act applied in the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?
2.	What was the total amount of customs duty collected in the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 as a result of the application of the anti-dumping clauses of the Customs Tariff Act?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Number of entries on which dumping duty was collected: Fiscal year 1922. Information not available; fiscal year 1923, 2,523; fiscal year 1924, 2,365.
2.	Amount of dumping duty collected: Fiscal year 1922, $126,285.95; fiscal year 1923, $98,557.98; fiscal year 1924, $131,960.11.


SUPERVISOR OF GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Is the position of supervisor of government publications, occupied by Mr. Fred Cook, under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?
2.	When was the position created and how was the incumbent appointed?
3.	What is the salary range of said position provided by the classification, and by whom was it set?
4.	What compensation does Mr. Cook now receive annually ?
5.	Have the duties of the position been materially changed since it was created?
6.	Is the further sum of $500 for payment to Mr. Cook included in the estimates for the fiscal year 1925-26?
7.	If so, will it in future be the policy of the government to recommend to parliament the payment of any additional salary demanded by an employee dissatisfied with the compensation of his position as fixed by the Civil Service Commission?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: As respects the Department of Public Printing and Stationery:
1. Yes.
2.	a. February 15, 1924, by order in council No. P.C. 67/271. b. August 17, 1923, by order in council No. P.C. 1631.
3.	a. $3,900, $4,200, $4,500 per annum, b. Civil Service Commission.
4.	$4,500.
5.	No.
6.	Yes.
7.	The further sum of $500 in the estimates for 1925-26, is compensation to cover duties as secretary to the Government Printing and Stationery committee, which were not included in the classification made by the Civil Service Commission; the future policy of the government is in no way involved.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Medicine Hat):: May I inquire from the Acting Minister of Finance when the House may expect legislation dealing with revaluation of soldier settlers' lands?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: I do not think I have any further information to give than that given a few days ago. The matter is now under consideration.


BLUE SKY LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary):	In
view of the decision about a year ago by the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that a federally incorporated company is under no obligation to comply with provincial legislation, and particularly with that legislation known as "blue sky" legislation passed by the various provinces, and in view of the fact that many companies are taking advantage of the situation to unload upon the public worthless stock, I should like to know from the 'Secretary of State if he intends to bring down any legislation this session for the purpose of remedying that situation.
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: Information has not come to the department that any great number of companies have been unloading worthless stock upon the people generally throughout Canada. The matter is now being investigated, and if it is found necessaiy to bring down legislation along the line suggested by my hon. friend, it will be brought down this session.


Mr. SHAW:: Does the minister require
any instances where the public have been defrauded?
17S2
The Budget-Mr. Manion


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will fee very glad if the hon.
member can give us any instances.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 1, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Rohb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Sir Henry Drayton.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I have listened with a great
deal of interest to the discussion which has thus far taken place on the budget, and while I do not intend to review the debate, I should like to take a few moments to deal very briefly with some of the remarks made by speakers who have preceded me.
The hon. member for Lunenburg (.Mr. Duff) made, I thought, a rather severe attack upon the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), due to the fact that she had gone down to Cape Breton and investigated the conditions there in What I thought was a spirit of humanity. I do not think that the hon. member for Lunenburg did himself quite justice, and I do not think he did quite justice to the hon. member for Southeast Grey, in the rather severe attack which he made upon her last night. It is true of course that in this country, as in every other country there are people who are poor. Two thousand years ago the greatest teacher, the world has ever had said:	" The poor ye have always with
you," and unfortunately it is a blot upon our so-called civilization that this condition exists to-day very much to the same extent as it existed two thousand years ago. At the same time, looking at the question down there from the standpoint of the ordinary observer, or the standpoint of the ordinary reader of the newspapers-or, indeed, the ordinary reader of the debates of this House-and without in any way desiring to take part in the controversy, I do believe that conditions are anything but desirable, and I feel that the sympathy of' this House goes out to that section of the country which seems to be labouring under very depressing conditions to say the least. I will go further and say that it would appear to me that it might be wise on the part of this government to make a more thorough investigation than has yet been made of these conditions, with a view to seeing if we should not perhaps give such help to the people in that section of the country in their afflictions 
as we might give, under difficult circumstances, to the people of such a country as Japan or perhaps the Fiji Islands, if an earthquake or other disaster had come upon them.
My hon. friend from Lunenburg made a remark in regard to the tariff with which I have no quarrel, in which he praised the government for putting a tariff on slack coal. He said-and he will correct me if I am wrong- that he was a low-tariff man, but he complimented them on the fact that they had raised the tariff on slack coal. My hon. friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) in his speech, telling that fish story from British Columbia, which takes at least three hours, has on other occasions taken, I think, very much the same attitude as my hon. friend from Lunenburg. He states that he is also a low-tariff man, but when it comes down to tariff protection on certain products which come from his constituency, he believes in a tariff.
Mr. DUFF; There is no coal in my constituency.


Robert James Manion: There is coal in my hon. friend's province.


Mr. DUFF:: Yes, in the province.


Robert James Manion: The .point that I am trying to make is that very often our cries for low tariff are more or less sectional. In other words, those who feel that they require a tariff for their own section of the country believe in a tariff, and I submit what I have already stated on other occasions^ that if wheat remained at the price it has been selling for the last two months, $1.50 or $1.75, as I hope it will, in order to give the people of the prairie provinces a just return for the labour and investment, we would hear very much less tariff discussion in this House and out of it than we have heard in the past, just as in the past few weeks we have heard very little tariff discussion from my hon. friends to my left.
The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) a gentleman for whom we all have the utmost friendship, rose in this House as a defender, perhaps I should also say a pretender, regarding the budget we have been discussing. The hon. minister, with that kindly, honest, frank face, fairly oozes respectability, and I have noticed the more disreputable a case the government has to put forward the more sure they are to call upon my honest-appearing friend to oome forth and defend it. As I listened to him defending so eloquently-which he certainly did in a very able manner-the budget which has been presented, it made me think of an incident which

The Budget-Mr. Manion
occurred in the life of Sir John A. Macdonald. He had in his cabinet the Hon. John Oarling, who had a face almost as honest as that of the Minister of the Interior, and one day, after some particular action of Hon. John Carling, Sir John A. Macdonald studied his face for some little time and said to one of his friends, or I think it was to Hon. John Carling himself, "I have come to the conclusion that the good Lord never made a man as honest as you look." As I listened to my good friend the Minister of the Interior defending this farcical budget the other day,
I felt the House might well come to the same conclusion regarding him.
He also spoke of what he believes on the tariff question. He did not listen to the chimes he rang last year, but he did say that he believed in a lower tariff; in fact he believed in a tariff for revenue only. I think I am not misquoting him when I say that. The expression "tariff for revenue only" is used to my mind in a false sense, because a tariff for revenue only is a free trade tariff. There is no such thing as a "tariff for revenue only" being a protective tariff. England has a tariff for revenue only by which she brings into the coffers of her finance department something like $600,000,000 per annum on commodities which she does not produce in her own domain; in other words, five-sixths of the money brought into the coffers of England by tariff duties are raised upon sugar, tea and tobacco, three substances which England does not produce within her own shores. So that is a tariff for revenue only, and if Canada had a tariff for revenue only she would have free trade, because so long as you put on a tariff which protects at all you are putting on a protective tariff to the extent that it protects.
I wish to touch one other remark of the hon. Minister of the Interior, and then I shall proceed with my discussion of the budget. The hon. minister pointed out-and drew my attention to it at the moment-that Sir Henry Thornton had made a statement that in Northern Ontario a number of new industries had started up recently employing a lot of men. I venture to say that, without knowing the facts, that most of those industries are pulp and paper industries, not affected by the tariff at all. But at any rate I wish to point out particularly to my hon. friend that the day after he made his speech I noticed in the morning papers of this city an article stating that there was a disturbance in Sudbury, due to the many unemployed starting a parade of their own.
Dealing with the budget from the standpoint of the ordinary observer, I submit that this budget, in which there is a complete absence of any remedies for our present discontents, is like a train of fifteen cars carrying one passenger. It is a sort of peculiar political salad, made up of a strange compound of unconscious humour, misstatements of fact, homeopathic doses of both free trade and protection, and an oily dressing of hopes of better times to come. As to misstatements of fact, I need only draw the attention of the House to the statement in regard to the prosperous conditions prevailing in the Dominion, and more particularly and more emphatically to that fable of a surplus-that fable which my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is talking about ad nauseam, but which should be classed among Aesop's fables.
I intend to deal very briefly with my conception of the so-called surplus which the Acting Minister of Finance has described. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has dealt with it from the standpoint of an ex-Minister of Finance, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has dealt with it from the standpoint of a chartered accountant, but I intend to deal with it just from the standpoint of the man in the street reading the budget speech a number of times and trying to figure out where the Acting Minister of Finance gets his surplus. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has pointed out that in his view instead of hava surplus of 82,000,000 there is actually a deficit of about $100,000,000, and I venture to assert that he is pretty accurate in his analysis. But I intend to deal with this surplus, not on the basis of any figures placed before the House by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) or any of his colleagues, but simply from the standpoint of the figures given by the Acting Minister of Finance himself. I find that on page 1469 of Hansard he estimated the revenue for the fiscal year, accurately enough for his purpose, at $344,000,000, as against an estimated expenditure of $342,000,000, leaving a surplus of $2,000,000. I am giving round figures. Well, Sir, if you look back at the preceding page you will find that the Acting Minister of Finance gives the accounts for the railways and shows loans by way of cash charged to the net debt of the Dominion at something over $18,000,000, and loans by way of government bond issues of $46,000,000, which added together amount to $64,000,000. This converts his surplus of $2,000,000 into a deficit, according to his own figures, of $62,000,000.

The Budget-Mr. Manion

That we should charge this railway expenditure not only to our debt but to the ordinary accounts is evident to anyone who would treat these accounts fairly. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) in his speech before the Canadian Club of Montreal recently, reported in one of the Montreal papers, said:
Our ordinary debt may have decreased in the past few years, but the ordinary debt is not the only one, we have in addition to that the railway debt. Consequently the gross debt of this country is not only the ordinary consolidated debt, but the railway debt, and if one rises then the whole debt is increased, and if one is lessened then the debt can be decreased.
I quote the hon. member because he is a follower of the government and a friend of the Acting Minister of Finance, and yet he agrees that these railway charges should be included in the ordinary debt of the country, and I believe that when we talk of a surplus we have to take into account this railway expenditure.


Mr. EULER:: Would the hon. member include in what affects a surplus or deficit the amounts advanced to the National Railways or borrowed by them on capital account?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, we do that
in regard to harbours, canals and other public expenditure on capital, and unless there is some hope of getting back any of the money in the near future, certainly it should be charged to the national debt, and against surplus because the country is responsible for it.


William Daum Euler: If it is for capital account?


Robert James Manion: No matter what it is for.
In 1922-3 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) charged up $80,000,000 advanced to our railways to the national debt according to the Acting Minister of Finance.


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman surely
distinguishes between adding to the national debt or adding to the surplus or the deficit?


Robert James Manion: Certainly. But the Acting Minister of Finance does not even add the railway bond advances to the debt, and he claims a surplus when in reality there is no surplus at all; in fact there is a deficit of $62,000,000 according to his own figures, though the cash deficit is not so much as that. We are just as responsible to the people for those expenditures upon the National Railways as we are for any other expeditures by the government, particularly in view of the fact that at present no one can expect within any reasonable time in the future that that expenditure will be paid back by the National Railways. It would be very much the same, 
Mr. Speaker, as if a civil servant of the higher grade in this city, receiving, we will suppose, $10,000 a year, spends $9,000 himself, and his wife and children, for whom he is entirely responsible, have run current accounts for another $5,000, making a total expenditure for his household of $14,000. Would my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) claim that that gentleman had a surplus at the end of the year?


William Daum Euler: No. But the hon. gentleman says that the whole $14,000 was spent on living. He does not say that anything was spent on purchasing a house or anything of the kind that would be an actual asset.


Robert James Manion: I said that this gentleman himself had spent $9,000, and his wife and children had spent another $5,000, or had run accounts for that sum, for which he is absolutely responsible. Could they claim a surplus?


William Daum Euler: If the hon. gentleman will say what the $9,000 and the $5,000 were expended for I will give him an answer.


Robert James Manion: No matter what it was
spent for, it was spent or he became responsible for its payment, and he would not have any surplus that year. I know what my hon. friend has in his mind, that some of that expenditure might have been capital expenditure which would be an asset. All right, he is responsible for it anyway, and being responsible for it he would not have a surplus, especially if he could not dispose of the asset as in our railway case.
K Mr. EULER:	It might be a liability, but
it would not affect his surplus.


Robert James Manion: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if a gentleman, such as I speak of, has spent or become liable for $14,000 as explained, and then claims that he had a surplus on his $10,000 income, he would be suspected of having delusions of grandeur. I remember reading of an old Greek general who had won a very costly victory saying: " Another such victory will ruin us." I think that if we have many more surpluses such as the surplus that the Acting Minister of Finance has described in his budget speech this country will be ruined. It was Talleyrand who said that language is given us to hide our thoughts. But in Canada budgets are given us to hide our deficits.
But, Sir, that is not the worst, because on page 1469, the Acting Minister of Finance deals with unpaid arrears of interest from Greece and Roumania, $4,000,000, which those countries have asked the Dominion to apply

17S5
The Budget-Mr. Manion
to the principal owing-and upon which perhaps in the future they intend to pay interest -and he actually adds that $4,000,000 of unpaid arrears to his so-called surplus of $2,000,000, and says he has a surplus of $6,000,000! I think if that statement were read to one of the mummies in the British Museum it would take off its dried wrappings and laugh. What kind of gold brick financing, what kind of political shell game is the Acting Minister of Finance trying to put over on the unsuspecting people of this country? Sir, if you take the old South Sea Bubble, the Home Bank fiasco, and Get-rich-quick Wallingford, and roll them all into one, you would have nothing akin to what my hon. friend has been attempting to tell the people of Canada. I do not think that Get-rich-quick Wallingford, that prince of crooks, even in his palmiest days, attempted to put over such a deal on the people with whom he came into contact. I well remember in my earliest days in the west purchasing stocks in some pretty slick mining projects, but those slick mining deals, Sir, were the highest and soundest kind of financing compared with that which is exemplified in the budget speech of this year.
But that is not all. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on page 1470 of Hansard, says, referring to the $4,000,000 of unpaid interest due from Greece and Roumania:
This amount is available to be applied on account of our loans to the Canadian National Railways of $18,027,000, to Canadian Government Merchant Marine-
And so on. Well, sir, I think the Acting Minister of Finance has given us a splendid example of unconscious humour in that statement. There is still another delightful touch on page 1472, where, after telling us that he has quadrupled the duty on slack coal, he says that this change will remove the difficulties in the administration of the act. If he had said, remove the difficulties in multiplication instead of in administration, perhaps he would 'be nearer the truth, because he has increased the duties, I understand, from fourteen cents to fifty cents. I do not see how a difference in multiplication can make any difference in the administration of the act. Now that the famous Dennistoun case is off the boards, Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep this budget speech for light reading on dull days.
But, Sir, to speak seriously, should we not have the truth in regard to matters of this kind? Should the people of this country be treated like so many children? Should they not be told the facts with regard to their 114i
own financing? Should they not know the conditions which really obtain in Canada? Or are we to have a conspiracy of silence, or perhaps what is worse, a tissue of half truths, in dealing with the financial condition of our country? I am reminded of a remark made by Napoleon when he was referring to a German diplomat: He said, "That man. lies, too much. It is necessary to lie sometimes, but not all the time."
Sir, if you 'look back over the history of the ages that have gone you will find that many empires have risen, then have declined and fallen, particularly during the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. That i3 exemplified by what happened in the case of Spain and Portugal; I mention merely these two for the purposes of the illustration. What was the cause of the decline and fall of these empires which had become very outstanding not only in commercial development and in industry but also in colonial expansion? They declined and fell because they were oppressed with unfair taxation and because they were oppressed with bad government. This Dominion of Canada to-day is to my mind suffering from exactly the same conditions. No one needs to elaborate the argument with regard to high taxation, because I believe that the taxation in Canada to-day is as high at least as the taxation was in 'any of those countries of which I speak; and so far as the bad government is concerned, that is manifested on every side.
Yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the Speech from the Throne made the statement that the only problem or the outstanding prohlem before the people today, was the cost of living. He apparently sees no problem to be solved in connection with the affairs of this country except the high cost of living. In view of that fact I made it my business to inquire of the Bureau of Statistics as to the cost of living in the past year, and I am going to show how the Prime Minister and his government are solving this problem. The Bureau of Statistics state that the index figures for each month with respect to foods, fuel, 'lighting and rent from last May to the present time were as follows:	May, 144; June, 144.2; July, 144.S;
August, 146.7; September, 147.2; October, 147.4; November, 148.4; December, 149; January, 150.3; February, 151.1. Well, Sir, as far as I can see, the problem of the cost of living is being solved by this government in exactly the same way as they are solving every other problem they have had to deal with, and that is by making it worse. All
17S6
The Budget-Mr. Manion

the conditions of this country have been getting worse and worse year by year since this government came into power.
What are the real problems of the country to-day, and what is the real solution of those problems? To my mind they are four, chiefly:	First, we must bring about a condition of less taxation by a proper and economical handling of our affairs. Secondly, we must have a stable tariff policy, providing for a tariff high enough to permit all our industries to continue. Thirdly, we must have an efficient immigration policy, and fourthly, we must have a wise railway policy. I am going to deal with the last two first, that is, the * immigration policy and the railway policy.
So far as an efficient immigration policy is concerned, there is no doubt that we need agriculturists in this country to populate and cultivate those millions of acres of fertile land which we have from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But I should like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that we have in various sections of this country besides the prairie provinces millions of acres of land to be developed. There are millions of acres in the Maritime provinces, in Quebec, in northern Ontario and in British Columbia. Take the section of country whence I come, northern Ontario; we have a country there as extensive in area as the British Isles and the German Empire put together, but while they have in the two European countries I have mentioned about a hundred million people, we have in northern Ontario from North Bay to the Manitoba boundary only about a hundred and fifty thousand. We have resources of all kinds; millions of acres of fertile land; we have hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore which some day will make that a great iron producing country. But that section to-day forms a gap between the east and the west, and the government might-well spend some cf its time populating that country to make traffic for the railways and to bridge that gap between the east and the west instead of sending out to the prairie provinces all the immigrants that come to our shores. At the same time, it is to be remembered that prosperity in our country will in itself bring immigrants here. In 1914, the year before the war, 400,000 immigrants came to Canada-a goodly number indeed; so that the conditions which it is often stated are not brought about by protection were actually being brought about in those years. Before the war we were getting immigrants as rapidly as we could absorb

them. At the same time, we all know that we have no room in the cities for more industrial workers, so that we should at least get our industries back into good condition before we permit immigrants to come to the cities and towns.	.


Mr. WARD:: May I ask my hon. friend
whether the tariff has been very much reduced since that day?


Robert James Manion: I will deal with that before I finish.


Mr. SPENCER:: May I ask the hon.
member a question? Does he think for a moment that if immigrants are brought only to the farms, the people can be kept there if they do not want to stay?


Robert James Manion: Oh, I do not suppose
there is any slavery system in this country which will keep anybody anywhere that he does not want to stay. But the fact is that we are not keeping our people in the country at all just now; they are going to the United States.
With regard to the matter of railway policy, we have in this country to-day three transcontinental railways where two would have been ample. We have railways sufficient at least for three or four million more people than we have. In other words, we are overbuilt in the matter of railways. What we need is increased population in a fairly prosperous condition. In other words, we need stability in business; we need work ,and [DOT]wages for our people; we need prosperity for the different sections of the country. Qne point that I would like to emphasize is this: we should have less spending by -our National Railways. The hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) put a question on the order paper a few days ago and he received the reply that there was spent upon our National Railways during the past year, added to the new capital account, $118,000,000. That is a vast amount of money, Mr. Speaker, to add to our national accounts, to our national debts, in a sense-national obligations is the better word-in one year. I was thinking over the matter and I made it my business just this morning to look up the Public Accounts. What did I find? In 1900 our whole income, the entire revenue of this country, was only
151,000,000. I take this from ithe Public Accounts for 1924, page 47. In other words, in 1900 we were taking in less than fifty per cent of the amount which has been added to the account of the National Railways this year. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) looks surprised, and so was

The Budget-Mr. Manion
I surprised when I looked that figure up. But I am going to give some other figures. In 1905 that amount had gone uip to $71,000,000 odd; in 1910, it had gone up to $101,000,000. In other words, our total receipts in 1910 were $17,000,000 less than was added to the national debt by the railways in the past year. It was not till 1912, just thirteen years ago, that this country took in receipts from all sources equal to the expenditure for the National railways during the past year. That appears to me a very serious state of affairs, and I think the government might well consider whether there is not some way of lessening such vast expenditures of the people's money as have been going on for the National railways during the past year.


Mr. GOULD:: Has the hon. member got
the percentage of direct and indirect taxation that was gathered at that time?


Robert James Manion: I have not that information at hand, and I do not see what bearing it has on the argument I am making.
Now I intend to dead with the question of economy, and the question of the tariff. 1 give these as the other two remedies by which our country could be put back on its feet.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: What would the hon. member suggest as the remedy for this railway situation?


Robert James Manion: I would suggest, first of
all, that we should put our foot down on some of this extravagant expenditure. Be3,ond that-I know my hon. friend wishes me to give simply my own opinion-I am not ready to go at the present moment.


Mr. RINFRET:: What extravagant expenditure does my hon. friend mean?


Robert James Manion: I think the fact is self
evident when $118,000,000 is added on capital account for the National railways during the past year. That is an amount that no private corporation would consider spending on additions such as the Canadian National Railways have been making in the present state of its finances.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is an argument for
private ownership.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend may
possibly use it as an argument for private ownership. I will admit this:	I came here
eight years ago a public ownership man, but if conditions go on as they are to-day, it will not be very long until I am with him on private ownership.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That will be another
conversion.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: It will be at least better than public ownership under the present government.


Robert James Manion: I wish the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Lapointe) would at least be converted to giving the people of this country good government, which we are not getting at the present time, I do not wish to go into the details of that $118,000,000 of expenditure, nor do I wish to take the attitude of criticizing Sir Henry Thornton, but I do submit that $118,000,000 is too much money to De put into the National railways in any one year when the finances of the National railways are in the condition they are in to-day.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Does that figure include uncontrollable fixed charges?


Robert James Manion: This $118,000,000 is new
expenditure, according to the reply given by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other day.
Now I *itend to deal with the question of economy, because, Sir, so far as I can see, m3' good friend the Minister of Justice has no more conception than any other minister in this government of the need of economy in this country-certainly not if we are to judge by the expenditures which are going on under this government. I am going to prove that also by the budget speech of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance. I think I can do it from memory. The Minister of Finance said in his budget speech that the decreased revenue in Canada in the past year was $52,009,000. He said that the decreased expenditure was $5,000,000, or a little less than 10 per cent of the decreased revenue. Now Sir, I wish to point out that private corporations would try to approximate those figures a little more closely than this government has approximated them. In the past year the Canadian Pacific Railway, which no matter what we may think of it as a company, and no matter what we may think of its rates, certainly deserves the respect of the people of this country for the manner in which it does its business, according to their annual report, which I have in my hand, had for the fiscal year ending December 31st last, gross earnings which were $13,334,000 less than the previous 37ear; but their working expenses were $13,083,000 less than the previous year. In other words, while the government in charge of the affairs of this country have decreased their expenditure by
The Budget-Mr. Manion

10 .per cent of tlieir decreased revenue, the Canadian Pacific Railway have decreased their expenditure by about, 96 or 97 per cent of their decreased revenue.


William Daum Euler: Maj"- I ask a question; merely for information? My hon. friend made the statement that there had been spent on fresh capital commitments on the National railways for the last year $118,000,000. Can he give me the exact statement?
Mr. MANIONNo, because I have not got the railway statement.


William Daum Euler: Can he direct me to the
statement made by the Minister of Railways in that connection?


Robert James Manion: The figures I am giving are the figures given by the Minister of Railways to the ex-Minister of Finance, and will be found in Hansard of 16th March, page 1151. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that that $52,000,000 of decreased revenue, which has been .claimed by the Liberals as decreased taxation, is simply and plainly a proof of the business depression in this country; it is simply a proof of the fact that the4 people of Canada are not in a position to buy the things they used to buy in t'he past; they are not in a position, for example, to import the luxuries they used to import, and on which they had to pay duty. In my own city of Fort William, there are a number of closed-down plants, and the closing down of at least one or two of them is due to the lack of tariff protection. These plants have certainly not the expenses they had a year ago, but they have no income whatever. If this ministry goes on and brings Canada to the stage where she has no income whatever, where she is in bankruptcy, you will have no income, and then I suppose we shall have reached the stage of perfection because there will be nothing collected in taxes. This government goes gaily on spending on everything that comes to its mind, and cutting down expenses on practically nothing. It would be a hilarious farce if it were not for the fact that it is a tragedy to the people of Canada,. Here we have unnecessary expenditure going on on public works, unnecessary general expenditure of all kinds, unnecessary expenditures on the railways such as I have mentioned, unnecessary expenditures on royal commissions. I asked this government over a month ago for a list of the royal commissions that they had appointed since they came into power, and the expenditure on those commissions. Apparently they have been unable to figure up the expenditure yet, be-

cause I have not yet received my reply. I did, however, receive a reply as to two of these royal commissions this government have appointed, the pulpwood commission and the grain commission. The pulpwood commission cost $75,000 to the people of Canada, and the grain commission cost the people of this country $170,000. In other words, these two commissions, which gave their reports, have cost the people of Canada a quarter of a million dollars. So what must have been the cost for all the other royal commissions that have been appointed by this government? I venture to assert that there has been a cost of probably well over a million dollars, if not a million and a half, spent on royal commissions appointed by this government since they came into power, and appointed, as an hon. gentleman remarks, to save the government from the responsibility of deciding questions for themselves. As a consequence, we have high taxes and high expenditure in eveiy line of government. We have an income tax four or five times the income tax in the United States in almost every income range, and as a consequence we have this country being pushed fairly rapidly into the arms of the United States. And yet the Prime Minister insists that conditions in Canada are good and getting better, whereas in reality the conditions in Canada are bad and getting worse. It reminds me of a remark made by Lord Rosebery in that very charming story of Napoleon which he told in which he said that "at times it was difficult to know when Napoleon was deluding himself, when he was trying to delude others, and when he was simply talking at random for talking's sake." I think, Sir, the same remark might well be applied to the Prime Minister in his reference to the conditions in this country at the present time.


William Daum Euler: If the hon. gentleman will permit me-I am quite sure he does not wisl to convey an incorrect idea to the House; He stated a few moments ago that there were capital expenditures amounting to $118,000,000 last year. I have the figures before me and the total of $118,000,000 is described as " additions to the funded and unfunded debt." That does not mean capital expenditure. It includes-no doubt-the deficit, and in addition it is very plainly stated that something over $28,000,000 is in the form of interest, certainly not capital expenditure.


Robert James Manion: I did not give the figures as capital expenditure; if I did so I made a mistake. What I meant to say was that it was added to capital account. This $118,000,-

The Budget-Mr. Mamon
000 was added to the debt of the railways according to the answer given to this question.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member sought to give the impression that it was capital expenditure.


Robert James Manion: I did not intend to give any such meaning. I did not pretend to analyze the $118,000,000; I simply said it was an addition to the railway debt of $118,000,000 according to the reply given to the ex-Minister of Finance.


William Daum Euler: It is all right so long as we understand that.


Robert James Manion: That is exactly what I meant; if I did not make myself clear it was my fault. To get back to the question of economy: To my mind this government has no conception of the financial state of this country; it has no conception of the depressed condition in business; it has no conception of any remedy for this depressed condition; it has not even any conception of its own impotence. It is said that Nero fiddled while Rome burnt-


Mr. McMASTER:: We have heard that before.


Robert James Manion: T believe my hon. friend would have heard it before. This government does not even fiddle; it simply stands pouring oil upon the flames, in the shape of harmful legislation and high taxation. Let me show the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) the different manner in which the financial affairs of the United States- that magnificently rich country from the standpoint of riches-are handled. The other day President Coolidge delivered his inaugural address as president, and he made the whole spear head of that address " economy in national expenditure." I am going to read a couple of paragraphs from that address, because, Sir, they apply so well to conditions in Canada that I think they should be laid before this House and this Dominion.


Mr. LANCTOT:: For the last fifteen years.


Robert James Manion: They may have been applicable for the last fifteen years but they at least apply more particularly now than they ever did before because conditions have never been so bad in Canada as they are to-day. President Coolidge said-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Does my hon. friend claim that taxation is higher to-day than it was three years ago?


Robert James Manion: dreary scene and you are forever floored, as I am! That applies as much to this Dominion as to each individual in the country; because unless attention is paid to that philosophy this country cannot make the progress which it should make. I do not wish to go further into the question of economy because it requires no elaboration. The only people in Canada who do not seem to know that economy is needed, the only people in Canada who are paying no attention to the extravagance of the government, are the members of the government themselves.
Now, Sir, I must deal for a few moments with the question of a stable tariff policy for this country,-this will appeal to my hon. friend the member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter)-a stable tariff policy for this country high enough to permit all our industries to continue, a policy which will give us not only confidence in our business but work for our unemployed, and give an opportunity for our Canadian boys and girls to remain in Canada and not be forced to expatriate themselves to the most highly protected country in the world to earn a living, and which will give, as well, an opportunity for tens, yes hundreds, of thousands of people from the crowded European countries to come over here and help us to develop this magnificent country which we possess. A proper policy of this kind will give our artisans the choice of employment instead of, as now, the choice of crossing to the United States or going hungry. What we want is to have our Canadian factories going, not to have, as is the case at the present time, foreign factories going whilst ours are idle, Canadian artisans idle while foreign artisans are busy. I wish to show here just in reply to one of the speakers who preceded me-I think it was the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean)-who claimed that conditions in the city of Brantford were in excellent shape, that the reverse is the case. I have here a list of names of those who in the past year have sent to this government protests against this cutting down of the tariff, and at the head of them is the council of the city 0f Brantford. I have on this list also Hamilton, Kitchener. London, Galt, Glen 'Williams, Peterborough, Woodstock, Paris. Carleton Place, St. Catharines, Montreal. Toronto and Tillsonburg. These are simply names that I happened to have under my hand; I know there must be many more. In addition to that I have seen protests from coal producers, the boot and shoe producers, the starch and syrup manufacturers, the iron pipe p.^ducers, the textile industry, the fruit growers, east and west, the steel 
producers, and the poultry producers. From all over this country we have had demands for tariff stability, for a tariff high enough to permit our industries to continue. And after all, Mr. Speaker, who has profited in the past year or two by the cuts in the tariff which this government has made?


Mr. JOHNSTON:: The agriculturists of the country, all these people have profited.


Robert James Manion: I know one agricultural
person that has profited and that is the whip of the Progressive party. He has profited by a free trip to the Wembley exhibition, but he is the only agriculturist that has profited by it.


John Frederick Johnston: If my hon. friend was
opposed to that trip, why was he not in his seat to vote against it?


Robert James Manion: I certainly would have
voted against it if I had been in my seat, because I talked against it. I happened tc be in the city of Toronto at the time. I did not dodge the vote; I do not dodge votes.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend stated
a few evenings ago that he voted against it, when he did not.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is correct. I thought I had voted against it. I admit my mistake. It was pointed out to me the other day that only a few members were in the House at the time. Had I been in my seat I would have voted against it. because never was a more disgraceful expenditure of public money undertaken by the government of Canada. Why should the hard-pressed taxpayers of this country pay for the trip of the whip of the Progressive party to the Wembley Exhibition?


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend had
better discuss that with his own whip who supported the vote.


Robert James Manion: My whip did not accept
the vote; he did1 not take the trip either. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr Johnston) did, and I should not be surprised if he promoted the -whole scheme. I was asking:	Who has profited? The hon. member for Last Mountain apparently thinks the farmers have profited. From the statements of his friends sitting around him, I would think that the farmers are at the present time not very well fixed. I know of no farmers in Canada who are in very good circumstances at this time. Have the artisans profited who have been forced to go to the United States to earn their living? Have

The Budget-Mr. Manion
the business men in this country profited? I have made it my business, in every section into which I have gone, to ask every class of business men how business is, and never before in my life have I heard so many stories of business depression as at the present time. The whole country is depressed to-day.
It is not cheap goods that we get by a low tariff that we want in Canada; it is work and wages for our people.
I admit with Sir Arthur Currie, the general who made such a good reputation overseas, that perhaps we should talk a good deal of optimism, of patriotism in Canada. I have no criticism to offer to that. I talk it sometimes myself, but at the same time it is very difficult to be optimistic, patriotic, when you have no work and no food in the house. When unemployment and hunger come in at the door, patriotism and optimism fly out of the window, and that is why our people are flying across the border into the United States at this time. If we have prosperity in Canada, we shall have happiness in Canada; and if we have happiness in Canada, we, shall hold our people in this Dominion. The reason we have not prosperity, have not happiness in Canada-


Charles Marcil: Ten years of Tory rule-that is the explanation.


Robert James Manion: During the last year of
Tory rule we had prosperity in Canada and more than 400,000 immigrants came into this country during that year.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: How is it then that the
whole country voted against the then government?


Robert James Manion: They voted against the
government because they were war-tired-the same reason that caused people throughout the world to vote against every government that went to the people. But the people of Canada have found out their mistake and very richly paid for it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: How can my hon. friend
explain West Hastings and St. Antoine?
'Mr. MANION:	How, I ask in turn, can
my hon. friend explain Yale, Halifax and Kent?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Those are old Tory seats. That is easily explained.


Robert James Manion: I can just as easily explain WTest Hastings as my hon. friend can explain the others. The reason that we have depression and instability in Canada is because of the unstable attitude of this government on the tariff question. We do not need to go back beyond the last three years. We do not need to go back to the Liberal platform of 1919. All we need to do is to go back to 1922 when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) brought in his budget at that time and said:	The tariff is low
enough; we are not going to have any more cuts; we have to have stability in the tariff if we are going to have stability in business in this country. In the following year the present Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) brought in a budget whereby he made slashing cuts in the tariff in reply to the stand of the Minister of Finance for stability, and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) made that now famous but obsolete statement that the death knell of protection had been rung. That was the second stage. This year we have both free trade and protection in the same budget. Could anybody under those circumstances understand what this government really thinks on tariff questions? Is it possible that we can have stability in the countrj- at the present time? A consistent application of a weak policy would be far better than alternate applications of two opposing policies, the application of either one of which may be excellent in itself, but the application of both of which together can lead to nothing but instability as we have it in Canada to-day.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Can the hon. member
point to any tariff reference in the amendment of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton)?


Robert James Manion: We do not need to do
that. Everybody knows where we stand on the tariff. We were not even given an opportunity. My right hon. leader was not even given an opportunity of moving his resolution; the Prime Minister refused to give him an opportunity to move it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was in the House on
several occasions when the resolution was called and the leader of the opposition in his seat, and he did not move it. He had several opportunities.


Robert James Manion: I deny that at any time,
at any reasonable hour, since this session opened, was my right hon. leader given an opportunity to move that resolution.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Will my hon. friend say
"any time" or "any reasonable hour?" Of course, if he says "any reasonable hour", he retains the right to decide for himself what constitutes a "reasonable hour".
The Budget-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: The only time he was
given an opportunity was at eleven o'clock at night. Does my hon. friend contend that is a reasonable hour?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That would be good
enough for me.


Robert James Manion: I do not blame my hon. friend for being easily pleased in that regard. I know he finds himself a little uneasy because he happens to represent one of those protectionist cities, not the same kind of constituency as that represented by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), or the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). My hon. friend is a member of a party whose tariff policy nobody knows and nobody can possibly know.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I may tell my hon. friend that I feel as easy in St. James as we do in St. Antoine.


Robert James Manion: We dhall find out whether the hon. member is so easy in St. James after the next general election. I am not so sure about that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We will welcome it.


Robert James Manion: We will welcome it too.
You can go to the country as fast as you like so far as we are concerned. I was going to point out, when the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) interrupted me so heatedly, that, though it is true there are sections of this country which do not believe in protection-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends do not applaud so heartily as they did a year ago. I notice, by the way, that no applause came from the other side of the House. I was going to say there are in this country sections such as the prairies which do not believe in protection, and, perhaps, some of the Maritime provinces Which do not believe in protection at the present time either.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Except for coal. It is only fair that it should be remembered that, in the Dominion of Canada to-day, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, those three provinces at least, are reasonably solid in favour of a tariff policy of protection.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I doubt that.


Robert James Manion: I submit they are. My hon. friend will have an opportunity to state his case later.


Mr. EVANS:: What about some hon. members from Ontario in this section of the House?


Robert James Manion: Some of the free traders from Ontario will not be here after the next election. I wras going to say that those provinces contain about 7,000,000 of the people of this country, which is a fairly good majority. I do not mean to say by that that I believe the prairie provinces or the Maritime provinces should have anything imposed upon them which would mean a loss to them, and I submit that the resolution of my right hon. leader, which was referred to in the discussion a few moments ago, shows that he realizes what we all realize to-day, that if the 7,000,000 people in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia are to have the tariff policy which they wish, and if the tariff policy is going to be a weight around the necks of the Maritime provinces or the prairie provinces, they must get some compensation from the 7,000,000 people.


Oliver Robert Gould: Does the hon. member
anticipate that his right hon. leader would reimpose the duty on stumping machines?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend will have to ask my right hon. leader as to that. He w'ill get his answer from him.


Arthur Meighen: I would on stumping machines in this House.


Robert James Manion: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: Is my hon. friend not
aware that in Germany material for shipbuilding is allowed in free?


Robert James Manion: What has that to do with the matter? Does my hon. friend not admit that the British shipbuilders should protect themselves from being driven out of business by the Germans? And if labour is cheaper in Europe and the sta-dard of living lower, does he claim that we should adopt the same conditions in Canada, or should we protect ourselves against such a condition? The material is cheap also to the English shipbuilder. Why should the shipbuilder who has been carrying on so nobly for fifty or a hundred years permit himself to be driven out of business by German competition?
With regard to the politics of my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret), I point out that Edmund Burke said that a political party consisted of a group of men banded together for the advancement of national progress by the promotion of some particular principle on which they were all agreed. What is the particular principle on which the Liberal party are all agreed? Is it the tariff? They have as many attitudes on the tariff as Heinz has of brands of pickles and sauces. We have the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) who is a free trader; we have the hon. member from Brome (Mr. McMaster) who is a free trader; and the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) who is a free trader-in the west; I do not know what he is in the east- and we have the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) who is a free trader, who has rung "the death knell of protection"-


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: What is the hon.
gentleman's authority for saying I am a free trader anywhere?


Robert James Manion: Is the hon. minister a protectionist?


William Richard Motherwell: No, not in the
sense in which my hon. friend uses the word.


Robert James Manion: I thought my hon. friend *would straddle the fence, if I put him to the test. These are a few of the Liberal free traders in the House. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture disowns the free trade policy, so I will accept it that he is a protectionist.


John Evans: 
Robert James Manion: Yes. But what will happen to the shipbuilders in England who are out of work and going hungry?


John Evans: Is not industry in Canada
suffering to-day because of an unduly heavy overhead?


Robert James Manion: No, it is because of the instability brought about by the many attitudes assumed by the government in regard to protection.
I was speaking of the free traders on the other side of the house. I will mention the protectionists. I will put the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) among them if he wishes to go in. Then I will take the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) and my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). These are a few of the protectionists in the House. I should not overlook my good friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), he is something of a protectionist, and I have often wondered why he did not become contaminated by the hon. member from Brome (Mr. McMaster) who is so extreme in his views. I could name a number of others, but I will not do so.
In regard to those on the other side of the House who have no policy at all, I will mention the Prime Minister himself, (Mr. Mackenzie King), because I venture to assert that not even the Prime Minister himself knows what policy he supports on the tariff question.
Is it on the Senate that they are agreed? I do not think so, because we have seen a speech by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) which does not agree with the attitude of the Prime Minister as expressed in his speeches in the western provinces. With regard to the railway question they are not
The Budget-Mr. Manion

all agreed, because sitting over here to my left is the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) an out-and-out protectionist and just two seats away from him we find my hon. friend from Laprairie and Napierville' (Mr. Lanctot), who wishes to give the National railways away for one dollar.


Roch Lanctôt: I have always held the
same opinion on that subject.


Robert James Manion: I laid the trap for my
hon. friend and I knew he would say that.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend said that I
was a protectionist.


Robert James Manion: I meant that my hon.
friend was in favour of national ownership. And my hon. friend beside him believes in giving away the National railways altogether.


Roch Lanctôt: We would be better off
in five years from now if we gave it away.


Robert James Manion: I do not intend to go into that question.


Roch Lanctôt: I will tell the House what I think of my hon. friend and his party later. They are to blame for the railway situation.


Robert James Manion: I do not know what abuse my hon. friend is uttering now, because there is too much noise.


Roch Lanctôt: I will tell the House
what I do believe about my hon. friend and his friends.


Robert James Manion: I hope it will be printable. My hon. friend says that this railway condition is due to us. Well, I am just going to see whether it is due to us or not. Perhaps I should be classed among those to whom it is due, but I do not think this party is responsible. In 1896 there was only one transcontinental railway in Canada. In 1904 Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government started the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and before he went out of power in 1911 his government guaranteed
835,000,000 for the extension of the Canadian Northern railway from Port Arthur to Montreal, which made the third transcontinental railway.


Roch Lanctôt: Did the Conservative
party oppose that scheme in the House in 1911?


Robert James Manion: I do not know whether
they did or not.


Roch Lanctôt: No, they did not.


Robert James Manion: But I do know that Sir
Wilfrid Laurier started the scheme of guaranteeing $35,000,000 to extend the Canadian Northern railway from Port Arthur to Montreal, and so made it the third transcontinental railway. The fact that we have three transcontinental railways should be laid at the door of the Liberal party, not at the door of the Conservative party.


Mr. GRAHAM:: If my hon. friend will
permit me:	A railway running from the
prairies to Montreal is not a transcontinental railway. That was the Canadian Northern railway position when Sir Wilfrid Laurier went out of power. The Conservative government of British Columbia-


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Built the onlj
paying part.


George Perry Graham: Under charter-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is afraie
of what I propose saying. I deny the suggestion just the same.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Question.


George Perry Graham: I rose and asked the
privilege of making a correction, which my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) gave me. The Conservative government following the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier through, 1 think, consultation with Sir Richard McBride, had the latter government issue a provincial charter to the Canadian Northern to build a line through the mountains to the coast. That started the downfall of the McBride government, and left-


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend but-


George Perry Graham: Just another minute and
I will be through. I was trying to point out that my hon. friend was wrong in saying the Liberal party ever established a third transcontinental line. The Liberal government refused absolutely to aid the Canadian Northern extension into British Columbia, but-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Sir Wilfrid Laurier granted the charter and declared there would be a third transcontinental. He himself is on record in Hansard as saying that he thought a third transcontinental railway was necessary. I will produce Hansard containing his speech in a few minutes.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact, I
happened to be the minister to whom the Canadian Northern came for aid for the line

The Budget-Mr. Manion
through to Vancouver from the prairies, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier and myself absolutely refused that aid, saying they must make a success of their prairie line east, and after that the western extension might be considered. The Conservative party helped the Canadian Northern to build that extension, and thus are responsible for the third transcontinental line.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to point out that while I am not going to argue about the part of the line in British Columbia, yet I do submit that the part of the Canadian Northern extending from the head of the lakes to Montreal, which was not needed at all, was started by the guarantee of $35,000,000 made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier before he w'ent out of power in 1911.


George Perry Graham: Did not my hon. friend
favour that?


Robert James Manion: I do not know whether I favoured it at that time or not. I was not then handling the affairs of the country; my hon. friend and Sir Wilfrid Laurier were. In 1911 I was quite a young man-a good deal younger than my hon. friend, for which I presume he is a little sorry.


George Perry Graham: Not a bit.


Robert James Manion: At the same time I submit that that line across northern Ontario where in 350,000 square miles there are only
150,000	people is part of the line which should never have been built under any circumstances. However, the hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville was getting rather bitter at my discussing railway matters-


Roch Lanctôt: By whom was that line
from Port Arthur to Montreal built, was it by the Liberals or by the Tories?


Robert James Manion: I do not know who built
it, but the contracts were, let before the Liberal party went out of power.
But we have got some distance from the argument which I was making, Mr. Speaker. Burke once pointed out the need for some cooperation in regard to one principle for a party to be a political party, and I was showing that in railway matters, tariff matters and Senate matters the Liberal party have no unity of any kind; in fact, in all lines of thought they seem to be dwelling in a thick fog of confused ideas; but no, there is one principle as to which I should have made an exception: they are in agreement on the principle of power at any price-even the price of Canada. It was Daniel O'Connell who said that he could drive a coach and
four through any act of parliament. Well, Sir, you could march a whole battalion of soldiers through the principles of the Liberal party to-day without disturbing their ranks in any way.
Now, Sir, what does the Conservative party offer the country in place of the policies which I have been criticizing? They offer a stable tariff policy which will bring about prosperity and success; and they offer it to all classes, to manufacturers and to farmers-to the 2,000,000 farmers of Ontario and Quebec who require protection. These farmers require the home markets which surround their farms, the home markets of Montreal, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, the home markets of Hamilton, Toronto, Brockville, Peterborough and other cities; and they require more protection than they are getting at the present time to keep out the millions of dollars' worth of farm products which are now being imported and which can be produced in Canada. I have under my hand a report from the Department of Trade and Commerce showing, at page 1420, the imports of farm produce, and fortunately it divides these imports into those that can be produced in Canada and those which cannot. The report shows that of fruits, vegetables and animal products which can be produced in Canada, there were imported in the year ending March 31, 1924, $149,201,000 -practically $150,000,000 worth of farm products, all of which could be produced here if we cared to produce them. We collected upon the products imported less than $29,000,000 in tariff duties, or something like 18 per cent; whereas our farm products going into the United States are charged at the rate of from 25 to 30 per cent. Let me give a few of the items. I regret that I am taking so much time,-	-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Robert James Manion: -but I submit, at least half of my speech has been made by my hon. friends opposite.' These are a few of the items we imported in that year:
Butter, over 1,000,000 pounds.
Cheese, 900,000 pounds.
Eggs, 5,000.000 dozen.
Fruits, $25,500,000.
Corn, 9,000,000 bushels.
Hides and skins, 49,000,000 pounds.
Lard and its compounds, 8,000,000 pounds.
Bacon and hams, 3,000,000 pounds.
Fresh pork, 10,000,000 pounds.
Pork in brine, 5,500,000 pounds.
Seeds, $3,000,000.
Vegetables, $6,000,000.
Raw wool, 15,500,000 pounds.
Those are a few of the items, all of which can be produced on our farms, and should be produced there. Let me give the duties on a
The Budget-Mr. Manion

few of these items to illustrate what I mean by saying our duties are too low in comparison with those imposed by the United States:
Product	United States Duty Canadian Duty
Wheat	
42 cents a bushel	12 centsOats	
15 cents a bushel	10 centsHay	
$4	a ton	$2Potatoes	
50 cents per 100pounds	35 cents.Butter	
8	cents	a pound	4	centsCheese	
5	cents	a pound	3	cents.Eggs	
8	cents a dozen	3	cents
This list illustrates some of the goods which should be produced in this country, and it also illustrates the fact that we should have tariff for tariff with the United States. We can do no better in this country than copy the United States, which in area, in resources, in all the essentials of a ^country's development, is more like the Dominion of Canada than any other country in the world.


George Perry Graham: Could my hon. friend-
I am not going to make a speech this time- give the origin, say, of the butter and cheese that was imported? Perhaps he has not the figures-


Robert James Manion: No, I regret I have not
the figures. I did not go into that; I did not want to take the time.


Mr. FORKE:: I do not wish to take up
time either, but I would like to understand why we were importing hides. Some hon. members in that part of the House stated in speeches that very few hides had been manufactured in Canada; that there was no market for hides because there was no manufacturing.


Robert James Manion: These are the figures of
two years ago.


Robert Forke: I know, but the hon. member was saying that now we had to import hides.


Robert James Manion: These are the figures for
two years ago; and by the way, I could have made the figures look very much worse if I had quoted those of three yeags ago. I cannot explain to my hon. friend why we are importing hides; I did not go into the details. I am giving information which I think my hon. friend should be glad to get, namely, information in regard to products we should be producing on the farms of Canada but which unfortunately we are importing.


Robert Forke: That is what I am puzzled about, because I know we can produce hides but we cannot find a market for them.


Robert James Manion: I have the facts here,
from the Bureau of Statistics. If there is any mistake it is a mistake of the Bureau of Statistics. I was going to say-


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 
Robert James Manion: I made the statement on
the basis of information supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce of this government. Sometimes I do believe this government; in this case I do. I expected that question and I am quite ready for it. I confess that when I read the figures I had the same doubt that my hon. friend apparently has. But the figures show that in addition to that $149,000,000 worth of products imported which could have been produced on the farms of this country, we imported $236,000,000 worth of other farm products-that includes cotton, by the way. In other wordis, we imported into Canada in that year, according to these figures, $385,000,000 worth of farm products of all kinds, of which practically S150,000,000 worth were goods which could be produced on the farms of this country.


Mr. WARNER:: May I ask my hon. friend how much of that import consisted of goods Which were in season in Canada at the time the import was made?


Robert James Manion: The very fact that the Department of Trade and Commerce in their statistics show that these are goods which could be produced on the farms of Canada indicates that they came in at seasons when they could be produced here, otherwise they would not have been included in such statistics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Robert James Manion: Well, suppose strawberries came in, as they do, a couple of weeks earlier from the southern states than they are produced in Canada, should we take away the taste for strawberries on the part of the people of Canada so that they will not buj Canadian strawberries when they come ini Take the Okanagan valley; in that section of the country the fruit growers are up against the competition of the producers of Washington, Oregon and California, whose products come into our country at least a couple of weeks earlier than the products of our Canadian fruit farmers appear on the Canadian market. Well, should we take away from the people of the prairie provinces, or the people of Canada generally, if you will, the taste for fruits, and permit our fruit farmers in the Okanagan to go out of business? I submit we should not.

The Budget-Mr. Manion
I was pointing out that the United States has had the most remarkable development of any country, bar none, in the history of the world. I was going to say that Mr. Blaine, who had a debate with Mr. Gladstone in 1S96 on free trade and protection, which we are still debating, pointed out that between 1812 and 1861 the United States had tried free trade three times, and that after each one of these trials there were depression, unemployment, and panics. He said also- and this is according to the facts-that from 1861 on, after they had adopted a consistent high-tariff policy in the United States, progress and prosperity had been practically unbroken in that country.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Surely the hon. member, who is interesting us so much in his discourse, does not pretend that since 1861 they have not had panics, and severe panics, in the United States?


Robert James Manion: Oh, no. I have said in this House before, and I repeat it now, that no policy that anyone has yet discovered is a panacea for all hard times. There will be hard times occasionally in every country. But I submit that the hard times which occurred in the United States after that later period to which I have referred were very small in comparison with the periods of depression that had prevailed before. And, what is further, the progress of the United States from 1861 to the present day has been the most remarkable in the history of the world. So I submit that we should be more ready to copy the policy of a country which we so much resemble, the United States, than the policy of two little islands in the North sea whose area is only one-thirtieth of ours and whose conditions are altogether different from ours. I submit that that is the method by which we may succeed.
I am going to take the liberty of again quoting President Coolidge. He points out, in the same inaugural address to which I have referred-and I am very near the end of my remarks:
These policies of better international understandings, greater economy and lower taxes have contributed largely to peaceful and prosperous industrial relations.
And he says:
Under the helpful influences of restrictive immigration and a protective tariff, employment is plentiful, the rate of pay is high and wage earners are in a state of contentment seldom before seen.
That, I think, is a just reply to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) when they said the other day that there were twenty million unemployed artisans in the United States.


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, the statement was not made by either of the gentlemen referred to. If my hon. friend will stick to the facts-


Robert James Manion: Will my hon. friend tell me who made it?


James Murdock: The record will show who made it, and who was quoted as making it.


Robert James Manion: This is a piece of fancy quibbling, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice threw it at me across the floor of this House when I was speaking the other day, and then the Minister of Labour* came in and quoted the words. I know who made the statement; he quoted Mr. Green as saying it.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Well, were they trying to put over a hoax on the people of this country? Were they just talking to hear themselves talk? Or were they really trying to confuse the people?


James Murdock: No, there was no hoax being attempted at all. It was merely a statement of what a prominent representative of labour in the United States had said-no more; no less.


Robert James Manion: Well, it is a rather extraordinary attitude for the Minister of Labour to take. The Minister of Justice might be forgiven, because he is not dealing with labour conditions, but the Minister of Labour is dealing with Labour conditions. He puts before a sensible audience, as this House is usually, the statement that there were twenty million unemployed in the United States, quoting it from somebody-a statement which was false on its face. I know there was no such condition in the United States in its whole history. Why, twenty million people-that is one-fifth of the people of the United States; it would comprise the fathers of all the families in the United States I The thing was obviously false; and now the Minister of Labour tries to get out from under by saying it was not his statement-that he only quoted it.


James Murdock: He is not trying to get from under any of it. We will deal with it later, and find out whether those who refer to it know better than my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: Well, I will give my hon. friend a chance. He is quite at liberty to quote it again, but I am sure he will only make himself more ridiculous.
The Budget-Mr. Manion

Canada, Mr. Speaker, is to-day in a low-tariff period, the rest of the world is in a high-tariff period, because in Europe you have a low price of money, low wages and low standards of living. Our tariff, therefore, is too low at the present time. The only thing to be done in this country from the tariff standpoint, the only thing that will put industry on its feet, is to raise the tariff applicable to the basic industries. Now, my hon. friends to my left are getting ready to ask me what I have been asked before, namely, why we did not do this when we had the opportunity to do it, back in 1920. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) nods his head, so that he takes the fatherhood of that question. Well, I will answer him. The reason we did not do it was because it was not necessary to do it at that time. In 19201921, the last year we were in power, conditions were good in Canada; business was good; unemployment wjaa excellent;! there was no exodus to any great extent of our people to the United States. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) points out that I said " unemployment ", instead of employment, was excellent.


James Murdock: You were right the first time.


Robert James Manion: Rather strangely, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) pointed out on the floor of this House just the other day how good conditions were in this country in 1920. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the exodus from Canada at that time was very little: industry was stable; and, more important, the nations of Europe had not then got back to normal production and normal competition. But since that time these conditions have all changed. We have now the exact reverse of what was taking place then. European competition has come back, so much so that they are dumping their goods of all classes into this country, and putting out of business all classes of industry here. What is perhaps more important, this government has come into power, with as many tariff policies as a centipede has feet. The United States has also raised its tariff. The tariffs of every nation of the world have been raised except the tariffs of England and Canada, the two countries that are suffering more from depression to-day than any other country in the world. As a consequence of these changed conditions, the bottom began to drop out of business, and has been dropping out ever since, and everybody knows it except the government.

Let us look at the basic conditions in the United States and Canada. The United States national debt is not much less per capita than is ours. Our trade per capita is greater than thehs. Our bank reserves are good, our railway development is good, our national wealth is great. And yet we are not prospering as they are over there. According to the words of President Coolidge-I choose to take his word in preference to that of the Minister of Labour-conditions are good over there, and everybody knows conditions are bad in this country. What are the reasons for the difference? The chief reasons are that taxation is high in this country, higher than it is in the United States-our income tax, for example, is much higher. Secondly, the tariff of the United States is about twice as high on practically all lines of goods as our tariff.
Einally, Sir, we need a cool head and a strong hand to handle the affairs of this country. Instead of that, we have a weak head, and a hand that cares for nothing except holding the sceptre of power.
I have read a good deal of history in my time, and I have found that there have been a number of weak governments, but I have never found any government, except one, that could equal this government in incompetence, and that was the government of the Sultan Abdul Hamid, in Turkey, in 1885. He ordered the killing of the Armenians. This government is not killing the Armenians; it is killing industry, and driving out of our land into exile in a foreign country our Canadian boys and girls. Not only is this government not killing the Armenians, it is actually helping the Armenians, and the Czecho-Slovakians, the Germans, the French, the British, the Americans-everybody but. Canadians. May I also point out that that famous Liberal, Mr. Gladstone, whom my good friend from La-prairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) would not criticize, I presume, having in mind this government of Abdul Hamid made a famous speech in which he said the Turks should be "driven out of Europe bag and baggage." I say, Mr. Speaker, that the only salvation for this country is to drive this government bag and baggage from the Dominion of Canada, and to put in power a government that will bring into force a proper policy of economy, and a proper tariff policy which will give stability to industry, provide work for the unemployed, develop our resources, and build up a nation where our boys and girls can remain and find work instead of being forced to go to the United States to get it; a country where we will be able to look after hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming in from

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
the crowded countries of Europe. We must not only develop a spirit of love for our own country, but we must provide opportunities for our own boys and girls to indulge that spirit of love for their country. We must build up a proper protective policy which will bring about industrial development in this country, so that our boys on the farms and in our industrial centres will be able to remain in Canada and make a living at home.
About sixty years ago Macdonald, Cartier, Brown and the other Fathers of Confederation had the vision to dream of a great nation in Canada, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Great Lakes to the Arctic ocean. If we are going to bring about a realization of that dream, we must profit by the lessons of history of the nations which have gone before.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) will not say "hear, hear" to this, though it is just as true. The lessons of history teach me that there has been no country in the world that has ever progressed and reached prosperity except under a protective tariff. I make no exception when I say that. I do not wish to be diverted again, because I have taken up too much time now. But Great Britain, up till 1846, had the highest kind of protection, so high that she at times prohibited imports into Britain of lines of goods that interfered with home producers. She did not bring in free trade until 1865. For ten or fifteen years after 1846 Great Britain had duties on about four hundred lines of goods. It was not until Gladstone brought in his final free trade budget in 1S60 that they had free trade in England. Up to the time they had protection in England, and that is only sixty or seventy years ago, England was the most highly protected country in the world. She was protecting her industries of every kind, and she only brought in free trade when she had become the master of the world from the standpoint of industrial production, when she had become the workshop of the world, and hoped to remain so, because they thought then Cobden was correct when he said that if England adopted free trade, all the countries of the world would adopt it in the next ten years. I could argue this further with the hon. member for Brome. but I do not wish to take the time. I say, Mr. Speaker, that no country has ever become great industrially or commercially except under a tariff policy of protection. That tariff policy of protection is being fully employed by all the countries of the world 115
to-day except Canada and England. Not only is that a precept which we should live up to, but we should have a policy of economy. The United States and England are living up to that precept of economy, and consequently are cutting down their national debt, whereas in this country, taking the figures of the Acting Finance Minister himself, we have added $13,000,000 to our national debt in the past year.
Let us get into line with these different policies. Let us adopt the policy of lower taxation, by cutting down the expenditures of this government. Let us adopt the policy of protection, which will keep our home markets for our Canadian people, and permit them to compete with the other countries of the world. Let us adopt a policy of economy on the railways. Let us adopt a policy with an efficient immigration as its aim. Adopt these four as the corner stones in the building up of our nation, and cement them with a united Canadian spirit, and it appears to me you will then bring about that progress, prosperity and content which the people of Canada desire at the present time.
Hon. ,7. H. KING (Kootenay) (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the remarks I shall make, I desire to be in accord with the other members of this House in expressing my personal regret at the continued absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). His record as a public servant and as a minister of the crown is one that I think commands the admiration of most people in Canada. His integrity, earnestness of purpose, and his courtesy are admired by all.
My hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Manion) has followed to-day pretty much along the lines of the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) in his attack on the financial statement of this government. I think it can be easily contended that he has not succeeded in his effort to upset the facts as stated in this House by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) some days ago. It is true he drifted far and discussed many matters. We have had to-day a real campaign speech delivered by my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), the hon. member apparently thinking it would be wise to try out a speech of that kind in parliament before going to the electors. He referred to the matter of immigration-


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will
permit me: I hope he will not attempt a campaign speech; I know he is above all that.

1800	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: We will see when we get through. My hon. friend referred to the matter of immigration and said that in 1914 some 400,000 people came to Canada. Later on he said that in the last year of Conservative rule 400,000 people came to Canada.


Robert James Manion: I noticed the mistake; I
meant the same year, before the war.


John Warwick King: I mention this
because otherwise wrong inferences might get into Hansard and be accepted throughout the country, and if they are not corrected it leaves a false impression. Now, as is well understood, immigration does not come about over night, it is the result of a policy carried on for a period of years. People do not emigrate to another country' unless there is a reasonable chance of succeeding in ithe new land. During the years between 1900 and 1911 the policy pursued established a record in Canada, people were attracted from other countries and they came to this country in thousands and hundreds of thousands. It is true that after the defeat of the Laurier government in 1911 the flow of immigration did not cease 'but continued up to 1914.


Robert James Manion: It increased.


John Warwick King: ' There may have been an increase but not under the policies that prevailed and the conditions that existed in Canada between 1911 and 1914. Because it is well known-hon. gentlemen in this House know, the people of Canada know-that in the spring of 1914 there was more unemployment and more distress throughout this country than there has ever been at any time since that year. Even after the war period the conditions we had in western Canada did not compare with the conditions which existed there in 1914 in the matter of unemployment.
My hon. friend complained of railway expenditure. It is well understood-


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister give
an example of any appeal in that year for even provincial or Dominion relief by reason of unemployment?


John Warwick King: In those years
the people of Canada appealed to the authorities responsible, but of late years a sy'stem has grown up in this country of appealing to the federal government. " They have the money, get it from the Dominion government." That is the view that exists in some quarters in Canada to-day. But the people are supporting the government to-day in with-
I Mr. Manion.]
standing appeals of that kind and in placing the responsibility where it properly belongs.
My hon. friend (Mr. Manion) complained of the expenditure in regard to the government railways. What is the history of that question? During the regime of my hon. friends opposite they brought about a consolidation of those railways; they provided that there should be a national system that should operate as any private system might operate. Such is the condition we have today and it was brought about by hon. gentlemen opposite. My hon. friend (Mr. Manion) spoke of a capital expenditure last y'ear of $118,000,000. I do not think he was fair to parliament in making such a statement. Later on when his attention was dtawn to it he explained that he did not intend to convey any such idea. However, the statement will stand further scrutiny and if the facts are carefully examined it will be seen that the $118,000,000 referred to was a fair and proper expenditure under existing conditions.
My hon. friend has also seen fit to charge that great extravagance exists in connection with the public works of this country. I should like the hon. gentleman to be fair. What are the facts? The Department of Public Works is administering and carrying on its services for one-half the appropriations that- were voted in 1914. Furthermore if we compare the relative value of the dollar today with its value in 1914 it will be evident that there is an earnest effort to economize and that economies are being effected by the government. It is a surprising thing that my hon. friends opposite have lately become addicted to the making of comparisons with the United States. How wonderful conditions are in the United States, they say, and how terrible they are in Canada. Why cannot we be fair with ourselves? There is prosperity in the United States but it is a prosperity growing out of the war. The United States did not enter the war until two or three years after Canada did, and during that period it accumulated great wealth which wealth it holds to-day. Comparisons of that kind by Canadian public men are absolutely unfair to this country and to its people.
My hon. friend also referred to the appointment of royal commissions and for some reason selected the R oval Grain Commission for criticism. Well, now, what is probably the largest trade we have in Canada to-day? It is our grain trade. There have been complaints, not within the last three or four
5	p.m. years but over a period of many years, with respect to the marketing of grain, and there have been previous
1S01

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
grain commissions. When the present government assumed office considerable uncertainty existed with respect to this trade, and there were many demands that a royal commission should be appointed to investigate the existing conditions.


Robert James Manion: The reason I spoke of the grain commission and the pulpwood commission was because they were the only two for which I could get figures from the government. They are the only ones for which I have received figures so far.


John Warwick King: I am just following my hon. friend's remarks. He indicated to the House that there had been a waste of public money in appointing the Royal Grain Commission.


Robert James Manion: Not especially on that commission, on a lot of them.


John Warwick King: 
Mr. HOEY:: Will the minister be good
enough to state what the cost of the Wembley trip was?


John Warwick King: I understand it was $1,400 for each member, or $4,200 in all. We have also heard from my hon. friend (Mr. Manion)-and I am going to clear this up before I proceed further-a complaint regarding the railways and he tried to go back and show that the Liberal party were responsible. My hon. friend finds himself to-day in a very peculiar position. From 1900 to 1911 'he was a good Liberal, and if the Liberal party made mistakes during that period, he was supporting them. If the Conservative party made mistakes after 1911-and they admit they did in regard to the railways-he supported that also. So he has a double liability and a double responsibility.


Robert James Manion: I was very young then.


Mr. ARCHAMBAITLT:: He accepted the position of candidate of the Conservative party after that in 1917.


John Warwick King: I do not think it can be fairly contended by the people of Canada, let them "be of one party or the other, that the construction of a second line of railway in this country was not a necessity. It was a necessity; it opened up a very wide stretch of country, and it effected a great deal for the settlement of Canada and was to the advantage of the people of Canada. As regards the Canadian Northern which grew out of the prairies and extended east to the eastern seaboard, that was a natural development, because its traffic developed in the prairie country and it had to come to the eastern seaboard in order to carry the traffic that arose along its line. In regard to whether that was justified or not, we have the statement recently made in New York by Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific:-
If Mackenzie and Mann had confined their operations to the prairie provinces and their connections in eastern Canada they would have been the wealthiest men in Canada to-day.
1802	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
Through political manipulations that took them beyond the bounds of the prairies, they destroyed their project. My hon. friend inferred that the people of this country should not take advantage of opportunities that are afforded to the people of the world to import vegetables or fruits in season that they may like to have in their households. I for one would not take that position. I hope the people of Canada will always be in a position and have the means to import these delicacies and any other things they may require in their households. Is it to be the policy of the Conservative party to say: You shall not import oranges, lemons, bananas, strawberries, into your household? The thing is absurd and will not, I am satisfied, appeal to the people of Canada.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: Was there any material difference between the duty on that farm produce coming into Canada in 1923 and 1921?


John Warwick King: No difference at
all. There has been no change.


Ernest Lapointe: A double liability again.


Robert James Manion: May I inform my hon. friend that there is a difference on the other side, that the United States have raised their tariff about twice as high?


John Warwick King: They are not importing any bananas or oranges or lemons. They are not doing us any harm in that regard.
There has been a desire apparently on the part of the opposition to create the impres-sddn that the budget is a thing of mystery. That might be all right in some country districts where people are not familiar with the term "budget"; but surely in parliament each and every member knows that the budget is merely the setting out of revenues and expenditures-by whom? Not the minister, but. by competent officials in the Department of Finance, setting them down as one would do in one's own business or in the business of a corporation, and at the end of a year striking a balance between the revenue and the expenditure. I think it will be generally admitted that the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is always concise in his statements. and it can also be admitted that he is not of the type that would undertake to deceive this House in the matter of balancing the accounts and affairs of a country like this. My hon. friends contended last year in parliament, and then during the interval between sessions, with more or less success, that this government had been responsible for ,i
fMr. J. H. Kina.]
change in the method of bookkeeping. That was refuted last year in the House; but apparently my hon. friends thought they could continue a former programme that would be effective in the country and contend that, instead of the government having a surplus of $35,000,000, 'as was shown last year, there was really a deficit. Their contentions were discounted and have been effectually answered and discounted this year. The Acting Minister of Finance, true to his Scotch instincts for truth and fair play, called in, not one. but two chartered accountants. A day or two ago the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), in referring to the action of these chartered accountants, tried to confuse the issue and did in Hansard leave the inference that these chartered accountants were called in to certify as to the correctness of the audit. To illustrate his point, he read the certificate of the auditors to the balance sheet of the Canadian Pacific. Does my hon. friend think for a moment that that can be put over in this House or in the country? One was a certifioation as to the method employed in bookkeeping. The other was a certification as to the correctness of the annual statement. The government of Canada do not call in outside auditing firms to confirm the annual statement. We have an Auditor General appointed by the Parliament of Canada, whose statement is brought down each and every year, and that is the audited statement of the affairs of the people of Canada. My hon. friend who, the other day, undertook to intimate that this certification was of no value, was absolutely wide of the mark and1 side-stepped the question entirely. The certification is of value in this respect, and I am going to read it again because the people of Canada should have this matter finally cleared up in their minds. The certificate reads:
We have examined the balance sheet of the Dominion of Canada as at March 31, 1924, and we certify that the balance sheet conforms to the balance sheets of previous years in not including in the net debt of the Dominion, issues of the Canadian National Railway Company and companies included in its system, which carry the guarantee of the Dominion of Canada. Such guaranteed issues are shown year by year as indirect liabilities.
Geo. Edwards,
Of the firm of Ewarcls, Morgan & Co.
W. Garth Thomson,
Of the firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Ottawa, Canada, 27th January, 1925.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman will
find all he has stated in my own remarks. The point I make, if he will just try to understand it, is this, that prior to last year, that

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
is the year ended December 31, 1923, there had been no consolidated railway statement, but for that year there was one. That would apply also to 1924. My complaint was that this consolidated railway statement was not [DOT]included in the presentation to the House, and I pointed out that the criticism regarding former accounts did not apply now as it did in previous years.


John Warwick King: I thought I had
made myself entirely clear. The certification was for a purpose; it speaks for itself and clears the situation. When the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) was confronted with a certification the other day, what did he say? He said, " All you can say is that we did it." If our hon. friends had wanted to be fair in this matter they would have said, "Yes, that was our system, but we have changed our minds. We think the railway obligations should be a direct and not an indirect liability and should not be confused with the national budget." Personally I am not of that opinion. It does not make very much difference possibly whether they are considered a direct or an indirect liability. But we are only following the procedure generally followed by governments. The government of Ontario does not carry the Hydro Electric Commission or its expenditures ns a provincial expenditure. It is an indirect liability, and you will find in the case of the provincial governments generally that expenses of this kind, which are out of the ordinary run of government activities, are not carried as a direct liability; but I think it is important that there should be a separation, and that the expenditures pertaining to the Canadian National Railways should be kept distinct, and separate from the general expenditures of the government. We have entered upon a large and important experiment in the matter of government ownership, and I think it is wise and in the interests of the Canadian people that they have full knowledge as to what this expenditure may cost them.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would the hon.
minister give us full information, for example even to the salaries paid to the higher officials of the organization?


John Warwick King: As I stated a few moments ago, the Canadian National is being carried on and operated as a distinct company, under directors and a board of management. Are you going to place it in a different position from competing lines? The manager says we should not give this information. If
we did we would open the doors to our competitors and it would be unfair to us. That statement has been made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and I think it is probably an answer to my hon. friend's suggestion. I think the government would' have to be guided by the advice of the president or management of that railway in regard to information of that character.
Before passing on to another criticism, I desire to say that I have had some little experience in these matters. I have listened to many budget speakers, not in this parliament but in provincial legislatures, where political warfare is waged very much as it is in this parliament, and on each and every occasion when the government has a surplus I have found that it has been a bitter pill to the opposition; they do not like it. But being a bitter pill to the opposition does not prevent it being soothing and gratifying to the taxpayers of the country. The surplus of last year, the reduction in taxation, i.e., the reduction in the customs duties and in the sales tax of some twenty-four or twenty-five million dollars were well received by the taxpayers of the country, and although the surplus is not as large this year, it is still gratifying to the people of Canada to know that, after the final closing of accounts for the year of revenues received and the expenditures made by the government, there was a balance in favour of the country and that there was a substantial surplus.
My hon. friends have taken exception to the manner in which the government have handled the Roumanian and Grecian loans. It was rather surprising when one considers the history of these loans. The loans were made by our hon. friends opposite when the Canadian credit was almost at the breaking point, when the Canadian dollar was worth from eighty to ninety cents, and during my hon. friends' term of office it was a frozen loan, there was no interest paid and it accumulated, but in 1922 arrangements were made, through the high commissioner in negotiation with the Roumanian and Grecian governments, whereby the interest that was due was consolidated in the form of a bond and became part of the joint debt of those countries to Canada. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) very properly stated the other day just what took place. We had a loan made by the late government on which there was no interest being paid. The interest had accumulated to some $4,000,000. A bond was taken from these countries for the payment of this interest and the whole loan consolidated. In the arrangement new
1801	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
securities were given to the Dominion for the total indebtedness, and they were further secured by specific charges on certain revenues of these countries. In the case of Roumania the security of the new bond is a fixed charge upon the export duties charged on wheat and other export products. In the case of Greece their obligations are a charge upon the revenue of the International Financial Commission appointed to administer specific revenues of the Greek government, for the purpose of meeting the charges in connection with their external indebtedness. These governments since 1922, have been paying their interest charges regularly and promptly, and in the case of Greece part of the principal. You have this position to-day: what was a frozen Joan formerly is now a loan on which not only the interest is being paid but the principal is being liquidated.


Mr. HALBERT:: How was the loan made? Was it in cash or in goods?


John Warwick King: I believe it was
given in cash or credit.


An hon. MEMBER:: Goods.


John Warwick King: I am told it was in goods.


Robert Henry Halbert: Then by what firms
were the goods supplied?


John Warwick King: I am not familiar with the early stages of the loan. There has been a discussion in regard to it, and probably the older members of the House will know.


An hon. MEMBER:: Paint.


An hon. MEMBER:: Varnish.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is an old story.


John Warwick King: It is revived this session.


Joseph Archambault: It is still good
and still has some varnish.


John Warwick King: It is surprising,
Mr. Speaker, where party exigencies will force our hon. friends opposite. They have been touring this country and in and out of parliament complaining that the people of Canada are exporting their excess production of raw material. The nation is very much like an individual who, to pay his debts and carry on, must sell in the markets open to him the products of his energy. I cannot think my hon. friends are really serious when they talk as they are talking these days of a tariff wall that would prevent the importation of any manufactured goods into Canada and of an embargo that would prevent the raw

materials of the country going out of Canada. If that is so, and if it should come to pass, then the Lord help the people of Canada. Conditions are bad enough to-day, and they were bad enough in 1914. Conditions were bad enough between 1878 and 1896. But if this policy that is being promoted and being announced by our hon. friends opposite- that is a high protective policy that will not permit importation of manufactured goods into Canada and an embargo on our raw materials-is to be adopted, then I am satisfied there will be no balanced budget, and Canada will not be in a very happy or prosperous condition. There is a lot of hectic talk these days about the export of our raw materials. To-day in every line of our basic industries we are producing more than we can consume. Is that production to cease or to be restricted to our own requirements? Surely not. As regards three of our basic industries, forestry, agriculture and fisheries, under proper scientific handling they can be conserved and be made increasingly valuable. In the case of forestry this is proven in Norway and Sweden, much older countries than ours, which to-day under a proper system of conservation of their forests are exporting their raw products and selling them in the markets of New York and Boston in competition with those of Canada and the United States.


Mr. DICKIE:: What raw forest products
are coming from Sweden and Norway to the markets of New York and Boston? I mean absolutely raw products, such as saw logs?


John Warwick King: There are degrees of raw products. Sawn lumber dressed on one side is comparatively raw in its manufacture, and that is entering the markets of New York and Boston to-day from Norway and Sweden in competition with the Canadian and United States product.


Charles Herbert Dickie: We have no objection to
sawn lumber.


John Warwick King: Then it is a
matter of degree. My hon. friend says he has no objection to sawn lumber coming in. But he does object to pulpwood that has been rossed.


Charles Herbert Dickie: That is a small item.


John Warwick King: It is not a small item. The rossing of a cord of pulpwood represents as much in cost and energy as the work on one or two thousand feet of cut timber.

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
Mr.- DICKIEIf I might interrupt again? Why not carry on the manufacture a little further to the pulp, and so enrich our workmen and everybody else to the extent of 50 per cent? That is where our assets are diminishing.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
has asked me about raw products from Norway and Sweden entering the American markets, and I have given him what I understand to be one of those raw products. But who are our greatest competitors to-day in those markets in regard to newsprint and kraft paper? It is these little countries whose forests have been cut and recut for centuries, but through a proper system of conservation those forests to-day are producing in competition with the forest wealth of this great continent. There is no question that there has been frightful waste and extravagance in the handling of these great natural resources, but the waste and destruction has not been in the marketing of the raw products, it has been incident to the carelessness of our people. Fire has been the chief destructive cause. The homesteader in clearing his land has not taken the care he should have taken. The prospector exploring ore veins has at times found it convenient to remove the timber in order that he might 'better see the character of the country and its geological formation, and he has resorted to fire. But the homesteader and the prospector have not been the worst offenders. We know that railway companies in times past have not properly protected the forest growth adjoining their right of way. The lumberman himself has not always taken proper care to ensure his limit against fire. Many of those who are complaining most bitterly to-day against our raw products being exported are probably more responsible than any others for the terrible destruction of our forest wealth in the past. Fortunately to-day there is a more wholesome regard on the part of the people for our forest wealth; they are beginning to realize what an important part our forests play in the regulation of our rivers and streams, our climate, and so forth.
All our governments to-day, provincial as well as federal, have forestry departments whose staffs are composed of men who have graduated from forestry schools. They are devoting a great deal of time to the conservation and improvement of our timber resources, but they have hadi considerable difficulty in educating the people to the necessity of voting large expenditures for this work. Anyone who is familiar with lumbering operations on the Pacific coast, particularly on Vancouver island, knows that the lumber men in moving tremendous trees through any section of the country take off all the young, small growth with their drag line. This destroyed growth dries out and in a very little time becomes a fire hazard. As my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) said last night in his very interesting and instructive address, when this brushwood takes fire it throws out such a tremendous heat that the chances are that the seed bed will be destroyed and there will be no fresh growth of timber for many years to come. I have travelled through the inland portions of northern British Columbia, and have seen evidences of fires which probably occurred 100 to 150 years ago, and only in the last few years has nature begun to reforest. Fire is the greatest evil we have to contend with although it is true that in certain sections of the country trees suffer from other causes. For instance, recently in New Brunswick, there has been widespread destruction through the attacks of the spruce bud worm, whole sections of spruce having died and a few years later they will look as if they had been fireswept. But eventually science will entirely control these insect pests. The only agency, however, to prevent fire is proper regulation of timber operations, adequate protection and careful patrol work during the fire season,-all of which is going to cost money. In addition to taking these measures against fire, some of our provincial governments-most of the timber being under their control-are making surveys of such sectioas as are suitable for reforestation, and we find to-day that large areas are being set aside and protected to allow nature to reforest.
With respect to agriculture, we have only to look at the older countries of Europe to realize that our great competitors in Great Britain are Denmark, Belgium and Holland. We know that under scientific methods the products of our soil can be shipped to their ultimate market in the finished state to compete with those of any other country. This is also true with regard to our fisheries. The fishing industry by scientific treatment can be made ever-producing. I noticed within the last few days that a conference is being held in British Columbia between the United States and Canadian interests in order that a rehabilitation of the salmon fisheries on the Fraser river may take place. In line with that policy this parliament adopted two years ago a treaty with the United States government pertaining to the conservation of the halibut banks on the Pacific coast off Prinee Rupert. I personally am desirous that there
:806	*	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
shall be such a development in Canada as will result in the manufacture in our own country, as far as humanly possible, of our raw material into finished products. But to say that that must be done and that there should also be embargoes to prevent any material from going out in its raw state is absurd; it is a policy that would not be tolerated for a moment by the people of Canada.
We have a different condition in the mining industry. It is true that the ore that is taken out of the ground cannot be replaced by human intelligence or by scientific effort, but surely, having regard to the tremendous wealth we have in these mineral products, the extent of which is practically unknown to the Canadian people to-day and will not be fully known for many years, it is not the time to say to the people of Canada that they shall not ship out of the country the raw material from the mines. It is interesting to view the history of the parties in this regard. I may be mistaken but I have yet to learn of any act on the part of the Conservative party while they were in power, from 1911 to 1921 or in the period preceding, which tended toward the development of refining processes in connection with our ores in Canada. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to contrast that policy, or lack of policy, on the part of our hon. friends with the policies enunciated and put into practice by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government in the years they were in office. By a system of bounties the iron and steel industries in Canada have been built up. These industries have had their ups and downs, and we know that iron and steel are being made from our ores and that the products of this refinement are being used in the commerce of our country. The bounties as applied to the lead and zinc industry were a greater success. The history of that policy is rather interesting. At a time when the lead and zinc industry in British Columbia was apparently going out of business, the government undertook to set aside a certain sum of money to be used in the form of a bonus to be paid in accordance with the value of the ore refined. Before the period limiting the bonus had expired the stimulation to the industry had been such and the market conditions had been so improved that the price attained by the mineral was in excess of the price on the basis of which the government had agreed to pay the bonus, so that nothing more was required to be done so far as the bonus was concerned. To-day we have the lead and zinc industry well established in western Canada. Canada is making more lead 
and more zinc than she requires for her own needs, and is becoming an important factor on the world's market in connection with these products.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) an evening or two ago, as I have stated, gave us a very interesting address on the subject of timber waste. But he hardly arrived at a conclusion. He came pretty nearly up to an embargo, but he went back to the question of waste; the hon. gentleman is too shrewd, too clever a business man to go that far. He said in conclusion that he was not satisfied that an embargo would be the proper thing; he thought perhaps an export duty might be wise. If I followed him correctly, I think that was what he said. Well, I do not take exception to my hon. friend's attitude. I am not sure that we have arrived at the position where we should impose export duties on raw material. The question is a debatable one, especially at this time when Canada's position is such that she must have revenues to meet the interest on her national debt, as well as to reduce the debt itself. There is a field there that might be surveyed by experts, bearing upon the question whether Canada would be entitled to take some revenue from the raw products by way of an export duty. I would be prepared to debate and consider that, but as to an embargo, I would say no.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: May I ask the minister a question? Is he opposed to embargoes of all kinds against the sending of the pio-ducts of Canada to other countries?


John Warwick King: I am opposed to
the policy enunciated by my hon. friends, a policy of high protection that will not permit the importation of manufactured goods into Canada and will prevent the exportation of raw products.


William Garland McQuarrie: No; the question was as to embargo. I understood the minister to say he was opposed to embargoes. Did I understand him correctly?


John Warwick King: I have repeated
it, yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: Embargoes of all
kinds?


John Warwick King: As proposed by
my hon. friends. There may be occasions, in war time or times of stress, when embargoes should be imposed, but I have not seen the time as yet in Canada. As to its being a policy for a great party, I would not like to be one of the party to endorse it.

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)


William Garland McQuarrie: Just to be more
specific, Mr. Speaker, is the minister in favour of an embargo against the export of sock-eye salmon?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
comes from the Fraser river. He is fully conversant with the sock-eye salmon industry, and if he wishes to dilate on the merits of an embargo, he will have the opportunity to do so.


William Garland McQuarrie: But I am asking a
question.


John Warwick King: Just a moment-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member is not entitled to put a further question unless he has the minister's permission.


John Warwick King: I have stated my position quite fairly regarding the matter of an embargo.


William Garland McQuarrie: Do I understand that
the minister refuses to answer the question?


John Warwick King: I have not refused, Mr. Speaker. I have declared my position, and have tried to make it clear to this House. I have stated that in times of stress conditions may arise which would make an embargo on certain products necessary. But as a policy for a great party in conjunction with a high tariff policy-well, the embargo is the limit.
Just before the opening of parliament this year, Mr. Speaker, we had a rather unusual display of activity on the part of our friends opposite in an attempt to precede His Excellency the Governor General in his annual speech to this House. In the Ottawa Journal a day or two before the meeting of parliament, the Conservative party, through their leader, stated the policy which they were prepared to follow; and that policy appeared in the news columns of the press of the country generally. This statement of policy reads very nicely; it would seem to be a panacea for all Canada's ills. In fact, it reads very much like a patent medicine advertisement. The right hon. leader of the opposition proposes a policy of increased protection, stating that it would give new life to Canadian industry, would enlarge the Canadian market for farm products, would create employment for our workers, increase traffic for our railways- by which alone, they state, an all-round reduction in freight rates can be secured. It would also add to the revenue, they say, thus permitting a reduction in internal taxation. Hon. gentlemen opposite would lead the people to believe that if Canada was touched
by this magic wand of protection all these things would come about. The proposals are so incredulous that one wonders if he is not living in fairyland.
There is nothing new in the policy of high protection. As far as the Canadian people are concerned we have had it in operation for a period of many years, and it is in operation to-day in some instances. I need take only one example, the automobile industry, which enjoys a protective tariff of 35 per cent. That duty may not be in accord with what our hon. friends opposite are going to propose when they get into power; that may be too low for them. I listened to the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other day when he was trying to convince this House that in view of the conditions in Canada we should adopt a protective policy similar to that adopted by the government of France. He read from the French tariff, showing that the schedules had been increased by 1,000,
2,000	and 3,000 per cent in some cases. I think we might fairly assume that for every $100 the manufacturer puts into an automobile, he has a protection of $35, and I think we may also fairly consider that at least adequate protection. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that if we gave protection of that character, we would! then turn into the pockets of our workmen the expenditure necessary to manufacture this necessary utility; tout has it worked out that way? I find that in the year 1920 we imported 13,079 cars, valued at $14,035,000; in 1923 we imported 7,987 cars, valued at $11,038,000; in 1924, we imported 10,889 cars, valued at $11,442,000; making the value of the total importations for the three years, $36,515,000. So this much vaunted protection has not worked in this case. The imports in those three years amounted to $36,-
515,000,	and if I were to follow the course of my hon. friend the former Minister of Finance, who took the importations of manufactured goods the other day, divided them by 1,200, and then said that that many thousands of people would have had employment in this country if we had had protection, I would take these figures: Dividing 36,515.000 by 1,200 gives 30.428. Divide that by three again, the imports covering three years, and you have 10,142 workmen that should have but did not have this expenditure in Canada on account of this high protection. The thing is a fallacy, Mr. Speaker. It does not work.
The automobile industry is, of course, an important one to Canada. I was rather amazed when I found the extent of the importations, but more greatly so when I looked at the ex-
1808	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
portations from Canada. I find that in 1922 we exported $14,883,000 worth, in 1922, $8,082,000, in 1924, $37,742,000, or in those three years Canada exported automobiles to the value of $60,607,000. In addition to that, we exported in the same period $8,100,000 worth of automobile parts; so it is a rather important industry.
My hon. friends opposite might say-I would expect them to say, and I say it in order that they will not-look at the growth of this industry under high protection. They would say high protection had made it possible for Canadian manufacturers to export these automobiles. We know that is not so. Capital has come into the automobile business in Canada on account of certain preferences which the Canadian people enjoy in certain markets which the Americans do not enjoy, and that is why this development of the industry has taken place, and why there is this large export business.


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the minister
discuss for a few minutes a tariff on eggs?


John Warwick King: I do not propose to be interrupted by my hon. friend unless he has something of interest to say or a question to ask that bears strictly on my argument.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is a question of
very great interest in British Columbia.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon.
member has no right to persist if the member who has the floor does not wish to answer, or desires to continue along other lines.


John Warwick King: I am not worried about questions, but this question is not applicable to my argument just now. Probably we can let it rest. My hon. friend apparently is interested to-day in eggs and sockeye salmon. He can make an address on them later.


George Perry Graham: Let the eggs set.


John Warwick King: I am satisfied
that hon. gentlemen opposite will have a very difficult task in trying to convince the people of Canada that a policy of high protection such as they advocate will be to the advantage and interest of the Canadian people. If this policy is of such great value, I am wondering, and I think the people of Canada are wondering, why in heaven's name did not the Conservative party bring this policy into effect in 1911? They cannot claim they did not do so then on account of the war, because from 1911 to 1914 they had a period of tranquility, and again from 1918 to 1921 they

had a further period. In 1911 the Conservative party, which to-day is proposing a high protective tariff, came into power on the defeat of the greatest trade agreement that was ever made by a Canadian government, an agreement which if it was in force to-day would mean prosperity to the Maritime provinces, prosperity to the provinces of central Canada, prosperity to the prairie provinces, and prosperity to the province of British Columbia. But not having this agreement, Canada has been forced to go further afield for her markets, and it can be said to the credit of her people that she has succeeded, and has not been daunted by the mistake she made in 191L The Canadian people have gone forward and steadily increased the growth of their export, so that to-day Canada stands per capita as the greatest exporting nation in the W'orld.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Warwick King: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I had not only dealt with the criticism of the official opposition on the budget but I had also gone to the point where I think a government are entitled to go. That is, that when the party opposing have laid down their policy as a remedy for the conditions that exist, they should try and show the fallacies of that policy. My hon. friend the member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), who has a very excellent vocabulary w'hich he does not ahvays use with discretion, made use of the term "gold brick." I propose to employ that same term now because it is absolutely applicable with respect to hon. gentlemen opposite. That party gold bricked the people of Canada in 1911. They are the very same men who to-day-through the press, and by their speeches on public platforms and in parliament-are libelling the government of this country and depreciating the efforts of our people. However, I do not think there is much danger of the people falling for those proposals coming from the source from which they do. "Once bitten twice shy," and the people of Canada have not forgotten 1911 and the years that followed.
Sir, I do not believe that any good will ever come to a party that decries its country. In the early days of this parliament it was said that the group of members to the left of the official opposition were pessimistic as to Canada's future. If that was so at

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
the beginning of this parliament as respects our Progressive friends, all I can say is they never reached the state of gloom and bitterness that prevails in the Conservative party to-day, a condition which is more characteristic of the leaders of the party than of the rank and file. The most notable examples, probably, are the right hon. leader of the opposition and his lieutenant from the city of Vancouver, one of the finest cities in Canada, a city that has enjoyed since 1922 a development unknown in any other seaport city in the world let alone in Canada. This development synchronizes with the new life that has struck western Canada.
My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was abroad last summer and since returning to Canada has been busily engaged in making public addresses. He has assumed an attitude that is rather surprising to members of this House, apparently being desirous of copying his friend and leader. Both gentlemen have developed into what might be termed common scolds. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre is not satisfied to scold the people of Canada and the members of this House, but gushingly states that he told the people of the Old Country last year what he thought of them and their policies, and he adds "I was received with great response." My hon. friend mistook courtesy for response. Let me say that I do not believe it is the duty of any member of the Canadian parliament to go to Great Britain and tell the people there what they should do. I have sufficient confidence in the statesmen of Great Britain to leave Great Britain's problems to her own people to solve.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre in an address delivered since he returned from England has intimated to the people of Canada that the policy adopted by this government last session, whereby the government reduced the import duties on the instruments of production in the basic industries, had led to blue ruin in the province of British Columbia. He stated that some 350 or 400 men were thrown out of employment on account of the adjustment of the duties on logging equipment. I was rather surprised to hear that statement because I had been in western Canada last fall and met the men who are engaged in the manufacturing of this kind of machinery, and they did not tell me they were going out of business. Accordingly I thought I should ascertain the facts because my hon. friend has the faculty of speaking with some conviction. I made inquiries and I am now going to read to the House what the facts are in regard to that statement
I will read a telegram sent to me from Vancouver dated March 10, 1925:
Hon. J. H. King,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa, Ont.
I have been continuously in commercial engineering in Vancouver since 1902. I know every firm manufacturing or handling machinery in British Columbia. No concerns manufacturing logging equipment have gone out of business since the lowering of tariff. Present depression due to slackness in lumber industry. Only two concerns are engaged exclusively manufacturing logging equipment in this province, namely Empire Manufacturing Company and Tyee Machinery Company. Last named company also imports logging engines manufactured Portland, Oregon, and geared locomotives from Lima, Ohio. These two concerns have never employed more than fifty men in their combined operations. Undoubtedly lowering of tariff has been of great benefit to British Columbia especially coast, depending as it does on the lumber and logging industry and has done no injury to small manufacturing concerns located here. Am certain one large logging and lumbering concern would employ more men and distribute more in purchases and payroll than all concerns engaged exclusively in the manufacture of logging . equipment in the province. Statements made that any firms manufacturing logging machinery employing 250 to 300 men have gone out of business since tariff reduction last year absolutely without foundation.
George A. Walkem.
I know Mr. Walkem, but not intimately. I have met him. He is not a supporter of the Liberal party. He is a mechanical engineer, who has practised his profession in British Columbia since 1902, and who has been closely associated with engineering and particularly that form of engineering in the province. Last summer the people in his constituency saw fit to elect him to the local legislature of British Columbia.
My hon. friend also referred to and produced a petition from purported employees in the shoe manufacturing business in British Columbia. I want to assure my hon. friend and the petitioners that the government's tariff policy as regards British Columbia, that is, the lowering of duties on the instruments of production, will do more for the shoe business in Vancouver than his highly protective policy. But my hon. friend has seen fit to place his own interpretation on business conditions in British Columbia, and I think it is only fair that parliament should know the real state of affairs. I have in my hand a statement of the Financial Times of March 6, which reads:
Industrial progress in British Columbia shown by workmen's compensation figures from Canadian Bureau of Financial Times, Vancouver. Statistics compiled by the Workmen's Compensation Board of British Columbia are indicative of the industrial development of that province during the year 1924. According to the figures published, it is estimated that more than $160,000,000 was expended last year on payrolls in industries under the Workman's Compensation Act. For 1923, the payroll amounted to $153,548,944 as com-
1810	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
pared with $128,592,502 in 1922. There was a corresponding increase in the number of industries established and operated, 1,550 new firms commencing business during 1924.
I first saw this statement in the Victoria Times and later in the Financial Times, and I have quoted the Financial Times because it cannot be said to be a party organ. I thought it well to confirm this newspaper statement, and I wrote to the chairman of the compensation board asking if the statement in the Times would be confirmed by his board. He writes me as follows:
The Hon. J. H. King,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa,
February 26, 1925.
Dear Doctor:
I am in receipt of your telegram reading as follows: "Would be glad if you would confirm statement made in Victoria Times, February, 14, regarding increased number of new firms doing business in the province in 1924 and increased payroll between 1922 and 1924."
I was unable to get a copy of the Victoria Times but . take it that the Times copies a report from the Vancouver papers. I accordingly wired you as follows: "There were 1,550 new firms commenced business in this province during last year. Payrolls of 1924 were at least $22,000,000 greater than 1922"
which I now beg to confirm. The reason I cannot give you the definite payroll figures for 1924 is that we have not yet audited all the employers' payrolls for 1924. There audits will not likely be completed before June or July of this year. However, we have assessed on the basis I have given you and in every single year our assessment has been found to be under the actual payroll; hence you can rest assured that the figures I have given are within the amount.
Conditions in British Columbia are better than they have been for the past four or five years. I have never known such a unanimous feeling of optimism as is now being displayed by the larger employers. Nothing in my opinion can hold British Columbia back from rapidly forging ahead.
I think the information compiled in our records gives more accurate indication of business conditions than any figures that can be compiled by others.
E. S. H. Winn.
Chairman.
The statements that my hon. friend has been making in his many addresses are statements that would lead the people of eastern Canada to believe that conditions in British Columbia are not as they should be. I do not claim that thej' are the best, but we are improving, we are going ahead. The Vancouver Sun of February 26 had this to say in regard to the propaganda my hon. friend is carrying on and its effect on British Columbia. The article is headed " Poor Publicity " and it goes on to say:
Hon. Harry Stevens, genial and able member for Vancouver Centre, tells his Ottawa confreres that high taxation, instituted by the Canadian government, is driving business men out of Vancouver into Seattle. Published broadcast in the east, this interesting statement has moved many eastern interests to inquire anxiously whether it is really true that the head offices 
of Vancouver firms are moving across the line. It is not true. In straining after ammunition wherewith to blast his political opponents, Mr. Stevens has this time somewhat overreached himself. Instead of devastating the Liberal forces, Mr. Stevens has simply managed to give his own constituency a black eye. Canadian taxation may be high. No one will deny that. But Mr. Stevens' support of the present freight rates discrimination against Vancouver and the remarkably poor publicity he gives this city in statements like this one will do more to drive Vancouver firms out of business than will our present taxation.
I think I may be permitted to follow that up and to show the progress that British Columbia is making in the industries in which she is directly interested. The lumber industry is one of our largest. Probably no other province in Canada has the stand of timber that British Columbia has, and in no province has the industry developed so rapidly as in British Columbia. I took occasion to write the Department of Lands in Victoria, B.C. asking them in regard to the increase in the lumber business over a period of years, and I propose to place these figures on Hansard. Before doing so, I purpose reading a letter from the minister of that department, because we hear in this House statements in regard to the administration of the lumber industry, not only in British Columbia, but in other provinces, and I think the minister's letter might well be placed on Hansard. He writes as follows:
February 25, 1925.
Hon. Dr. J. H. King. M.P.,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Dr. King,
In reply to your telegram of February 23. I enclose herewith memo showing export, as requested by you.
I may say the policy of the government is that manufacturing shall take place within the province. As hon. members are aware, we have no control over export of logs from crown granted areas. In the case of licenses, each case is dealt with on its merits and export is only allowed where there is no local market. On the other hand, no export would be allowed if operations were deliberately carried on for the purpose of glutting the market.
This is signed by the Minister of Lands in British Columbia.
I think I might fairly explain to the House the matter of export of logs from the province of British Columbia. We have large stands of timber there and in our logging operations we find that only certain grades of timber will be absorbed in our own or local markets: that is the lumberman or operator cannot saw a No. 3 or No. 4 grade log and expect to ship that class of timber with the freight rates that it carries into the prairie districts or into the foreign markets. So that in the logging operations we have what is known as a third and fourth grade of logs, which if made into lum-

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
ber, in thickly populated areas would be absorbed locally, but would not permit of sale if one had to export over a long rail or ocean trip. So that we have in British Columbia the exportation erf certain grades of logs, more particularly Nos. 3 and 4. These are only allowed to be exported on a certificate of officials of the department and by order in council of the government. Now as to the growth of the industry, I will just briefly state it. The following figures will show the water borne lumber trade, logs exported and the total scale of logs:
Water-borne Logs	Total
Lumber Trade Exported Scale of Logs
Year '	M.B.M. M.B.M. M.B.M.
1915	
58,074	106,874	1,017,6831916	
43.676	52,184	1.280.2631917	
43,922	51.176	1.647,2751918	
88,069	11,608	1,761,1841919	
108,872	44.270	1,758,3291920	
146.624	28,673	2.046,4681921	
188,733	90,216	1,790,0171922	
273.146	151.518	1,899,1581923	
521.707	233,658	2.521.7351924	
531,262	240,530	2,549,700
That I think will show the House and the country that the manufacture and sale of the products of this basic industry have advanced very materially dfiring the last few years.
The mining industry is of great interest and great value to the people of British Columbia, and I think never in its history has it been in a more flourishing condition than it is at the present time. The value of our mineral products for 1924, according to a conservative estimate, will total $45,000,000. This is 9 per cent better than $41,000,000 in 1923. This does not tell the whole story for the year 1924 because during that year the coal mining operations within the province suffered very materially, more particularly in the Crowsnest pass district where a strike continuing over seven months lessened production by 750,000 tons. If we eliminate the coal mining, the metal mining wall show an increase of 25 per cent in 1924 over 1923. A few miles north of Vancouver we have one of the largest copper mines in the empire. This class of mining has not been over-prosperous on account of the weak markets due to the unsettled conditions that existed in Europe following the war; yet a comparison of the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 shows continuous progress in that industry. In 1922 we produced 32,359,000 pounds of copper; in 1923, 57,720,000 pounds, and in 1924, 63,185,000 pounds. It is true a great deal of this metal is shipped out of the -country in the raw state, but as I said this afternoon, the policy of the Liberal party in bonusing this mining industry has brought results. In the budget brought down some few years ago the
government gave a bonus for the production of refined copper in Canada, and within the last few months this bonus has had its effect. Copper is being refined at the Trail smelter in British Columbia to-day, and some 600 tons of that refined copper is now in eastern Canada and being manufactured into copper wares in this country. In addition to that we have the annual statement of the Consolidated Mining Company in which they say:
As expected the year's average prices of lead and zinc were favourable. In the latter part of the year the copper position improved. On the expectation that the market price of this metal will remain above 14 cents a pound for some time, preparations are being made to resume operations by the Allenby Copper Company at Copper Mountain, near Princeton, B.C
Capper Mountain has one of the largest deposits of copper in the world, but it has been closed down for a numlber of years, and to-day under the stimulus of the bonus and the increased price of copper, we have further assurance that this mine will be in operation this year. But, Mr. Speaker, probably the brightest phase in the mining industry in any country is the development of the lead and zinc industry in Britsh Columbia. A comparison of the production of zinc for the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 shows the following:
Pounds
1922		 19,000,000
1923		 58,000,000
1924		 64,000,000
The record of the increase of lead production is even more remarkable as shown by the
following:
Pounds
1922		 41,000,000
1923		 96,000,000
1924		 131,000,000
British Columbia's .position in regard to lead products in relation to the rest of Canada is emphasized when it is understood that the year 1923 was the first time that the production of lead from Canadian ores exceeded 100,000,000 pounds. And last year the province of British Columbia from her own ores produced 131,000,000 pounds.
The development of the Portland canal district, where is located the famous Premier mine, the mine carrying very high grade silver and producing great wealth, gives promise of great production, from other properties. A fair indication of the increased mining in British Columbia might be shown by the number of companies which have been incorporated during the last year. Their total capitalization for the years 1923 to November 1924 being around $90,000,000 as compared with $68,000,000 for the full years 1914, 1915 and 1916.
1812	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
I have referred, Mr. Speaker, at some length to the industrial activity in British Columbia, in order that I might dispel the picture of gloom and despair that has been painted by some of the hon. members opposite. Last night -my hon. friend from Comox-Aiberni, (Mr. Neill) dealt with the fishing industry in British Columbia and informed the House that the year 1924 was the best year ever enjoyed in the salmon fishery business since 1919. Agriculturists in the province have suffered, as agriculturists have suffered the world over, but I find that last year there was an improved feeling among them.
Now. as to taxation. A few days ago the hon. member for Vancouver Centre suggested that taxation to-day is stifling industry, and that this government is at fault in regard to it. No one will deny for a moment that taxes are high, and no sane or reasonable man will wonder why they are high. During the war period we expended large sums of money both at the front and at home, and to-day we are carrying the burden. We were told the other day by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) that probably we would be well advised to adopt the French policy and raise our tariffs - to a very high point, but he did not suggest that we should not pay our war debt; and I believe it was the intention of our people when they borrowed money to prosecute the 'war to repay it. So to-day we have high taxation. But as shown by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) $900,000,000 of our war loans are tax free, but as those loans mature and are refunded they will become taxable.
I have made some inquiries regarding taxation in this country and in the United States, and I have before me a comparison of the income tax on corporations as levied in the two countries. I am advised that in the United States this tax is 12J per cent, while ours is 10J per cent. These figures are given me by the Commissioner of Taxation and I have no doubt they are absolutely reliable. It is therefore apparent that Canadian corporations have an advantage over those in the States to the extent of 2 per cent in this respect. My hon. friends opposite these days seem to be very anxious to make comparisons between Canada and the United States in an attempt to show that we are very much worse off than our neighbours. But it is very difficult to make reliable comparisons, our federal and provincial jurisdictions being different to the federal and state jurisdictions across the line. Some of our provinces im-

pose income tax, and over this the federal government has no control, and because of this it may be that corporations in this country are paying more in income tax than corporations in the United States. I am not sure whether income tax is imposed by some of the states, but I know that the states adjoining British Columbia do not impose any.
My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre also invited the attention of the Acting Minister of Finance to the fact that non-residents in Great Britain or the United States who purchase goods for export are subject to tax. Well, a non-resident in Great Britain, the United States or Canada, who purchases goods for export only is not subject to income tax. My hon. friend also intimated that an outsider who might come in and do business in England would be presented by the tax commissioner or his agent with an assessment as representing a foreign firm. This statement implies that the Old Country imposes a tax on those who effect purchases therefrom, but I am advised that .this is not the case. Foreign companies transacting business in Great Britain through agents or representatives are taxable on profits realized within the United Kingdom, but not in respect to purchases for export only. Great Britain also assesses resident corporations, although they be foreign, where the actual control and management is within the United Kingdom. Preliminary operations in manufacture by foreign companies within Canada are deemed by statutory declaration to be the partial exercise of business or the carrying on of business in Canada, and consequently within the purview of the income tax law. The minister may determine, and his determination is final, what portion of the ultimate total profit made by the sale abroad of the semi-manufactured goods referred to should be taxed in Canada. So we find that a foreign firm with an agency in Vancouver is assessed at the discretion of the minister, and his word is final as to the profits made and the assessment thereon.
I have before me extracts from the Income War Tax Act which I should like to place on Hansard to save time, as I am anxious not to detain the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I presume it is merely the references to which my hon. friend has referred?


John Warwick King: 
Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I first wish to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on being able to bring down a budget that was mucn more acceptable to this House and to Canada than any of us had reason to expect. Of course we all realize that it would be absolutely impossible to bring down a budget that would be acceptable to everybody. We have in the eastern sections of Canada the manufacturers, who want high protection and we have the prairie provinces in the west, that want free trade. The farmers on the prairies have to compete in the markets of the world with what they produce, and naturally they think they should have the right to buy what they want where they can get it the cheapest. Then we have our large railway system, which the private companies failed to make a success of; a system which was in a very dilapidated condition when the government took it over-in fact it was not
The Budget-Mr. McBride

safe to run trains on several of the lines, at least at any speed. On the one hand we have the people talking day after day about cheap freight rates; on the other we have Sir Henry Thornton and his officers making every effort to get our railways on a paying basis. Then we have the Acting Finance Minister and the government trying to keep expenditure within revenue; on the other hand w'e have members of parliament, or at least a percentage of them, who want more expenditure and less taxation. Under these conditions I do not think it is possible for any man to bring down a budget that would be acceptable in all quarters of the House.
Since the House opened on February 5 a good deal has been said about hard times; about people going to the United States; about unemployment; about getting more immigrants into the country; about less taxation and greater expenditure; about ocean freight rates; about the merchant marine; about cheap money for the farmers and how to run the banks. Others have talked about Senate reform; some about a reduction of the indemnity; some about annexation to the United States. Indeed some people go around the country suggesting that this government is in favour of annexation, or words to that effect. My experience has been that a man with a pair of good sound lungs does not have to go round the country telling the people what he has got; no, they will perform the functions they were intended to perform, without any special effort on his part. As I see it, no true Canadian will go round the country making such a statement; only the skimmed milk type of politician would do such work.
\\ e have heard, as I have already said, a good deal about people going over to the United States. I might make the statement that 250,000 people came from the United States to Vancouver last year, and1 it would be just as correct, as some of the statements that have been made in this House. The statement is correct, but it is misleading and should not be made. They came over, but the greater number of them went back. Why run down Canada? Why have people so much to say about the United States? Why do they hold the United States up as a country of prosperity, a country to be desired by all, and why do they paint a gloomy and foreboding picture of their own country? There are two or three statements I would like to make in connection with our people going over to the United States. Here is a letter from a young man who went to California in 1923. He says:

I do not care much for California; I find it very hard to get acquainted. The people seem to think of nothing here but the almighty dollar, and I think every crook from hell to bedlam must be in California.
I have given it word for word as it was written. He says further:
The favourite sport seems to be trying how often you can get married and divorced in the same year. Stealing other men's wives is another way of passing the time, and robbing at the point of the gun is as common as swatting mosquitoes in the Smith meadows during the month of June.
We have heard a great deal about the condition of prosperity in the United States and the inducements that are offered to Canadians to go there, while at the same time a gloomy picture is painted of Canada. Here is what Sam Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labour for a great number of years in the United States, said on the 5th of November last-and I may say that on the 5th of November there were not a great number of people out of employment in Canada, in British Columbia at least:
All this talk of prosperity in the United States looks good on paper. We hear much about it, but right now we have at least two million people out of work.
That was on the 5th of November last year. Is that a very desirable country for our people to go to? Still another:	Mrs. J.
H. Bullman, president of the Illinois Federation of Women's Clubs, in an address before the leaders of that body in Chicago on December 12, makes this statement-these are not Canadians; they are Americans:
There should be more hanging and less sobbing over the plight of the youthful gunmen and ex-murderers and toughs.
Then she goes on to say:
We are the most lawless nation on the earth. Our criminal record is unequalled in any city on the globe. With such a condition why should we talk about abandoning capital punishment? Every five and a half years more lives were lost through crime than were lost in the war. I am tired of this silly sentimentality that favours the treatment of crime.
And she closed by urging that there be no cutting down of the number of hangings until crime is lessened. Yet the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) makes reference this afternoon to the "magnificent" country to the south of us. Glowing terms, siplendid words -about the country to the south; but what about Canada? He holds up poor old England and Canada as the picture of distress-as if they were not fit to take care of themselves. There was more unemployment-yes, five times more-in Vancouver in the spring of 1913 or 1914 than there has been since this government came into power.

The Budget-Mr. McBride
It has been stated by an hon. member of the opposition that the housing problem in this country is solving itself; that the people did not need any more houses, because they were leaving the country. Well, I do not know very much about Canada, but I know a little about a town out on the Pacific coast which they used to call Gastown; then they called it Vancouver, and1 now some people call it Greater Vancouver. I am going to say a little about what has been going on there. During the year 1924 there were 2,032 homes built in that city, and there is scarcely an empty house in it; indeed when I went back after the last session I had to call up a number of hotels before I was able to get a room. Here is what the building inspector says:
On December 31st when the building inspectors of the various districts which make up Greater Vancouver compiled their figures for the year 1924, they stated it was one of the greatest years of construction in the history of the lower mainland. The total value of buildings erected was 112,882,474, an increase of 90 per cent over the previous year.
Does that look as if people were leaving this country or had lost confidence in it? But that is not all:
On December 31st, there was under construction, proceeding or contracted, an additional nine millions, or a grand total of twenty-two millions for the year 1924.
I think that is a record this country should be proud of. It is a record the people should know about, and it is one that will do much to counteract the attempt being made to becloud the issue all over this country. I do not know that I will say much more about Vancouver. I do not wish to make one of those long-winded speeches lasting two or three hours. I will pass on.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) last night dealt fully with the oriental question. Indeed, many of the items that he had in his address I intended to bring before this House. However, I do not intend to repeat what he has already said, and said so well, and I will be as brief as possible. I will give you a quotation from a Japanese paper translated into the English language. This publication says:
There is danger ahead. Discrimination has been shown in the school question, which is extremely important, and in the fishing question. We Japanese to whom it is a question of life and death struggle must determine it at any sacrifice.
That is what the Japanese say themselves in their own paper. Indeed, if the Japanese did not stand by their country in case of trouble, they would be executed for treason by their own countrymen. That is the opinion of a 116
judge of the Supreme court of British Columbia, and I quite agree with him. Why should1 we be bringing in orientals to Canada and educating them in our schools at the expense of the taxpayers of this country, when we cannot furnish money to educate our own children? Why should these people be coming to this country to take the place of our own men in business? We have got to educate them for the purpose, and then allow them to enter business to compete with the white race. Why should we in British Columbia be compelled by this government to allow those people to come to this country, and have them sit in the same schools with our white boys and girls? I have nothing to say against the oriental idea of morals; that is their own business, not ours. But I do say that this government should stop, and stop once for all, those people coming in and placing themselves alongside our children in the schools, where our children will have a chance to talk with them. It is all very good for people down here who do not know, but it is a serious question out in British Columbia, and I think this government should realize it, and the sooner they do, the better it will be for all concerned.
We hear a great deal about the Japanese high temperament, and the position they will take if we say thiat this country does not want to have them here. If the Japanese had any self-respect, shall I say, they would not come to Canada, for well they know they are not wanted. They are forcing themselves in on us. Would any self-respecting people do that? I do not think they would. And when you bring the oriental race and the white race together, what do you have? In the first case, they will not assimilate, but they are getting married, and they are bringing into existence a mongrel race that is not a credit to any country. It is certainly not a credit to Canada, and should not be allowed. In fact if this parliament is going to allow these people to come in here it ought to do as the States have done, make a law forbidding orientals and the white race to unite in marriage, and the sooner that is done, the better it will be for all concerned.
We have out there in British Columbia over forty thousand of these orientals, and last year there were about twelve hundred births. Surely that is enough of 9 p.m. increase without allowing any more orientals to come to our shores. Not only that, the Japanese themselves take objection to cheap labour. I read this in a Japanese paper:



The Budget-Mr. McBride
The Tokio government fears cheap labour from China. Drastic action which may result in the deportation of 6,000 Chinese labouring now in Japan is expected from the Japanese government. Chinese labour is affecting employment in Japan, as the Chinese work for smaller wages.
Now if Japan claims the right to deport labour that they bring in when they have finished their work, surely Canada has that right too. Why should she not have this right? Even India has taken the stand to keep outsiders from coming into her country. I read this from Delhi, India:
A bill was passed for the purpose of regulating the entry into British India of persons who were domiciled in other British possessions.
The British representative on the executive council did not oppose that bill. Now if India can regulate her immigration, why cannot Canada? I have another item here from Capetown, South Africa, The Transvaal and Free State:
Asiatic segregation contemplated by South Africa, also Belgrade. The Jugo-Slav Minister of Commerce has published a decree requesting all foreigners to leave. Friendly nations are granted a short delay not to exceed four weeks.
Is this not evidence enough that Canada should have the right to regulate her immigration? Not only that, but there is no Class of people in British Columbia to-day that has as much tuberculosis as the orientals have. That has been proven by statistics. And these orientals are in the market gardening business. They are supplying vegetables [DOT]to the hotels and restaurants and to many private houses. Now is it right that that class of people should1 be handling vegetables and spreading that disease that is costing British Columbia to-day and other countries thousands, yes, millions of dollars to try and stamp it out? Yet that is what is going on. Indeed, there was a case of leprosy a short [DOT]time ago in British Columbia, and1 this man was also engaged in market gardening, with every opportunity to spread the disease. We have quite enough people of our own to run this country, and when the good Lord made the orientals and the white race he put the Pacific ocean between them to keep them apart.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if red
men were not put in this country rather than the white?


Thomas George McBride: The white men were here before the orientals, and the orientals are not pioneers. They do not go out to help develop the country, never have and never will. They always stay around the cities. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)

spoke last evening on the subject of naval defence. I should like to say a word or two on the same question. It seems to me this government should do something to give us protection on the Pacific coast. I am not advocating a standing army for Canada. The only necessity for such an army as I see it, would be in the event of trouble between us and our friends to the south-something that nobody ever expects to see, it is quite unthinkable. I do not think Canada should spend money on a standing army but I do believe that adequate provision should be made so as to protect our shores and our ports in case of trouble. Also to enable us to remain neutral, if we wanted to do so, in the event of a clash between other countries. Supposing, for instance trouble arose between United States and Japan and a naval battle occurred between the ships of those countries off the Pacific coast? Supposing the Japanese fleet got the worst of it where would they head for? They would make either for Prince Rupert or Esquimalt, possibly for Vancouver. We may as well realize it the Japanese fleet could enter Prince Rupert, or the harbours of Esquimalt, Victoria or Vancouver and command these cities to surrender. We could not defend ourselves; we have nothing to defend ourselves with. And supposing the Japanese fleet entered Vancouver harbour? Under international law Canada might permit them to remain for twenty-four hours but no longer. At the expiration of that time this country would have to force the evacuation of that harbour or run the risk of bombardment by the United States navy. How could we force the Japanese to withdraw, if they did not wish to go, seeing that we have no means of compelling them. We should simply, in the absence of an adequate force of our own, have to let the Americans come in, and that would be a very humiliating position to be placed in. Then if the Japanese showed fight the Americans would have to bombard their fleet in the harbour and possibly blow up our towns and our docks. It is a serious proposition for us on the Pacific coast. Other countries are preparing for eventualities of this kind and why-should not Canada. Sometimes we hear people talking about Canada being in no danger, that the United States and Britain would afford the necessary protection in such case of an emergency. It reminds me of the man who had three sons. He set them up in business but when they got into financial difficulties they always came to talk it over with the old man and to get him to foot the bill. That is not a very dignified procedure,

The Budget-Mr. McBride
but it is just what Canada would have to do in the event of such hostilities as I have alluded to breaking out because she could not protect herself. We must look at the facts as they are and not as we would wish them to be. The experience of other countries ought to be valuable to us in a matter of this kind; it is a far safer guide than theory. The experience of England is particularly useful. It has shown that it takes three years to build a warship, and nine years to train a crew. If we trust to civilization there is no guarantee of security. Only the nation that can protect itself is in a position to rest in safety.
Now, what is the United States doing? I am not going to enter upon a consideration of the entire programme of the United States for defence purposes. I shall cite only one instance. In 1924 the number of guns mounted for the defence of Panama was as follows:
Pacific Coast-
One 16" gun range 50,000 yards.
Six 14" guns.
Fourteen 6" guns.
Twelve 12" howitzers.
Twelve 4.7" howitzers.
On the Atlantic coast the artillery mounted for the same purpose is as follows:
Atlantic coast-
Four 14" guns.
Four 12" , guns.
Six 6" guns.
Sixteen 12" howitzers.
Eight 4.7" howitzers.
Sixty-six 3" guns.
In addition there is a mobile armament consisting of fifty-two, 155mm. guns, tractor drawn. This year the United States is budgeting for the following additions to the defence of Panama:
Four 16'' guns for the Pacific at a cost of $1,200,000.
Four 16'' guns for the Atlantic at a cost of $1,060,000.
Surely if the country to the south is impressed with the necessity of making such preparations we ought to do something to protect our part of the Pacific coast. It is possible that Canada could impose on the generosity of the British government in order to protect herself on the Atlantic should trouble break out there but we could not do that on the Pacific; we are too far away. The Dominion of New Zealand last year voted $5,000,000 for this purpose; a little country like New Zealand. We claim that the Canadian people are going to be a great nation in a short time and therefore why should we not make some preparations to defend ourselves? I think it should be the duty of this government to at least make a start this session in providing 116i
some protection for the Pacific coast. They are in honour bound to do it.
Now I come to a consideration of railway matters. We have not heard very much on this subject this session but I hope to hear the question discussed before the session is over. I should like to refer for a few minutes to the matter of an outlet to the Peace river country. I am not going to labour the question, I am not going to ask hon. members to take any statements of mine; I will give you statements taken from a report published in 1920 and signed by Hon. Arthur Meighen and W. W. Cory, Deputy Minister of the Interior. I went up into that country and spent part of a fall there before I ever mentioned the subject here-I wanted to be sure that I could verify any statements I intended to make and I will now say that I have no fault to find with that report as a whole. I will just give you a few extracts from the report in order to show you what the country is like:
First, the area of the Peace River district is over 115,000 square miles. Three and a half million acres of the best of this land is owned by the Dominion government.
The climate of the Peace River district is excellent. Blizzards are unknown. Seeding usually begins early in April, sometimes in March. Most of the rainfalls occur in June and July. Mild weather until Christmas is not uncommon.
In 1919 there were shipped out over the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway, 4,909 carloads of freight. In the same year there were shipped in 4,143 carloads of freight. Marquis wheat has yielded as high as 69 bushels to the acre.
Now as to Pouce Coupe:
The extent of this choice area is about 25 miles wide by 40 miles long. The altitude is low. Summer frost and hail are very rare, and total crop failure from any cause is unknown.
The mountain streams contain trout. Cariboo lake teems with large trout and white fish.
Seams of coal are exposed in the canyon above Hudson Hope. Beds of gypsum ten to fifteen feet are exposed on both banks of the Peace river for a distance of fifteen miles.
As regards coal there is practically no limit to the coal areas there and to the available water-power. People went into that district believing the federal government were going to provide railway transportation for them. A circular to that effect was distributed all over the United States and the Old Country, and settlers went in there confident that the government were going to provide them with transportation. As to the kind of people in the Peace river country I am prepared to say I never encountered a better class anywhere. They are the pioneer type. They are men and women who are willing to make good and who will make good if they get half a chance. Why will this government not do something
The Budget-Mr. McBride

to give them an outlet? I know the finances of this country will not permit very large expenditures on railways, and I am not asking for that. I should like to see an outlet by way of Prince George, but I understand that would cost in the neighbourhood of $17,000,000, and I am not asking even for that at the present time. What I would like this government to do-and the outlay would be only a small one-is to see to it that the piece of line between Spirit river and Pouce Coupe, fifty-four miles long, which is already graded and which is practically ready to lay the steel on, is completed and to extend it ten miles further into the Peace river block. This would make, all told, sixty-four miles. Surely that would not 'be a big thing. When the line is built, I would like to see the government turn it over to whatever railway is operating the Edmonton-Dunvegan line on condition that they would reduce the freight rates that now exist from the Peace river block to Edmonton. They could then leave the country alone for a few years to see whether it would develop as fast as a large number of us who know the district think it would. I think that would satisfy the people there, and for the present it would give them an outlet. I believe it would serve the purpose; the expenditure would be very small, and it would redeem the pledges given by the federal government to the people who went in there. I think the government would be fully justified in carrying out this project.


Mr. KELLNER:: Did the hon. member
see the press report recently ito the effect that the Canadian Pacific are negotiating with the government at the moment whereby they are to be given a subsidy of some $180,000 to bring the Peace river grain out over the British Columbia and Edmomton-Dunvegan line?


Thomas George McBride: I have seen that report
in the newspapers. Further than that, I know nothing of it; but even if that were done, it would not give the people in the Peace river block any accommodation in the way of railway facilities. That would be only to operate the lines that are already there, that is, in Alberta. I think the government is in honour bound to carry out this extension, and I think the people would back them in doing so. As I have already said, this would be only fair to the people who are in there.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Approximately, how many
people are in there ?


Thomas George McBride: I would not say how many are in there at the present time. I do not think in the Peace river block there would be possibly more than two thousand. I was told that at one time there were between seven and eight thousand but I will say this, that when I was through that country, I met only one man who wanted to sell his place. They have their patents on their homesteads and they are keeping them until they get railway facilities while they are living in other places. You can readily understand why people are leaving that district. I have seen men who had built three granaries. They build first one granary, then an addition and then another addition, each year for three years, to hold the grain waiting for railway facilities. In other places, they have two and three years' grain stacked in the fields. They grow the grain because they like to grow it, and they are trying to live there as best they can. It is a general thing for the men to go to Vancouver or the United States, wherever they can get a job, in the winter time, leaving their wives and families to look after the cattle, while they earn a little money with which to buy the necessaries of life. Yet they have the grain there if they could get it to market. Why not give them an outlet?
A good deal has been said about immigration into Canada, and I expect a good deal more will be said. I do not think Canada will ever ibe right until we have thirty or forty million people. At the same time, I cannot say that I am in favour of this government taxing the people of Canada to bring a certain class of people to this country. I come from the Old Country, and I have never seen the time there that a man, if he wanted to earn his passage to Canada, could not do so in less than two years. If a man has not backbone enough to earn his passage out here, what is he going to do when he gets here? Such men are going to flock into the cities or come and whine to the government to lend them money or something along that line. Let me give an instance. Last spring, two young men who received assisted passages to Canada came out to British Columbia and went to work on a farm that I am very well acquainted with. They said they were raised on a farm in the Old Country; that they had worked on a farm all their lives. One of them worked for about four and a half months and the other, for about five and a half months. I know the man for whom they were working gave them every opportunity. At the end of that time neither one of them could hitch up a team, take it out and do a day's ploughing.

The Budget-Mr. McBride
That was not the worst of the matter. The farmer had finally to pay them off, and neither of the men had ten dollars saved when he paid them; they were always borrowing money ahead. When they were asked what they would do for the winter, they said they thought they would go to Vancouver, that the people there would not let them starve. Such people are no good and they are a curse to the workingmen of the country. They go to the cities, take whatever jobs they can get, at any wage, and put the working men out of their steady jobs. We do not want that class in Canada. Any man who wants to make good can earn enough to bring him to this country, and if he cannot do that we do not want him here.
A good deal has been said from all parts of this House about the tariff, and as far as I can see, it makes very' little difference whether the tariff is high or low as long as the government will see to it that the manufacturers in Canada will produce goods just as cheap as we can buy them on the American side. That is all we ask. That is all the farmer asks. Why should the farmers of this country, who have to compete in the markets of the world, foe put up against a tariff of 25 or 35 per cent when they go to buy anything? That is not right. Some people say that Canada cannot compete with the United States. Canada can compete with the United States. She can give the United States cards and spades and beat them to it. The young men of Canada proved the stuff they were made of when they went to France and Flanders and they can do so again. The trouble with our manufacturers is that they are too mean to purchase up-to-date machinery and give our young men a chance to make good. If they were given to understand that they would get protection provided they put their goods on the market as cheap as they could be purchased on the other side, but that if they commenced to hold the people up in this country, the tariff would be cut down, that would have the desired effect, and I think it is what ought to be done.
I had a letter from British Columbia the other day, in connection with eggs and butter. I think the government during the present session should raise the dtuty on eggs coming into Canada to make it equal to the duty on the same article going into the States. There is nothing wrong about that and I think it is only fair. Some members laugh at that; the trouble is that protection is not for the farmer. He gets no
protection, and the manufacturer is protected all the time. Now a certain class of people start in a small way. They take up a homestead; they have a cow and a few chickens and try to make a living in that way. Why should they not be given the same protection as the manufacturers? Why should the government not put a duty of 8 cents a dozen on eggs, as the United States does? Why should they not also put a duty on butter?
I should like to say a word in connection with the farmers being given this rural credit that has been spoken of. Anything I may say has no reference to returned men whatever. In my view neither this government nor the provincial government can do too much for the returned men-the men who did so much for Canada-but I am absolutely opposed to this government starting to give credit to farmers or anyone else. Let the provincial government look after that. I have heard the provincial government out in British Columbia boasting that they could borrow money cheaper than the Dominion government. Why then should the Dominion government get mixed up in this proposition? Why should they place a blanket mortgage on British Columbia or on Quebec or any other province, in order to be able to give the farmers cheap money? That is exactly what they have been doing. If Mr. Brown has his farm clear of mortgage, why should this government place a mortgage on that farm in order to be able to lend me cheap money? It is not a good policy, and if this government wants to get into trouble, it seems to me that would be a good way to go about it.
In conclusion I have a few words to say about railway rates. We 'have heard a great deal about railway rates and about putting our railways on a paying basis. Some farmers say, "Reduce the rates and carry more grain." What would the farmers say if the railways said, "Produce more grain, and lower your price for grain, and you will make more money"? The one is just as good an argument as the other. In my opinion it is up to this government to increase the rates from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Some people say that if you increased rates on the Canadian National you would drive all the traffic to the Canadian Pacific. Well, increase the rates on the Canadian Pacific also. As I view the matter, I think it would be a simple thing for this government to increase the rates on *both lines, say 10 per cent; then tax both lines 90 per cent of that 10 per cent and you
The Budget-Mr. McBride

will get a revenue that will carry our railways and finance the country. I think that is a reasonable .proposition. They would not then be making any moTe profit on the Canadian Pacific railway than 'they are making at present, or very 'little more. Canada will never be as prosperous as she should be until our railways are on a paying basis. I say further that districts which have no railway connection should not be 'taxed to give cheaper freight rates to those districts which have connections with the main lines. Take for instance a firm that I am very well acquainted1 with in British Columbia which got in nine carloads of freight last month. There is not one member of this House who did not help to .pay the freight rates on those nine cars. W'hy should they? The people who are making the profit are the people who should pay. At present every member in this House is helping to pay for the freight on those cars, because the National railway is carrying 'them for less than cost. I do not see that it is reasonable that we should put Sir Henry Thornton and his men u,p against an impossible proposition. I have no hesitation in saying that Sir Henry Thornton and Ws staff are doing everything that it is possible for them to do to give a good service to Canada and1 to place the railways on a paying basis. But they cannot do it. It is an absolute impossibility at the present rates. If the freight rates were increased, they would not be any higher than they are in the United' States. I have a schedule here showing the rates on one side of the line and the rates on the other side of the line, and I find that where they are carrying wheat, for instance, at 22 cents a bushel on the Canadian side they are charging 37 cents on the American side, and I find in another instance where they are carrying wheat for 20 cents on the Canadian side .they are charging 35 cents on the American side. According to this schedule the rates are fifteen to twenty per cent higher on the American side than on the Canadian side.


Mr. MILLAR:: Is that per bushel or per
hundred pounds?


Thomas George McBride: Per bushel, through
freights to the head of the lakes. I say we should increase the rates.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: I do not think there
is any toad in the United States that can be compared with the roads on this side per ton mile haulage. I think the roads on this side compare favourably with every road in the United States for haulage per ton mile.


Robert Forke: I should like to point out
that the amount of grain hauled from those stations by these United States roads as compared with the grain hauled from Canadian Pacific stations is almost insignificant. The rates do not count. It is a small part of the traffic.


Thomas George McBride: The distances are the
same. It is shown on the map that their haulage to the head of the 'lakes on the same basis costs from ten to thirty per cent more than on our Canadian roads. Why should we force the management of our railway to do something which it is impossible to do I say, increase our rates and put our railroads on a paying basis.


Roch Lanctôt: Mr. Speaker,
everybody discusses the economic depression existing throughout the country. My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), and his friends proclaim that we have not enough protection. We have too much, state the Progressives. All this highly amuses me. How can you explain that the American industries, although highly protected, feel the depression as much as we do. The Canadian farmers, being deprived of the United States markets, have to bear up with some hardships, and the American farmers complain as much as we do, if not more. We have taken the habit of singing the old tunes over and over again without realizing what they mean. It is more than time that we should come down to brass-tacks. I think, it is more likely our follies of railways of war, of " Ballantyne " merchant marine, of soldier land settlement, and so forth, which are the first cause of our economic depression; our excessive and senseless participation in the war, far surpassing our means; for instance, conscription in 1917, when we were already almost ruined.
My hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) will pardon me I hope, if I do not immediately comment on his speech, because I wish first of all to make a few remarks with reference to our railways since 1911. My hon. friends in the opposition are wonders, they have always done the right thing; if ever errors were committed, we have to blame the Liberals, it is out of the question that they did wrong! Their equals, in the realm of public affairs, are not to be found in any country! Moreover, according to their statements in and out of this House, they boast of being administrators who have governed the country economically, without ever blundering; in a

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
word, they are the saviours of our country I
These gentlemen, Sir, will tell you that if we have to bear up with the burden of our railways, the responsibility rests entirely with the Laurier government. In 1911, in the course of the session which preceded the general elections of September, the House unanimously voted 835,000,000, as a guarantee to Mackenzie and Mann for 1,000 miles of railway extending from Port Arthur to Montreal, this is $35,000 per mile. The general election took place on 'September 21, a few months after parliament, without much opposition, had acquiesced in this guarantee. What happened? Laurier was defeated. You might think, Mr. Speaker, that these distinguished statesmen, these far seeing and able men, would set aside this project? Nothing of the sort. Take note that nothing was begun previous to September 21, 1911; the contract was not even signed. Therefore, if this agreement passed by the Laurier government was not in the public interest, the incoming government immediately' after the election had taken place, should have refused to sign the contract. That was not done. On the contrary, it is the Borden government, through the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Cochrane, who signed the contract with Mackenzie and Mann. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) seems to doubt my word. I shall make him a proposal to-morrow, and I am in a position to prove to him that what I state is the truth-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think so.


Roch Lanctôt: For there are still eye witnesses and I shall make him meet these gentlemen who are his friends, and who will corroborate my statements. I, therefore, say that you are more to blame than the old Laurier government, for, according to the statements you have since made, you knew that this was a disastrous policy for the country. I further add, without any wish to deceive the House, that on the occasion referred to you failed in your task as members of the opposition and you failed in your duty towards the people of this country in signing this contract, and, you further lie deliberately to the same people, because it is really yourselves who signed the contract. This is not all. The Borden government foreseeing that the building of the two sections, at the same time, would not be a very popular move, came to an understanding with its friend McBride, the Premier of British Columbia and the latter undertook to build the sections between the prairies and Vancouver, a distance of 900 miles, with the Dominion government subsidies and a guarantee of $25,000,000 by McBride. Our railway difficulties date from that day on The only possible thing to do, in 1911, was to get rid of Mackenzie and Mann, by expropriating all their lines in the three prairie provinces, so as to use them as feeders for the Transcontinental railway of Laurier. Had this been done to-day, we would have but two railways instead of three, and the work of Laurier would have proved a greater success than that of the Canadian Pacific railway, because the former opened up on the whole a better territory than the latter, and, as you know, Sir, the prairie railways were, and are still the best paying lines of the Canadian National Railways, passing through and accommodating the most fertile parts of the we6t. If this had been done, we would not have to face, to-day, this railway problem.
Our troubles began in 1913. The Borden government-the one chosen in 1911-brought in Messrs. Robert Rogers, Cochrane, and so forth, into the cabinet. Laurier was defeated; however, these good Tories still were not satisfied, they were after his scalp. The Transcontinental railway was not quite completed when Laurier was defeated. The task of completing this railway so well begun was entrusted to Mr. Cochrane, the Minister of Railways. The railway grades were changed, wooden bridges were built to replace the iron bridges; all this was done so that the Grand Trunk Railway might have an excuse not to carry out the contract agreed upon between the government and the company. However, the government was yet not satisfied. "This is not enough; Laurier might yet embarrass us; we must do more; we shall establish an inquiry in regard to the construction of said1 railway;" and commissioners were appointed1. You know who they were, Sir Henry Drayton and Mr. Lynch-Staunton; and the trick was done. These gentlemen got down to work and the following year the report was laid on the table of the House; according to these gentlemen's report, the commission appointed by the Laurier government had spent $40,000,000 too much to build the Transcontinental railway, an easy thing to prove when such an inquiry is carried on by faithful partisans. I think I would make no exception for any party in regard to a report on an inquiry held under such conditions, when it is a question of the construction of a railway of more than 2,000 miles. Mr. Speaker, the same thing happens every day in law courts, not for railway construction, but in regard to an unfortunate person who may have committed murder. Medical ex-
The Budget-Mr. Lanctot

perts are called, examine the patient and disagree. They are under oath, no one can accuse them of perjury as they are indifferent to what happens to their patient, whether he escapes hanging or goes to the penitentiary; the case is different for the politician, he wants to see his party in power and, if the party comes to power, he concludes: I shall have my reward, moreover, I am not under oath, I am a Tory and I work for the party, I have very little in common with the Liberals. It is no doubt for such a reason that my hon. friend from West York was knighted.
The government for a time, came to the rescue of our bankrupt railways. In 1917 the war was not over; the Borden-Meighen government feUt the elections were approaching; a plan had to be worked out to keep in power and win the war. Their party was the only patriotic one in Oanadk! So as to make the result more certain, they said to themselves: We shall form a Union government. Some amongst them thought that this was not an easy matter, those old staunch Liberals, the fighters as they are known in the east and even in the west, will refuse to mingle with Bob Rogers; because these Liberals thought at that time that Rogers was no angel. The Tory faction which was trying to bring about this alliance thought: If the thing is necessary, we shall turn down Bob. I am sure that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was one of those who strove to form the Union government; at all events, if he was one of them, I congratulate him for he made a success of it. To form this alliance the war question was not the only one, there was also the question of railways in which all the premiers of the west, Ontario and even the east were very much interested in. It was then that the government decided to purchase -the Canadian Northern so as to have these premiers in their favour; however, if not entirely on their side, at least certainly not openly against them. This proved a success. In 1917, the Borden government purchased the Canadian Northern. This bill was piloted by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann were well taken care of. After having undertaken to pay all the guarantees and grants of the Dominion and provinces involved, in money and lands, all1 these said amounts, for the twenty-eight lines built by Mackenzie and Mann, costing more than $500,000,000, the Borden government, at the time of the purchase of said1 railways, found the means of having $10,000,000 paid in cash to compensate these gentlemen of their bankruptcy. This was equivalent to saying that they deserved

the congratulations of parliament and the people of this country for having succeeded in placing a bankrupt railway upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country.
I think, Sir, that it would be difficult to find in this country other railway contractors who knew how to enrich themselves so well with an enterprise which became bankrupt. The people of Canada had no such luck.
Owing to the fact that (this purchase was made by the Borden government, the provinces were relieved from their guarantees to Mackenzie and Mann to the amount of over $100,000,000, and, through this 1917 transaction, we (hailing from Quebec, have assumed a debt of not less than one-fourth of the above amount, $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 to pay for the blunders of the western provinces which had a very small population at that time.
In 1920, we purchased the Grand Trunk railway. We already had the Intercolonial, the Transcontinental, the Grand Trunk Pacific and other small lines in bankruptcy, and there are still some throughout the country that politicians offer to the president of our National railways so as to add to our railway system comprising 22,000 miles which we own at present, and upon which we lose fifty-six, sixty to eighty million dollars each year. And, all this without mentioning the new lines that we build here and there throughout the country. We have, Sir, since the purchase of the Canadian Northern, in 1917, up to date, increased our railway debt by $582,000,000; the interest, up to this day, on this amount comes to $131,000,000; moreover we owe the public on these purchases nearly $1,000,000,000. We owned paid up railways, previous to our first purchases, to the amount of nearly another $1,000,000,000, and I have no fear of misleading the House and the country when I state that our railways cost us at least $2,500,000,000. I wonder if this state of things can last much longer?
Mr. Speaker, I have always been opposed to this folly of state ownership and I am still more than ever against this unsound policy endorsed by too many of our colleagues in this House. I feel gratified that many of my fellow-members are not so enthusiastic as they were in 1917 at the time of the Canadian Northern purchase. I recall that my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) was very enthusiastic then; we were to pile up money. A few days ago, he spoke of adding the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Canadian National as the only way of getting out of the hole; not that he is against state ownership, but he hopes to do better with the Canadian Pacific Railway system. He reminds me of a man who went

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
broke in a poker game, he wants to make up bis losses, but often he comes out more in debt. I do not hold the same vieiws as my hon. friend from South York, I would rather see the stronger swallow up the weaker; that is done when there is a bank merger. Not very long ago, in Montreal', the Molson's Bank was merged with the Bank of Montreal, and I think that such a step is to the advantage of the public and the same thing would happen if a merger took place among our railways. I should like to see the Canadian Pacific Railway absorb our National Railways under certain stipulated conditions. And what are these conditions? They are that the Canadian Pacific Railway after having taken possession and paid us a fair price, perhaps a little higher than the one I would put-
Mr. MERdER (Translation): How much?


Roch Lanctôt: I am not particular about the price. At all events, this would rest with the members of this House to decide. I wish to see the large majority of shares remain in this country and not pass over to the Americans or other foreigners, so that we may later deal with our own affairs through the medium of the government and the railway commission.
At the outset of my remark^, I enumerated the causes of our ruin. I now wish to broach the subject of our participation in the war, a senseless and excessive participation with the scanty means we had at our disposal, when we were already on the road to ruin with all our railways.
Should Canada have taken part in the war? I answer, yes; but according to our means. What did this consist in? To recruit 100,000 to 150,000 men and even 200,000 men to please the jingoes of this country, and stop at those figures, furthermore produce food of all kinds to help the allies. Unfortunately our government and all the politicians did not see it in that light. It was not so much with the aim of helping the allies as to pass for loyal subjects of His Majesty and so that the records of history might show that the Tory party had saved the empire. If only our politicians had gauged the true situation of this country, its means, and had understood that Canada is a young country, still undeveloped !
I do not think that there are many amongst the members of this House, at present, that do not acknowledge now that the Borden-Meighen government made a great mistake in having conscription passed in 1917, at a time when the United States had just entered
the war, after having accumulated all the gold in this world, and when they did not have one-fourth of the necessary ships to transport their troops. Why impose conscription in this country, when Australia carried on without it. The reason given in 1917, by one of Mr. Borden's ministers was that there existed no province of Quebec in Australia. I am well aware that the movement had Quebec as its aim; however, Mr.Speaker,the people of the province of Quebec will not forget for a long time to come these politicians of 1917. I must draw your attention to the fact that they already gave a decision on this measure in 1917, another in 1921, and they hope to give another in the near future. At present, in the province of Quebec, Mr. Monty, accompanied by Mr. Armand La-vergne, forsooth, and others somewhat in the same class, is organizing meetings on behalf of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. With a certain dash of reserve, Mr. Monty claims to be the worthy successor of Cartier, and Mr. Meighen the worthy successor of Sir John A. Macdonald. I do not think, Sir, that had Sir John A. Macdonald been Premier of this country during the Great war, he would have made all the blunders that his successors did here in Ottawa. I have somewhat studied the life of Sir John A. Macdonald. I must admit that he is the only Prime Minister of Canada, who remained a Canadias above all things. And I intend in the future if I still mix in politics to support the Prime Minister who will give proof of being a Canadian first and last
The member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) discussing the budget, on March 30, last, quoted France as an example of a protectionist country, and pointed out what it had accomplished since the armistice. He further stated that France had spent, in reconstruction, for miles and miles of railway and bridges that had been destroyed, for the highways that had to be rebuilt, as well as for canals and dams, up to January 1, 1924, twenty billion francs, so as to repair the physical damage to public properties, over and above those damages to churches, government, public and municipal buildings, and that France had carried out these repairs herself. Moreover, within the same period, France had disbursed an amount equal to about fifty six billion francs for the reconstruction of the devastated! territory. To carry out all this work, it received an immigration of 1,500,000 people and it made a lot of money. That may be, I do not deny what France did. However, all this is due to
The Budget-Mr. Lanctot

the extraordinary situation in which it found itself after the war: more than one-fourth of her territory was devastated, more than 500,000 homes destroyed; they had necessarily to rebuild.
However, Mr. Speaker, so as to have work and a visible prosperity, I state that it is not inviting for other countries to find themselves ini the same situation as France was after the armistice, in 1918.
In our own country those conditions do not exist, we have no war devastated territory, it is fortunate for us, but we have been ruined by the war and over-burdened with taxation.
Does the high protective tariff infallibly bring prosperity to the people in this country? I do not think so, Sir, and I believe I have an instance in my county which proves, above all doubt, that my .contentions are right, that is, that the high protective tariff does not always give to workmen a fair salary for the daily hard labour, in proportion to the salaries paid in the United States for the same kind of work. I am referring to the brickyards of Laprairie and Delson. When this building which we are now occupying was constructed-I refer to the Parliament building-the National Brick Co. of Laprairie, sold to Messrs Peter Lyall & Sons 15,000,000 bricks at $725 per 1,000. To-day the same brick sells at $17 per 1,000. I think that my statement cannot lead the House astray, in giving the sale price of that year; it was during the war and men were scarcer than to-day. I would like my good friend, Mr. Ballantyne, our ex-Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the Borden-Meighen government to be asked to do a little work, in his capacity of general manager of the National Brick Co. of Laprairie and Delson -as the company has its works in two different places, 4 miles from one another- Mr. Ballantyne is a protectionist, I think.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, a* extremist.


Roch Lanctôt: I would
suggest to him to try the easiest work for the first day, and to take the place of one of the nine men on the strap. These nine men receive from the moulds the bricks which come out fully shaped on the strap and place them two at a time in a small hand car which holds 496 bricks; there is not only one car on the track for nine men, but never less than three or four; these cars when loaded are immediately transferred to the drying chamber and replaced by other empty cars, and this goes on for ten hours.

Two bricks, one in each hand do not seem heavy for the first hour, however, they seem to increase in weight with every hour, up to the end of the tenth hour; the average wage, to-day, for the men is $3.60 per day, while two years ago these men earned from $5.50 to $6. Another job for my friend Ballantyne: the settlers. The latter transfer the cars from the drying chamber to what is known as the kiln. These settlers have not as easy a job as the strap men. They must take four bricks at a time and place them in spaced rows, so that the baking is thoroughly done. This kiln holds 96,000 bricks and these men work during ten hours with 22 pounds in their hands; and in order to finish filling up this kiln, they must throw these bricks like a ball, to a height of about twelve feet. It is the hardest work in the world that a man can be, called upon to do, during the eight or eight and a half months the season lasts. Out of 100 men-let us suppose them all strong men-who would come to work at our brickyards, 10 per cent, but no more, might perhaps hold out through the season. These men earn, to-day, 35 cents per 1,000 bricks compared to 45 cents per 1,000 two years ago; the same thing applies to the car brick loaders. The latter push wheelbarrows filled with bricks from the kiln, on a platform 100 to 125 feet iri length; they draw out with their hands the bricks from the kiln to load their wheelbarrows and when they reach the car they place these bricks in rows. The skilled labour then, up to 1923, earned from $5 to $6 per day and the unskilled hands from $3 to $3.50. To-day, the latter earn from $2.50 to $2.75-a few favoured ones $3 per day. All this happens with a tariff of 22-J per cent, and moreover with a general manager like Mr. C. C. Ballantyne, the leading protectionist in Montreal.
I must therefore, Mr. Speaker, conclude that it is a miserable wage which our men employed at the brickyards eight or eight and a half months, per year, receive. Is this an inducement to retain our young men in Canada, giving them a salary of $2.50 to $3.60 and even $4-the highest price paid by these companies. There are men who work thirteen hours per day and seven days in a week and others eleven hours; for instance, the night stoker begins at 6 p.m. and finishes at 7 a.m; the day stoker begins at 7 a.m. and finishes at 6 p.m. And, Sir, everybody recognizes the fact that the work in a brickyard is the hardest, the most exhausting and hottest of any work which a man is called upon to perform in our country.

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot
I have very little complaints to make about *conditions at home; very few of our young men have left the county. In my own county of Laprairie, I do not think that there aire ten persons that have left for the United States or elsewhere. However, there are a few more in the county of Napierville because they are nearer the border; the old people have visited the United States, the younger generation take a trip over there and return, telling us they went over to the United States to learn English, apd I believe them. At all events, we are fairly well provided for in our counties, being in the proximity of Montreal, and we have very little complaint to make. What we do find fault with, is that the country spent too much money during the war, too much money for the Ballantyne merchant marine and for other things.
Now, Sir, I am always astonished to hear the criticisms of our good friends of the opposition. When the government accomplishes something, it is always wrong. If the Liberals spend $100,000, I think, if it were in their power they would have us all thrown in gaol, but when they themselves spent, for instance, $112,000,000 for nothing, that is of no consequence. It is very strange to meet such people.
Has any one a notion of the cost of the Ballantyne merchant marine? My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition does not seem to have this item fixed in his mind since it has become an accomplished fact. We spent for the construction of this fleet $78,000,000. I have here the report. It is true that we have since sold six and lost three. We sold six for the sum of $000,000, that is $100,000 each. It is the maintenance of this fleet that is costly. We have increased our debt by $30,000,000 due bo deficits, and this does not take into account the deficit of this year. The last report for 1924 has not been brought down, but it is said that it will amount to $9,000,000. Since Mr. Ballantyne had these ships built we have squandered $112,000,000 for this merchant marine and each year our losses become greater. I have already bold our friends, members of the cabinet, that if these ships were mine, I would not keep them five hours. I would find some Jew, in Montreal, and sell them to him.
While on the subject, I must quickly state, lest I forget, that I am not, like my honorable colleagues of British Columbia, in favour of acquiring la navy. I am now strongly opposed to a naval policy of any kind, whether it be on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts; or in Montreal or in my own place; I do not want a
navy, it is too costly. In my opinion, the time has not arrived to carry on war expenditure and make preparations for war. I even think that the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) spends too much for militia.
This reminds me of something very queer. A famous doctor by the name of Osier, from Toronto, has stated-I read this in a paper, I cannot vouch for it-that all men over 65 years should be shoved aside so as not to be in the way of others, and chloroformed. I would like something a little different, I do not wish to chloroform the men 65 years old, I am near that age myself-but I would strongly be in favour of chloroforming the politicians who would suggest waging war or building navies.
There is something which appears very strange to the people of this country. The nobs, the millionaires of this country, those who were in favour of war, for whom we had to win the war at all cost and protect the empire, the great loyalists of this country -who, themselves took care not to go to the trenches-loaned us many millions, since there is still $931,000,000 of bonds exempt of taxes I would, Sir, very much like to get at these people. I may be told that these people hold a written agreement from Sir Thomas White, the former Minister of Finance. To this, I would answer: But, we, the members of parliament at this time, had also signed a contract with Sir Robert Borden, in 1916. When the Prime Minister of that day came before parliament to ask for an extension of time to continue their mandate so as not to bring on an election during the war, we agreed to do so on one condition: that there should be no conscription in this country. Did Sir Robert Borden keep his word towards 87 members of this House, representing 87 counties of Canada? Did the Prime Minister carry out his given pledge? No. He forced conscription upon us as soon as he got a majority in the Senate, and we, the poor people of this country had to go to the war. I stated, at that time, in the House that if I had anything to do with the profiteers who had demanded conscription against the wish of everybody, against the humble people of this country, that if I became Prime Minister for half an hour, with the help of legal advisers, I would frame another bill-we were then discussing Bill No. 75-I would frame Bill No. 76 by which I would confiscate the nine-tenths of the wealth of these gentlemen to pay our soldiers $3 per day, and supply funds to the wives and children of our soldiers. That was not done. However, they loaned us money at 5i per cent on government bonds
The Budget-Mr. Lanctot

exempt from taxes. There is still $931,000,000 due to these gentlemen, on bonds which will mature in 1931, 1935 and in 1937. They still have about ten years of tax exemption, they who forced the government to pass conscription; but these people must prove their gratitude towards us. Why does the House, to-day, not ask, unanimously, the Minister of Finance, to borrow the necessary money to pay these people? I do not wish them to lose a cent on the capital they have lent us, but what I do want, is to pay them off. These gentlemen are responsible, to-day, for a loss of $18,400,000 in the income tax, that we could collect, and nearly $9,000,000 of interest that we should have less to pay.
So that, Mr. Speaker, I make the bold assertion that we are losing at least twenty-five to thirty million dollars per year, and this, all due to these magnates. Would these same gentlemen refuse to render a service to their country, which is practically ruined and has enormous deficits each year, if they were anyway grateful for what the poor people did for them, they who were exempt from conscription owing to the business they were transacting during the war? How did they earn the money they loaned the government? Through war transactions, by charging 300 and 400 per cent to the country for stocks on hand. To-day these people come and tell us: You passed a contract, therefore you must honour it. If that is the case, I want to know why the government of the day, when it obtained an extension of its mandate, in 1916, did not honour the pledge given to the House by its Prime Minister, which is certainly worth an agreement made by the Minister of Finance.
Is not the word of honour of a man who becomes Prime Minister of a country worth as much as an act passed before a notary? That is why I contend that these gentlemen should come to the Minister of Finance and say: We beg of you to make new loans between now and six months; as for us, we shall accept the amounts loaned to the state, we shall pay like the others the income tax on the above amounts just as we pay on advances made to private people. I do not know if this will take place, however, it is a request which I make to these gentlemen. I am not sure either if I would find a seconder in the House on this question; but nevertheless these are my views
There is one subject which I dislike to mention here; but I am forced to do so, since Mr. Monty stated, in Montreal, that if his party came to power, he would abolish the British preference. I am told that a prominent member from New Brunswick made the same statement in a by-election which took

place in that province. I understand it is Mr. Baxter, one of St. John's representatives I should very much like to see this question threshed out, in order that the people be not deceived. I for one am in favour of abolishing the British preference. If a member on the opposite benches wishes to introduce a resolution to that effect, I can assure him that I shall support it; however, I do not wish it to be meant as just a bluff for the people of this country. I make the suggestion.' I once told an Englishman, Who was not favourable to British preference: Only a Canadian like myself can make such a statement, you are too British to do so; even if this preference were detrimental to your business, you would put up with it. I am opposed to such a preference because England purchases goods from countries with a depreciated currency. I often visit Montreal; I meet wholesale merchants and hear the complaints made. Therefore, to remedy this state of affairs, why not abolish this preference. Ob! if England only sent us her own goods, there would probably be no cause for complaint; but when we are aware that she imports from Germany and other countries-where money has practically no value-at ridiculous prices, can we not blame England of being at the bottom of all our economic troubles? It is not that I think that the boots and shoes which come from Germany or elsewhere are sold cheap in Montreal,-my opinion is that they are expensive goods. However, it is our manufacturers that complain. Have they reason to do so? I cannot say. I believe that generally speaking there are too many middlemen in trade. The jobber adds 40 per cent-and thinks it is not too much-the retailer adds 60 per cent and he also thinks it is not too much; so that we generally pay exactly twice as much for the goods after they have left the factory.
I again state there are too many middlemen. The wholesale merchant should only sell to the retailer without having to deal with a jobber. On that point, I perfectly agree with my colleagues.
Now, Sir, my good friend from Fort William and Rainy River, (Mr. Manion), to whom I listened attentively, this afternoon, gave us certain facts which are not quite correct. He tells us that the United States levy a duty of 50 cents per bushel on potatoes while the Canadian duty is only 35 cents per bushel. He is wrong on that point. It is not 50 cents per bushel, but 50 cents and 35 cents per hundred pounds. The United States tariff on these articles is 50 cents. He preached a doctrine which seems rather odd. Protection first, protection second, protection all the

The Budyet-Mr. Doucet
time. In my opinion, we are suffering in Canada from an evil which is common to all other countries. When a man is ruined, he has no more purchasing power. That is the cause of all our ills. All the European countries are ruined-except England-Germany is perhaps not ruined, but her money is worthless; Russia is in the same predicament; in France the franc is worth but five cents and a fraction; the same thing may be said of Austria and Italy. Often those people cannot buy the simple necessities of life. We, farmers, notwithstanding the crop being good, we only purchase the bare necessities of life. The cause of all the ills which, to-day, exist in this country is the loss of the purchasing power of pre-war days. The manufacturers of farming implements sell very little, because our Quebec farmer is thrifty, he is born thrifty, he is careful and does not get into debt when he knows beforehand that he will not be able to meet his liabilities within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the same thing does not prevail in other parts of the country. In the west, for instance, the farmers made a great deal of money during the war, but they were somewhat extravagant. In those parts of Canada, the purchasing power is less than in Quebec. Why? Because the farmer of our province, I repeat it, is thrifty, and would never think of spending three or four thousand dollars to take a trip to California; he puts aside his savings and knows how to look after them. I have known old people around my home who never changed a $10 bill; they used to iron it well, give it the appearance of a new bill just issued by the bank and then they would put it away. Unfortunately those days are no more. What makes money so scarce in our rural districts? It is because our farmers have bought too many automobiles. They were very extravagant, during the war they bought cars, pianos and many other things of this kind; that is one reason why we are almost bankrupt in the country. We are the third country in the world possessing the most automobiles. I shall not refer to the United States; there are states that cannot produce enough to pay for their cars. One boasts of the prosperity of the United States; if they continue to be as extravagant as they are, they will be ruined within four or five years and the wealth of that country will be all in the hands of Henry Ford and other large manufacturers of automobiles. As I mentioned Ford, we should invite him to come to Canada, ask him to give up his factories and take hold of our railways. He is certainly a man who would make a success of them.
I am, therefore, in favour of giving him our railways to manage.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer. However, I still have a subject to broach; I mean another scheme of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition. We have spent, up to date, over $120,000,000 to settle our returned soldiers on lands. Many have given up farming. Owing to death, illness, the women not being suited for the land, perhaps for other reasons, they have given up farming. I have been told that last year, the collection of the various amounts that these soldiers pay to the treasury, cost 35 per cent of the total amount. This means that on the $120,000,000 that we have loaned, we shall receive, if we have luck, about $60,000,000. That proves that our ex-Prime Minister has not always been very lucky in his transactions. Yet, when I listen to him, I wonder if he is truly the premier of some time ago. A stranger listening to him would surely not recognize him by what he states in this House. His equal is not found under the sun! No one has ever seen such a man I However, having seen him at work, I know this is not the case. At all events, my hon. friend, whom I find, to-day, more amicable than he has ever been, must not think that everybody looks upon him as I do. He may try to flirt with Quebec, the people will never forget what one of his colleagues stated in this House. That colleague, is my old friend,- who by the way is still my friend-the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). When conscription was being discussed in this House, in 1917, that hon. member stated that Australia had had no conscription because it was fortunate enough to have no province of Quebec within its boundaries. That is why, we hailing from Quebec, still feel the sting of the insult which was flung at us by one of the colleagues of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). We have already rewarded him on two occasions and we are getting ready to inflict a third defeat when the time comes.
Mr. ALEXANDRE J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, in wishing to briefly discuss the budget brought down by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), I do not intend to touch upon the various phases of the speech of my hon. friend from Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot). First, of all, he reviewed the old political history of days previous to 1911, and after; he specialized on political questions under the Union government; so far as I am concerned the administration under the Union government of 1917 up to 1921 is not a question of
The Budget-Mr. Doucet

actuality; and moreover, a number of liberals who formed part of the Union government of that day, and who have returned to the Liberal ranks after the general convention of 1919, and who were elected as avowed Liberals, in 1921, have been generously rewarded by hon. gentlemen opposite; consequently, I question very much the fairness of my hon. friends on the opposite side who are prone to discuss the various measures and legislation introduced, adopted and unanimously agreed upon, as well as all the war budgets voted during this critical period.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Mr. DOUCET (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, when our hon. friend (Mr. Lanctot) discussed the brickyard of Laprairie, I was wondering if that factory produced many bricks that were exported out of the country? I was, therefore, led to believe that my hon. friend wished to give the government sound advice and ask them to levy a sufficiently high duty on products of United States brickyards so as to prevent their importation.


Roch Lanctôt: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question? I would remind the hon. membeT for Kent, N.B. that the products of our brickyards are protected by a duty of 22J per cent and that foreign competition is impossible.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to learn that there is such a measure of protection, and I think that the hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville should be, as the Conservatives on this side of the House, in favour of protection. However, I hasten to point out to you an importation of United States brickyard products to the amount of $1,907,521 in 1924-


Roch Lanctôt: We are too far from large centres.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: -against
an exportation of $36,733 of Canadian products to the United States. If we are discussing, to-day, the enormous expenditures which are made by the Dominion government it is because, in my opinion, I contend that there is an awful waste of public money, and I wish to give a few instances so as to satisfy my colleagues in this House that such a waste exists. You must have noticed, Sir, that by certain questions put on the order paper, I was able to obtain some information, and through said information I note that the salaries of the Deputy Ministers and chiefs of departments, of which I have a list here to-night, amounts to $51,000 more for the year 1924 than it did for the year of 1921. It seems to me, Sir, that in the financial crisis 
through which we are passing, if we were bent on making substantial economies in the administration of the country, we should not increase, or at least we should not have increased the salaries of the deputy ministers from $6,000 to $10,000 as has happened in a number of cases. Moreover, Sir, I wish to further point out that the salaries of the Civil Service which amounted to $10,492,955 in 1921-22, will amount to $10,850,503 for the year 1925-26; there is therefore an increase of $357,547.50, and if you add to this the increase in the pensions which was $660,000 in 1921-22 and which to-day amounts to $1,539,000 it means an increase of $879,000. We therefore have an increase for both pensions and salaries of the employees of the various departments, of $1,236,547.50.


Joseph Archambault: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Would he be in favour of abolishing the Civil Service Commission?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I am not discussing the duties of the Civil Service Commission; I am discussing the increases in the salaries of the employees of the civil service and not the duties of the commission, nor the wisdom of abolishing it.


Joseph Archambault: Does the hon. member refuse to answer my question?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: WThat is your question?


Joseph Archambault: I
asked the hon. member if he would be in favour of abolishing the Civil Service Commission.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Mr Speaker, my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres knows full well that being a new member, I have not yet had the opportunity of studying the duties, the administration and the merits of the commission.


Joseph Archambault: Then I take it for granted that my hon. friend cannot answer my question because he has no knowledge of the duties of the Civil Service Commission?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I shall take the liberty of telling the hon. member from Chambly and Vercheres, that he will not succeed, this evening, in making me say more than I feel like saying. I was not discussing the duties of the Civil Service Commission.


Joseph Archambault: Then the hon. member refuses to answer my question?

The Budget-Mr. Doucet


Henry Lumley Drayton: Order.


Joseph Archambault: I
am awaiting the answer of the hon. member for Kent.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I have
already given my answer and do not intend to repeat it.


Joseph Archambault: I
did not catch it.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I was discussing, what seems to me, a waste of public money, and if we wish to retrench we should first strike at the high salaries; at those who could easily afford a decrease in salary, and not act as we did in 1923, even during the session of 1924, increase by 82,000 per year the salaries of the deputy ministers, and the high officials of each department. I think that a number of members to your right, Sir, would approve of this move. I do not wish, this evening, to discuss this question to any length. I would, however, ask, especially as I see two hon. French-Canadian ministers in their seats, that arrangements be made with the Statistical department to turn out more publications in the French language. You may recall, Sir, that last session I brought up this question in regard to the Department of Trade and Commerce; I requested that the Commercial Intelligence Journal which is printed in both languages-I mean there are French and English versions of this publication -I was asking, I said, that these two versions be published at the same time, seeing that they contain the same matter. On that date, the English version comprised 24 pages on the subject while the French version only contained 16 pages. I think, if you look up Hansard you would see that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce had promised to take the matter under consideration. Nevertheless, we notice that the French-speaking subscribers of the Commerical Intelligence Journal still receive a pamphlet of 16 pages while the English-speaking subscribers receive one of 24 pages and sometimes a pamphlet containing 32 pages. I want to infer that certain information is curtailed or left out in the French copy and I contend that there is a great deal of important matter of interest to the French-speaking population that should be published in both languages.


Joseph Archambault: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Is he aware that previous to 1921 there was no French version?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Mr. Speaker, this is always the constant theme of our friends opposite. "You have sinned, we shall do likewise."


Joseph Archambault: I
have asked you a question,


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I am not
aware whether the Commercial Intelligence Journal was printed in the French language in 1921; I am even not aware whether the English version was published at that time. However, what I do know is that since the Confederation pact, there exists a bilingual system in the administration of this country. Notwithstanding all this, to-day, there is less than 30 per cent of the blue books which are translated into French, printed and placed at the disposal of members, of business firms and the general public. I state, Mr. Speaker, that we, that feel a pride in belonging to a bilingual country, where French and English are on an equal footing in the transaction of government affairs, should insist that all official publications be printed in both languages, published and distributed, at the same time, profusely throughout the country.


Mr. VIEN (Translation):: Will the hon.
member allow me to ask him a question? Will he not admit that the Tory government far from helping the French publication held it back in many ways, while ithe Liberal government endeavours in a thousand ways to distribute the government's publications in the mother tongue of my hon. friend?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: My hon.
friend from Lotbiniere, as usual, cannot refer to the party of the official opposition without giving it the surname of Tory party. I do not recognize that party.


Joseph Archambault: I
congratulate the hon. member for having acknowledged this.


Mr. MERCIER (Translation):: Would the hon. member tell us to what party he belongs?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: It is not
necessary for me to tell my hon. friend for Westmount-St. Henri to what party I belong. If I wore the same coloured glasses he does, I would be sitting on the other side of the House; however, not wearing such glasses, I am on this side. I am one of the official opposition, but I do not claim to be a Tory.
Now, Sir, to return to the subject. I state again that the distribution of all public documents should be made in both official languages of this country. It is useless for my
i830
The Budget-Mr. Doucet

French-Canadian friends on the opposite side
to say: well, your party or the Tory party, in the past did not give full and entire satisfaction. I may say, Sir, that probably the Tory party, if you wish to call it so, has done as much as the Liberal party for the French-Acadian people. I will point out to the hon. member who has just interrupted me a3 well as the ministers who represent the government in this House, that there is at present a vacancy in the Senate for Prince Edward Island, and that the old Conservative government of Sir John A. Macdonald in 1893, chose the Hon. Joseph-Octave Arsenault to represent the island in the upper House; | would point out to him that, in 1898, after the death of the Hon. Joseph Octave Arsenault, the Liberal party, who was then at the helm of the affairs of the country, chose the Hon. John Yeo to replace the former in the Senate. From that date, the French-Acadians of Prince Edward Island, to the number of 12,000, representing one-seventh of the population, have no representative in the Senate. To-day, our friends the French-Canadians who form part of the cabinet have the privilege and a duty to perform, and I trust that it will fall to their lot to do honour to the French Acadians by appointing one of our race to represent in the Senate the French-Acadian people of Prince Edward Island.	'


Thomas Vien: Will the hon.
member, then, cross over to this side of the House?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kent, as poor as he is, is not bought for nomination.


Joseph Archambault: I
thought the matter important.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: When, Sir,
in 1885, Sir John A. Macdonald appointed the Hon. Pascal Poirier, from Shediac, to the Senate, we did not ask the Liberals to cross over to the other side of the House; when in 1893, the Hon. Joseph Octave Arsenault was appointed to the Senate, to represent Prince Edward Island, we did not ask the Liberals to join the government; when, in 1912, the Hon. Edward Girouard was appointed to the Senate to represent Nova Scotia, when, in 1917, the Hon. Thomas Jean Bourque was appointed to the Senate to represent New Brunswick; when the Hon. Aubin E. Arsenault was appointed a justice of Prince Edward Island, when Judge Landry was appointed to the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, no conditions were stipulated, and 
I contend, that one should not dare or lower himself to put such a question to a French-Acadian member who occupies a seat on the Conservative side of the House. It is an appointment to which we are entitled, it is a preferment which we are not by any means willing to relinquish, and the French-Acadian population of the Maritime provinces expect that the government, through the intermediary of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), the hon. Minister of Soldiers' Re-establishment (Mr. Beland), and the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau), see that the French-Acadian population of Prince Edward Island has its quota, and that one of the two representatives who will be appointed to the Senate, shall be a French-Acadian.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to close these few remarks which I have made in my mother tongue for I have to broach some questions which have cropped up during the last twenty-four hours relative to the economic situation of the country and especially of conditions existing, to-day, in the Maritime provinces; I shall discuss these questions in English as I have to answer members who have made use of Shakespeare's language; however, before asking for the adjournment of the debate, I would like to point out to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), who is in his seat, in case I should not have the opportunity of discussing with him his estimates, that in the course of the 1924 session, on June 17, a resolution was adopted by the committee on Marine and Fisheries: that in view of the bad weather of October, the lobster fishermen of the Northumberland strait be granted the fishing privileges for a season beginning August 6 and ending October 6, instead of August 16 to October 16. This resolution was unanimously adopted. It was transmitted by the Secretary of the committee to the hon. Minister, and the lobster fishermen of that part of the coast, believed, and 'had reason to believe that the regulations would be changed so as to allow them the opportunity of trapping lobster from said date. Although this resolution to amend the regulations was carried unanimously, the minister did not think proper to acquiesce to the wishes of the committee and those of the fishermen interested. I would like to point out, Sir, that it would certainly be in the interest of the fishermen of that part of the coast that they should be given at least for one year the privilege to fish ten days earlier so as to ascertain if the fishing can be carried on in a profitable way without harming the industry and, consequent-

The Budget-Mr. Doucet
ly, spare a great many hardships to the fishermen of that coast.
Mr. Speaker, I think I 'have sufficiently threshed out these questions and seeing that it is late, I shall take the liberty of moving the adjournment of the debate.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I believe it was arranged with the Acting Minister of Finance that the hon. member at the conclusion of his remarks in French might adjourn the debate and proceed to-morrow in English. I think that was the arrangement.


George Newcombe Gordon: I had not learned that the change of plans had been agreed upon by the whips.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned ait 10.55 pjn.
Friday, April 3, 1925.