PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse-for Mr. McPhee) moved:: That the provisions of standing order 105, that no committee on any private bill originating in this house is to consider the same until after one week's notice of the sitting of such committee has been first affixed in the lobby, be suspended for the remainder of the session.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: This, of course, refers directly to the two bills introduced the other day. The understanding I gathered from the utterances at that time was that these bills would be referred, and were referred, to the banking and commerce committee; and that this committee, which has jurisdiction over these bills, should determine whether or not it was prepared to consider them without full observance of the rules.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I thought this motion applied only to private bills.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, this motion applies to all committees; it so states. I object to this circumventing, shall I say, of the rules in an endeavour to achieve in one way what the other evening the house agreed should be considered in the proper way by the committee involved.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: My understanding was that of the hon, member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens); and I think this touches a larger matter. It has been urged that this session be closed in a very short time. Some of us have taken the position that we ought not to prorogue until we have finished the business of the house. I am quite willing personally, and I think the group with which I am associated are willing, that we should hurry matters as much as possible, but we do not propose to allow things to be railroaded through, or to have the ordinary rules either withdrawn or superseded by rules made simply for the occasion. I feel that if the government is going to take this attitude it will not help to expedite matters.


Mr. EULER:: This is not the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know this is not a government measure, but if the government gives its sanction to this mode of procedure I do not think it will expedite matters at all. As I understand it, the rules are laid down for the protection of the house and for the safeguarding of certain legislation, and I regret that this sort of thing should be introduced at this stage.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think the circumstances are as tragic as my hon. friend seems to indicate. Nobody in this house, on this or any other side, wants to railroad business through as my hon. friend suggests. Too many of these things are being said in Canada to-day, and it is not right that they should be said. We are quite prepared to stay here as long as my hon. friend wishes, and perhaps longer. But a motion of this kind is not a new procedure. Similar motions are made in the closing days of every session in order to permit the consideration of bills which for one reason or another come in only during the last days of the session. Who is going to suffer on account of it? If any interest is going to suffer I am quite willing to vote with my hon. friend. But I see nothing at all in the motion which would do anything except give a chance to certain bills which would not otherwise be heard. I repeat that no one on this side, the government least of all, has any intention of railroading any business.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: May I suggest that in view of the
lack of interest expressed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) himself in the bills mentioned, it is not fair that two or three bills should be put in a preferred position as these bills would be if the motion passes. I suggest to the Minister of Justice that the motion be allowed to stand, and that he give further consideration to letting these bills take the ordinary course. There would be a misunderstanding if two or three bills were put in a preferred position. I think the government should let them take the ordinary course.


Ernest Lapointe: I would
ask the hon. member (Mr. Boulanger) to agree that the motion stand until to-morrow.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I have no objection
to letting it stand, but I wish to point out that it applies only to private bills. The purpose of the motion is only to suspend rule 105, which requires a notice of five days. As the' session is coming to a close the motion seems a reasonable one.
Motion stands.
Private Bills



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 110-For the relief of Dorothy Ger-true Mary Huggins Yaun.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. Ill-For the relief of Lola Margaret Miller Atkinson.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 112-For the relief of Zeno Bruck.- Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 113-For the relief of Esther Steinberg Soloway.-Mr. McNiven (Regina City).
Bill No. 114-For the relief of Sarah Sherry Miller.-Mr. Tomlinson.

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

Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	What is the average rate of interest, at present, on the Canadian National Railways securities in the hands of corporations, banks and private individuals?
2 What is the sum total of interest and dividends and bonuses received by securities-holders of the Canadian National Railways since the Canadian National Railways was constituted in 1921?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The average annual rate of interest on Canadian National Railways securities in the hands of the public is 3-9773 per cent.
2.	Total interest, dividends and premiums paid to security holders of the Canadian National Railways since 1921 amounts to 8798,849,855. This figure includes premiums paid on securities called for redemption prior to maturity, but does not include amortization of discount on securities issued at less than par.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	What is the sum total of Canadian National Railways securities redeemed since 1921?
2.	What is the proportion of Canadian National Railways securities held by owners resident in the dominion compared to the total held by security-holders resident abroad?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Total securities in the hands of the public redeemed since 1921 amounted to $473,174,707.54. This figure does not include $34,879,252.86 Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company 4 per cent perpetual debenture stock which, under a scheme of arrangement made with the holders of such stock (authorized by chapter 7, February 18, 1927), was exchanged for an issue of 2 per cent dominion guaranteed debenture stock.
2.	As a very large percentage of the securities in the hands of the public are in bearer form, it is impossible to state what amount
Questions

thereof is held in Canada and what amount is held outside Canada. The funded debt at December 31, 1938, was payable in the following currencies:
Sterling	$
United States funds	
Canadian funds	
Sterling or Canadian funds.. Sterling or United States funds Canadian or United States
funds	
Sterling, United States or Canadian funds	
405,569,112 06 43,357,785 40 293,139,887 85 10,596,955 28 3,798,916 00
79,550,000 00
413,983,766 00
4. What was the total cost of the operation and administration of this act during the period above mentioned: (a) in the whole of Canada; (b) in the province of Quebec?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	(a) 41,935; (b) 6,741; (c) 172.
2.	4,513.
3.	No evidence of acceptance by creditors on file in the Department of Finance in connection with 1,129 cases in the province of Quebec.
4.	(a) To December 31, 1938-$2,395,514.77; (b) To December 31, 1938-$411,937.57.


$1,249,996,422 59 NATIONAL HARBOURS-QUEBEC AND MONTREAL
Mr. PARENT (Quebec West and South):: 1. What portion of the $134,663.04 expenditure by the central council of the national harbours was charged to the Quebec harbour, and the Montreal harbour, respectively?


Mr. HOWE:: The following information is furnished by the national harbours board: Quebec, $10,343.39; Montreal, $72,070.04.



CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL MILK CONTRACT

Mr. SENN:: 1.	How many tenders were received in connection with the milk contract for the Christie street hospital?
2.	Was the contract granted to the lowest tenderer?
3.	What was the price at which the contract was let?
4.	Did the successful tenderer quote the final contract price on his first tender?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Nine.
2.	No. Two firms quoted lower than the prices set by the milk board and these tenders would therefore not be acceptable.
3.	Milk board prices, i.e.:-Milk, .30 a gallon; Milk, "Speinbock" process, Vit. "D", .30 a gallon; Cream, 16 per cent B.F., 24 a quart; Cream, 20 per cent B.F., .28 a quart; Cream, 32 per cent B.F., .40 a quart; Buttermilk, .15 a gallon.
4.	Yes.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT

Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	How many farmers have taken advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act since the law was put into force: (a) in the whole of Canada, to date; (b) in the province of Quebec, to December 31, 1938; (c) in the judicial district of Saint Hyacinthe, to December 31, 1938?
2.	In how many cases was an order given for an arrangement under the act in the province of Quebec?
3.	In how many eases was the application for an arrangement not accepted?



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. BLACICMORE:: 1.	Who is in charge of prairie farm rehabilitation projects?
2.	What are his qualifications for the position?
3.	How much experience has he had in constructing dams costing $1,000 and up?
4.	What company constructed the following
dams and who was the engineer responsible for the construction of each:	(a) Crystal City;
(b) Wildhorse; (e) Bartman; (d) Dead Lake; (e) Long Creek Dam; (f) Lafleche; (g) Lake of the Rivers; (h) Masefield?
5.	Is there to be a prairie farm rehabilitation dam in the Leavitt district in southern Alberta ?
6.	If so, what engineer will be responsible for the construction of such dam?
7.	What are his qualifications for the position?
8.	What company has been given the contract to build the dam near Leavitt?
9.	What companies sent in tenders for the *work ?
10.	What was the tender of each?
11.	In what city is the recognized headquarters of the company whose bid was selected ?
12.	How many men are to be given employment on the Leavitt project?
13.	How many of these men are residents of Alberta?
14.	How many of them are residents of the Lethbridge federal riding?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents regarding the distribution of material aid or other assistance to needy fishermen in the county of Gaspe, Quebec, and including a list of all persons to whom such aid was given since July 1, 1938.



LES EBOULEMENTS, QUE., WHARF

Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents in the possession of

Unemployment-Hull, Que.
the government, concerning the electric lighting of the wharf at Les Eboulements, constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-REPORTS OF AUDITORS

Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: For a copy of the reports made by the auditors of the Canadian National Railways to the Minister of Railways and Canals or the Minister of Transport, in the years 1935 and 1936.



ST. JOSEPH DU MOINE, N.S., PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all payrolls, statements and other documents showing moneys expended by the Public Works department at St. Joseph du Moine, Inverness county, Nova Scotia, during the calendar year 1938; and, showing also from whom materials were purchased, and the respective amounts paid to each.
friar's HEAD, N.S., PUBLIC WORKS


Alfred Johnson Brooks: tv'or ia C0Py of all payrolls, statements and other documents showing moneys expended by the I ubhc Works department at Friar's Head Inverness county, Nova Scotia, during the calendar years 1937 and 1938; and showing also from whom materials were purchased, and the respective amounts paid to each.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE BANK


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to incorporate a central mortgage bank, to provide for the appointment and salaries of the officers and staff of the bank and the appointment and fees of the directors, to authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of not exceeding ten million dollars for the purchase of shares of the bank, to authorize payment of any losses suffered by the bank out of the consolidated revenue fund, to 'authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal of and interest on the debentures to. be issued by the bank, and to make provisions with respect to the functions and powers of the bank.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government if it still thinks it is possible for parliament to conclude its work by the twelfth of this month, so that his majesty may prorogue parliament? If so, when, in the government's opinion, ought we to begin morning sittings?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, with the legislative program practically all on the order paper I believe it might be possible, with cooperation, to enact it and conclude the business prior to the arrival of their majesties. Of course a protracted debate on the budget might be an insuperable obstacle. If it would meet the wishes of the house the government would be ready to move either morning sittings or extended hours of sitting in the afternoons or in the evenings. I suggest that the whips consult among themselves with regard to the matter. If on the other hand it becomes apparent that it is impossible to conclude the business before May 12, the government will give notice of motion that when the house adjourns on May 12 it stand adjourned until a day in the following week when his majesty will give assent to the bills that will be ready, and that it stand adjourned from that day until June 19.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) directed a certain question to me regarding the administration of relief in the city of Hull. May I say in reply that I received from the city clerk of Hull a resolution which was passed on April 4, in anticipation of the situation which has since developed. In reply to that resolution I pointed out that the dominion government was prepared to pay dollar for dollar with the provincial governments for material aid up to a maximum federal contribution of forty per cent. I also stated the dominion government was prepared to offer its cooperation to provincial governments which wished to enable certain of their municipalities to enlarge their normal programs of civic improvements as an alternative to direct relief, by contributing fifty per cent of the direct labour cost of projects approved by provincial and dominion governments.
I might say that these proposals were made to the Quebec government more than two months ago. No conclusive reply has yet been received from the Quebec government.
Mr. POULIOT:: Would it apply to any municipality in the province of Quebec?
3388	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)


Mr. ROGERS:: I dealt with that matter when the question was under debate. The federal contribution will apply to projects which have been approved by both the provincial and the federal government, and will be based upon the actual extent of unemployment in the municipality concerned.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Has the government received any communications from these people who have been threatened that they will be taken off relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no recollection of any communication having been received directly from these people. I assume that the communication from the city clerk was made on behalf of these unemployed people who are to be cut off relief.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister information at hand as to how many provinces are meeting the dominion government in making a contribution of forty per cent, the dominion making a similar contribution and the municipalities the remaining twenty per cent?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The actual agreements
cannot 'be concluded with the provinces until the relief legislation has received royal assent. Preliminary discussions have taken place with all the provinces, and we expect that in so far as the division of relief costs is concerned, it will be accepted by and made applicable in all the provinces. However, I cannot say that definitely until the agreements have been sent to the provinces for signature.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lawson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Last
Tuesday's speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) was the fourth budget presentation to which I have listened in this house, but I must say it was the most depressing of them all. An atmosphere of gloom pervaded this chamber as the minister endeavoured to find one alibi after another to explain why this country was faced with such a terrible situation. It is occurring slowly, even to the government, that a policy of mediocre muddling will not prevail in a world condition which demands courageous statesmanship.

A newspaper came to my desk the other day in which there was an article with the heading, "Platitudes for the poor, reduced taxes for the rich." In my opinion this is a summary of the whole budget in a single phrase. By way of illustration I should like to refer to the Hamilton Spectator of April 26, which contains a report of an interview with Mr. Ross McMaster, president of the Steel Company of Canada. Referring to the exemption on capital expenditures, the report said:
Upon announcement of the finance minister's proposal, business commentators immediately cited, as an example of the substantial inducement the measure would provide for participating firms, the reported plans of the Steel Company of Canada to erect a $10,000,000 continuous strip mill here. It was estimated that under the plan, ten per cent of the cost, or $1,000,000 could be applied against the income tax bills of the next three years in which the company has a profit. This, of course, might be nullified by the time limit.
It was reasoned that since the Steel Company of Canada has had profits in most years it would thus be entitled to a reduction of $333,333 in the next three years on its income taxes.
The Steel Company of Canada must have planned the erection of this mill prior to the presentation of the budget. They could not have decided upon it the afternoon on which the minister made his budget speech, and the report from which I have quoted appears in the newspaper of April 26. According to this statement, the Steel Company of Canada are to have an exemption of $1,000,000 in connection with income taxes because they are going to erect a mill which they probably would have erected anyway.
Every hon. member is interested in the budget from his own particular point of view. I am interested particularly in the budget references to wheat and the marketing of wheat. In my opinion the government's tactics this session with reference to wheat legislation have been most unfair. On February 16 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) announced a new wheat policy. We were then kept waiting between six and seven weeks with no intimation as to the terms of that legislation, having to depend only on semi-official statements which appeared in the press. On April 6 the minister introduced one of his bills and concluded his speech by adjourning the debate. Almost a month has passed since then, ten weeks have gone by since the minister announced his new wheat policy, and yet hon. members of this house have not had an opportunity to deal with the matter. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stands up to-day and talks obout the possibility of prorogation before their majesties come here. Those of us

The Budget-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
from western Canada who are primarily interested in the wheat industry have had no opportunity to discuss this proposed legislation. I want to say to the government that the opinion of the members of this group is that the greatest homage we could pay to his majesty would be to look after the king's business, and the king's business is the wellbeing and welfare of the king's subjects. If the government wants to expedite the business of this session-, we ought to be allowed to discuss the wheat situation, and that very quickly.
In order to discuss the budget in relation to wheat, it is necessary to review the wheat legislation of the past few years as it has affected the western farmer. The aim of successive farm movements in western Canada has been to give back to the farmer a larger share of the return received for his wheat, rather than having so much of it go to the speculator and the middleman. During the past fifteen or twenty years there has been a growing demand for a wheat board and a fixed minimum price, the farmers pointing out that since a wheat board was created during the war to keep prices from going too high, they have the right to expect a wheat board at this time to keep prices from going too low.
This demand culminated in the wheat board act of 1935 which was introduced by the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. In its original form that act called for the complete elimination of the speculator and the marketing of all wheat through a government board which would pay a fixed minimum price and issue participation certificates to give the farmer the right to share in any further return that might accrue from the sale of his wheat. The opposition to that wheat board bill came from the Liberal party. One has only to read the prolonged debate, led by Hon. J. L. Ralston, which continued through the hot weeks of July and into August, 1935, to realize the extent of the opposition which the Liberal party offered to the compulsory features of that bill. It was the insistence of the Liberal opposition of that day which brought about a compromise whereby a clause was inserted to put the speculator back into the wheat marketing picture. The wheat board act finally passed in its amended form, and a board was set up headed by Mr. John I. McFarland.


Mr. GARDINER:: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the hon. member is discussing legislation now on the order paper, and I submit he is out of order in so doing at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, may I say that I am not discussing
legislation that is now before us. I am reviewing the wheat legislation of the last ten years and showing how it has affected the people of western Canada. On Friday evening the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) discussed not only the general wheat legislation but the particular bills that are now on *the order paper, and there was no objection at that time from the Minister of Agriculture, who was in his seat.


James Garfield Gardiner: That does not make my hon. friend in order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to general topics arising out of the budget. More latitude is allowed in the budget debate than in any other, and therefore I think the hon. member is in order, provided he does not refer to debates previously carried on this session.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The Wheat Board Act finally passed in its amended form and a wheat board was set up headed by John I. McFarland, and with it an advisory committee on which the wheat producers themselves had representation. The price of wheat was set at 874 cents for No. 1 northern at Fort William, and the wheat board proceeded to take delivery of wheat.
Then followed the general election of 1935, in which the Liberal speakers in western Canada professed themselves to be heartily in favour of maintaining the wheat board and a fixed minimum price. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking at Brandon, went so far as to state that the wheat board was the brain-child of the Liberal party. I do not know of any Liberal member in this house to-day who was elected on a platform of opposition to the wheat board or a fixed minimum price. If such a member exists, I hope he will stand up and say so in the course of this debate.
Then followed the Assiniboia by-election in January, 1936, at which the present Minister of Agriculture was seeking election to this house. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation contested that election, because they were convinced that the present Minister of Agriculture was opposed to the wheat board act, a fixed minimum price, and producers' control of marketing. We claimed during that election that if the Minister of Agriculture were elected he would sabotage the wheat board and betray the farmers of western Canada; and I stand before this house to-day and declare that the charges we then made have been more than vindicated by the events that have since taken place.
Just look at the record of the present government with reference to the crop years
3390	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
which followed their election. The first thing they did was to discharge the wheat board under Mr. McFarland, as well as the advisory committee, and in place of Mr. McFarland they appointed a new member of the board, Mr. J. R. Murray, a former secretary of the Winnipeg grain exchange, and a man most persistent in his campaign against the original wheat board bill. It is worthy of note that the government did not appoint a new advisory committee on which the producers might have representation, and ever since that time the farmers have had no voice whatsoever in the marketing of their wheat.
In the two crop years, 1936-37 and 1937-38, this government nullified the whole intent and purpose of the wheat board act. By order in council the government usurped power to which it had absolutely no right, namely, to declare that as long as the price of wheat stood above ninety cents the farmers could not deliver wheat to the wheat board. The results speak for themselves. During 1936 and 1937 thousands of farmers sold their wheat in the fall at a price between ninety cents and one dollar a bushel, and subsequently the price rose as high as 11.43 a bushel. Had they been allowed to sell to the wheat board they would have derived through their participation certificates some benefit from this increase in price.
In the crop year 1938-39 the price dropped and the government once more found it necessary to utilize the services of the wheat board. The price, however, was set at eighty cents a bushel for No. 1 northern at Fort William, which was exactly 74 cents less than the farmer had received when the wheat board was in operation before in 1935. In the meantime the Turgeon commission, which had been at work since 1936, made its report, and on the basis of that report the Minister of Agriculture made	a speech	in	the House	ofCommons on	February	16,	1939, which	isreported at page 1037 of Hansard. I shall not take time to quote	it	at length.	He
pointed out that the government proposed a new wheat policy based on the recommendations of the Turgeon commission, which he listed as three:
First, that the government should remain out of the grain trade and our wheat should be marketed by	means of	the	futures market
system.
Second, that the grain exchange should be placed under proper supervision.
Third, that encouragement be given to the creation of cooperative marketing associations or pools.
He concluded by saying:
We cannot agree that there is likely to be permanency to any system of marketing farm products which is based upon price fixing. We

prefer to embark upon a policy which will lead to costs of production and standards of product which will invite a paying market for all our farm products.
It should be remembered that the Turgeon commission had one group of suggestions to be applied in case of "normal" conditions, and another set to be applied in the case of "abnormal" conditions. At page 187 of his report Mr. Justice Turgeon described normal conditions as follows:
Open markets in the United Kingdom, a fair relationship between world supply and import demand, and no danger clouds on the immediate horizon.
And referring to normal conditions, the commissioner said, at page 189:
The government should remain out of the grain trade and our wheat should be marketed by means of the futures market system (under proper supervision), and encouragement given to the creation of cooperative marketing associations, or pools.
When he came to deal with abnormal conditions the commissioner said, at page 194 of his report:
I have expressed my opinion upon the question of the method that should be pursued under normal conditions; and in the interest of the wheat producers, as well as in that of the country as a whole, the return of such conditions is eagerly hoped for, but upon the facts before me to-day, I must say that such return is not immediately in sight. I think that there are several factors in the present situation which cannot be ignored and which call for special action.
After summing up the wheat situation he said, on the same page:
For all these reasons (and notwithstanding the adverse considerations to which I have referred in relation to government boards) I do not feel that I can suggest the immediate dissolution of the Canadian wheat board. There is a strong possibility that conditions may develop which will require a measure of assistance in the marketing of the coming crop, and I do not know, of course, how long these conditions may continue after the final chapter of this report is written. In the meantime I can think of nothing better to suggest than that the board be maintained to meet any situation which may arise.
The government, therefore, cannot use the Turgeon report as a cloak to enable them to destroy the wheat board and lower the fixed minimum price. Their wheat policy must stand on its own feet and they, and they alone, are answerable to the farmers of western Canada.
The next thing to recall, in this review of wheat legislation, was the presentation to the house this session of an amendment to the wheat board act fixing an initial price of sixty cents per bushel. I shall deal with that later when the bill is before the house. Personally I am at a loss to understand the statement which the Minister of Agriculture made in a

The Budget-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
broadcast from Regina at Easter, which appeared verbatim in the Regina Leader-Post of April 11, and in which he is reported as having said:
There is no mention of a 60 cents fixed price in any of the legislation now before the House of Commons.


James Garfield Gardiner: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister may split hairs and say there is a difference between a fixed price and an initial price, but the fact of the matter is that his statement was both inaccurate and misleading. If the legislation proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) is passed, the farmers delivering their wheat to the wheat board will be paid sixty cents a bushel for No. 1 northern at Fort William, which, if the bureau of statistics figures for last year are any indication, will mean thirty-seven cents a bushel at the elevator for an average grade, because the average price paid to the farmer at the elevator last year, when the fixed price was eighty cents, was 57i cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member does not want to misrepresent me at the same time as he is accusing me of misrepresentation to others. He is now suggesting that a 60 cent advance to the farmer would result in something other than is intimated simply because the average price of all wheat last year wrns 57 cents. The set advance in the legislation is based on No. 1 northern wheat. The average was very much higher than 57 cents for the average of No. 1 northern.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I made it very clear in what I said, and I do not think it differs at all from what the minister has said. Last year, according to the bureau of statistics, the average price of the average grade, not No. 1 northern, at the elevator, was, to the farmer, 57 cents a bushel and I say that on that basis 37 cents would be the average price at the elevator, on that legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, 40 cents, even on that price.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, 37 cents. In the speech which the minister made, as reported at page 2623 of Hansard, in introducing the legislation he said-


Mr. DUNNING:: On a point of order, the hon. member is clearly discussing now a bill which is definitely on the order paper and before the house. I draw your honour's attention to the fact-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That bill has already been discussed-


Charles Avery Dunning: -that he is discussing a bill which is before the house for discussion and upon which debate can occur in due course.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member will, if possible, avoid anticipating discussion on a matter the consideration of which is appointed for a certain day in the near future. He may talk generally on the subject matter with which he is now dealing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to discuss the bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what the hon. member is doing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What I want to discuss is that the minister, speaking with reference to wheat, said:
Twenty bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel. For every bushel a man gets over 20 his costs per bushel decrease.
And when he was asked from this side of the house on what he based that estimate, he said:
Estimates have been made by authorities in Saskatchewan university, and there are also the figures submitted by the Saskatchewan government to the Rowell commission.
No such conclusions have ever been reached either by the authorities in Saskatchewan university or by anyone else. The minister, very likely, is basing his statement on an estimate by Professor Hope which was given to a conference on markets for western farm products, held in Winnipeg last December. Professor Hope pointed out, according to page 151 of the conference report, that on mechanized farms of the best land which could be procured in Saskatchewan-and he pointed out that only one per cent of the farms of Saskatchewan came into that classification-wheat could be produced, on a halfsection farm, for 55 cents; on a section farm, for 44 cents, and on a two-section farm, for 34 cents. But, he said, to that must be added 17 cents for debt charges, which, he said, worked out on a half-section farm, at 72 cents, on a section farm at 61 cents, and on a two-section farm at 51 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: The debt was stated to be fifty-two dollars per acre.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly.


James Garfield Gardiner: How many farmers in Saskatchewan have a fifty-two dollar debt per acre?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And how many farms come under the classification Professor Hope gives here, which can produce wheat at that price?
3392	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)


James Garfield Gardiner: There are not very many under that debt classification.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On page 152 of the same report Professor Hope said:
Conservatively it would probably require with average yields a farm price for wheat of
average grade-
Not No. 1 northern.
-of about 90 cents,-


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the sentence just before that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -with coarse grains in proportion to maintain a reasonable level of living and service the present debt on western farms. It would require somewhat more than this to restore the farming community to the condition of 1931.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the conclusion immediately preceding that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is his conclusion.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister wants to make a speech on this, he is at liberty to do so after I have finished mine.


Ernest Lapointe: He would be out of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should be out of order, as the hon. member is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is a farmer, or at least he supports a farm; and I maintain that he cannot grow wheat for 30 or 40 cents a bushel.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you ever grow any?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No minister when he makes a statement of that kind is doing a service to western Canada.
At the same time that the minister was preparing his legislation, a group of men representing different phases of western agriculture have been giving this matter very serious consideration. A conference was called by Professor John Bracken of Manitoba, which sat in Winnipeg from December 12 to December 15 inclusive. That conference appointed a continuations committee which met in Regina and Saskatoon on successive occasions and prepared statements to be presented to the government. On Wednesday, March 1, that committee presented the brief, a copy of which I hold in my hand, to the dominion cabinet. Since that time they have appeared before the government, on April 24, and made further representations to them. Let me read a list of the organizations which are represented by accredited delegates to that convention:
r.Mr. T. C. Douglas.]
The United Farmers of Alberta, the United Farmers of Manitoba; the United Farmers of Canada (Saskatchewan section); the boards of trade of Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary; the Alberta Wheat Pool; Manitoba pool elevators; the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; the North West Grain Dealers' Association, the United Grain Growers, the Alberta Municipal Association and the Manitoba government. To these names may be added scores of municipal councils, boards of trade and city councils, who sent petitions to the government asking that the wheat board be retained and that the minimum price be not less than 80 cents a bushel. In addition to that, members of parliament in Saskatchewan have received a petition from farmers in that province whose names were collected by the Saskatchewan wheat pool, covering twenty constituencies and numbering 155.000 men. Since that time, I believe, Wood Mountain has been added, bringing the signatories of the petition to more than 160,000.
Over against this array of organizations and individuals who are known for their interest in the welfare of western Canada, who is asking for a fixed price of 60 cents per bushel? Certainly it is not the Liberal party.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I raise the same point of order as has been raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). It is clear that the hon. gentleman is discussing a matter which is on the order paper. May I read citation 488:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means-
And so forth.
-provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
This is clear. There is a notice on the order paper, bills are even before the members of the house for discussion, and although I hate to interrupt the hon. member, he is merely discussing matters which would come properly before the house when the bills of the Minister of Agriculture are being discussed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker,
I think that this is a most unusual point of order. Members of the government sat on the front benches on Friday night and listened to a debate, reported at pages 3376 and 3377 of Hansard, in which the hon. member for

The Budget-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) not only discussed in general terms wheat legislation but went specifically into some items of the acreage bonus plan, which I am not pretending to do at this time. That, I think, is a most unusual thing.


Ernest Lapointe: It does
not make it any better.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Ernest Lapointe: My hon.
friend makes it more difficult for himself, because it is specifically stated in Beauchesne, "nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means." There will be a resolution proposed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, if I
may proceed-


Walter Edward Foster: Does any other hon.
member wish to speak to the point of order?


Mr. COLDWELL:: During the four sessions I have been here, Mr. Speaker, hon. members have been allowed to discuss on the address and on the budget any matter concerning their constituencies. It seems to me that the government itself is only emphasizing what the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) said, that it does not desire to discuss-


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: -this matter, at the
present time.


Ernest Lapointe: We could expect that comment.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I submit that the rules of the house should be construed fairly as between one section of the house and another. It is not fair, your honour, that it should be brought to your attention now-


Charles Avery Dunning: Order.


Angus MacInnis: This is quite in order. A certain point has been brought to his honour's attention at this moment, a point that was not brought to bis attention the other evening when the same violation of the rules took place, if there is a violation now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why didn't you bring it to his attention?


Angus MacInnis: I submit that the rules and the procedure of the house are in the custody of the leader of the house when he is present. If the leader of the government, the right
hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), is here, then it is for him to direct to the attention of the Speaker any transgression of the rules.


Charles Avery Dunning: Where do you find that in the rules?


Angus MacInnis: That is the usual procedure; I have often seen it followed here, when the Prime Minister has suggested that a debate be allowed though such debate might possibly be technically out of order. All I am asking is that we should have the same privileges here as are extended to the government side of the house; and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot rule otherwise than to grant to this group or to the official opposition the same privileges that are extended to speakers on the government side.
I can show from the record that the other evening the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston), at page 3377, referred to 60 cent wheat on two occasions, and on page 3378 he referred to the bonus as embodied in the bill which is to come before the house. All we ask is fair play in the interpretation of the rules of the house.


Walter Edward Foster: Had I been in the chair when the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) spoke the other evening, and had the point of order been raised then, I would certainly have taken cognizance of the fact and would have seen that the rules of the house were observed. As I have already stated, considerable latitude is allowed under the rules of the house in the debates on the budget and on the address. There are at present two amendments before the chair, and the rule to which the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), at present leading the house, has referred is quite clear. In paragraph 488 of Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, it is clearly laid down that no hon. member may refer to any items in the estimates or to any resolution to be proposed to committee of ways and means, or to any matter whereof notice has been given on the order paper. There is on the order paper, standing for second reading, a bill the subject matter of which is of the very essence of the subject which the hon. member is now discussing. I have already intimated that the hon. member may speak in general terms of this matter but that he should not go into the subject matter of the bill which is before the house. The point of order raised by the leader of the house is well taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I remind your honour that interruptions have taken up well over ten minutes of my time.
3394	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)


An hon. MEMBER:: Whose fault is that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is the fault of gentlemen who do not wish to have this matter discussed, and who have been doing all they can for weeks to see that it is not discussed.
The wheat policy of the government is not in conformity with the general opinion of the public in western Canada. I have already quoted the brief that was brought down here by the agricultural representatives of the three western provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: It agrees with our policy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I have already said, there are 160,000 and more names on the petition. At a Liberal convention held at Wolseley, in the constituency of Qu'Appelle, the Liberal rank and file, gathered together, passed a resolution asking that the wheat board be maintained and a minimum price of SO cents be set.


James Garfield Gardiner: They asked for our policy too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In addition to the wheat board and the fixed price of 80 cents, we all agree to that. Again, I may point out that in this city last week the Twentieth Century Liberal Club passed a resolution asking for the wheat board and a fixed price of 80 cents. It seems that the Twentieth Century Liberal Club and the nineteenth century Liberal club ought to try to get together on the point.


James Garfield Gardiner: They asked for our policy too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister's interruptions are keeping me from making the statement I wish to put before the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: I want to keep the record right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish the minister would keep the record right on some of the statements he made a little while ago. If the government's wheat policy is a bid for support in eastern Canada, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) should have the courage to stand up and say so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why haven't you?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am saying it now, if I am not stopped. The Minister of Agriculture and the government cannot muster any body of support in eastern Canada for their wheat policy with a fixed price of 60 cents.	.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that you have ruled on this discussion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not discussing the bills. Why cannot I mention 60 cents without the minister jumping to his feet?


Charles Avery Dunning: No discussion is being shut off, and no discussion can be prevented when the subject is properly before the house. But I submit that your honour's ruling is being absolutely defied by the hon. gentleman in his continuing to discuss 60-cent wheat and all that pertains thereto, which is the subject matter of a bill which this house must discuss at an early day, and which therefore, under the clearly expressed rules, cannot be debated now.


Robert James Manion: I have been listening to the discussion of the point of order for some time, and while I agree to some extent that the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) was out of order in discussing the legislation directly, I must point out that after all the budget debate is one in which rather wide scope is allowed. It seems to me that the latter part of the hon. member's remarks, to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) calls attention, cannot be regarded as out of order. True, he is discussing a subject which verges on the subject matter of the bill which deals with the price of wheat.


Charles Avery Dunning: His remarks deal with it, absolutely.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but he is discussing a subject of the greatest importance to the whole of western Canada, and I think myself that the government is very foolish in trying to shut him off. There has been no opportunity to discuss the proposed legislation. I do not wish to enter into any criticism, but there has been no occasion on which the subject could be discussed, and I do not think that the hon. gentleman is now breaking the rules. I agree that at the beginning, when the Minister of Justice rose and when he was discussing the legislation, he was out of order; but he is not now out of order.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say that it is immaterial to me, and I suppose to other members of the house, that the hon. member should take up his forty minutes as he is doing. That does not matter, because his speech will not be any longer or any shorter. My only aim is to keep proper order and to see that the rules are observed. This matter of wheat will engage the attention of the house in connection with two or three bills which are on the order paper. Why should a discussion of that subject take place during the budget debate?


Major James William Coldwell: Because we have not been able to discuss it before.

The Budget-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)


Ernest Lapointe: But you will be when, the bills come before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: When will that be?


Ernest Lapointe: As soon as this debate is over. We are far from trying to prevent discussion, but we are asking that it take place properly and at the proper time. We are not going to have two debates on wheat. As I say, there are on the order paper bills in connection with which the matter can be discussed. Why should not my hon. friend be a little patient, as we all are, and wait until the proper time comes?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As custodian of the rules of the house the minister must have had a blind spot in his eye on Friday night when the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) was allowed to discuss these very matters.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I do not think those remarks are parliamentary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will come directly to the budget itself.
One reason that has been advanced as to why there should be a change in our wheat policy is the cost to the treasury of the wheat policy heretofore followed. I might have become excited about that at one time, but after sitting for four years in this house watching all the different groups and classes that seem to make demands on the federal treasury I am not nearly so much worried about it. On page 12 of the appendix to the budget there appears a summary of the expenditures in relation to the total revenue. There we find that the amount allowed for wheat is $25,000,000, which is 4-98 per cent of our total revenue. It may be that our wheat losses will amount to much more than that; during a previous debate the Minister of Agriculture suggested $48,000,000. Personally I am inclined to think it will be less. It will be remembered that in 1935 there were Jeremiahs who were saying that the wheat board operations were going to cost us $60,000,000 or $70,000,000, but subsequent rises in price brought about a much happier situation; and we note that there have been one or two increases in the price of wheat during the past week. So it is possible that the amount will not be as large as $48,000,000, but even allowing that figure it is only 9-6 per cent of the total revenue.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is considerably less than the $63,000,000 that we propose to spend for national defence, which constitutes 14 per cent of our revenue. It is very much less than the cost of our funded
debt, for which we propose to expend $132,000,000 or 26T5 per cent of our revenue. And that amount of $132,000,000 is just about three times as great as the total cost of the wheat legislation may be. I suggest that any industry which touches the lives of 300,000 farmers and their families, together with all the business people, railway men, professional people and others whose living depends on the production of this commodity, is of very much more importance than the bondholders to whom we pay $132,000,000 annually in interest. There is also the Canadian National Railway deficit of $54,702,000, amounting to 10-9 per cent of our local revenue.
May I remind the house that it was the government's own Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), their professional economist, who made the statement that the fiscal policy of Canada costs the people of the west $56,000,000 a year; that they paid this amount more for the goods they bought than they ought to pay, by virtue of the tariff protection enjoyed by certain industries. Any person who lives in western Canada and who sees what we pay for cars, radios, washing machines, cotton goods and so on, will know perfectly well that any little bonus that has been given western agriculture through a fixed price for wheat is a mere bagatelle compared to what we have poured out year after year, patiently bearing the tariff burdens of this country.


William Daum Euler: May I ask the hon. member a question? He referred to the tariff as though it applied only to western Canada. Is it not true that if

and I am not admitting it in all cases-the tariff increases the cost of goods, it increases the cost of those goods to the residents of eastern Canada as well as to the residents of western Canada?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is true; but if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) will have a little consultation with the Minister of Labour he will find that the latter gave statistics to show that while on a per capita basis it cost the east just as much as it cost the west, the amount of gain the east received, on a per capita basis, was very much more than the gain received by the west, and that there was a profit of some $83,000,000 for the east.


William Daum Euler: We get tired of that argument.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We get a
little tired, too, of being sold down the river on the excuse that we are going to save a few million dollars to the treasury of Canada. And may I tell the minister further that if the Liberal party are going to desert the farmers of western Canada in order to save a
The Budget-Mr. Winkler

few million dollars, by virtue of which they hope to gain support in eastern Canada, they are betraying the people who have long and patiently borne a burden under the present tariff system which is out of all proportion to any small return they may have received


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. mem. ber has exhausted his time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government have exhausted my time.


Mr. H. W. WINKLER (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my constituents, regardless of political affiliation, would wish me to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in their behalf upon his budget speech, and I do so heartily now. I should like to take a few brief quotations from that speech and around them develop what I have to say. The minister said:
It is therefore only self-interest for all of us to see that everything that can possibly be done is done to improve the economic standing of agriculture.
And a little later.
This the government is attempting to do by its .	.	. intensified efforts to improve the
quality of agricultural products destined for foreign markets.
In that connection I should like to say that the experiment carried on in cooperation with the Toronto packers, which proved conclusively that a uniform quality of Canadian baby beef on the Smithfield market in London could bring half a cent a pound over the heretofore unbeatable prime Scottish beef, must have electrified the producing public of this country as well as others who seek greater opportunity for developing the industry. This young beef stock must be of high quality and it must be uniform. I do not intend to discuss this branch of agriculture at length, but there appears to be great room for expansion in this specialized industry which should appeal to every part of Canada.
After a vigorous campaign of educational work in matters of quality and uniformity, carried on by the Department of Agriculture, government grading of hogs began in 1923. The main objective was the British market, which demands bacon of the highest quality. The bacon hog industry has proved to be one of the most reliable branches of Canadian agriculture ever since that time. In spite of the fact that the banner province for bacon, namely, Ontario, has dropped off in production by about 12 per cent of the 1923 figures, nevertheless it still leads its nearest rival, Alberta, by over 50 per cent. The whole dominion is up 20 per cent in production since 1923. In the figures I am about to

give I have used as a basis of comparison the years 1924 and 1936, because in the years succeeding 1936 the drought in the west rendered a comparison valueless. I should like to compare briefly, province by province, the production in pounds, the percentage of the dominion total, and the percentage of select hogs suitable for export.
In 1924 Alberta produced 632,000 pounds. In 1936 that production increased to 1,030,000 pounds, or an increase of 60 per cent. In 1924 Alberta's percentage of the dominion total was 20-4; by 1936 that percentage had increased to 27-5. The percentage of selects-and this is very important-increased from 2-7 per cent in 1924 to 23 per cent in 1936. In Saskatchewan the production increased from 360,000 pounds in 1924 to 569,000 pounds in 1936. The percentage of the dominion total increased from 11-6 to 15-2, and the percentage of select or export hogs from 3-1 to 17-1. In Manitoba the production had gone from 215,000 up to 267,000, an increase of 20 per cent in that period, and an increase of from 6-9 to 7T of the dominion total. In the percentage of select or export hogs there is an increase from 5-5 to 17[DOT] 7.
In Ontario we find from 1924 to 1936 a decrease in production amounting to 12 per cent had taken place. The decrease was from
1,771,000	to 1,577,000. There was a drop in the dominion total from 57-2 to 42-1, and the percentage of selects, which was very high, had nevertheless increased from 22-4 to 32-8.
In Quebec the type of hog produced has always been very large. The total of 113,000 in 1924 increased 280 per cent to 251,000, or to almost Manitoba's production in 1936. The percentage of the dominion total had increased from 3-6 to 6-7 per cent, and the percentage of selects from 9-8 to 19-2 per cent. I might add the dominion total had increased 20 per cent in that period.
These figures go to show the value of a government policy to promote quality and uniformity, and it may be said there is no indication that the saturation point is in sight.
I should like now to deal with butter. In the realm of butter we are dealing with accomplishments and possibilities, mainly the latter. Statistical sheet No. 17, issued by the Dominion Department of Agriculture, shows some interesting figures. Between 1901 and 1937 the production of butter fat had increased by two and a half times. The percentage of production exported had steadily decreased in that time to about 15 per cent or 20 per cent of the amount exported in earlier years, or in terms of actual amounts to less than one-half the 1901 export output.

The Budget-Mr. Winkler
A great deal has been said about the value of the home market, but when production of butter shows a sudden increase a new situation develops. I should like to read a paragraph from a bulletin issued by the Department of Agriculture describing the butter situation in Canada in February 1939, and compiled from statistics of the Department of Agriculture:
Storage stocks have been higher than usual from early last fall to the present time. Exports have not been sufficient to relieve the excess supply situation. High production and the comparatively small export movement have resulted in large storage stocks accumulations, and reduced butter prices.
One would conclude from this statement that the logical thing to do would be to export butter. However, let us examine the situation and see if this is possible. Before doing so I should like to make a few notations as to actual amounts. This statement is in millions of pounds. By jumping from ten year period to ten year period I will present a picture which otherwise could not be shown.
In 1901 the total production stood at
240.000.	000 pounds, while in 1911 it had increased to 343,000,000 and in 1921 to
345.000.	000 pounds. But in that interval we should note that wheat production had been entered upon to a large degree, and the dairy industry had been temporarily neglected. By 1931, 552,000,000 pounds had been produced, and 'by 1937, the last figure available, 601,000,000 pounds. Those are the figures of total butter production and exports as taken from statistical sheet No. 17.
For many years in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta provincial governments have placed cream graders at the creameries, the salaries being paid by the creameries. A creamery must pay for butter fat according to grade. Premiums are paid for sweet cream, and every farmer has his ice well where cream can be kept sweet. Recently the practice of compulsory grading has been adopted by New Brunswick, where an educational campaign is being conducted, and it is compulsory to grade every churning.
I have before me a talble described as table II and showing a statement of butter production and grading results for 1938. In that table the following percentages are shown:
Percentage of
total make
Province	graded and
scored,1938
Saskatchewan	 91-23
Alberta	 89-65
New Brunswick	 87-71
Manitoba	 70-20
British Columbia	 39-58
Prince Edward Island	 38-00
Ontario	 27-27
Nova Scotia	 23-00
The average Canadian total was 48-81 per cent of the total creamery butter graded.
May I now refer again to statistical sheet No. 17, which, among other things, shows the percentage of production exported. This table begins with the year 1901 and shows the figures from that year until 1937. It is indicated that in 1901 the percentage of production exported stood at 36-6 per cent. In ten years that percentage had dropped to 22-8 per cent and in the next ten years to 20-3 per cent. In 1931 it had dropped to 7-9 per cent and in 1937 to 7 per cent.
Prizes for butter making went generally to western Canada in recent years, Manitoba winning the championship cup at the Canadian National Exhibition eighteen times in the past twenty-two years. Obviously provinces on a cream grading basis are in a position to enter the export market so far as uniformity of quality is concerned. The situation in most of the other provinces is that butter is manufactured for the home market, for fairly rapid consumption. Cream grading regulations are lax, and for local consumption other factors entering into the making of butter that will keep are not generally considered. Western butter brought east is generally mixed with eastern butter, to improve keeping qualities. High quality butter is produced in Ontario and other eastern provinces, but generally speaking the incentive, at least until now, has -been lacking. Most western as well as some eastern butter is available for export, but generally speaking eastern butter is not.
The room for a government policy of grading such as is practised in four of the provinces is now apparent, especially in view of making export markets available in times such as these. To substantiate my argument I should like to place on record some figures in connection with the exports of butter. From August 31, 1938, to April, 1939, all Canadian exports of butter totalled 166,379 fifty-six pound boxes. Of that total the three western provinces exported 92 per cent, or 153,308 fifty-six pound -boxes; Ontario, 5,410 fifty-six pound boxes, or 3 per cent, and Quebec 4,304 fifty-six pound boxes, or 2 per cent. I suggest these figures indicate the great need of government supervision of cream grading, if export markets are to be acquired.
In the event of wheat prices remaining at a low level over a period of years there will be a rush in the west to get into the dairy industry, and into the raising of hogs and beef cattle. In that event it will be even more important that everything possible be done to extend the foreign demand for these products. Until government graders are placed
339S
The Budget-Mr. Winkler

in. all creameries, the old incentive for the creamery to give No. 1 grading to all big producing customers will not be eliminated. Until in the large producing provinces of Ontario and Quebec the butter produced is put on a uniform export basis, the problem of finding an export market may recur again and again.
I should like now to refer briefly to the situation with respect to wheat, and concerning that great section of western Canada engaged in wheat growing. We are accustomed to speak of the quality of our western wheat, but we must not forget that the quality for which it is famous, namely high gluten content, is not always in its favour. There were times during the 1935-36 crop year when it was not. Generally speaking, this high gluten or protein content makes it valuable for mixing in with wheat from warmer climates, which usually has low protein content and is known as filler wheat. The report of the royal grain inquiry commission states at page 115:
It was stated (evidence p. 736-7) that- "the protein content of individual carlots of Canadian wheat may vary from as low as 8 per cent to over 20 per cent."
In regard to the demand for Canadian wheat, I would quote from page 110 of the report as follows:
There are two counteracting factors influencing the demand for Canadian wheat. On the o.ne hand, the increased use of 'home grown wheats, low in protein, makes an added demand for strong wheat, such as Canadian, to maintain quality. On this point, Dr. J. H. Shollen-berger, who made a special study, reported:
"The quality requirements for foreign wheat in European markets will tend toward higher levels in the future. In other words, the demand for strong-quality wheats will be even more insistent than in the past, with the result that price differences on account of quality will be more marked." ("Wheat requirements in Europe." Technical bulletin No. 535, U.S.D.A., September, 1936, exhibit No. 679.)
Or, as Dr. Geddes phrased it (evidence p. 877): "the one encouraging feature is that with the increased production of weak wheats in Europe the demand will be for high quality wheat and from that standpoint, it is more than ever essential that in Canada our quality must be maintained if we wish to retain our share of the export market or if we wish to secure a larger share."
The commission did not recommend the selection of wheat on a protein content basis, and concluded its opinion in these words, which appear on page 119 of the report:
There will, I believe, be some selection each year and some efforts towards publicizing the extent of protein premiums, if any, should be made. Provided that such premiums are carefully carried back to the producer and further that the practice of selection does not become extensive, I see no reason for suggesting a change in the present official attitude toward selection.
CMr. Winkler.]
Nevertheless, it is apparent that as a general rule strong protein content is desirable, and Canadian wheat is generally bought on that basis. It may be stated that there is no quick test for protein content, that is something that can be determined only by chemical analysis. The criteria upon which wheat is generally graded are weight per bushel, colour and appearance. The general absence of unfavourable factors has been regarded as a fair average indication of protein content. But it is far from being accurately so. I would refer to the recent contest at the international grain and hay show where only twenty points were given out of one hundred for factors formerly considered in judging. I should like to quote from a bulletin issued by that show:
For the first time in history of the international hay and grain show a special contest in wheat was held in which principal consideration was given to commercial value as indicated by experimental milling and baking tests, and related quality factors.
In that contest four Canadians not living in the area in which international prize winning wheat is usually grown were the winners. These men were Howard Wright of Airdrie, Alberta; A. Ripley, Indian Head, Saskatchewan; J. Rugg, Elstow, Saskatchewan, and R. P. Robbins, Shaunavon, Saskatchewan. For these reasons I would submit that the commercial value of wheat should be the basis of quality tests. With this in mind I should like to quote portions of a submission made to the commission by Doctor W. F. Geddes, formerly chief chemist with the board of grain commissioners. I think I can save time by quoting rather than attempting to give a synopsis. Under the heading, "The protein content of hard red spring wheat originating in different districts in western Canada," he said:
It is widely recognized that the protein content of wheat is influenced principally by the environmental conditions (soil and climate) under which it is grown. The strongest or highest protein wheats of commerce are grown on black or brown soils (high in nitrogen) where high temperatures and the absence of excessive moisture during the post-floral period hasten maturation of the grain. Abundant soil moisture and cool weather delay ripening and reduce the protein content. Thus the very climatic conditions which result in low yields bring about an increase in protein content; high protein wheat is almost invariably produced where there is danger of drought, and therefore the world's supply of such wheat tends to fluctuate more widely from year to year than its supply of soft wheat.
Under the same heading, on page 4 of the same report, the following appears:
In Canadian milling practice an effort is made to maintain a protein level of between 13-5 to 14-5 per cent _ in the wheat mix, whereas in Great Britain, for example, the

The Budget-Mr. Winkler
protein content of tile wheat mix seldom exceeds 12-0 per cent. The weak domestic wheats of England, Scotland. France and Germany usually contain from 8 to 10 per cent protein, Australian export wheat from 9 to 10 per cent, and Argentine wheat from 11 to 15 per cent. Canadian export wheat is purchased abroad primarily for its strength-imparting properties, and it is obvious from the data presented that some Canadian wheats are inferior in strength to Australian and Argentine and little or no better than English and continental wheats.
And on page 6:
An examination of the protein survey maps (appendix "A") shows that wheat grown in the black and brown prairie soils in the southern and central districts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta is invariably higher in protein content than that grown in the park and wooded belts of the north where the soil comprises the forest grey and park forest transition types, coupled with higher soil moisture and cooler weather. Over a period of years, very good general agreement has 'been noted between the zonal sequence of the soil belts and protein content of wheat but the general protein level and the protein zones for any one year are greatly influenced by prevailing climatic conditions.
Then on page 9 under the heading, "Protein content and quality wheat inspected in the various inspection offices," the following appears:	|
Summarizing, these results confirm similar investigations conducted in previous years, which (have revealed that there are variations in the major quality characteristics of corresponding grades in different years and that, in general, wheat of the highest test weight per bushel but of lower protein content and baking strength passes through inspection offices which feed the Pacific ports, the differences being greater for grades No. 3 northern and lower.
On page 13, under the title, "Variability in protein content and quality within grade," the following appears:
It is evident that that a considerable number of cargoes falling appreciably below the average for the respective grade and port has been shipped each year and there is no doubt that the blending value of such cargoes was below' that which we might legitimately expect. The lowest values are generally for cargoes ex Vancouver and the situation was particularly bad in grade No. 3 northern in 1936-37. This is ascribed largely to the preponderance of northern grown wheat in this grade ex Vancouver and has received unfavourable comment from English consulting chemists, statements appearing in their mimeographed reports to millers to the effect that some cargoes could only be considered good fillers.
Under the heading, "The effect of wheat selection on the protein content of shipments abroad," the following appears:
It is quite generally believed by overseas millers that the "cream of the Canadian crop is skimmed" before it reaches seaboard ports and Canadian producers have expressed the view that the average strength of Canadian wheat available for export is lowered by selec-71492-214
tion of high protein wheat, thereby decreasing the price received. It is therefore of interest and importance to determine, if possible, the extent to which any selection by Canadian and United States milling interests influences the general protein level of shipments abroad.
Doctor Geddes. formerly chief chemist of the board of grain commissioners, located in Winnipeg, made this statement not as an advocate but as a scientist, and I think that eventually what he has in mind will prevail.
Before closing I should like to give a resume of the figures supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the daily c.i.f. prices of wheat in Liverpool, in Canadian currency, and at prevailing rates of exchange, from February 1931 to date. I have synopsized these figures first by months and then by years, and I shall give merely the synopsis in order to bear out, as I think the figures do amply bear out, what Doctor Geddes stated in his submission. For that reason I give them to the house.
For the year 1931 Canadian No. 2 northern, Atlantic, which is the export grade of wheat, averaged 11-4 cents over the best Argentine wheat, and 6 cents over the best Australian. These averages, by the way, are my own calculations from the figures supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I regret that they are not weighted averages, but they are averages and I think present a fairly accurate picture.
In the year 1932 Canadian No. 2 northern, Atlantic, was 5-3 cents over the best Argentine grade and 3 cents over the best Australian, in 1933 Canadian was 12-6 cents over Argentine and 3 cents over Australian; in 1934 Canadian was 23-2 cents over Argentine and 12-3 cents over Australian; in 1935 Canadian was 20-05 cents over Argentine and 12-75 cents over Australian; in 1937 Canadian was 15-6 cents over Argentine (for five months) and 13-4 cents over Australian (for eleven months).
The average for these six years showed Canadian wheat 14-7 cents over the best grade of Argentine and 8-4 cents over the best grade of Australian wheat.
For the year 1936 there are no quotations from February to August inclusive on Argentine wheat, and again none in November. WThen Argentine wheat came on the market in December it was about 27J cents under Canadian northern No. 2. In that year quotations in January are for Argentine second grade. That basis gives an average of 5-8 cents for Canadian over the Argentine price in that year, and 4 cents under the Australian price.
In 1938, except for the month of December, no Canadian No. 2 wheat quotations are avail-
**VIS*D EDITION
The Budget-Mr. Winkler

able, and for the months June to November inclusive there are quotations only on second grade Argentine. In other words, for ten months No. 3 Canadian grain quotations, and for six months second grade Argentine quotations, are given. On this basis the Canadian average is 9-5 cents over Argentine and 14-3 cents over Australian.
I think these figures fully substantiate the statements made by Doctor Geddes to the board of grain commissioners, and my conclusion is that sooner or later-I trust it will be soon

this government will see fit to appoint a commission or a board of western producers to investigate fully the field of the protein content of wheat, and also do something in the matter of regional or other arrangements along the lines suggested by Doctor Geddes. I know that will require a great deal of consideration, but I am sure there are many western agriculturists who would gladly serve on such a board free of cost to the dominion, and consider it an honour to do so. I know I would myself. I have mentioned a few departments in which I think there is vast room for agricultural improvement, and in placing these suggestions before the minister I am confident that they will be given consideration.


Mr. A. B. HYNDMAN (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the debate on the budget I assure you that, so far as wheat is concerned, you will not have to rule on any points of order.
In my opinion there are three burning questions before the people of Canada today: (1) taxation; (2) the manner in which this government is spending the taxpayers' money; and (3) the condition of agriculture. I go back to the first budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in 1936, and quote from page 2383 of Hansard, where he said:
Nevertheless I believe that no country can o on indefinitely with heavily unbalanced udgets and continue to maintain either the confidence of investors or the basis upon which her economy can function healthily and vigorously. We have now reached the stage where delay should no longer be tolerated. We must make an immediate approach to a balanced budget and we must be able to show that complete equilibrium can be reached within a reasonable time.
The next year, 1937, in his budget speech the Minister of Finance said:
I believe I can fairly say that since 1929 no New Year has dawned with brighter promise for Canada. I shall be greatly disappointed if, by this time next year, Canada has not moved substantially further along the road of economic recovery. ...
I hoped that it would be possible to reduce the deficit to $50,000,000 for 1937-38 and to

wipe it out altogether the following year. It now seems probable that this objective will be within our powers of accomplishment.
That was only two years ago, in 1937. In 1938 the Minister of Finance in his budget speech said:
If we can judge by the experience of previous years, the departments will be able to effect considerable savings in their appropriations, and these savings, judging from experience, should be more than sufficient to offset _ any additional expenditures that may be authorized.
Then we had the budget speech of this year, in. which the Minister of Finance said:
Nevertheless, no nation can go on indefinitely with a budget heavily unbalanced without sooner or later providing a real, not an imagined, basis for fear as to the soundness of the country's financial position.
On January 9 of this year a great Canadian in the person of Sir Edward Beatty, speaking before the Ontario Property Owners' Association, had this to say:
As long as debt is incurred by anyone or any institution for the purpose of building or purchasing plant or equipment which produces a profit, the larger the debt the better. The moment that debt begins to grow, not for this reason, but to cover annual losses, then the larger the debt the worse. I hope that your association will pass not one, but a series of resolutions, protesting against the waste of public funds, wherever that waste occurs; that you will vote against the duplication of public services; the waste of money on relief-except where the need is actual, the neglect, in the public affairs, of the ordinary rules of prudence which you apply in your own affairs.
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the present government does not realize the danger of these successive annual deficits. In 1938-1939 they had a total revenue of 8501,677,000 and a deficit of over $55,000,000. We have heard a lot of criticism of the late government, the so-called Bennett administration, but in 1931 when they were in office and the depression was at its worst they took out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country only $357,720,435. True enough, they had a deficit of $83,000,000 odd. But this government, in what they call good times, have had $115,774,587 more than had the Conservative government in 1931 to spend on the people.
During the last ten years we have been running in deficits. Last year we were told by the Minister of Finance that he thought he could balance the budget this year, but what did we find? We found another deficit, amounting to $55,666,000, and he estimates that next year it will touch possibly $100,000,000. I wonder whether the government and hon. members in general realize that during the past thirty years the debt of the dominion has increased eleven times. I wonder if this house realizes that the debts of the various provinces have multiplied as

The Budget-Mr. Hyndman
follows: Prince Edward Island, eight times; Nova Scotia, seven times; New Brunswick, seven times; Quebec, four and a half times; Manitoba, three times; Saskatchewan, five times; Alberta, four and a half times; British Columbia, eight times, and this good old banner province of Ontario, no less than fifty times. During the last twenty years the municipal debt has increased nearly three times. The dominion government is paying more than one-third of its taxation income in interest charges on the national debt. In 1938 the Canadian people paid in interest charges alone $137,400,000, a per capita charge of S12.36. Where is it going to end? Taxation is going up. The tax rate in the finance minister's own township has increased in ten years by nine mills; in my own township it has increased six mills; in Ottawa in the last ten years it has increased 7-65 mills. In the township in which the Minister of Finance resides the tax rate was raised 13-10 mills last year. Our debt is twice our income. It has been growing at the rate of $272,000,000 a year, and now equals $743.49 per capita, as against $385 in the United States. For the dominion government's borrowing of two and a half billion dollars in the last sixteen years we have practically no corresponding assets.
This is a summary of the condition of debt in this country. The Minister of Finance and the government may say, well, what complaint are you making? My complaint is against the way in which this government is spending the taxpayers' money, and I want to give a few examples right in this city which represent, in my opinion, as unwise a spending of money as any government could undertake. I should like to take the Minister of Finance or any member of the cabinet to the front of these parliament buildings and ask him to look at what is going on down around the memorial. I have watched it all summer long. You come in one week, and there is an excavation; you come in next week and it is filled in; two weeks after that things are just about as they were; and that has been going on- all summer long. We have a memorial there which is costing over $1,300,000. I fully appreciate and recognize the services made by the sixty thousand soldiers who are buried over in Flanders' fields, but if those soldiers were to come back to-day and look at the memorial in Connaught Square, and realize that $1,300,000 was being spent on it, -while the sons and daughters whom they left as babies when they went over to fight in France are walking the streets of Ottawa, hungry, barefoot and without jobs, they would not give the government much credit for the
71492-214J
erection of that stone memorial. No wonder the seulptrr has depicted the soldiers going through the arch with their heads hanging down, as though perplexed at what is going on. Perhaps they are dizzy at the way the traffic is handled around that square.
Then I should like to take the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to the front of this building and ask him to cast his eyes towards the supreme court building. Why, in these hard times, w-ith so many people hungry, so many men out of work, should the government spend $3,360,000 on a building to house seven judges, when, as I understand it, the supreme court meets only about ten times a year? They might well have spent less money on that supreme court building. I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) will say, " But look at the number of men employed." Well, the average number of workmen employed on the erection of that building has been only one hundred; the highest number employed at any time was one hundred and sixty. Is it necessary for us to spend $3,360,000 of the taxpayers' money to employ one hundred men?
Also we are erecting a new post office here. I should like to take the -Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the experimental farm and show him the new driveway which was built over there. I measured it, and I find it is a little over a mile long. It was built through the choicest piece of ground -which one could use for such a purpose; no excavation was necessary; it is a black top highway, and it is costing the taxpayers of this country $159,784-for a mile of driveway. I have been told by contractors, and I know it to be a fact, that the highways built through Ontario cost around $20,000 a mile, and those double highways which they are building up in western Ontario cost less than $100,000 per mile. To spend over $159,000 on a mile of driveway through a farm is the kind of thing that makes the taxpayers of this country sick and tired. Again, take the St. Patrick-Cummings bridge driveway; one could throw a stone the length of it; it is less than a quarter of a mile long, yet it cost $33,742.
I am not opposed to the beautification of the city of Ottawa. On the contrary I believe that the capital city should be beautified. But in the name of high heaven let us use a little common sense in this business, and not throw away money foolishly. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to criticize business in this country and to say that if business men do not buck up and do their share we, the government, will have to go on
The Budget-Mr. Hyndman

spending money. But I think we are setting them a very bad example. If any company had such a board of directors as we have sitting over yonder, those directors would be fired. The taxpayers are paying a terrific amount of money for the management of this country and they are getting sick and tired of it. Go to Montreal and look at the hole which the Canadian National is filling in there-$12,000,000 absolutely wasted.
People on relief, men and women, are looking for jobs and cannot get them; yet this government increases the salaries of highly paid men in the public service. We find increases amounting to $175,000. Here is a man drawing $6,000 and he is increased to $8,000, an increase of $2,000. I have here a list of the increases and these are some of them: $480; $675; $540; $600; $1,500. These are some of the increases which this government has given. Thousands upon thousands of men and women in Canada are trying to support their families on less than half of some of the increases which the government has accorded its employees. They may say that these increases are statutory. I do not care whether they are statutory or not; I say this is no time for the government to hand out such increases.
Look at the commissions the government appointed last year, and look at the supplementary estimates-$122,000,000 to be spent. Why, Mr. Speaker, I never knew that we had to have so many bridges, wharves, post offices and armouries and so much dredging to be done in Canada. Preelection, I am told. Well, I am not sure whether that is the explanation or whether hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to bridge over the differences between the provincial governments and the dominion government.
I would make a few suggestions to the government. In the first place I suggest a little more rigid economy in the spending of public money. They ought to spend the taxpayers' money more wisely. Instead of spending money on memorials and supreme court buildings, driveways through parks and farms, they should spend it on revenue-producing undertakings. For example, there is reforestation. If the Minister of Labour were here he would say, "We are going to spend a million dollars on that.'' Yes, a million dollars on reforestation and three millions on a supreme court building. I should like to see the trans-Canada highway completed from coast to coast. In this morning's press we read that Germany is demanding of Poland a highway across that country. I submit that something of the sort is needed here, a highway

from coast to coast, not necessarily for tourists but as a defence measure. I should like to see hydro-electric power developed all over the rural areas. 1 know it is a provincial matter, but surely there can be a little cooperation. Some of the money that is foolishly spent by the dominion government could be used to help in the development of hydroelectric power so that every rural .home would have electric lights. If that were done we would get somewhere.
In my opinion the federal government should assume the total cost of relief. I think they ought to set up training camps such as there are in Sweden for single unemployed. The morals of the young people of Canada are being undermined, their health is being destroyed, and they are becoming discouraged. It is all very well for a Liberal member to describe our young people as "yaps" and "spineless," but eighty-five or ninety per cent of the unemployed in this country, young boys of twenty and twenty-one, are anything but yaps. They are not spineless. If there were a war to-morrow these same young men would be called upon to go and fight. I say, give them a chance.
In regard to reforestation, I have here an interesting provincial government pamphlet. If this government spent $56,000 in the reforestation of 1.000 acres, it is estimated on reliable authority that in sixty years that forest would be worth $444,000. Would not that be worth while?
Coming now to the condition of agriculture, I do not hesitate to say that the Minister of Agriculture and the members of the cabinet all fail to realize the plight of Canadian farmers to-day. I know that they are trying to help the farmers in some ways, but they do not fully realize the condition of agriculture in Canada. Agriculture is the basic industry of the country. Germany lost the last war simply because the farmers there could not produce the necessary foodstuffs. And see what Japan is doing to-day; she is trying to expand and to get more agricultural territory. Fifty per cent of our Canadian farmers are bankrupt to-day. and seventy-five per cent of our farms are mortgaged. No encouragement is given to the farmers to stay on the land-none whatever. The Minister of Finance realizes this to some extent, for in his budget speech he says:
It is therefore, only self-interest for all of us to see that everything that can possibly be done is done to improve the economic standing of agriculture. Only thus can all industries in all sections of Canada achieve the maximum of prosperity. Only thus can we preserve and strengthen national unity.

The Budget-Mr. Hyndman
Eighty per cent of the farmers of Canada have not bought a new suit of clothes in the last eight years. I have here a picture of a group of young farmers taken during the Christmas holidays at the agricultural college at Guelph, Ontario. Here are 700 young farmers taking a short course. I ask hon. members, not in any partisan spirit but in all sincerity, what- is the outlook for these young men? They see their fathers wallowing in debt, working from five in the morning until eight at night for less than a dollar a day and getting nowhere. Is it any wonder that the rural population is gradually becoming an urban population? Improve the condition of agriculture and you will keep these young people on the farms.
The wheat bonus is fairly good, but the cheese bonus did not go far enough. Why did not the Minister of Agriculture follow the recommendations of the Ontario cheese board? Some time this winter they made a certain recommendation which in my opinion the minister ought to have adopted. They recommended one cent a pound on all cheese scoring 39 points for quality with a total score of 92 points; 2 cents a pound on all cheese scoring 40 points for quality with a total score of 93 points, and 3 cents a pound on all cheese with a total score of oyer 94 points. Why, there is hardly a cheese factory in this country producing cheese that scores 94.
Now we come to butter; the government is going to purchase butter to give to those on relief. Very good; but from whom are they going to purchase it? Are they going out to the farmers who are now producing butter, and are they going to buy it from them? No, they are going to the packing companies, to the speculators who have large quantities of butter on their hands. I would rather see the Minister of Agriculture say to these speculators, "You fellows stew in your own butter; we will buy from the producers." It is the same with wheat; we have white collar farmers speculating in wheat, who would not know a kernel of wheat from a kernel of corn. Others speculate in butter, who would hardly know how butter is produced. If any products are to be purchased, let the farmer get the benefit.
Oh, we have this government going to do wonderful things. We find that the duty on vinegar is to be increased. What a great help that is going to be to the apple growers of this country; what a wonderful thing for the farmers! Then they have put a one cent
duty on tomatoes.	Look at	what they did
last year. They took the duty off gopher		
poison and harness.	That was	what they didfor the farmers of	Canada.	I hold in myhand a newspaper	of 1903	containing themarket reports of that date, and I am going	to compare the prices shown	for that yearwith the prices of	to-day:	1903	1939Oats	38 cents 30 cents	Wheat	87J	60Barley	461	42Corn	54	53Hay, per ton.. ..	$10 00	$8 00Straw, per ton ..	6 00	4 00Potatoes 	1 25	1 00Butter	23	22Eggs	20	20Cheese	14	14
But look at the difference when the farmer has to go and buy:
	1903	1939
Bran	$ 19 00	$ 24 00Shorts	17 50	25 00Middlings	22 00	27 00Flour	2 60	2 60Plough	12 00	22 00Harrow	16 00	23 00Binder	145 00	267 00Mowing machine.. ..	65 00	120 50Hay rake	32 00	56 50Cream separator.. ..	80 00	148 00In 1903 the farmer's	taxes were	only $40;
to-day they are $140. The price of a farm in 1903 was practically what it is to-day, around $4,000. That is why the farmers cannot get along; they are getting so little for their produce and they have to pay so much.
Then we were told how the tariff affected prices of agricultural implements. In 1929 we had a so-called low tariff; in 1934 we had what was called a high tariff; in 1936 we had a low tariff again, and then in 1938 we had the Minister of Agriculture making a speech in this house in which he said that if the manufacturers of farm implements in this country did not lower their prices, what he was not going to do to them! Let me quote the prices of farm implements in 1929, in 1934, in 1936 and in 1938, after the minister made his speech. In each case it will be seen that under the Conservative party, with a so-called high tariff, prices were reduced; that when the Liberals came back to power prices went up, and that after the minister made his speech they went up again. The figures are as follows:
The Budget-Mr. Hyndman

Wagon	
Walking plow	
Disc harrow	
Spring tooth harrow	
6 ft. heavy mower	
9 ft. 30 teeth rake	
6 ft. binder	
Ordinary cultivator	
Field cultivator	
3	inch shoe sleigh	
Scufflers	
Manure spreader	
Cream separator	
Hay loader	
Tractor	
Thresher machine (22x38) mounted
Hay tedder	
Potato digger	
That schedule of prices, Mr. Speaker, shows that under the high tariffs of 1934-and I would like the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) to listen to this-prices were lower than at any time since 1929. There is a reason for that. When the Conservative party came into power they raised the tariff, but when they did that they went to the manufacturing concerns of this country and said, "Look here, we want you to play ball with us. We will protect your industry and give work to the people of this country, but we do not want you to increase your prices." And they did not.


Mr. TUCKER:: Was there a combine that could do all this?


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: The Liberal party came into power; they lowered the tariff but they said nothing to the manufacturers, and up went prices.


Walter Adam Tucker: Were those the prices of a small or large company?


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: That was the price list of the International Harvester Company. Then came the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, to show what he was going to do for the farmers of Canada; and they shot the prices sky high.


Mr. FLEMING:: Would the hon. gentleman say that there was a combine among the manufacturers, in view of the fact that they raised and lowered their prices together?


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: 
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, the wheel goes round and round. When I first came to the house in 1936 I remember that when the budget was presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) some members felt they were at a wedding. But when the address was presented last week by the same minister hon. members felt they were at a funeral. To-day the condition is not changed one iota. Some arguments have been lodged in favour of the budget, and some against it. But when we have the arguments boiled down we are back to the same place in which we were in 1936-or, if you wish to go farther 'back, the same place in which we were in 1930. Conditions have not improved. I believe the country, as a whole, is disappointed.
At some of the earlier sessions of this parliament the Minister of Finance told us that before he left office he intended to balance his 'budget. However, according to the figures given by him the other day, that hope has not been attained. He tells us that in the next year he expects a deficit of $60,000,000, and that with his deficit on wheat trimmed down from $48,000,000, the figure given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), to $25,000,000; the figure given by the Minister of Finance-possibly for budget purposes-he is still down something like $55,666,000.
The past two years have been record breakers, so far as the collection of taxes from the people of Canada is concerned. As all hon. members are aware, the people throughout the country are not able to stand those heavy taxes. We find this budget has a tendency to make Canada safe for those who have and to take away from those who have not. Some of the important concessions announced by the Minister of Finance are worthy of note. One of these would give the mining corporations another period of three years to enjoy the privileges extended some time ago. Large sums of money have been spent on the building of roads to mining areas, and mining companies have been exempted from some forms of taxation.
We find, further, that there is another group included in the list of tax exemptions. It is indicated that industrialists who wish to improve their buildings or equipment will be given, on their income tax for the next three years, a deduction of 10 per cent of the amount of expenditures on improvements. Returning for a moment to mining companies, may I point out that the last time I spoke in the house I placed on record some of the profits made by mining companies in 1938, and I believe those profits were sufficient to
justify the companies paying heavy income tax. Instead of that, however, we find that this year special privileges are extended to them. At the same time, these companies are operating contrary to the wishes of a great number of the people in Canada in that they are shipping minerals to countries which possibly in the near future will use those minerals against Canada. I do not know whether this could be called good business. Perhaps it is good business for some friends of the government, but for the people of the country, as a whole, it is disastrous.
When we look at the position of the farmers and the workers we remember that the sugar tax has not been removed. That is a tax borne by everybody, but particularly by the poorer people, because a greater proportion of their earnings is used in purchases than of the earnings of people who are better able to pay taxes. We find that the sales tax, which was strongly condemned by the Liberal party when it was instituted by a Conservative government, was increased on an earlier occasion by two per cent by a Liberal government. That tax, in its increased form, remains. That is a tax which has a tendency to keep the poor people down, and to keep them down so that they cannot stand up and fight for their rights. They are down; the government has its feet on their neck and, if we may judge from this budget, intends to hold them down.
We find a wonderful concession granted to this class of people! There has been an increase from 27 cents to 60 cents a gallon on spirits entering into the manufacture of vinegar. There is an election coming along pretty soon, and that ought to be good enough to guarantee votes for the government. Then we find an increase of one cent a pound on tomatoes coming into Canada- another wonderful concession, and almost as good as the one given the farmers last year!
But to other parties we find great concessions have been extended. For instance, le us consider the farm implement companies. When I spoke on an earlier occasion I gave figures and, on another occasion before the session closes I hope to give further detail. The Ottawa Citizen of April 28 contains the information that in the first quarter the net income of the Chrysler Corporation was $11,638,290, compared with S2,109,969 in the corresponding quarter of 1938. It would seem that this company and others, including General Motors, Massey-Harris, the International Harvester Company, and several others we could name, could do without some of the tariff protection they enjoy. And, speaking of tariff, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) has said he is sick
The Budget-Mr. Fair

and tired of hearing about it. Well, if he were in his seat I would tell him more about it. I would point out to him that in 1931 a survey made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) disclosed that the tariff net loss to Manitoba amounted to $9,274,769, or a per capita loss of $13.25; to Saskatchewan the tariff loss was $25,952,335 or a per capita loss of $28.16, and to Alberta the tariff loss was $19,698,248, or a per capita loss of $26.93. The total loss for the three provinces amounted to $54,925,352. I come now to the central provinces and I find that Quebec had a gain of $31,685,885, or a per capita gain of $11.03, while Ontario, which according to Premier Mitch Hepburn is the milch cow for all Canada, had a gain of $51,989,761, or a per capita gain of $15.15. The total gain for these two provinces amounted to $83,675,646. Is it any wonder that these two provinces should bear the weight of the income tax and several other taxes? They are simply paying their just share because they draw from all the rest of Canada. In other words, they are farming the rest of Canada and trying to take to themselves the credit for the payment of taxes.
The investigation into the textile industry caused a great deal of discussion, but I believe a number of members have forgotten about that while others possibly never knew anything about it. I congratulate the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) upon the story of the textile industry he gave a few days ago. I think this should help the government to consider its responsibilities, bring about a reduction in the tariff enjoyed by these people and thus give an opportunity to everyone to buy goods at reasonable prices. An investigation was held into the farm implement companies and showed that one company, the International Harvester Company, had a secret reserve of some $40,000,000. We were led to believe by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that farm machinery prices would have to be drastically reduced or something radical would be done by the government. We are still waiting for action. The "do-nothing" government is still trying to maintain its reputation, and our farmers are still paying prices that they cannot afford to pay.
There may be some reason for this because some say that the Liberal party have forgotten the west. Apparently they do not expect to have any more members elected there. This may be right because I noticed last year when travelling through Saskatchewan that one hon. member was breaking up some brush-land so that he would have a job to go back to after the next election. The votes of the east
seem to be far more important than the votes of the west, but I want to tell the government once more that if the west is put out of business the east will certainly be put out of business as well. In the March 16 issue of the Western Producer there appears a letter written by a Saskatchewan farmer which. I think, is worth quoting to the house. This letter will show the part that the west is playing. It reads:
Sir.-There is nothing wrong with Saskatchewan except we get up in the morning at the ringing of an Ontario alarm clock; wash in an Ontario basin;	use	Ontario soap,	and	anOntario towel made of Irish linen or American cotton; put on an Ontario suit made of Saskatchewan wool	and	Ontario shoes	made	ofSaskatchewan hides; sit down to an Ontario table to eat pancakes made of Minneapolis flour and spread with Ontario maple syrup, with Winnipeg	sausages or bacon	made	ofSaskatchewan pork,	B.C. jam, Ontario	or
California fruit, with B.C. sugar.
After breakfast we go out and crank up an American tractor sold by an Ontario agency at 25 per cent plus (to protect Canadian manufacturers), fill it up with Oklahoma, Turner Valley or Montana gas (we were never able to tell the difference by the price); hitch to an Ontario seeder to seed a farm covered with an Ontario mortgage and perhaps grasshopper eggs; and if it rains we thresh our grain with an Ontario combine; do our hauling with American trucks (also sold at 25 per cent plus), perhaps deliver to American-owned elevators; sell on basis of world's price levels, less all freight and handling charges, leaving us less than the cost of production; hence cannot pay taxes, or keep up schools' travel on dirt roads, while the American and Ontario farmers have good schools and travel on pavements.
After supper we turn on an American radio, after paying for a government licence and the duty, and hear something about "Milking the Ontario Cow." Not being much interested, we crawl into an Ontario bed, covered with Ontario blankets and are awakened in the night by the dog barking at the cow, which, when we come to think of it, is the only home product left.
And then we wonder where all the money goes from this fair province of ours, which is so rich in natural resources.
That letter was written by Oscar L. Glaze of Sedley. Saskatchewan, who, I believe, must have been farming for a number of years because he seems to have a good grasp of the situation. During his address, the Minister of Finance went on to tell about agriculture. I should like to quote from his remarks as reported on page 3142 of Hansard of this year, as follows:
I need hardly point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that these general conditions affecting agriculture throughout the world apply with particular emphasis to wheat, so long the backbone of international trade. Because of this and because Canada must export not only wheat but meat and live stock, dairy products and fruit, the impack of any world recession falls with special severity upon the farmers of Canada.
(Mr. Fair.]

The Budget-Mr. Fair
Agriculture can do little to protect itself against these international storms. Other producers can contract their output, can frequently lay off their workers to live at public cost upon the relief rolls, while their contraction in output prevents a disastrous decline in price and the disappearance of profits. Farmers cannot readily do these things. In particular our western wheat growers, who have suffered from crop failure for a long series of years, cannot be expected to face unassisted this international problem. In time agriculture may, and should be expected to, adjust itself to the new problems created by international developments, but such adjustment involves a long and slow progress. In the meantime, agriculture, if allowed to remain depressed, would have serious adverse effects upon the rest of our economy. It is therefore, only self-interest for all of us to see that everything that can possibly be done is done to improve the economic standing of agriculture. Only thus can all industries and all sections of Canada achieve the maximum of prosperity. Only thus can we preserve and strengthen national unity.
That sounds very good, and I must say it is what I have advocated since coming here to the house. If agriculture is prosperous, all Canada will be prosperous; if agriculture is not prosperous, you cannot have prosperity in this country. But what do we find? We find that the oppressors of the common people are still riding on the backs of the poor people of Canada. The farmers and workers still have to carry this load, and the government is quite satisfied to allow this to go on because there has been no disallowance of the legislation that permits it. I think it is time that this government woke up to its responsibility and did something that should have been done ten years ago for the farmers and working people. Just the other day there was passed through the house a bill legalizing the charging of interest rates of two per cent a month on small loans. This is just one more millstone being added to the neck of the industrial worker. I think the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) was quite tickled with the bill, for on sponsoring it he had this to say to the house, as reported at page 3207 of Hansard of this year:
Mr. Ilsley: Yes, and registration fees and disbursements-everything. It covers travelling costs incurred in investigation. Everything must be covered by that two per cent. No more can be charged.
I believe I have nothing more to say about the bill. I can explain the various clauses in committee and answer questions regarding them. But I would appeal to the house to pass it. It may be that there will be members who will have a little different idea about what should be done concerning this, that or the other section. We have been doing that for three or four years. For that time we have been giving expression to our different ideas as to what ought to be done about this sort of thing. Here 71492-215
we have an admirably drafted piece of legislation. I did not draft it, so I am free to say that. I repeat that it is an admirably drafted bill. It is a sound bill in every way; of that I am satisfied.


Mr. HARRIS:: May I ask what the hon. gentleman is quoting from?


Robert Fair: If I remember correctly, I said that I was quoting from the minister's speech in sponsoring the bill in the house on April 25, as reported at page 3207 of Hansard. He continued:
There is a great demand from all the people of Canada for the passage of this bill-not just for some bill, but for this bill. I am sure the public are appreciative of the enormity of the evil we are seeking to remedy. They will blame, and justly blame, this parliament if, after working on the matter so long we throw this bill out at this stage-


Joseph Henry Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. gentleman in order in quoting from a previous debate this session?


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Donnelly):: The hon. member should not quote from a previous debate this session.


Robert Fair: I have just given the views of the Minister of National Revenue on the small loans bill, and the views, I think of the government and its supporters. Personally I am not satisfied with that bill. As I said before, it is just one more way in which the government puts its foot on the necks of the people who are down, and does so at the very moment when it should be helping to pick them up from their present depressed condition. I am not satisfied, nor do I believe many other members are satisfied with that bill. We have banks in Canada to give a banking service to the people of this country.


Joseph Henry Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should bow to your ruling.


Robert Fair: What is the point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Joseph Henry Harris: The hon. member was discussing a matter which was debated in the house a few days ago, and was ruled out of order.


Robert Fair: There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps somebody has a com on his foot, and if I am treading on it and it hurts, I hope it will hurt just a little more because that bill is definitely hurting the people of Canada who are down and out. It is time the government accepted its responsibility and righted these wrongs that are being perpetrated on the people of Canada. It is

The Budget-Mr. Fair

not a bill that the people of this country want, despite what the Minister of National Revenue said. He is not correct in saying that people are satisfied1 with that bill.
I come now to that burning question, the unemployed in this country, who are walking round looking for jobs. We have been told that we have a registration of the unemployed, but I am satisfied that we do not have registration.


Joseph Henry Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I still maintain that the hon. member should bow to the ruling given by your honour, which to my mind was quite correct, because if the hon. member will refer to citation 293 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms he will find that it says:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(a)	refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion; nor
(b)	refer any any debate in the Senate, but he may refer to the official printed records of the upper house, though they have not been formally communicated to the lower house; nor
(c)	refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending; nor
(d)	anticipate discussion on a motion set down for future consideration; nor-
And there is half a page more of further restrictions. But the one I particularly draw to the attention of the hon. member andi of your honour is (a) that a member must not:
(a) refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion.
The point of order I raise, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. gentleman did not bow to your ruling, and I think he ought to before he proceeds further with his address.


James J. Donnelly: I trust that the hon. member will confine his remarks as much as possible to those of a general nature and not refer to a previous debate.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, I have an honour which no other member of this house can claim: I have been "Fair" for more than forty years, which no other member of the house can claim, and I intend to live up to that.


Mr. BRADETTE:: He does not look forty.


Robert Fair: I have said, Mr. Speaker, that conditions to-day are no better than they were in 1936 or in 1930. I was very much interested in noting some time ago some of the results of the present system, and here are a few of the things I found. Until 1929 we

had fairly good times in Canada. We had fairly good prices for agricultural products; the machinery companies were making vast profits, and their workers were making good wages and living happily. In 1929 a manmade depression or oppression was created, and people began to lose their homes, their jobs and everything they had. As a result of that, we find that in 1930 no fewer than 1,010 people in Canada committed suicide. In 1931 the number was 1,004; in 1932, 1,024; in 1933, 922; the figures were dropping a little because people were getting used to conditions, and by 1935 they had become still further accustomed to them because the number of suicides in that year dropped to 905. If present conditions continue as they have been for the past seven or eight years, perhaps people will get so hardened that they will not commit suicide but starve to death.
In insane institutions in 1930 the number confined was 31,465-people driven insane largely by the conditions to which they were subjected by government policies-in 1931 the number in insane asylums was 35,279; in 1932, 37,135; and in 1933, 37,054. It will be seen that the number is again decreasing; little by little they are getting accustomed to conditions. Were we to look at the statistics of gaols and penitentiaries I am sure we should find that the numbers of inmates have correspondingly increased.
It is often assumed that in this country there are not many people "up against it." In the Ottawa Citizen of April 26, 1939, is this little item, headed, "Penniless, homeless man found at dump."
A victim of world conditions, Arthur Peruisse, aged 59 years, was found yesterday afternoon at the Ottawa East dump and rushed to the Civic hospital in a serious condition with an infection in both legs. Apparently penniless and homeless the man was first noticed by Ottawa Gas Co. employees who notified the authorities.
Constable Michael Feeney was sent to the dump to investigate and discovered the unfortunate man suffering great pain and with his legs swollen and chafed between the ankles and knees. He told the officer that he had been living in the dump since last Sunday and prior to that had slept in box cars or wherever else he could lay his head. While no such a place could be traced, he told the police that he had relatives at Rosevelt, Que.
This is but a sample of the items one may find in the newspapers practically every day in the week, and yet our government goes merrily along its old way. I have said that the official figures relative to the unemployed

The Budget-Mr. Fair
are not correct. Here is a clipping, taken from the Western Producer of April 6. 1939, showing the result of a survey made in Manitoba:
Disclosure that 78,000 young people in Manitoba between the ages of 14 and 24 are w'ithout gainful employment is made in the report issued last week by the economic survey board which conducted an inquiry for the Manitoba government.
The report on the youth problem said 16,000 of the 78,000 unemployed young people had never worked at all and about 90 per cent of the group was unskilled for any trade.
A new government department to handle youth problems was urged by the report. Otherwise, action should be taken by the department of education.
The report estimated there were 15,000 young men in the province engaged as farm labourers, without remuneration.
Another suggestion was established of a junior employment service, already in effect in some United States cities.
In connection with that I might recall some remarks which were made in this chamber not long ago by the hon. members for Renfrew North' (Mr. Warren), and Wellington North (Mr. Blair), wherein they accused, in a . gossiping way, if I may say so, some of the unemployed as being unwilling to work. I believe that conditions on the farms do not tend to make them attractive for men to work there. In Manitoba there are 15,000 youths working on farms without any wages. I wonder whether the hon. members to whom I have referred were justified in referring to those young men as "spineless creatures," " yaps " and so on. No wonder that one of the hon. members could not find anyone to work his farm; for experience shows that today farms are being operated at a loss, and why should any unemployed young man undertake to work the hon. gentleman's farm when he will have to help pay the deficit? I am quite satisfied that that hon. member was better acquainted with farming the farmer than with farming the land.
Aouth training has been highly praised. I believe that the cause is a worthy one, but the scheme does not go far enough, and until something is done to provide employment for the youths so trained it is to a certain extent a waste of time.
I have spoken a little longer than was my intention when I began, but I wish to read a little poetry which seems to me appropriate. I believe it applies fittingly to conditions as they are to-day, and it is no credit to this country or this government or past governments that this should be so:
In heathen tribes, where skulls were thick, did primal passions rage,
They had a system sure and quick, to cure the blight of age,
If one's native youth had fled, and time had sapped his vim,
They simply popped him on the head, and that was the last of him.
71492-215J
But in this, our enlightened age, we're made of finer stuff.
And so we look with righteous rage, on methods so crude, and tough,
So when our man grows oid and gray, and bent and short of breath,
We simply take his job away, and let him starve to death.
Quite a number of suggestings have been made to the government this session. I am going to make one which is new. I suggest that it be tried to see if it will work and enable the wheels of industry to go merrily round again, so that we shall have happy people in Canada. I am glad that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is where he is, and I hope he will take cognizance of my suggestion.
If a farmer neglects his horse, his cow. his pig or his dog, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals learns of this neglect, he is haled before a court and is usually fined, or if the case is bad enough or he cannot pay the fine he is put in gaol. If the courts of this country protect our live stock-and I am not saying they should not, for I believe they should-I believe the courts should also protect human beings. So I suggest to the Minister of Justice that, because the first duty of this government is to see to the happiness and welfare of its people, unless conditions are changed in the very near future, action be taken, first of all, to put our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in gaol or fine him so heavily that he cannot pay and so send him to gaol. Next in order should come the Minister of Finance, because he is the man who holds the purse-strings. If these suggestions do not stand the test of the courts, or the Minister of Justice declares them ultra vires, I suggest that we fire some of our old judges and put new, up-to-date judges on the bench.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Order.


Mr. REID:: That is a reflection on the courts.


Robert Fair: Then we would continue all down the line of the treasury benches and to the last member supporting the government. Thus the penalty would be applied which should be applied; for it is the government's job to look after the people of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Look after your own province first.


Robert Fair: Building up the country is the government's job. They came into power upon promises that they were going to do that very thing. They have miserably failed, and the people are suffering. I do not think that is either right or fair. I suggest to the Minister of Justice that they accept a fair suggestion from one who is "Fair."


Malcolm McLean: What a spectacle I
The Budget-Mr. Tomlinson


Mr. W. R. TOMLINSON (Bruce):: In rising to speak on the budget my purpose is not that of delaying the closing of this session, but there are a few points which I should like to place before hon. members, and I feel that I might be remiss in my duty if I did not do so.
It is obvious from the speeches of hon. members to my left, particularly in the lower corner, that these particular groups have forgotten the whole of eastern and central Canada. So far since I have been in the house they have not spoken one word on behalf of eastern and central Canada. I should like to say to these hon. members that we who come from those areas are willing to cooperate with the west in relation to all its difficulties, and I believe that in turn they should be willing to cooperate with us in our difficulties. Therefore, I should like to discuss first the problem of unemployment.
I have listened to long speeches on this subject, and many suggestions have been made that more money should be spent, that there should be increased taxation, that the youth problem should be looked into, and so on. But I would go back to 1930 and point out that the former government, after coming in on the old promise, "We will cure unemployment or perish in the attempt," called a special session in September and voted $20,000,000 towards a presumably insoluble problem. I happened to be a private citizen at that time and I well remember how carelessly that $20,000,000 was flung round the dominion. The government of that day had no statistics, no idea where the money was being spent, and in my opinion that is one of the things that is now causing the serious problem we have to face in connection with our youth.
In 1930 a father, forty or forty-five years of age, with a small home and a reasonable salary was dismissed from his position. He had a wife and family and I can quite realize how he felt at that time. His money was all gone; he lost faith. He had children ranging up to twelve years of age. What became of those children? The father and mother had no energj'; they had no means to educate them, and now they are without that training which they might otherwise have acquired. They are the children who to-day are our unemployed jmuth. They lack training. To what can we attribute that lack of training? We can only point to the former government; we must place the responsibility at their door. If at that time there had been a youth training program such as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has enunciated, those children would have received training which to-day would be of great benefit to them.

I feel sorry for those young men. It is absolutely useless to take an inexperienced young man of twenty, send him to a farm and expect the farmer to train him, because it is usually during his busy time that the farmer himself requires trained help. That is one of the reasons why to-day we have untrained youth who cannot obtain positions. I commend the youth training program of the Minister of Labour. I believe it is the only salvation for the young men in our cities. They will receive necessary training in the trades. Take any small town and you will find that we have not the necessary trained painters, carpenters and young men in other trades. Such young men should be trained and they should apply for that training.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Rae Tomlinson: Just before six o'clock. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that I should like to place on Hansard a few statistics with regard to the county of Bruce, and I do so for various reasons. The county of Bruce is well known in Canada; it is inhabited by men and women who work for a living, who are by no means wealthy people but are small wage-earners. The population of that county is approximately 51,000. The county of Bruce is more or less unique, in that within its borders there are nine large manufacturing plants. In addition, it is a splendid agricultural district; as a matter of fact, in April, 1938, it was the second largest butter producing county in Ontario.
I should like to give some figures with regard to the unemployment situation in my riding, which should be of interest because, as I have already said, we have industry, farming and fishing there. The people of Bruce donate indirectly a large amount towards the cost of relief in this country, and a little later I intend to say a few words on their behalf. According to figures obtained from the registration branch of the Department of Labour, during the month of February, 1938, the total number on relief in Bruce county was 562, including both unemployables and those employable but unemployed at the present time. Of that number eight were from agricultural districts. A further examination of that figure shows that we had forty-eight heads of families receiving aid to which the dominion contributed. I am not saying that

The Budget*-Mr. Tomlinson
we may not have more than that number unemployed, but the others are doing their utmost to earn their own living without depending upon the government.
I should like to say to the other groups in this house, including the official opposition, that instead of criticizing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in connection with unemployment if they were to spend more time in advising our unemployed youth, both young men and young women, to seek by means of the youth training plan to equip thmselves to obtain employment in one of the trades, we would find a distinct improvement in the unemployment situation throughout the country. There is no doubt that during the past ten years that angle has 'been neglected. Therefore I say, if the other groups in this house

and I can speak to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group also in this connection-would endeavour to have these young people take advantage of the youth training plan that has been initiated by the minister, instead of advising them that the government will look after them, my hon. friends would be doing a real service. After all, we have many young people in the rural parts of the country who are endeavouring to earn a living, pay their way and keep out of debt; yet who are called upon to donate extensively to the cost of relief in Canada. That is a fact which has caused some dissension in certain parts of the dominion.
In the past the county of Bruce endeavoured to keep within its means, and here I might address my words to some of the larger municipalities in Canada. When I say the county of Bruce has a bonded indebtedness of only $6,000, that surprises a great many municipalities which in the past disregarded their earning power when it came to spending money. I do not mean to say that we have not splendid roads in our county; we have. We also have splendid farms which, due to the hydro, are becoming better equipped with electrical appliances. We have splendid factories and a marvellous tourist country; yet we have a bonded indebtedness of only $6,000. So it rather hurts to hear in this house, day after day, destructive criticism, especially from one of these groups on my left, directed against the minister who is endeavouring to provide some means whereby these young people may be trained for the future. We know that many of these young men are not trained and that consequently there are no openings for them. There is very little use sending them out on the farms unless they are first trained. In the summer time a farmer cannot attempt to take a
young man from the city and train him during the busy season. Right now we have employment in the county of Bruce for young men who are trained in farm work. It will not be very long before the farmers will be running all over the country looking for help. The wages may not be very high, but it will be something upon which these young people may build a future. After all, the fathers and mothers of these young people and many hon. members in this house had very little in the beginning, but they started with that very little and built up estates, and the young people of to-day must realize that they will have to do the same thing.
Next I should like to say a word in regard to agriculture. I listened with amazement to the criticism of the two trade treaties, the one of 1935 and the other of 1938, offered by the official opposition. Under those treaties our farmers have benefited to a very great extent in the export of their surplus products. I was further amazed when members of other groups rose and said, "Well, we voted for it, but we are sure it will not be of much benefit." I should like to give just one instance in which the trade treaties have been of great value to our farmers. In January under the new trade treaty we exported 30,000 head of heavy cattle to the United States. Each of those cattle would average 1.400 pounds. In, 1935 there was a reduction in the tariff of one cent a pound, and a further reduction in 1939 of half a cent, meaning a total reduction of one and one-half cents a pound. On a 1.400 pound animal that means an additional $21 to the farmer, or, in other words, a total increase of $630,000 on the 30,000 head exported in January. I am amazed to think the official opposition would vote in a bloc against that trade treaty. I shall not go further into a discussion of exports of cattle, but I do know that if in the month of January 30,000 head of cattle had been shipped to the Toronto and Montreal markets, prices would not have been six or seven cents a pound but would have been two or three cents. That is what would have happened to the price of cattle had it not been for the trade treaty.
May I add that at last the farmer now has a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who is willing to listen to his difficulties. We realize that because of the situation in Europe, prices of farm products have fluctuated, and in order more or less to equalize his income it becomes necessary for the farmer to have some assistance by way of legislation which will tend towards developing a cooperative method of selling. Some of us who have been interested in the difficulties of the farmers
3412	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Tomlinson
have discussed the matter this year. We have found it extremely complicated, and it has been difficult to arrive at any definite suggestion. I am pleased, however, to see that the minister is bringing in a bill whereby an advisory committee will be set up. This measure is of great importance to the farmer, because it means that at last he will have representations from the joint cooperatives throughout the dominion who will be in a position to advise the minister of their difficulties. In fact, the minister's legislation throughout is of great importance and will have far-reaching effects on agriculture. He may not have gone as far as some of us would have liked. I should like to say here and now. however, that it is better to have some legislation that at least is legal and enforcible than to have four or five acts on the statute books only to find later that they are ultra vires and of no value. Therefore I say this is a beginning towards assisting the farmer. The time is fast approaching when individual farmers must cooperate in disposing of their goods. In my opinion the time is past when an individual farmer can sell his goods on the market of his own choice.
This government has been faced with a tremendous task so far as agriculture is concerned. In 1934 a piece of legislation known as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was placed on the statute books. In my opinion that act has done more than any other to cause the people of Canada to lose faith in farming. There was a time when a farm was considered a gilt-edged security, but that time has passed. This government was faced with that act, but so far as the eastern and central parts of Canada are concerned it is now repealed.
I hope that this government may bring back confidence to the man who has small sums of money to lend, and thereby provide our young farmers with funds with which to commence their farming operations. It is almost impossible for a young man to start out in his career. The present government has been faced with legislation such as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and it is now endeavouring to rectify mistakes which were made before it took office. Rather than say that this government is a "do-nothing" government I would say the former Conservative government could be described in that way. Certainly it was a "do-nothing" government. Therefore, when hon. members of the opposition attempt to say that this is a "do-nothing" government, they are speaking purely and simply from political motives-and, I would say, a very low type of politics at that.

Yes, the former Conservative government was a "do-nothing" government, under the Bennett-Manion-Stevens axis.


Robert James Manion: Axis?


William Rae Tomlinson: They placed disastrous legislation on the statute books, and we have been asked to rectify it.


Mr. STEWART:: Which you did not do.


William Rae Tomlinson: 
Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I remember that a few years ago an old gentleman in British Columbia told me that Ontario was in Bruce. After listening to the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Tomlinson), I think there may be something in that assertion.
I am going to deal quite briefly with the budget. I am sure that every hon. member was deeply impressed with the closing remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). They had the ring of a true Canadian. In an eloquent and almost pathetic manner he appealed for cooperation. I should like to quote his words which appear on page 3153 of Hansard of this year, as follows:
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it not time for us Canadians "to see ourselves as others see us," to adopt a constructive rather than a negative attitude, and to concentrate with courage and vigour on a united effort to solve our own problems and continue the work of building a greater and better country? If only we can develop more of a national esprit de corps, if only we can recreate that spirit of cooperation, mutual helpfulness and constructive enterprise possessed by those who founded this nation at confederation, we need have no fear of the future.
In order to complete the picture, I should like to place alongside this appeal the noble words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) uttered on the night of the election in October, 1935. The Prime Minister, speaking to the people of Canada on a crosscountry broadcast, said:
In the new era which dawns to-day the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land. They have lain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls, as well as the minds and bodies, of an ever increasing number of men, women and
children in our land. We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty; starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance; discontent and distress in a country more blessed by providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.
Almost four years intervened between those two speeches, the one, the noble words of the Prime Minister and the other the defeatist remarks of the Minister of Finance. We have now before us the fourth budget. The pathetic appeal of the minister makes it quite clear that Liberalism has failed in the supreme task undertaken in 1935; the so-called enemies of Liberalism are still abroad in the land. Someone, commenting on the speech of the Minister of Finance, said:
It was rot a Dunning budget. In past years Air. Dunning endeavoured to cope with conditions facing him. He made an effort ,to face prevailing conditions; in this week's budget no such effort was made.
I should like to pick out a few of the high lights in the dark and dismal picture presented by the minister, and I think I can pick out something that will be of interest to the people of this country. The minister predicted that we shall be about $60,000,000 short of meeting our obligations during the coming year, and in estimating that deficit he did not include, as he said, the whole cost of the wheat bonus which, according to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), will amount to at least another $20,000,000. Also I understand it does not include the cost of financing the program of legislation brought down by the Minister of Agriculture a short time ago. So the picture, if truly presented, would show that, instead of a deficit of $60,000,000, we shall have one of from $90,000,000 to $100,000,000.
The next high light in the picture is that there is no relief from taxation. The sugar tax remains; the sales tax of eight per cent continues to apply. As has already been pointed out, 60 per cent of our total taxation revenues comes from the pockets of the consuming public in the form of sales tax and customs and excise taxes amounting to almost $250,000,000. This is extracted from the great mass of the Canadian people in the form of indirect taxation. So there cannot be very much comfort to the people of Canada in the government's taxation proposals.
I agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) that the most onerous tax burden on the Canadian people to-day is the tax on real property. It is doing more
The Budget*-Mr. Barber

to stifle industry and prevent recovery than any other form of tax. Not only business men and property owners in the cities and towns but the farmers, with diminishing returns, are almost unable to meet the ever-increasing taxes on their land and improvements. The comparison with Great Britain which the hon. member for York South gave was interesting. It showed that of all the taxes collected by taxing bodies in Canada 35-4 per cent came from real property, while in Great Britain only 18-1 per cent came from real property. Of course, the minister would naturally point out, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has done, that the municipalities are directly responsible. That may be true, but the municipalities are confined almost entirely to that source for revenue. The fact remains that the top burden on real property to-day is the tax imposed by the municipality on the property owner for the municipality's share of relief expenditures. It may amount to 40 per cent, 30 per cent or 20 per cent, but whatever it is, it must be assessed against the real property in the municipality. It has often been pointed out, and quite properly, that fiscal and economic policies are within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Therefore, surely it is the responsibility of the federal government to care for that portion of the unemployed who are employable. Let the federal government take over this responsibility as their own, and relieve the hard pressed municipal taxpayers.
I have touched but briefly on debt and taxation. What about expenditures? I do not object to special expenditures such as those necessary to take care of relief, unemployment, youth training and pensions, but I do protest against the enormous increase in the cost of government as indicated in increased controllable expenditure. According to the statement placed before the house by the Minister of Finance, our controllable expenditure for the coming year is estimated to be $416,372,000. This is just $43,833,000 more than was spent under the same head by the Conservative government in the last year for which they were responsible-and all that increase has occurred in a period of a little more than three years! Someone may ask: "Where did this increased expenditure go?" In the first place we have increased the number of our employees by about three thousand, and it must also be borne in mind that in the last three years we have had government by commission. That is an extremely expensive form of government, particularly when we have to pay members of such commissions

living expenses of from twenty to thirty dollars a day, in addition to travelling expenses, and fees for legal gentlemen ranging as high as two hundred dollars a day. So it is not surprising that the total cost of commissions under this government has amounted to $1,453,903.
The Minister of Labour now tells us that it is his intention to set up committees, or commissions, in each of the nine provinces, and he assures us that they will be voluntary. But we received the same assurance when the national employment commission was to be set up, and yet we found that a generous government agreed to pay its members the healthy per diem allowance of thirty dollars, plus travelling expenses. We are in hopes that the government will be able at least to cut down that rate.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Twenty dollars a day, I think.


Harry James Barber: Twenty dollars a day is what the new rate is to be?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The old rate.


Harry James Barber: I think everyone who looks mto the system of government by commission which has been carried on by the present administration will agree that it is responsible for a great deal of the increased cost of government. There are many expenses that might be classed as extravagant, some of which were referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hyndman), He was of opinion that expenditures in the city of Ottawa for the purpose of beautifying the capital might be classed as extravagant at this time. He pointed out that at Connaught place in the centre of this city an expenditure of $1,300,000 is being incurred. I have no objection whatever to beautifying the capital, and I would not for one moment protest against the erection of a suitable memorial to those who made the supreme sacrifice for us overseas. But surely there is a limit to these expenditures, particularly when we have throughout Canada so many returned men at the present time in need of assistance. This reminds me that I received to-day a letter from the secretary of the branch of the Canadian Legion in my district complaining that on the work which is being carried on by the federal government at this time at Nicomen island no returned man can secure a job. I hope this will be rectified because I should hate to see this government follow the practice which has been adopted by the government in our province and under which every man who wants to get a job, no matter whether he is on relief or in dire distress,

The Budget-Mr. Barber
must have in his pocket a membership ticket in the local Liberal association. I hope this government will never go that far.
The hon. member for Carleton also referred to what he termed the extravagant expenditure in the construction of the supreme court building at a cost of $3,360,000. This may be compared with the justice building, which was completed a short time ago at a cost of $1,365,811. We have also a new post office being erected to conform with the general architectural beauty of that particular section of Ottawa, and costing $686,000. These may be classed as extravagant expenditures. All one has to do is to glance through the supplementary estimates, amounting to $122,000,000, which have been brought down, and pick out the public buildings and other works to be distributed throughout this country. At the same time let hon. members not overlook the proposed expenditures by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). They will find in those supplementary estimates a real pork-barrel for the next election. One can sympathize with the Minister of Finance in his effort to balance the budget against a drive of this kind on the federal treasury. We shall be told, no doubt, that these works are to cope with the great problem of unemployment. And this brings me to that problem.
I have listened for days, I was going to say for weeks, to debates on this problem, and I am more convinced than ever that if the Canadian people are given a chance they can solve this problem. I agree with the Minister of Finance that we must recreate in this country the spirit of cooperation and mutual helpfulness. The problem is a big one and must be attacked on a broad front. We have the machinery. Apart from governments we have the organization of industry, business and labour organizations, municipal bodies, church and welfare organizations, service clubs and many other bodies of citizens throughout the country; they extend to every city, town and hamlet; all are anxious to play their part to bring about better conditions. If we could only consolidate them; if each and all could be infused with a spirit of cooperation, what a mighty force we would have. We could then give effective battle to the foe which has invaded our country during the past few years. But to bring this about it would be necessary first to have strong leadership, and that leadership would have to come from the central or federal authority. Our federal government must give leadership. This government had a wonderful opportunity to give that leadership. They were returned to power with the largest following any government ever had. The provinces, with the exception of one or two, were of the same political faith. But this government failed. Not only did they fail to give leadership, but they adopted and followed a policy of shifting responsibility, shifting it to commissions, provinces, municipalites. That policy is responsible for our present condition and is going to make it a great deal more difficult to solve the problem to-day. I believe that every member of this house would regard it as ridiculous to suggest that unemployment can be taken care of, for all time, through government-provided work. What Canada must have is some revival of industry which will absorb great numbers of those who are now on our unemployment rolls. But industry must also be encouraged by means of a far-reaching Canadian fiscal policy.
I wish to deal briefly with one or two matters outside the budget. The first has to do with the question of settlement of European refugees in Canada. A short time ago the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) announced that a number of Sudeten Germans were to be brought to this country to be settled in British Columbia, and I understand that a number of them are to be placed on lands in the Fraser valley in what is known as the Pitt Meadows district.
I know there is considerable difference of opinion as to the bringing of these people to [DOT]this country and settling them in communities. It is not my intention to discuss at the present time that angle of the problem, but I do want to take this opportunity of registering a strong protest against placing these people on lands where they have no opportunity to make good. These lands in the Pitt Meadows district upon which these people are to be placed are unsuitable for settlement. I am told that during the last twenty years efforts have been made to settle the lands; they were at one time occupied by a large number of Mennonite families who were forced to abandon them because of consistent floods. I should like to quote what a resident has to say. This appeared in the Vancouver Province under date of March 24:
A resident of the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows districts for many years, John Dyke, writes to express his amazement at the proposal to place a number of German refugees on the bleak, desolate, water-sodden lands in the dyked areas of Pitt Meadows, north of the Alouette river. He says the lands are unsuitable for settlement, and the scheme is doomed to failure from the start.
"In spite of the costly dyking and pumping system the land is extremely difficult to drain. I would warn the authorities responsible if they do not wish to add to the number of relief recipients on their hands to find a more suitable area on which to place these people."
The Budget-Mr. Barber

I warn the government that if this settlement scheme is proceeded with, it will not only be disastrous to the settlers but mean that these people will drift into adjacent municipalities and become a charge on the country.
British Columbia being closer to the orient than is any other part of Canada we are naturally greatly concerned with what is taking place across the great Pacific. On behalf of a large number of decent people in that province I want to register a strong protest against the continuous export of scrap-iron and other munitions of war to Japan so that that country may carry on the mass murder of defenceless women and children of the great peace-loving nation of China. Surely we as Canadians do not want to play a part in this crime against humanity. The story of murder, barbarous cruelty, arson, banditry, and pillage that are involved in Japan's attempt to enslave the Chinese people is corroborated by foreign newspaper correspondents, writers, travellers, lecturers, educators and Christian missionaries. I have here a booklet that contains many of these reports from authenticated sources. It is entitled War in China; What it Means to Canada, by A. M. Stephen, and is issued by the China Aid Council and the National Salvation League of Vancouver. I quote from page 12:
Never, in the world's history, has the unleashed beast in man perpetrated horrors upon so vast a scale .as those going forward unchecked in China to-d.ay. Mr, Robert Norton, .the editor of the American magazine, "China To-day," is in possession of a documentary film that corroborates the stories of missionaries and correspondents and well-known and respected citizens of foreign concessions in China. Mr. Norton, in an article written under the caption, "Horror in Nanking," states: "From the moment that their troops entered, an indescribably terrible campaign of shooting, looting and rape began. They rounded up the population and searched the houses. Thousands were brought to the waterfront, where they were tied together in batches of fifty or more and done to death with machine guns, bayonets and in some oases with hand grenades. Gasoline was thrown over the bodies and they were set afire without too careful examination to determine whether all were dead. In a period of two months, 20,000 to 25,000 Chinese, according to estimates of foreigners in Nanking, were killed. No house was safe from looting. Thousands of women were seized and raped. Many were taken into the Japanese barracks and held there for weeks by the soldiers.
Why continue this ghastly record? This, my friends, is what the pro-Japanese apologists in Vancouver, B.C., term "war/' This is being done to innocent _ children in China by Canadian metals furnished by Canadian business men to the gangsters of Japan! Countless thousands of civilians, peaceful, friendly people, and innocent mothers and children are being slaughtered while we sit comfortably in our homes and listen to the voice that says, "Mind your own business!"

In 1937 we shipped, of metallic scrap, 35,536 tons, and in the same year we shipped, of iron and steel scrap, 68.309 tons. That is enough to mutilate thousands of women and children in China. I quote again:
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows that Canadian export of copper to Japan increased from $182,872 in 1934 to $1,300,473 in 1938; our export of nickel to Japan was $319,721 in 1934 as compared with $5,439,127 in 1938; our export of aluminum to Japan in 1937 was $1,947,847 and increased to $4,777,464 in 1938.
Will any sane person believe that any considerable portion of these metals are being used for the ordinary processes of peace?
I understand that under our Customs Act we have the power to control or to stop the shipment of war materials to aggressor nations. Surely it is not the desire of Canada to be a munitions dump for Japan. As one coming from British Columbia I urge that Canada lead in the application of an embargo on munitions to an aggressor nation. This is another opportunity for leadership on the part of this government.
I cannot conclude my remarks without expressing my concern over the state of agriculture to-day. In the district I have the honour to represent we have perhaps the finest dairy section in the country, but that industry is at a very low ebb to-day with milk prices down to a new low level-so low that it is almost impossible for farmers to carry on. Surpluses pile up with the problem of marketing the by-products manufactured from the surplus milk. I am of opinion that through the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce the government have failed to render the service that was expected of them in preventing the accumulation, and in the removal of surpluses from the Canadian market. The present proposal to purchase some 4,000,000 pounds of butter is not going to relieve the situation for the simple reason that this butter is not being removed from Canadian consumption. Bonusing is not a permanent remedy. We must adopt the orderly handling of exports of farm products, which would do more to stabilize prices. And that is another place where we want leadership from the federal government. I notice in the press that a committee representing eastern Canadian dairymen waited upon the government. From one of the local papers, dated April 15, I quote the following:
The committee members told cabinet minister that orderly handling of exports of farm products would, in their belief, have more influence on stabilization of prices prevailing for all products than any other measure. It would prevent price collapses and disastrously

The Budget-Mr. Jaques
low seasonal prices. Further, this policy would head off the need for emergency bonuses, and would be more permanently sound.
They also suggested a very small levy on the entire production of a certain product to provide a fund to re-imburse exporters who may incur a loss in their volume exported. Producers will stand the cost themselves rather than ask the government to take funds from the public treasury.
I urge the government to give serious consideration to the representations that have been made; and while the provinces are struggling with control legislation, let me urge that the government double its efforts to relieve the situation by removing these surpluses from the Canadian market.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I wish merely to read one or two resolutions that have been sent to me and to bring them to the notice of the house. The first one, which is from the Alberta Wool Growers' Association, reads:
Whereas, we view with alarm the rapidly growing threat to the Canadian woollen industry, brought about by the annually more exten-give practice on the part of manufacturers, ot deteriorating the quality of Canadian wools by mixing them with shoddy and other foreign materials, and selling the goods thus produced as Canadian woollen goods-this use of shoddy having increased from about 5,000,000 pounds in 1931 to 17,000,000 pounds in 1938,
And whereas this matter vitally affects the Canadian sheep raiser, and has an adverse effect on his revenue from his flock, through the reduced demand for virgin Canadian wool for the manufacture of fabric,
And whereas the reputation of Canadian wools suffers great injury by this destruction of their natural wearing qualities,
And whereas this matter is one of concern to every resident of Canada who purchases woollen goods for personal wear or household use, etc., as the deterioration of virgin wools by the admixture of shoddy makes more frequent replacements necessary, due to the shortened period of wear of these fabrics,
Be it therefore resolved that we ask the federal government of Canada to enact legislation, at this session of parliament, requiring all goods or fabrics made of wool, or of mixtures of wool, cotton, rayon, shoddy, or other materials, to bear a label stating the quantity or percentage of virgin wool, and of all other materials (including reworked wool) used in its manufacture (similar proposed legislation now being under consideration in the United States).
I should like to direct that to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) because as an old farmer I believe that in the end the raising of sheep will be the only solution to the problems of weeds and drifting soil; and any handicap to the raising of sheep in western Canada, or in Canada generally, should be removed. As I understand it, this resolution simply asks that the material bear a label stating the percentage of new or shoddy wool it contains.
The next resolution deals with a matter which was brought up by the last speaker, and comes from the Alberta section of the Canadian League for Peace:
We the undersigned petition the dominion government to place an embargo on war material from Canada to Japan.
I have not counted the signatures to this petition, but I believe there are close to one hundred, many of them the signatures of people well known to me.
The next resolution deals with immigration:
Whereas it is understood that _the_ federal government is contemplating shipping in many thousands of immigrants for settlement in western Canada, and .	.	.
Whereas any .additional competition in the producing of farm products will have a depressing effect on a market now staggering under a heavy load of so-called overproduction, Therefore be it resolved that this group go on record as being bitterly opposed to the dumping in our midst of any more immigrants as long as the ruinous present prices for farm products exist, and
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to our provincial government and a copy to the Prime Minister, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
That is from the Wetaskiwin constituency association of the Alberta Social Credit League.
The next resolution is one which was recently passed by the legislature of Manitoba. It was introduced by Miss Salome Halldorson, Social Credit member for the constituency of St. George, Manitoba. It reads:
Whereas Canada is -a sovereign nation with a democratic constitution;
Whereas in a sovereign democracy the people are the supreme authority to determine the results which shall accrue to them from the administration of their affairs;
Whereas the abundant resources of the nation and ithe national capacity to produce render it physically possible to give economic security and freedom to every citizen-results which the sovereign people of the dominion desire;
And whereas the present condition of poverty, indigence, insecurity and economic impotence constitute a denial of the sovereignty of the people;
Be it resolved by this democratic legislature of the province of Manitoba which is entrusted with the welfare of the people of this province, that we do hereby urge that the parliament of Canada ensure to our people their democratic rights by instructing the appropriate institutions and in particular the banking institutions, to forthwith order their methods of administration in such a way as to give the people of the nation the conditions .and results that they desire and that they know to be physically possible.
That resolution was passed by a vote of twenty-eight, to nineteen. Among those voting for the resolution were thirteen Liberals, six
Conservatives, five Social Crediters and four independents.
The Budget-Mr. Fleming


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Where were the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation?


Norman Jaques: For some reason or another the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation voted against it. I have no wish to take up any more time, but I thought this was a good opportunity to 'bring these resolutions before the house in general and the government in particular.


Harry Raymond Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has improved in health. I am sorry that in his recovery, however, he did not recapture some of those healthy Liberal principles with which he was imbued when he first came out of the west. I wish this budget had been more robust. It is a far cry from that May day budget which was based upon those fundamental principles that the Minister of Finance learned in his long association with the humble farmers on the western plains. Those were the days when he believed in Liberal principles, before he became enamoured of the doctrine of the inevitability of gradualness.
This budget has been called by the press of Canada a business man's budget. It certainly is not a poor man's budget. This year's financial statement of the country differs but little from its predecessor in regard to providing any hope for those who have suffered from depressions and recessions. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the budget places me in a position similar to that of the employee who was to be discharged and who said that if he was to be discharged he was glad that it would be done politely. There is slight consolation in being discharged at any time, and the consolation I can find in this budget or this financial statement is indeed slight. In fact,
I think it is a deliberate betrayal of the western electorate. And in order that this house may know that my tariff views are not just a brain wave on my part, I am going to quote from the comment appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 26 in regard to this budget:
There will be undisguised disappointment in western Canada that, faced with the urgent need of increasing his sources of revenue, the finance minister refused to do the obvious thing and slash at the general structure of tariff in order to fulfil a twin purpose: (1) to reduce consumers' costs and (2) to make it more of a tariff for revenue and less of a protective, prohibitory tariff. . . . But some day it will become very clear to Hr. Dunning and his colleagues that, by leaving the tariff at its present level, they have betrayed one of the strongest hopes which this country (and particularly the west) held for them when they came to power in 1935.

I wish to bring before the house two authorities on this tariff structure, and I want the house to know that I am not just one of those tariff thumpers from western Canada, as a certain Textile Journal stated with regard to the western low tariff members. I want to point out that in western Canada tariffs are our natural enemies. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) prepared a brief for Nova Scotia in 1931. In that brief I find he states:
A tariff policy with a true national objective would recognize the importance of maintaining the health of industries, dependent upon export markets, especially as such industries are essential to the [DOT]economic development of seven of the nine provinces of the dominion. In recognition of this fact these industries, agriculture, mining, fishing and lumbering would be relieved at least of tariff duties on all instruments of production essential to their operation. In other words the vital interest of seven provinces in lower costs of production in primary industries compelled to sell their products in world markets would be given priority over considerations urged in support of the manufacture of these instruments of production in Canada behind a protective tariff.
Let me quote from the figures as they are set out by the Minister of Labour in that 'brief, when he points out what the west pays in tariff. These are the figures:
Manitoba	$29,185,740
Saskatchewan	 29,228,285
Alberta	  27,909,396
Total	$86,323,421
In the conclusions which he sums up in his brief the minister says:
Upon these various premises, it is urged that Nova Scotia is entitled to relief and compensation, not merely in pursuance of the assurances given on the occasion of its entrance into the Canadian federation, but also on the broad equitable ground that the federation defeats its primary purpose if through its constitutional arrangements or through policies instituted by the national government it accomplishes a gradual debilitation of one or more of the provincial communities of which it is composed.
Some may say that was back in 1931; that was in the days when the present minister was professor of economics and political science in Queen's university. Others have stated that his figures were high, and that perhaps times were better then than they are to-day. But what has Doctor Jacob Viner, a noted authority on tariffs, to say? He made an intensive study for Manitoba, in his first presentation of November, 1938. His observations were presented to the interprovincial relations commission. In his first presentation he placed the average tariff burden on the prairies at $58,000,000. Subsequently, on account of abjection to various items raised, Doctor Viner revised his estimates with

The Budget-Mr. Fleming
extreme care, making adjustments, some downward and some upward, with the net result that he finds the average annual tariff burden in normal years on the prairies is $47,000,000. This is what he says at page 40 of his brief before the royal commission:
From our original estimate of $58,000,000 as the tariff burden in a year of normal expenditures of the people of the prairie provinces we have subtracted approximately $33,000,000 in correction of errors in our favour. We have replaced $20,000,000 of this deduction because of deliberate omissions from our original estimate to take care of possible errors in our favour, and $2,000,000 has been added to our estimate to provide for tariff burden in connection with purchases at wholesale. We therefore obtain, after making all corrections for which we can find reasonable basis, $47,000,000 as our final estimate of .the added cost to the people of the prairie provinces in a year of normal expenditures, resulting from the price enhancement brought -about by the Canadian protective tariff.
Mr. Speaker, I think after we see those two viewpoints expressed, it would only be fair if we took a point between them. It is no wonder that last year, when speaking in this House of Commons, the Minister of Labour said that we in western Canada were entitled to compensating adjustments. If we were not given a promise last year and the year before and the year before that, certainly the hope was held up to us by the present government that if the west did not get concessions indirectly through the United States trade treaties, we would get them directly through the budget. Every year I have protested about the high price of farm implements. and I produced evidence to show that there was a combine working as an effective monopoly in the manufacture of farm implements. I lamented this to the government, but they did nothing about it. Once again I lament, and once again I deplore it and say that something must be done or the Liberal party in Canada will regret it.
The other night the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston), when speaking in the House of Commons, was apologetic about asking for SO cents as a minimum price for wheat. He took what I would term a defeatist viewpoint, stating that we were only eleven per cent of the voting power of this house. Be that as it may, I will say here that I will continue my fight for an 80 cent minimum price for wheat, and an acreage bonus as well. The hon. member for Lake Centre reminds me very much of a character that one sees every day in the newspapers. He is bold and defiant and has plenty of reckless courage while associating with western farmers, but in the presence of the ministry he abandons those principles with the most surprising ease. In fact, his courage disappears
like the mist before the rising sun. He seems to be more or less ashamed to ask for 80 cents as a minimum price for wheat.
In answer to my question about the tariff receipts that we pour into Canada, he said I should hold my soul in patience. But, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to do this when we see the farmers of Saskatchewan fast becoming economic serfs, when we see children suffering from malnutrition, when we see families of eight and ten living on $8 a month-and then when we see government counsel getting $200 a day, and when we see some of our superior court judges drawing down $9,000 a year who, because they do a little work for the federal government, receive $35 a day as living allowance.
Is it any wonder the western wheat farmer is becoming suspicious? I regret government aid; the farmer does not want charity, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander since we have contributed $50,000,000 a year to our national economy-not to-day, but since we came into confederation, by the autonomy bills of 1905. The industrial east will readily tell us that no industry can exist for long if production costs constantly exceed selling prices.
Wheat has also a fixed cost of production, more so than any other industry, because other types of industry can more readily reduce labour costs. The farmer does not get a salary, unless there is profitable operation. And, Mr. Speaker, eliminate the farmer and what have you left? Surely no one contends that we should eliminate the great wheat industry of western Canada? Nor do I believe that many persons contend that this depressed condition for the western wheat farmer is permanent. We are facing an emergency condition and it should be met with emergency measures. We are not demanding bonuses; we are simply asking for a compensating adjustment. The east has demanded protection for years. It is only fair that the west should have some assistance when she needs it, and when it is necessary for the welfare of our whole Canadian economy. Tariffs protect the margin of profit. Wheat assistance lowers the margin of loss. If the government sets the price of wheat at 80 cents we give an injection into the heart of this Canadian economy of ours, and the blood will go coursing through its body again, giving new life and new hope. But if we let that heart die, then surely we will die. The whole economic structure of western Canada has been built up and capitalized on the predication of a certain revenue from wheat. But to guarantee a price that is below subsistence level is not
The Budget-Mr. Fleming

assistance; it leads the east to the belief that something is being done for the west, and it tries to create the impression in the west that the government is assuming somewhat of its obligation to the western wheat farmer. The Minister of Finance, as reported at page 3142 of Hansard-[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: I think in fairness to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), who spoke this afternoon, I should raise a point of order in connection with the discussion now going on. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) cannot discuss legislation which is on the order paper for further discussion.


Robert James Manion: I hope the minister is not doing this on our account.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister should not protest on my behalf. I am enjoying it.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member should not anticipate the discussion that will take place on a bill now on the order paper. I think his discussion should be generally in connection with wheat in the west and not in the details of any bill.


Mr. HEAPS:: On the point of order raised by the minister, since I have been in the house this is the first time that there has ever been any attempt at curtailment of discussion on the budget. An hon. member is entitled to discuss almost anything when he is dealing with the budget because it concerns the expenditures of government whether on wheat, unemployment or anything else. I think the hon. member has a perfect right to speak on any subject he chooses.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member was not in the house this afternoon when a similar point was raised and when I read the decision. At that time I held that the point of order raised by the leader of the government was well taken.


Harry Raymond Fleming: I was just about to quote from the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. I consider that is in order. My remarks up to that time were based upon the radio address by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and I had no thought in mind of commenting on any bill now before the house. The Minister of Finance said this:
Agriculture can do little to protect itself against these international storms. Other producers can contract their output, can frequently lay off their workers to live at public cost upon the relief rolls, while their contraction in output prevents a disastrous decline in price and the disappearance of profits. Farmers cannot readily do these things.

And again:
This was the reason for the guarantee of a basic minimum price of 80 cents for the western wheat crop of last year.
The minister states that this was the reason for a guarantee of a basic minimum price of 80 cents, but he does not say anything about the 60 cent price the Minister of Agriculture mentioned in his address over the radio in Saskatchewan during the Easter recess. If there were justification for the 80 cent price last year, there is just as much, if not more, for it this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not mention a 60 cent price in my radio address.


Harry Raymond Fleming: The minister said a 60 cent advance.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not a 60 cent price.


Harry Raymond Fleming: That is splitting hairs,
and I think I told the minister that before. The livelihood of the whole prairie west depends upon the industry of agriculture. The whole economy that has been built up is threatened with extinction by this 60 cent price. The farmer cannot live on 60 cent wheat. All the figures having to do with industry prove that is below the cost of production. The farmers of the west have been aroused by what they regard as a betrayal of their interests. We western members might just as well bluntly tell the government right now what we think of the matter. I protest that the farmers of the west cannot be satisfied with anything less than 80 cents. Whether or not there is a 60 cent advance, that is the lowest basic price upon which we can exist and have something with which to pay on our debts. The price of wheat this year, according to the bureau of statistics, is the lowest since 1890, with the exception of 1932. Government assistance is needed when the price of wheat is low, not when it is high. Surely no Liberal member of parliament would rise in his place in this house and say that he would be willing to let 300.000 people in western Canada starve. I am getting sick and disgusted hearing all about the relief that has been poured into the west, just as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) said he was getting sick and tired talking about tariffs. Other places than western Canada get relief.
I sometimes wonder if the reason why we are not seeking markets is that we do not wish to sell wheat to potential enemies. England knows where her wheat supply is in the event of war. While I am not questioning that as a matter of policy, I do not see why the wheat farmer should have to suffer.

The Budget-Mr. Fleming
It is not that we want to be war-threat profiteers. On the contrary, it looks as though we are going to be war-threat victims. We all remember the story of what happened in 1917 when the price of wheat soared to $2.50 a bushel. There was great consternation in the financial world of St. James street, Montreal, and Bay street, Toronto. They considered that this was an exorbitant price, and they prevailed upon the government of the day to set a price on wheat. They were afraid the agricultural west might become a financial factor, and a stop price was placed on this commodity. They might have received $5 a bushel, but the tillers of the soil, the back-bone of Canada, were not to be allowed to get into that class. That strata of society was just for the manufacturer of the east. It was quite in order for the textile industry, the packing houses and the drug supply houses to make this money; that was quite justifiable ; but the humble peasants in the lowly cottages from the head of the lakes to the Rocky mountains must not make too much profit, that would be disloyalty to their king and country.
The Minister of Finance says;
On the frontiers of science, invention and technology, the possibilities of expansion are greater than they ever were on the geographical frontier.
Perhaps he had in mind how they are making buttons out of skim-milk in Waterloo county. But while these frontiers of technology have been expanding, apparently our ability to control them has been contracting. Thus not only do I see little hope for the west in the budget, but I fail to find any minor, let alone any major attempt to tackle the great economic problems of the day. Many persons believe that the invidious paradox of poverty amidst plenty and our economic failure are due entirely to our outworn monetary system.
I turn now to another subject. The minister said that naked aggression has caused a grim procession of tragedies and repeatedly altered the map of Europe. This has had its effect in Canada although we are far removed from the conflict of war in Europe. I often wonder if the Canadian people fully realize how fortunate they are in having as Prime Minister, the right hon. leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King). One thing for which we must be thankful is his effort to keep us out of war. The influence that Canada has in restraining the old land from any hasty action may never be fully known, and I shiver to think what might have happened if a hot-head had been at the head of our administration.
Imperialism and flag-waving are with us once again. Hon. members must see it on every side with its propaganda of fear. This proved a suitable way of getting into parliament in 1917, and no one knows it better than the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston), and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). The unscrupulous office seekers are at work again trying to cast reflection upon our German and Ukrainian population. History repeats itself; the same old tactics that were used in 1917 are again to be seen. Even the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth) raised a question the other day in the house about a certain German newspaper in Winnipeg. I never heard the hon. gentleman raise any question about communistic propaganda. He was loud in his condemnation of padlock law in the old province of Quebec when it attempted to stamp out communism.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Are you in favour
of it?


Harry Raymond Fleming: Yes, if it stamps out
communism. Communism is not a social and political system, but a gigantic conspiracy organized throughout the world to wage war against all human and divine laws and to destroy Christian civilization, according to the Cardinal Archbishop of Quebec. Our German population is now being subjected to violent abuse. For a quarter of a century I have lived in a German speaking community, and I number members of that community among my truest and best friends. It is indeed with sorrow in my heart that I hear them subjected to insult. The German-Canadian citizens of Saskatchewan are loyal to their king and country, and loyal to Canadian institutions. There may be some irresponsible agitators who are trying to embarrass our German population, just as some of our English-speaking people try to embarrass us. I think I can best give to the house an idea of the loyalty of our German-Canadians of Saskatchewan by quoting from a German language newspaper published in the city of Regina, a paper that has been published for over thirty years. In one of its leading editorials Der Courier says:
The majority of German-Canadians now in this country are pro-British with unmistakable loyalty to the land of their adoption.
Der Courier has in the past denounced communism as a disrupting, demoralizing influence in our Canadian life. It does not hesitate to denounce any other similar fact that such a disturbing organization finds advocates among a few German-speaking citizens makes no difference to the principle involved. Der Courier stands for national unity, freedom of speech, liberty of action and democratic government. It is resolutely opposed to any movement
The Budget*-Mr. Fleming

which would undermine or imperil these privileges which Canadians enjoy in such generous measure.
Throughout the long years of its existence Der Courier has interested itself in the democratic and political life of Canada. It has steadfastly striven to discharge, even at the price of sacrifice, its duty in directing public opinion along sane paths. It has endeavoured to promote peace and harmony among all peoples, races and creeds. It has held high and exalted concept of citizenship and has emphasized the liberties, privileges and duties which that citizenship entails. It has always endeavoured to be impartial, temperate and cool in judgment, free from racial or religious bias. In a word, it has tried to be constructive, not destructive, in character. Its aim has been to build, not to destroy.
I have a letter from a young Ukrainian in my constituency, in which he says:
As to the Ukrainians here in Canada, they are loyal to the British empire and willing to fight against the British enemy that will try to disturb her peace and our freedom. .	.	.
All Ukrainians will fight shoulder to shoulder with the British army against any enemy who would try to disturb our peace and freedom.
Our non-British population have confidence in the present Prime Minister. They recall 1917, when the government of Canada brought into existence the nefarious War-time Elections Act, which disfranchised them and made a sham of our Canadian franchise. While we must be alive to defend ourselves if attacked, that is a far cry from inciting people to hate, which is neither Christian nor the way to peace. Let me recall to this house the words of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, speaking on this disfranchising bill, said:
Because they may have been born in Germany or Austria or Turkey they are not sup-posed_ to give an unbiased verdict upon the questions before the country. I do not admit that doctrine. I do not admit the doctrine that when a man leaves Europe-whatever may be the part of Europe whence he comes-and comes to this country, when he swears allegiance to His Majesty the King, when he becomes a citizen of Canada, when he builds a home for himself and his family, I am not prepared to believe that if a conflict arises between the land of that man's birth and the land of his adoption, that he will go back upon the country to which he has sworn allegiance. I can well believe that if there be men of German origin who have forsaken Germany and who have become British subjects in this country-having made their homes here and established their families here-that they may be suffering agony at this time, but I am not prepared to believe that they will turn traitor to the land of their adoption in favour of the land of their birth.
That can well be repeated to-day not only for the truth of what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, but also as a warning to those who might be thinking of following people who would use
[Mr. Fleming.1
the cheap trick of appealing to patriotism and race prejudice in order to gain political preferment.
I find, Mr. Speaker, that this budget in no way provides help for our suffering population. There is no help for the primary producer; nothing has been done with respect to farm implements; nothing has been done to smash the combines about which we heard so much a year ago. The sales tax has not been abolished. The sugar tax is still maintained. I therefore find that I must support the amendment to the amendment. I do so because I believe it is in the interests of the people whom I represent in this house, and because I wish to register with this government my protest. I wish, however, to make it abundantly clear to the house and the country that I cannot subscribe to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation doctrine of socialism. Perhaps I can explain my views more forcefully by quoting the words of a distinguished Canadian, Cardinal Villeneuve, who, speaking in Montreal last fall, said:
Now I will deal with my attitude towards the C.C.F. One of the principal leaders of the C.C.F. declared that their program was based on frankly socialist principles. That is true; the C.C.F. and communism, economic programs are practically the same. The only difference is that the communists admit that they are prepared to attain their object by violent means, while the C.C.F. think they will accomplish their purpose peacefully.
The C.C.F. program contains several fundamental errors. Let me very briefly describe the first error in the C.C.F. program which advocates the suppression or at least the quasisuppression of private property. Now the right to own property is not derived from human laws but from nature, and every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.
The abolition of private ownership leads to state ownership and therefore the C.C.F. program proposes the nationalization of practically all forms of industry and other means of production and state ownership of all financial companies, etc.
I cannot support the Tory amendment because it is worse even than the budget. Since I have come to this house I have found five types of Tories. There is, first, the Toronto Tory, represented by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). As one Conservative said, " If in doubt, vote as the member for Broadview does and you will always get Tory votes in Toronto."
Next there are the sincere Tories, represented by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence), a bom high-protectionist, and always consistent.
Then there are the insincere Tories, represented by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley)-a Tory in Toronto and a Cooperative Commonwealth Federationist in Assiniboia.

The Budget-Mr. Fleming


Mr. PERLEY:: What kind of a Liberal is the hon. member?


Harry Raymond Fleming: I am a western low-tariff Liberal.
Next there are the Liberal Tories, represented by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), a convert to Toryism, and converts are always much more ardent in their new faith than if natural born to it.
Finally there are the Tory Liberals. I shall not give examples for fear Israel Tarte might haunt them in their sleep and say to them, " Laurier kicked me out of the Liberal administration because I was a high-protectionist, but I was much more moderate than you are."
I have found, Mr. Speaker, in the last few months, that these various types of Toryism look upon the west as a millstone round their necks. We in the west are to them a sort of Albanian colony in this confederation which Macdonald made and Laurier saved. If this cleavage is allowed to grow, I fear that great northern nation which was the dream of D'Arcy McGee will become " warring nations in the bosom of a single state." Do not let us say that the credit of Canada cannot pay an assessment for a minimum price for wheat. The governor of the Bank of Canada admitted, under cross-examination by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), that we could spend billions of dollars and in no way impoverish this country. I should like to quote at this point from a speech by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard who, speaking at St. Thomas on April 22, is reported as follows:
The speaker told of other things that "bankrupt" Germany had done. The hundreds of costly public buildings, the great new sports and health stadium, a new university at Munich that Hitler had ordered built when the need of a new wing to the old university was voiced. "It is true they have regimentation of wealth and manpower in Germany, that they work longer hours at lower wages, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Germany could find the equivalent of 4,000 million gold dollars to build all this," said the speaker. "The ability of finding money, as exampled in the totalitarian nations, should give the answer to that silly question often heard propounded in Canada: 'Where is the money coming from'."
We have the best land in the world. Our resources are unsurpassed in the world. What *would Hitler not give for those fertile wheat fields? But, Mr. Speaker, the agrarian west will not much longer live in economic slavery. The farmer sells for nothing the fruit of his toil, but when he purchases he has to pay out of all proportion to his income. Let the government be magnanimous; let them give the western farmer an 80 cent minimum price and the acreage bonus as well. I hope that
this government will not become what Disraeli once said about the Conservative party. "A Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."
In the last few weeks the Winnipeg Free Press has been publishing cartoons, with a certain degree of humour, by Arch Dale, the official cartoonist of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. On one side there is a figure represented by the Bracken committee; on the other, a member of the present government, and then, between the two, a hard-pressed farmer. Dale brought home to us the other day the bitter fight which the farmers and farm leaders of western Canada are putting up, and he quoted that phrase from Emerson which we learned years ago in our public school readers:
By the rude bridge that arched the flood.
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood.
And fired the shot heard round the world.
The shot for economic liberty has been fired. Let the Liberal government take cognizance of these democratic petitions which were presented to the government by the Bracken committee. Someone has said that committee came down here and held a pistol to the head of the government. That is far from the truth. The petition is one of the weapons which the farmers of western Canada has, in our democratic set-up, to show what they are thinking about on the western plains.
Let me say in conclusion that I regret the necessity of offering any opposition to the government's budget, but I do so because I learned at my mother's knee to be true to yourself and to no man will you be false. I recall that on the day I received the Liberal nomination in the constituency of Humboldt I quoted the words of that great Liberal, William Lyon Mackenzie, grandfather of the leader of the present government:
I have no end in view save the well-being
of the people at large, no ambition to serve buit thiat of contributing to the happiness and the prosperity of our common country. The influence and the authority "with which you may invest me, shall always be directed according to the best of my judgment, for the general good, and it will be my care to uphold your right to the utmost of my power with the firmness, moderation and perseverance, which becomes the representative of a free people.
Yet if year after year we are to have a series of innocuous budgets, such as this is, I am almost willing to try any change. I just want to give this warning to the government: If this budget indicates the answer to our problems, particularly to the sorely pressed west, then I despair of the future for the Liberal party in western Canada.
The Budget-Mr. Marshall


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) upon delivering a constructive speech. To my mind he usually makes a forward contribution to the debates of this house. It takes courage for any supporter of a government to rise in his place and speak his mind as the hon. member has done this evening.
I wish to give a moment or two to a remark which was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Tomlinson). He made a brief reference to the group of which I am a member to the effect that we social crediters dislike the eastern people because they have but one desire, namely, to grab all they can lay their hands on. Let me hasten to state that this is not the truth. Centred in eastern Canada to-day are financial institutions which have brought the people of western Canada to the poverty-stricken condition in which they find themselves to-day, and they have also brought to the same condition a very large percentage of the people of eastern Canada. We are opposed to these institutions on account of their nefarious practices, not because of what they have done to western Canadians but because of what they have done to all the people of Canada, both in the east and in the west. We were sent here by people who have come to realize what is the cause of their troubles. These people know that debt, taxation and the low price of farm products are the causes of the situation in which they find themselves. They know full well that these debt merchants and manipulators of the prices of primary products live in eastern Canada, and our people are determined through their elected representatives to see that an end is made of this unholy traffic; that is the reason we are here to-day.
We have no quarrel with eastern Canadians. The west was peopled by men and women who came from eastern Canada or who can trace their lineage back to families that lived in Ontario, Quebec, or even the maritime provinces. Everything that the hon. member for Bruce can persuade this government to do for eastern Canada will find ready support so far as we are concerned, provided, of course, that his requests are fair, just and ' reasonable, because we are opposed to anything which smacks of graft or political patronage.
If we are to judge from the speech delivered by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hynd-man), this afternoon, there is something wrong in eastern Canada. It appears that patronage is rampant even in the city in which we are holding this parliament. We as a group want for all our citizens, whether they
rMr. Fleming.]
live in the east or the wrest, justice, equity, the right to live normal, happy, contented lives, free from debt and worry. We are deeply concerned with the plight of the fishermen of Nova Scotia or of British Columbia; we are deeply concerned over the problems of the apple growers of the Annapolis valley or of the Okanagan. We share their worries with the cheesemakers and the potato growers of Ontario. Their problems are our concern just as much as are the problems of the people of the prairies. I say this to the Liberal party to-night: You will find us as a group ready and willing to sit round a common table at any time with only one object in mind, namely, a sincere desire to find a solution to the problem of debt, which, to my mind, transcends every other problem under the sun.
When I hear so many hon. members quoting statements made in past days by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), or even the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), there comes to my recollection time and time again a statement made by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) which, in my opinion, far exceeds anything I have ever heard from the point of view of optimism. I brought this statement to the attention of the house in the first session of the present parliament in 1936, and I make no apology for quoting it again on this occasion. In fact, it is a statement which we should constantly keep fresh in our memories. Here it is. The Minister of Mines and Resources made a broadcast to the Canadian people on the evening of April 24, 1936, at 10.30 o'clock eastern standard time, and at the conclusion of his broadcast he made this astonishing statement:
Is it .too much to expect that production of gold in Canada of from $200,000,000 to $250,000,000 -a year would give the following results:
1.	Decisively and permanently settle the problem of unemployment.
2.	Bridge the gap between the east and the west with mining camps and communities established at numerous points.
3.	Bring a constructive and probably a permanent solution ,to our railroad problem.
4.	Create an even greater market than at present for foodstuffs, clothing, structural materials, mine machinery and equipment, electrical supplies, electric power, fuel, explosives and innumerable other commodities including household furnishings and automobiles.
5.	Revitalize the whole national economic life of the dominion.
6.	Open up careers for coming generations of university graduates.
7.	Ease the financial problems of the dominion, provinces and municipalities.

The Budget-Mr. Marshall
8.	Alleviate the burden of our international indebtedness.
9.	Assure the stability of the Canadian dollar; and. finally,
10.	Stimulate the opening up and development of our resources in those northlands about which we know little to-day.
We must not fail to grasp t)he opportunity that lies before us.
If we turn to the white paper that formed a part of the budget this year, we shall find on page 27 that the production of gold has advanced steadily from 1926 to the present time. The production has been as follows:
1926	$ 36,300,000
1928	 39,100,000
1932	 71,500,000
1936		 131.300,000
1937		 143,300,000
1938		 165,900,000
We are steadily aproaching the $200,000,000 mark. But will anyone suggest that unemployment is gradually decreasing as the production of gold is increasing? Will anyone suggest that poverty is declining in the same ratio as gold is increasing? I think that statement by the Minister of Mines and Resources is one of the most extravagant utterances ever made, unless I do not realize what the meaning of the word " extravagant " actually is. Some of the statements that the Prime Minister has made pale into insignificance compared with this statement.
This budget that we are considering at the present time is the fourth in the new series of Liberal budgets presented to the people of Canada for their acceptance or condemnation according to the way in which the people look upon them. This is the ninth successive year in which a deficit has been registered. These deficits have ranged from $220,000,000 in 1933 to a little more than $17,000,000 in 1937-38.
I always admire the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), and I listen to him with great interest when he speaks. He interjects into his speeches little quips and sallies that create at times pleasant diversion. A couple of years ago this hon. gentleman used a couplet that had its birth in the house of representatives of the United States. He dressed it up in slightly different clothes and applied it to the present premier of Alberta, and the house got quite a nice laugh out of it. I want to bring it to the attention of the house in its original form. It is this:
Hush, little deficit, don't you cry;
You'll be a crisis by and by.
I believe right thinking people in Canada to-day will agree that the crisis is not in the sweet by and by; it is here to-day. It is a tragedy to think that the intelligence displayed
by the members of the Liberal party in this house has not been able to bring about a solution of the problems which confront us.
While on the subject of debt and deficits I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) on April 14, appearing at page 2801 of Hansard:
We have enjoyed sane, economic administration. If one were to check the debt of Canada as it stands to-day, if he were to add all the surpluses under Liberal administrations and those under Conservative administrations, and balance them against the deficits of these respective parties, he would find that only $23,000,000 of a total interest-bearing debt of $3,100,000,000 can be attributed to Liberal administration.
A little further on he said, referring to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey):
How can the hon. member be sincere in his eloquence for the youth of Canada when the party to which he belongs has been guilty of saddling youth with more debt and has done more to mortgage future generations than any other party in Canada.
I took the trouble to do just as he suggested, and if any hon. member wishes to check the figures I am about to give he will find them at page 60 of the public accounts for 1938. The Liberals have been in office thirty-two years. During twenty-one years they piled up deficits and during eleven years they showed surpluses. They increased the public debt by $505,624,853.13, and during the eleven years they showed surpluses they decreased the public debt by $291,125,038.55. The difference between these two figures, or $214,499,814.58, is the net amount that has been added to the debt of this country by the Liberal party. That is a far cry from the S23.000,000 mentioned in the speech of the hon. member. But I wish to go on and complete the picture. The Conservatives have been in office thirty-five years, during thirty-one of which they showed deficits, while in the remaining four they had surpluses. They increased the national debt by SI.377,724,209.18. while they decreased the national debt by $27,977,780.77. The difference between these two figures, or $1,349,746,428.41, is the amount by which the national debt has been increased by the Conservative party since confederation. Then, during four years we had a union government, a fusion of the Liberal and Conservative parties.


Mr. GRANT:: No; it was all Tory.


James Alexander Marshall: I am glad to hear that statement. I did not know; I thought it was composed of both parties. During those four years the national debt was increased by $1,461,692,685.89. I wonder whether the Liberals or the Conservatives will derive much
The Budget-Mr. Marshall

consolation from those figures. I suggest that at the next election, whether it is held this year or next, the Canadian people will judge both the Liberals and the Conservatives on their past records. The creation of debt instead of the creation of currency and credit will be the national issue in the next election, unless I am greatly mistaken.
On page 3147 of Hansard of this year the Minister of Finance said:
Our taxes are high but w-e do not bury the money we take in in taxes, as one might gather from what some speakers say. We spend it quickly, far too quickly, in my opinion, and for the most part pass it on to those who will spend it quickly again.
Perhaps hon. members might be interested to learn where we get our tax dollars and how we spend them. During the year just ended the income tax accounted for 28-31 cents in every tax dollar. The sales tax accounted for 23-81 cents; customs for 15-70 cents; excise for 10-23 cents, and other sources for 21-95 cents. The point I wish to make here is that one year ago the greatest money-getter of all was the sales tax. This year it has fallen to second place and its former position has been taken temporarily by the income tax. The sales tax, which is 8 per cent on the manufacturer's invoice, is one of the greatest impositions that could be placed upon the backs of the people. When it reaches the consumer, instead of its being 8 per cent it amounts to, roughly speaking, 12 per cent. An interesting item in connection with these matters is that the people of the institutions which make the most out of the people of Canada pay the least. On page 2 of the white paper we find that taxes collected from banking institutions have steadily decreased from 1934-35 to the present time. These are the figures of the amounts collected from these institutions:
1934-	35	$1,369,0001935-	36	
1,281,0001936-	37	
1,210,0001937-	38	
1,107,0001938-	39 (estimated)	
1,026,000
Then on the opposite page we find these same institutions collected as commissions and discounts on loans the following amounts:
1934-	35	$2,890,0001935-	36	
3,577,0001936-	37	
3,839,0001937-	38	
4,555,0001938-	39 (estimated)	
4,975,000
Is it any wonder that some of us consider this banking proposition one of the greatest racketeering games on the face of the north American continent?

I want to turn for a moment to the one main concession given in the budget just brought down. At page 3153 of Hansard the Minister of Finance is reported as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that when we are in committee of ways and means I shall move the following resolutions.
And then we turn to resolution No. 2, to which I direct particular attention:
2. That any metalliferous mine that comes into production after the 31st day of December, 1939, and prior to the 1st day of January, 1943, shall be exempt from income tax for the first three fiscal periods following the commencement of production.
Let me hasten to say I would be the first to endorse giving any and every assistance necessary to any business, if such assistance were needed. The question we must answer is this: Does mining require this assistance? Well, the Financial Post a couple of issues ago printed a significant article with respect to Canadian mines. It is in these words:
Canadian mines pay big returns. $922,000,000 in dividends since start. There cannot be many cynics about mining left! Mark Twain said something about a mine being a hole in the ground surrounded by liars. The cynics have always cracked about more money going into the ground than ever comes out.
If you meet one, here's the answer of Canadian mining:
At latest estimate, some $650,000,000 is invested in the mining and treatment of metals such as gold, silver, nickel and the base metals.
In 1938 the output of those mines totalled more than $300,000,000. In other words the production of one year returned about half the total sum invested.
Metal mining employed more than 40.000 men and paid them wages of over $61,000,000. More than 100,000 Canadians are directly supported by this industry.
Hundreds of trades people, hotel keepers, transport companies and other types of business have invested very substantially in northern towns to supply the needs and provide the entertainment of this vast mining community.
The mining industry pays out almost $100,000,000 in one year for supplies and equipment, for freight, insurance and other needs.
In the brief history of Canadian metal mining, the mines have paid out to shareholders a total of $922,000,000 in dividends.
Total dividends paid in one year alone, 1938, amounted to $93,820,715.
Is it any wonder many of us protest against giving these concessions to the mining industry at the present time? It is plain to see that this budget is designed for the "haves" rather than for the "have-nots." To him that hath shall be given; to him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. The Neros of the Liberal and Conservative parties are fiddling with tariffs, foreign trade and economic internationalism, while the Dominion of Canada bums. I take

The Budget-Mr. Grant
this opportunity to warn both parties to take heed, lest the conflagation which they have started will engulf both of them, leaving the path clear for true reform to be ushered in.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Mr. Speaker,
I do not like speaking to a small audience, but the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) who preceded me must take the blame for that situation. The hon. member will forgive me if I do not refer to his remarks, which were non-contentious-unlike those of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), who sowed wheat with one hand and tares with the other. I had intended to speak at length on the budget, but recently in compliance with what I thought was the desire of all hon. members for an early prorogation, I decided otherwise.
I wish, sir, to refer only briefly to a few statements of the financial critic of the official opposition who, I am sorry, is not in his seat. Let me say at once to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) that his leader would say more in a few moments than he said in a rather lengthy speech. That may be because his leader is a doctor and can make a rapid diagnosis. It is just as well that the hon. member is not a medical man, because I am afraid the patient might pass away before he would make a diagnosis. However, he did succeed in almost entirely emptying the chamber and the galleries, and if he had spoken a little longer he might have had the place to himself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not filling up very fast now.


Thomas Vincent Grant: It will be filling up shortly.
He said that the people of this country properly regarded this government as a '"do-nothing" government. If that is so, why have not the people of this country elected a few "do something" Conservatives? There have been ample opportunities in the many by-elections which have been held recently. His leader can thank the Liberal party for the seat he holds in this house, because we did not wish to encourage communism and other false doctrines in this country. I am sorry the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) is not in his seat, because I wanted to congratulate him upon the courageous stand he has taken in his controversy with Tim Buck. I hope he will lose no votes on that account, as I do not want to see him and his party replaced by members of either of the other groups. I have listened to their strange
political doctrines for four years, and I have never heard anything but destructive criticism and murmuring discontent.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: You could not learn anything in forty years.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I could not learn anything from you whatever. Bad as the Tories are, they are always defenders of democracy.
The hon. member for York South said that Canada did not displace Japan as fourth trading nation of the world, that Japan displaced herself because of her war with China. That is merely playing upon words, if it is not just child's talk. It means the same thing to the people of this country as it did when the Bennett tariffs sent Canada down to sixth position among the trading nations of the world. The matter of primary importance to the electors of this country is not what Japan did or did not succeed in doing in China, it is the fact that under Liberal rule Canada stands out proudly as the fourth trading nation in the whole world.
He admits that Canada has moved up to fourth position as an exporting nation, but he contends that that does not sell one pound, one bushel or one measure of our agricultural products in a foreign market.
I should like to see him try to get a hearing in any part of Prince Edward Island with that kind of gospel. Our potatoes are selling to-day for $1 a bushel, and we are obtaining for our other farm products as good an average price as we have ever received in this country. Prices to-day are just about five times as high as they were during the five years of Tory rule. The only trouble with our farmers is the fact that because of the hardships and financial losses which they had to endure during those long five dreary years they have not yet been able to produce in quantities to meet their increased obligations. Conservatives should be ashamed to mention agricultural products. To cap the climax the hon. member for York South said:
I do not suggest that any government can compel foreign countries to buy more of our goods than they desire.
I want to ask him if he has forgotten the famous declaration of his late if not lamented leader of 1930, that if elected as Prime Minister of Canada he would blast his way into the markets of the world. Is it possible the hon. member for York South is now denying his former leader and master under whom he served as Minister of National Revenue, as chief organizer and as the "white hope" to take his place as leader of the once grand old Conservative party?
The Budget-Mr. Grant

I ask hon. members to listen to some more of the hon. gentleman's logic. At page 3344 of Hansard of this year he is reported as follows:
In ihis budget speech this year, to bolster up the efficacy of the new trade agreement entered into with the United States, the Minister of Finance was careful to point out that our exports of merchandise to that country, exclusive of gold, for the first quarter of this year, 1939, registered a gain of nearly 16 per cent over the total for the same period for 1938.
He claims that this is an indication that the trade treaty of 1938 is a bad one for Canada because the same thing happened in 1936. The trade treaty of 1935 came into effect on January 1, 1936, and exactly the same experience was had then as we are having now, our exports to the United States began to increase at once. Therefore, says he, since the trade treaty of 1935 was a bad one, the trade treaty of 1938 is also bad, because, in the words of Euclid, "things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another." Unfortunately for his geometry, he took it for granted that the trade treaty of 1935 was a bad one, which nullifies his proof.
The Tory blood comes out strong in the hon. member for York South when he says:
Nothing could more clearly indicate the lack of foresight on the part of this government in respect of its negotiation of trade treaties than the 'announcement contained in the budget that the excise tax on all goods imported into Canada will be repealed.
Although he admits that the repeal of the 3 per cent excise tax imposed by the Bennett government has now reduced our taxes by the amount of $14,000,000 annually, he endeavours to show that this 3 per cent excise tax was not a tax at all. He calls this government "dull of perception" for their action in relieving the Canadian consumers of this burden. The point is that should the Tory party ever regain power, and if by any chance the hon. member for York South should survive that long, he would likely be Minister of Finance, because of his long years of parliamentary experience, and naturally the first thing he would do would be to reimpose the old 3 per cent excise tax. Besides starting another tariff war, this would add at least $14,000,000 more to the taxes of the Canadian people of the distant future.
After terming this government a weak and wasteful administration, he proceeded to say: That is the record of the last year. What may we expect in the next year? The prospects for the next year are further deficits and further debts upon the people.

Imagine such deliberate platitudes coming from one of the survivors of the late Tory government, which not only ruined the common people of this country in every possible way, but added to the public debt of Canada the enormous sum of $669,000,000-more than twice the aggregate of all Liberal deficits since confederation!
Finally, as soon as he got through reviling the government for having repealed the 3 per cent excise tax, he stated and repeated that the electors of this country have become taxconscious and that the never-ending and ever-increasing expenditures of the government were driving the people to revolt.
In conclusion, let me point out to the hon. member, who also talked of leadership, that were it not for the interest which has had to be paid on the huge sum which the Bennett government added to the public debt of this dominion in five years, this government would have had a surplus every year since coming into power, as the Liberal government had in almost every year between 1921 and 1930 under its present leadership, that of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King).


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: The sins of omission and commission of all parties as revealed during this debate seem to be numerous. I hope I may be pardoned for bringing to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and of the government such matters as are of immediate interest to my district. Very often inequalities in a statute are shown in communications from individuals. I received one such to-day from a soldier settler, which goes to show the disadvantage at times of attempting to meet one's obligations.
In this particular case the soldier settler, after his return from overseas, met every single payment due to the department. His payments of principal and interest were made regularly. His neighbour, with a piece of land with an equivalent indebtedness, said, "What is the use? The government will have to do something about it some day," and so he never paid a single cent of interest o.r principal. An official of the soldier settlement board passing through the country listened to the troubles of this second man and said, "Why don't you take advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?" This man did, with the result that in the long run the man who had paid nothing on principal or interest, who gave no thought at all to his obligations, owes to-day to the government less than the man who had met every

The Budget-Mr. Esling
cent of his payments regularly. While many concessions have been made with respect to soldier settlement lands, I do think that further consideration should be given to wiping out the indebtedness of those who made their payments regularly and did not receive as much benefit as those who took advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
I want to compliment the Minister of Finance upon reinstating the 5 per cent tax upon remittances in connection with motion picture films. As hon. members know, there is a remittance tax on all investments and royalties going to the United States or any other foreign country, but the motion picture people were able to convince the government in 1936 that they should not pay this 5 per cent tax, and so the government reduced it to 2 per cent. The fact is that the motion picture film agencies have been able to remit to the United States nearly five million dollars a year as rental for motion picture films, and it is therefore a satisfaction to me that the Minister of Finance has seen the injustice of reducing the tax from 5 to 2 per cent and has reinstated it to 5 per cent, which means that the government exchequer will now benefit to the extent of about $150,000 a year. Certainly any avenue of investment which permits a remittance of practically five million dollars a year is not entitled to leniency at the hands of the government.
I want to say a word on behalf of the silver miners in the Kootenay West district. There is unemployment there for the reason that the price of silver will not permit the operation of the mines. I have already presented to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) resolutions from various boards of trade in Kootenay West, asking them for an excess price for silver produced from newly operated mines during 1939, and for such small properties as were unable to operate because of the low price of silver. That means only those properties which come into operation this year, and properties which produce, we will say, up to 40,000 ounces of silver. The proposal is advanced to the government purely on the ground of furnishing employment. Certainly it would encourage operations and permit many small properties as well as leased properties to furnish employment. If hon. members would picture the plight of the unemployed in that mining district and think of the bonus being granted to the farmers for wheat, the bonus to the fishermen for fish, the bonus for cheese, and subventions to coal mines, it is only natural they should hope that
the government would give some consideration to assisting these mining properties in order to help their development and provide employment.
' Another matter which is of great importance in connection with the budget is the report of the tariff board concerning the radio industry. Some three years ago I brought to the attention of the house the fact that a resident in my district had been notified by a patent holding company that he had brought in from the United States a radio which infringed upon certain patent rights, and he was asked to pay a royalty, which after some correspondence he did. He was then served with papers and was asked to sign an undertaking that he would not bring in another radio from the United States, and was informed that if he did it would be subject to confiscation and destruction.
The report of the tariff board shows what has been the cause of complaint; it is the Patent Act. It emphasizes beyond all things the necessity of revision of the Patent Act. This hearing before the tariff board shows that there are just about one dozen radio manufacturers in Canada; that they are all subject to the four leading electrical companies in this dominion, namely the Northern Electric Company, the Westinghouse, the Marconi, and the Canadian General; they control all the patents, and other manufacturers are subject to their dictation as to price, production and distribution. These four companies in turn control the patents under the names of two other companies, one for radios and the other for tubes and parts. First of all, the report emphasizes the necessity of amending and revising the Patent Act. Every fair-minded person must admit that a patent is the property of the inventor, that he is entitled to all the perquisites and all the revenue which his genius will bring him. But when it comes to a corporation or to several corporations acquiring these patents for the purpose of forming a monopoly and dictating production and prices, then is the time for the government to intervene. This report also shows that the price of radios in Canada is from 28 to 82 per cent higher than in the United States. These figures are based upon a comparison of thirty-six models of radios of the same type in Canada and in the United States.
Therefore I contend this, that the government should exercise their authority first of all under the Combines Act. They are fully aware of the fact that combines exist. Those evidences have been presented to the tariff board. They also have authority under the
The Budget-Mr. Needham

Patent Act to revoke a patent where an abuse is evident. Surely the government have every evidence under the sun from this report of the tariff board that there are abuses of the Patent Act, by way of regulating production, and by way of regulating prices and distribution. You cannot blame people for going to the United States to buy a radio when they can buy it at from 28 to 82 per cent cheaper than it can be bought at home. These excess prices are due entirely to the combine and the monopoly existing by reason of the control of these numerous patents.


Joseph Needham: I suppose the budget is the most interesting piece of legislation which is presented from year to year in parliament, because in the budget we have a review of the past year's income and expenses and also estimates for the ensuing year.
If we take the volume of expenditures as presented in the budget for the year just closed, it is not encouraging from the point of view of the outlook for the Canadian people. It reports a deficit for last year amounting to $55,660,000 and an estimated deficit for the ensuing year amounting to some $66,000,000. The hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) went fully into the matter of debt, with which I had intended to deal at some length, so I shall be as brief as possible in that regard.
Debt and more debt constitute the big problem which we are facing, and along with that, of course, goes increased taxation. Debt is the great millstone round the necks of the people, if it is looked at from one point of view; but along with that is the matter of interest, which, to my mind, is never given the attention it should have. At the present time our federal, provincial and municipal debts are tremendous. We heard from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that the federal debt is some three and a half billion dollars, our provincial debts are around two billions, and our municipal debt is about a billion and a half. For a population the size of Canada, these are staggering figures. When we go into the matter of private debts, the amount of which in many instances is just guess work, I am reminded of the brief submitted by the Saskatchewan government to the Rowell commission in the fall of 1937, and I recall one item which stated that the agricultural debt of Saskatchewan stood at $525,000,000.
I have said that, looked at in one light, our debt problem is staggering. However, according to evidence given in the banking and commerce committee, a question was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-
[Mr. Esling.l
Burrard (Mr. McGeer) of Mr. Towers, governor of the central bank:
Mr. McGeer: Is it possible for you to imagine any way by which we are ever going to pay the debt we have got?
Mr. Towers: As the debts of the government are an asset of the Canadian people, I do not see much point in the thing; except that, to the extent that the government thinks that the distribution of those assets of the Canadian people-which are its debt-is unsatisfactory, it may take steps to remedy that distribution in any way that lies within the legislative power; in fact, in any way, I suppose-by income tax or succession duties or any other action it cares to take.
So when we learn that the debts are an asset to the Canadian people we might glory in those debts.


Angus MacInnis: That is if we owned them.


Joseph Needham: The matter of distribution, of course, is referred to. It is summed up from this point of view, that the debts might be a real asset to the Canadian people if they were so distributed that the many would benefit from them instead of the few reaping the benefit and the many getting nothing. I am more concerned about the interest of the debt than about the debt itself. I wish to give emphasis to this matter of interest. I can realize where a debt might be an asset because the borrower, be it an individual or a government, needs the money and can use it to advantage. There is an amount of money borrowed which is created and placed at the disposal of the borrower. But when it comes to the paying of interest, the borrower is asked to pay something which was not put into circulation. That is the problem.
If you figure up the interest paid since confederation you will get our debt, and so I think the governor was right when he said that the debt is an asset to the Canadian people, but it is the interest which that debt incurs that is the problem and the burden at the present time. Debt involves taxation, and analysing the budget from the point of view of taxation we find that the Minister of Finance expects to take from the Canadian people the staggering sum of $550,000,000. This works out at S46 per capita, and if we take the provincial taxes, amounting to about $215,000,000, and municipal taxation amounting to about $250,000,000, we have a total of $1,015,000,000. This works out at about $90 per capita. Take the average family of four and it means $360 in taxation per family. Figure out the unemployed, those that are on relief and those that are on the verge of relief, who cannot pay taxes, and you find your burden increased from time to time.

The Budget-Mr. Needham
This matter was discussed at the conference of Canadian mayors not long ago, and one or two interesting things came out in the reports of that conference. Mayor Cory of Trenton, Ontario, urged the dominion government to assume the entire cost of unemployment relief because of the present economic condition of the country. The mayor of Portage la Prairie took exception to the implication that the dominion government was responsible for the economic condition of the dominion. He said it was not the fault of the government, but rather the failure of the business life of the country to distribute the necessities of life to the people. He said that in his own municipality a big flour mill had shut down and those who lost employment as a result became a direct burden on the municipality. He said that the dominion should get the money from the industries responsible. That was his contention. Mayor MacLean of St. Boniface gave another interesting point of view. The financial statements of banks and financial institutions for the past ten years would indicate, he said, that things are getting better in Canada, but the half million on relief would hardly agree. The prosperity of the banks does not mean the prosperity of the people. The economic welfare of the people should be raised to the level of the prosperity of the banks. There is quite a program for the government to consider.
I had intended reviewing the cost of loan flotations. This is a matter I took up last year. I asked some questions regarding it, and to-night I will deal with only one flotation because it gives a concise picture of the enormous cost of loan flotations, which I had expected would be considerably reduced in consequence of the ownership of the central bank and the work that could be done through that institution. According to the questions asked and the answers given with regard to the loan flotation refund of 840,000,000 of last November, we find that there was a discount to 97i, which meant a net reduction of 81,100,000 on that flotation. There were also the following items:
Commission	$800,000	00Travelling expenses	
375	45Printing and stationery	
1,966	41Printing temporary bonds.. ..	1,425	33
There is a note that the definite bonds were not yet delivered. Then there were these other items:
Securities and exchange commission, filing fee	$4,000	00Service of armoured car	
250	00Service of signagraph	
300	00Express and sundries	
50	79
This made a total of $1,908,367.98 as the cost of a flotation of one loan of $40,000,000. With the discount it means that the interest yield to the investor is 3T6 per cent, while the loan is floated at 3 per cent and the entire cost to the government will be 3-25 per cent. The interest on the $40,000,000 floated for thirty years at 3 per cent will be 836,000,000 and the net proceeds of the issue to the government is $38,091,632.02. I see it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 2, 1939