1924-05-12

BUDGET AMENDMENTS . CUSTOMS TARIFF AND SPECIAL WAR REVENUE -RESOLUTIONS

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: I beg to submit, Mr. Speaker,
certain resolutions affecting the customs duties and the War Revenue Act.
The resolutions presented by Mr. Robb are as follows:



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
L That Resolutions No. 1 of April 30th, 1924, relating to amendments to Schedule A to The Customs Tariff, 1907, be amended by adding thereto the following provision :
That the said resolution be amended by striking out tariff items 456a and 502e, the several enumerations of goods respectively and the several rates of duties of customs, set opposite each of said items, if any, and by substituting therefor the following items, enumerations and rates of duty:

Budget-Customs Tariff
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	Inter- mediate Tariff	General Tariff453d	Steel dies, of a class or kind not made in Canada, valued at not less than one thousand dollars each, for use exclusively in stamping metal sheets or metal plates. Provided that such dies shall be exported from Canada under Customs supervision within three months from the date of	Free	Free	Free456a	Ingot moulds for use in the production of steel	Free	Free	Free502c	Wood handles or stems for handles, not further manufactured than turned, when imported by manufacturers of goods enumerated in tariff items 44S, 449 and 450 for use exclusively in the manufacture of goods enumerated in said items..	Free	Free	Free2 That Resolution No. 3 of April 30th, 1924, relating	enumerations and rate of drawback of Customs dutiesto amendments to Schedule B to The Customs Tariffs,	be inserted in said Schedule B:
1907, be amended by providing that the following item,
Tariff Item	Goods	When Subject to Drawback	Portion of Duty (not including Special Duty of Dumping Duty) Payable as Drawback
1044		When imported by manufacturers	
		of iron or steel for use exclusively in the construction or repair of a blast furnace, open hearth furnace	99 p.c.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: This report, as I recall
it, merely provides for printing, does it not? Or does it provide as well that the committee shall sit when the House is in session?
Ml1. MACDONALD (Pictou): It gives power to the committee to print, when the committee may deem it advisable, certain portions of its deliberations. We have been asked to hear representations from the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia regarding the possible reduction of their representation, and the committee felt that it would be desirable to have available a report of whatever their case might be. It is not intended to print continuously every bit of the deliberations of the committee in meeting, but of course we shall want to have power ultimately to have the proceedings printed when we come to deal with the report. In the second place, we are asking that leave be given the committee to sit while the House is in session. The report was concurred in unanimously by all members of the committee and I have no doubt that the House feels, as did the committee, that every facility should be provided for proceeding



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Special War Revenue Act and amending acts and to provide:
1.	That a refund of the consumption or sales tax may be granted on imported goods which are free of customs duty and which are found not to be according to order, provided such goods are exported under customs supervision within three months from the date of the customs entry.
2.	That resolution number two of the 30th April, 1924, respecting additions to the list of excepted articles not liable to the consumption or sales tax, be amended by adding after the item "printed text books authorized by the Department of Education of any Province in Canada" the following words:
"and materials used exclusively in the manufacture or production thereof;"
and that customs tariff item 453d be added to the said list of excepted goods.
3.	That any enactment founded on paragraph one of this resolution shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 1924.

Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: I move that the first
report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, be concurred in.
1952	COMMONS
United Church of Canada-Petitions
with a speedy consideration of the bill and the report thereon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	With the unanimous consent
of the House, Mr. Speaker, I move that the order:
House in committee on Bill No. 40, respecting the ' construction of a Canadian National railway line to mile 41 of the Melfort branch near Nipawin in the province of Saskatchewan.
-be discharged and that the bill be referred back to the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for further consideration. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the amendment made in committee to this bill, and I think the easiest way of dealing with it is to refer it back.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is it the
unanimous pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment) presented the second interim report, Part II., of the investigations of the Royal Commission on Pensions and Civil Re-establishment. He moved:
That 700 copies in the English language and 300 copies in the French language of the said report be printed forthwith and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.
Motion agreed to.	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations, severally praying that the proposed legislation incorporating the United Church of Canada be not enacted.
Of M. R. Matheson and others, of Granum, Alberta, Members and Adherents of Jumbo Valley Presbyterian Church,-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil).
St. Aandrew's Presbyterian Church; St. Aidan's Presbyterian Church; St. Stephen's Presbyterian Church, all of New Westminster, B.C.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations and

bodies severally praying that the bill now before the House to incorporate the United Church of Canada be passed during the present session:-
McLeod Street Methodist Church, Ottawa, Ont.; United Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, Minden, Ont.; Gertrude M. Date and 45 others, of Montreal, Quebec; Central Methodist Church, Stratford, Ontario; Margaret Kerfoot and 135 others, of Prescott, Ontario; Community Church, Montreal East, Quebec; St. Andrews United Church, Wolf-ville, N.S.; Methodist Church, Bowmanville, Ont.; Methodist Church, Kincardine, Ont.

Mr. McTaggart.
Calvin Presbyterian . Church, Rathwell, Manitoba; Presbyterian 'Church, Areola; Methodist Church, Victoria, B.C.; Presbyterian Church, Stoney Mountain, Manitoba; Union Church, Trout Creek; Methodist Church, Esquimalt, B.C.; Presbyterian Church, Mission City, B.C.; Metropolitan Methodist Church, Victoria, B.C.; United Church, Comfort, Alberta; Union Congregation, Aneroid, and other places Sask.-Mr. Lewis.
Congregational Church, Calgary, Alberta; Methodist Churches, Manotick, Kars and OsgoOde, Ont.; Union Churches, Sheho and Tuffrell, Sask.; Methodist Church, Carman, Man.; Union Church, Strongfield; Methodist Church, Rosetown, Sask.; Union Church, Lemberg; Methodist Church, Richmond, Ont; United Church, Craigmyle, Alta; United Church, Milestone, Sask.; Methodist Church, Quebec; Kensington Church, Montreal; Union Church, Rivers, Man.; Methodist Church, Gagetown, N.B.; Methodist Church, Raleigh, Township; United Presbyterian and Methodist Church, Leland, P.erth Road and Opini-cion, Ont.; Empress Avenue Methodist Church, London, Ont.; Methodist Churches, Union and Port Stanley, Ont.; Methodist Church, Exeter.-Mr. Pritchard.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98 (from the Senate), for the relief of Antonio Piet.ranglo."-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 99 (from the Senate) for the relief of Ella Vear.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 100 (from the Senate) for the relief of Anna Welton.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 101 (from the Senate) for the relief of Marjorie Mahaffy Cox.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 102 (from the Senate) for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Milne.-Sir Henry Drayton.

Questions
Bill No. 103 (from the Senate) for the relief of Georgina Myrtle Potts.-Mr. Mew-burn.
Bill No. 104 (from the Senate) for the relief of Guy Barrington Hutchings.-Mr. Spence.

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

Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Was a technical inquiry held under the supervision of the Government Insurance Branch as to the protection different grades of roofing material offer against fire?
2.	If so, on what date and in which province?
3.	By whom, and what witnesses were heard?
4.	At what conclusions did said inquiry arrive?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	A technical investigation is being made into the merits of the various forms of roofing materials from the standpoint of fire prevention
2.	The investigation was commenced several months ago and is proceeding.
3.	The committee is composed of Professors H M. Mackay, R. DeL. French and F. M. G. Johnson, of McGill University, and the inquiry will consist mainly of experimental test rather than evidence of witnesses.
4.	No conclusions have been reached as the investigation is not complete.


NATIONAL STEEL CAR COMPANY
Mr DOUCET:: 1.	Is the National Steel Car Company a Canadian concern and where is it located ?
2.	Is the Eastern Car Company a Canadian concern, and where is it located?
3.	Is the Pressed Steel Car Company a Canadian concern, and where is it located?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	National Steel Car Corporation, Limited, is a Canadian concern; Head office at Hamilton, Ont.
2.	Yes, Head office at New Glasgow, N.S.
3.	Imperial Steel & Wire Company, Limited, formerly The Pressed Steel Car & Wheel Company, Limited, is a Canadian concern incorporated by the provincial government of Ontario, Head office at Perth, Ontario.


FERRY BOAT HIAWATHA
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. JONES:
1.	How many passengers were carried by the ferry boat Hiawatha during the past year between Abercrombie and Pictou, in the county of Pictou, Nova Scotia ?
2.	How much freight was carried during the same period by the same boat?
3.	What were the passenger receipts for the same period by the same boat?
4.	What were the freight receipts for the same period by the same boat?
Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, this question, I think, has been asked under a misapprehension. The government is not subsidizing the steamship company referred to, and therefore has no information to furnish.


DORCHESTER PENITENTIARY-WARDEN
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Has an appointment been made to the position of warden at Dorchester penitentiary, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what is his name?
3.	If not, who is acting?
4.	How long has the acting warden been in the service and is he qualified for position of warden?
5.	When did the position become vacant?
6.	When does the government propose making an appointment ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Geo. T. Goad.
4.	In the service for almost four years; the decision as to his qualifications is committed to the Civil Service Commission.
5..1 January, 1924.
6. The appointment rests with the Civil Service Commission.


THE TRANSCONTINENTAL, AND CANADIAN OCEAN PORTS
Mr. MacLAREN:: What steps have been taken to carry out the provisions contained in the National Transcontinental Act 1903, chapter 71, paragraph 45, regarding the arranging for and providing shipping connections for inward and outward traffic at Canadian ocean ports?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The company named in the section of the National Transcontinental Act referred to was the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Under said paragraph 45, it agreed to operate steamships out of Canadian Atlantic and Pacific ports in connection with the company's railway projects. However, the company failed to carry out its agreement to lease the Transcontinental and afterwards ceased to operate the Grand Trunk Pacific, now in receivership. As the operation of these roads has had to be assumed by the government, in default, the provisions of the clause have no longer any element of contract. While not a matter of contract, the development of
Questions

Canadian ports is, nevertheless, the basic policy of both the Canadian National Railway management and the Canadian government.	.
CANADA COLONIZATION ASSOCIATION Mr. COOTE:
1.	Wbat was the number of families brought to Canada during the year 1923-24 by the Canada Colonization Association?
2.	What amount was paid to the Canada Colonization Association during the said fiscal year, by the government?
3.	What amounts were paid to the said association by other parties during the said fiscal year?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Thirty-five settlers; no record as to actual number of families.
2.	$100,000.
3.	$100,000, borne equally by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways. No information as to other grants..


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE -WAGES
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: What monthly rate of wages has been paid to firemen and sailors on the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships on the Pacific during years 1921-22-23?


George Perry Graham: Coastal Service-1921, first two months of operation August to October $60 per month; October to December $67.50 per month. 1922, $67.50 per month. 1923, $67.50 per month.
Australian and Oriental service-1921, January to July, $75 per month; July to December, $60 per month; 1922, $60 per month; 1923, $60 per month.
Vancouver-U. K. Service-1921, commenced operation November, 1923, $60 per month.
CANADIAN APPLES-AUSTRALIAN EMBARGO Mr. MacKELVIE:
In connection with negotiations between this government and that of Australia regarding trade arrangements, has this government made any request that Australia remove its embargo on Canadian apples?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
HEBRIDEAN IMMIGRANTS Mr. SPENCER:
1.	How many Hebrideans entered Canada in 1923 and 1924?
2.	How many of these were placed on farms?
3.	How many are now on farms?
4.	For what number of these immigrants did the government advance passage money?
5.	What was the total amount advanced?
IMr. Graham.]
6.	How many of these immigrants have repaid passage money advanced to them, and what is the total amount ?
7.	How many are in arrears for repayment of passage money ?
8.	How many Hebrideans, who came to Canada in 1923 and 1924, have emigrated to the United States?
9.	Were any of these still in debt to the government for money advanced for their passage? If so, how many, and what is the aggregate amount outstanding?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1. 580-(exclusive	of two parties of Hebrideans who were brought out under the auspices of the Ontario government).
2.	All placed on farms except four families, two of whom are now arranging to go on the land.
3.	All who were originally placed.
4..All of the party brought in 1923, namely 291. The complete report of the 1924 party numbering 289 persons, has not yet been received.
5.	The amount advanced for the 1923 party was $26,098.39, of which $16,311.49 was refunded by the British government, leaving $9,786.90 as the federal government's share of the loans.
6.	None.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	None of the Hebrideans who came under Dominion government direction in 1923 and 1924.
9.	Answered by No. 8.


MR. THOMAS SHANKS
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	Is Mr. Thomas Shanks an employee of the Department of the Interior, and if so, what position does he occupy ?
2.	Was he promoted from the position of Assistant Surveyor General of Dominion Lands, to the position of Assistant Director General of Surveys in said department? If so, when and by what authority?
3.	What is the salary range attached to such positions respectively?
4.	Has the said Mr. Thomas Shanks discharged the duties of Assistant Director General of Surveys since his promotion to said position? If not, who is discharging same?
5.	Is the said Thomas Shanks in receipt of the salary attached to the position of Assistant Director General of Surveys, and if so, from what date has he received same?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Yes; Assistant Director General of Surveys.
2.	Yes; October 1, 1923, promotional certificate from the Civil Service Commission.
3.	The position of Assistant Surveyor General has been abolished; the salary range of Assistant Director General of Surveys is $3,900-$4,800.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes; October 1, 1923.

Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TORONTO AND NAPANEE
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What, if any, duplication of tracks and railway services have the Canadian National Railway system been able to remove between Toronto and Napanee?


George Perry Graham: The former Canadian Northern tracks between Brighton and Cobourg have been taken up. A saving since June, 1920, of 42,627 passenger train miles per annum has been effected and offices of the two lines at the following places have been consolidated:	Toronto, Oshawa, Port Hope,
Cobourg, Grafton, Colborne, Brighton, Trenton, Belleville, Napanee.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SCRIBE HOTEL
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Has the government investigated the accuracy of the statement that the Scribe Hotel was offered for sale to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at a price less than $1,400,000 but refused by that company?
2.	If the said statement has been found to be inaccurate, was the Canadian Pacific Railway Company asked to consider the purchase of the said hotel, and at what price?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, the
government has no information concerning the rumour contained in this question.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What has been the total expenditure of the Joint International Commission from its inception to the 31st of March, 1924?
2.	What are the names of the three first commissioners nominated by the Laurier government?
3.	Why were three other commissioners appointed by the Imperial government?
4.	What are the names of the three commissioners who were first appointed by the Imperial government ?
5.	Is the government aware that since the resignation from the said commission of Judge P. B. Mignault, now judge of the supreme court, that the province of Quebec has had no representation on this commission?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to give the Province of Quebec representation on this commission?
7.	If so, when?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	$582,818.97.
2.	Sir George Gibbons; Alexander P. Barnhill; Aime Geoffrion.
3.	Nominees named in answer to question 2 above had not been appointed by the Imperial government when the Laurier government went out of office in 1911, and different names were submitted to the Imperial government for appointment by the incoming Borden government.
4.	Hon. T. Chase Casgrain; Charles A. Magrath; Henry A. Powell, K.C.
5.	The present Canadian membership of the International Joint Commission is as follows:
Charles A. Magrath, Chairman; Henry A. Powell, K.C.; Sir William Hearst, K.C.M.G.
Hon. T. Chase Casgrain resigned from the commision on his appointment as a minister of the Crown and was succeeded by Hon. Mr. Justice Mignault. The latter resigned from the commission on appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. His place on the Commission was subsequently filled by the appointment of Sir William Hearst, K.C.M.G.
6.	The matter is under consideration.
' 7. Answered by the answer to No. 6.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What was the total cost of installing each of the government wireless stations at Dawson and at Mayo, Yukon Territory, in 1923?
2.	What has been the cost of operating and maintaining each of said stations since its installation?
3.	How many employees are engaged at each of said stations and in what capacities?
4.	What has the revenue been from each of said stations since its installation?


COMMISSIONS OP INQUIRY
Mr. LEADER:: 1.	How many commissions of inquiry were appointed by the Laurier government?
2.	What was the total cost of these commissions?
3.	What were the names of the counsel employed by the government?
4.	What was the total remuneration paid to each?


Mr. LEADER:: 1.	How many commissions of inquiry were appointed by the Borden government?
2.	What was the total cost of these commissions?
3.	What were the names of the counsel employed by the government ?
4.	What was the total remuneration paid to each?


Mr. LEADER:: 1.	How many commissions of inquiry were appointed by the Meighen government?
2.	What was the total cost of these commissions ?
3.	What were the names of the counsel employed by the government?
4.	What was the total remuneration paid to each?


Mr. LEADER:: 1.	How many commissions of inquiry were appointed by the present government?
2.	What was the total cost of these commissions?
3.	What are the names of the counsel employed by the government?
4.	What was the total remuneration paid to each? DOMINION PUBLIC BUILDING, ARNPRIOR


Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Was the Dominion public building at Arnprior repaired during the year 1923?
2.	If so, by whom was the work performed: (a) repairs to foundations; (b) painting, plastering, decorating, etc.?
Questions

3.	If tenders were called for, was it by public advertisement and if so, in what papers did the advertisements appear?
4.	What tenders were received and from whom, and to whom was the contract granted?
5.	Was the said building rewired and did the contractor give a subcontract for this work?
6.	Was there the usual inspector appointed by the Public Works department in connection with this work and if so, whom?


HECTOR CELEBRATION, PICTOU
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What amount was appropriated by the government for the Hector celebration at Pictou, Nova Scotia, during the summer of 1923?
2.	What extra amount, if any, was appropriated for this celebration by the Department of National Defence?
3.	Has the government received a statement of the expenditure of this money?
4.	If so, for what was the money used?


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-EMPLOYEES
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What were the total number of employees, and the total salaries paid such employees on Janunary 1st, 1922, and also January 1st, 1924, in the following branches of the Department of Agriculture, giving the total number employees and salaries for each branch, respectively, a) Civil Government both Permanent and Temporary; (b) Agricultural Instruction; (c) Entomology; (d) Dairy General; (e) Cow Testing; (f) Finch Creamery; (g) Extension of Markets; (h) Destructive Insect and Pest; (i) Production and Sale of Tobacco; (j) Fruit Industry; (k) Contagious Diseases; (1) Meat and Canned Food Division; (m) Live Stock Industry; (n) Seed Control?
2.	Has there been one or more new branches added to Department of Agriculture since January 1st, 1922.
3.	If so, what are names of same, and what number of employees in each branch or branches so established in detail same as Question No. 1?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Pass as an
order for return.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Mr. Speaker, this
is a very simple question and should not entail more than a few hours' work on the part of the department. I put the question on the order paper because of my inability to get the information from the department.


William Richard Motherwell: My officers
tell me that it will take ten days or two weeks to get this information.


PENSION BOARD MEDICAL ADVISERS
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	Who are the Medical Advisers of the Pension Board ?
2.	What is the War Record of each?
3.	Who are the Medical Advisers of the Federal Appeal Board?
4.	What is the War Record of each?
5.	What has been the Special Training of the Neurologists of the Boards?

UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS HECTOR CELEBRATION, PICTOU Mr. DOUCET:
For return showing the detailed expenditure of the money voted by parliament of Canada at the last session for the Hector celebration at Pictou, Nova Scotia.



STAFFORD R. RUDD AND COMPANY

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, exchanged between the Minister of Public Works, or any official of his department, and Stafford R. Rudd and Company, and the chairman of the Liberal committee of Arnprior and others.



MOUNTED POLICE-SMITH INVESTIGATION

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents passing between the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, or any member of the government of British Columbia, and any member or official of the Dominion government, having reference to certain charges made against the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and investigated by Commissioner Smith, and also a copy of the report of the said commissioner.



BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES OFFICE

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents, passing between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or any official of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, including Inspector Halliday of New Westminster and the member for Chilliwack and mem-* ber for Skeena, or any other member of the Dominion House, relating to the removal of the fisheries office from Vancouver, or the position of the Chief Inspector of Fisheries in British Columbia.



NARCOTIC DRUGS-BRITISH COLUMBIA

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents, passing between the Minister of Justice, Deputy Minister of Justice or any official of the Department of Justice, or Prime Minister or any official in the office of the Prime Minister, and M. A. Macdonald, K.C., W. W. B. Mclnnes, regarding the appointment of a commissioner to inquire into alleged improper handling of drugs by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in British Columbia


Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of petition forwarded to the Minister of Justice on behalf of one, C. W. Monk, convicted in January, 1923, for illicit dealing in narcotic drugs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return showing a statement of amount of cocaine or other narcotic drugs seized in British Columbia under the authority of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the disposition of the same, during the years 1920 to 1924, inclusive.



MOUNTED POLICE-VICTORIA

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return showing the names of the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Victoria detachment, who have (a) left the service; (b) been removed;	(c) been dismissed; showing the reasons
for termination of services.

The Budget-Mr. Copp



QUEBEC POST OFFICE

Mr. PARENT:: For a copy of all letters and other documents in possession of the Department of Public Works re luting to the claims of the contractor for payments of the cost of work necessitated by the building of the post office in the city of Quebec.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- INCOME STATEMENT

Arthur Meighen: For a return giving copy of official income statement, December, 1923, and March, 1924, of the Canadian National Railways which statements include data from the commencement of 1923 and 1924, respectively.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I had hoped to
embellish my few remarks on the year's business of the Canadian National Railways by the production of this information. Perhaps my right hon. friend will allow me to do that.


Arthur Meighen: I never observed that
the hon. minister's remarks needed embellishment in any way; frequently they are lacking in information. I do not like to rob him in advance of his material. I presume it would be possible for me to get it myself. I have no desire to make public his speech, though, before the great day.


George Perry Graham: I will get my right hon.
friend a copy.


George Newcombe Gordon: Motion
dropped.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-MOIETIES PAID

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return showing particulars of ail moieties paid through the office of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Vancouver and Victoria, in connection with the administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, setting forth to whom paid and date of payment.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I am compelled to oppose this resolution. The administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act is already a very difficult task. The persons engaged ini that traffic are shrewd, powerful and unscrupulous, and if the information asked for by this resolution is given it will make the work of the police more arduous and subject those who give the information to acts of revenge. The passing of the motion is objectionable also on many other grounds. I may say that I object also to the passing of notices of motion No. 9 and No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver
Centre (Mr. Stevens). Perhaps it would be better to let these stand.


George Newcombe Gordon: Stand in the
absence of Mr. Stevens.



JETTIES AT VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I have a very urgent telegram from grain men of the West with regard to the completion of Nos. 1 and 2 jetties at Vancouver, the construction of which has been under way. The message states that unless the necessary moneys to complete these jetties are not forthcoming immediately, these facilities will not be available for the coming crop in October, and that that would greatly minimize the working capacity of elevator No. 1 and would make No. 2 of little use' except for storage. I would like to inquire whether the completion of these jetties is being delayed.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: This is the first time the
matter has been brought to my personal attention. I will make inquiries of officers of the department and give my hon. friend all the information I can.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 9, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee on Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the budget has proceeded for something over four weeks and is to continue, I understand, for some days, but I feel that the question is one of such great importance not only to Canada as a whole but also to each of the respective provinces that as a representative of one of the provinces in the Maritime group I should take up a little time this afternoon in making a few observations in reference to the situation as it appeals to the people in my part of the country.
Before doing so, may I be permitted to associate myself with those on both sides of the House who have offered their hearty congratulations to my hon. friend and col-

The Budget-Mr. Copp
league the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) who delivered the budget speech- on the 10th of April last. I am sure that irrespective of our agreement or otherwise with the contents of the budget we have all been impressed by the splendid example given by the acting minister in the -bevity and conciseness of the annual financial statement he presented, a statement which, I am very glad to know, has been well received by the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I cannot refrain, Sir, from also joining with my friends in expressing the deep regret we all feel at the absence from parliament this session, both from the councils of the government and from the work of the House generally, of the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the former Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouini). I am sure the Minister of Finance would have been delighted had he been able to be With us and present this budget, and be able at the same time to announce to the people of Canada, as he was in the very fortunate position of being able to do many times in the past, a surplus in the finances of this country-this being the first surplus since the year 1914, He would have also been very glad, in addition to announcing that surplus to be able to announce that we had reduced the public debt of this country, marking a return to the old-time Fielding surpluses of days gone by.
One cannot discuss the fiscal policy of this country without taking into consideration the very many difficulties that present themselves in governing a country such as Canada. All countries have their difficulties, and we have had our share undoubtedly during the past few years, since the armistice that concluded the Great War and during the period of reestablishment. Canada, as we all know, is a very extensive country, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a territory long in range and narrow in extent, sparsely populated, and falling into what might be called four natural divisions. We have in the Maritime provinces, one of the old parts of confederation, a country small in area and composed principally of agriculturists, lumbermen, fishermen and miners, a little mining being done in Nova Scotia but not much in comparison with its other industries. Then we come to the old provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and while they are also interested in agriculture and forestry, they are much more interested in manufacturing than are the Maritime provinces. Then we go to the middle Wrest and we find practically the whole population interested in agriculture. Further 
west, in British Columbia, we find the people engaged in agriculture, forestry and mining. When we consider the chief interests of the different portions of Canada, and how they vary with the different sections of this country - from sea to sea, we can realize how difficult it is to arrange a fiscal policy that will suit all portions of the Dominion. We must examine into 'the requirements of the different parts of Canada, and then endeavour, so far as we are able to meet the conditions in the different sections of the country, having in mind always the interests of the country as a whole
The responsibility of propounding and carrying into effect fiscal policies that are best applicable to a country such as Canada is one that is fraught with many difficulties. My hon. friends opposite have learned that to their sorrow. During the war period we all know that our whole time and attention were taken up in doing our part towards winning the war, and after the armistice and the conclusion of the war the duty rested upon my hon. friends opposite to take up the work of government and of re-establishment. I have no doubt that they grappled with those questions the best they could, but apparently, judging by the election returns of 1921, the people of this country were not satisfied with the way in which they had carried out their task. We realize that this responsibility has been handed over to us for the time being, and we have been giving these questions particular attention and very careful study during the past two years, and we have thought fit to bring before parliament at the present time some changes in the tariff and the fiscal policy of this country, for the consideration of parliament. The fiscal policy is a question that is always fraught with a very great deal of difficulty and differences of opinion. However, after giving this matter very careful study, we have taken the responsibility of placing before parliament the budget proposals which we are now asking it to accept. A great deal of opposition has risen in a certain quarter of this chamber in regard to these proposals, and I was delighted as I listened on Friday evening to the very excellent speech delivered by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). He made mention of three different matters that I want to refer to briefly. In referring to the present government as opportunists-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Mr COPP:: I thought I heard someone say, "hear, hear." I am sure that when you

The Budget-Mr. Copp
consider the meaning of the word "opportunist" and of the word "opportunity" you will admit they are rather elastic terms. My hon. friend used the word opportunist because he thought it was a slur against the administration of this government, but I want to say to him and this House that if an opportunist means meeting the wishes, and views of the great majority of the people of this Dominion as we see them, and a party representing a great majority of that public opinion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, then I am prepared to take the odium of being called an opportunist.
Next, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre felt like coming to the relief of the agriculturists of this country, and he came to their relief in the same way that all our friends opposite come to the relief of that great body. What does he say in regard to that? May I be permitted to quote just a sentence or two from his remarks?
Now, what is wanted in Canada in connection with this financial stringency to which I have referred is some sound policy which will enable the farmer of the West particularly to fund his current indebtedness. My hon. friends, I think, will all agree with me that that is one of the most crying needs of the West to-day. It does not profit us nor will it get us anywhere to say to those debtors that they needlessly -went into debt in some cases, or that it was through over-optimism in other cases; the fact is they are heavily in debt, this indebtedness is drawing large rates of interest, and the farmers cannot fund it. What is required to meet the situation is an opportunity of funding their current debts by term loans at reasonable rates.
That sounds a reasonable proposition. My hon. friends opposite, realizing at last the financial position which the farmers of the West, represented by the Progressive group in this House, are in now say: We want the government or some other institution to come to their rescue and give them an opportunity of funding their debts, and going on losing money in the future as they have in the past. Mr. Speaker, that is not the panacea that the government of the day hands out to the agriculturists in all parts of this Dominion. We hope to place before the farmers of this country an opportunity of not only funding their debts, but of being able to live and make a profit on their operations, and of being able to pay their debts instead of funding them.
My hon. friend also makes another very splendid reference in that very eloquent speech of his. Let me read just a line or two more. He was describing the beautiful trip he had had from his home town to Ottawa:
As we came along I saw a little cabin in a clearing of about five acres, and at the door stood a
woman, cherry of countenance, and around her four little children clinging to her skirts and waving to the train as it went by. Out in the little patch of cleared land was the husband preparing the soil for his spring crop, and the thought came to me that this man with his wife and children was solving the problem of northern Ontario which has so long been baffling the statesmen of this country.
Yet that is the very idea of my hon. friends opposite. Here was a man out trying to clear a little space in the forest to make a home for himself and his family, and earn, not a decent living, but a mere existence, as we know is the case with many in the pioneering days. If my hon. friend had continued his trip he would have found in the Maritime provinces, or in the middle West, many more of those same pioneers. And he proposes to let them carry on by borrowing money from the government, funding their debts, and to go on losing money in the future. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is not a proper solution of the difficulty. The only fair and proper way to meet it is for the government and parliament to seriously consider the question and to initiate a policy that will enure to the benefit of these people who are pioneers, who have gone out into the wilderness and waste places of Canada and are now attempting to build up and populate that part of the country in which they are settled.
Natural!}' a discussion on the tariff and taxation leads us to consider two great classes. On the one hand there are the manufacturers who have for the past fifty years been more or less aided by the policy of protection. On the other hand there are the agriculturists and the consumers who are looking seriously into the fiscal question and trying to find some relief from their burdens. Personally I have nothing unkind to say of the manufacturers; we are very proud of the industries that have been built up in different parts of this country. However, as I said previously, the majority of them are located in the two provinces of Quebec and Ontario. In order to place before parliament what I consider to be a fairly good reason why practically all the manufacturers in Ontario are opposing any interference with the present fiscal policy let me quote a few statistics from the Canada Year Book for 1922-23. The tabulated statement I have here shows the value of the output of the four basic industries of agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining, contrasted with that of manufacturing for each province for the year in question. It is as follows:
The Budget-Mr. Copp

" Whisper of death " which appeared on the front pages of the same journal. In the light of the conditions as revealed by this newspaper itself, I say unhesitatingly that we have nothing to fear. But these suggestions about approaching death, and all the rest of it, have not at all been well received in the country, and this fact having been realized the propaganda in this direction ceased.
But we had another type of propaganda; a gentleman named Grattan O'Leary came into the limelight and undertook to tell the people of Canada what should be done and what should not be done. It is not my intention to take issue with Mr. Grattan O'Leary inasmuch as one of his own friends and the organizer of the party to which he belongs, in the person of my -hon. friend from Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), answered him fully when he referred to the articles that were published in MacLean's magazine a few weeks ago. It is obvious that they are making an effort to hoodwink the people into the belief that something is radically wrong in the management, by this government, of the affairs of the country; but I have not the slightest doubt that the people of Canada can see through this scheme. And in any case, no situation that ever existed could be improved by such a method. I have no objection whatever to my hon. friends opposite taking what action they may consider proper in the interests of their own party and with a view to realizing their great hope of some day coming back into power, but I do say that it is certainly injurious to the best interests of the country that propaganda of this kind should be engaged in by responsible men.
I want to refer as briefly as possible to the railway situation, which is among the most important matters that are exercising the minds of the people, particularly in the Maritime provinces, at the present time. It is inevitable in the circumstances that I should refer to facts that are necessarily more or less local, and I trust that I shall be pardoned if occasionally I do not speak in general terms. The railway situation is to-day the product of an evolution in this country; year after year, so long as I can remember anything political, we have had discussions in regard to the building and operation of railways in Canada. And those of us who come from the Maritime provinces know how important a part the railway problem has played in our affairs down there; for the railway undertaking of the Dominion of Canada to the people of the Maritime provinces at the time

of confederation was a considerable inducement to those people to enter the Dominion. Hon. gentlemen will remember-speaking for the moment of the railway situation in a general way-that about the year 1903 the Liberal government undertook the construction of the Transcontinental railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific to provide competition with the great Canadian Pacific Railway. That railway was about completed when my hon. friends came into office and I understand that they effected some alterations in connection with gradients, curves, and other matters of that kind; and, as every one knows, an agreement was made with the Grand Trunk Railway whereby that road was to be taken over and operated on a certain percentage basis. That was never done; I am not going to take up the time of the House discussing the question, but it is sufficient to state that nothing was done in that direction. Shortly after the Borden government came inti power steps were taken for the operation of the Transcontinental railway by the government; and not very long after that the government of that day made arrangements for the taking over of the Canadian Northern and its subsidiaries. Whether or not that was a wise procedure is a question which I think we need not discuss to-day, although I recall that at the time there was opposition to it. However, the government took over these roads. Within a short time thereafter they passed an act providing for the amalgamation of the various railways in Canada

the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Transcontinental and the Intercolonial. Let me pause here for a moment to consider the Intercolonial Railway, and to point out the dissatisfaction and the unrest which the Maritime provinces have felt in this connection. The Intercolonial railway was built by the Dominion government at the time of confederation and was the fulfilment on the part of Canada of the pledge she owed to the Maritime provinces in the confederation pact. As I say, it was built and operated by the government under the control of the Minister of Railways. Now, I am not here to try to becloud any issue or to make any statement that cannot be borne out by the facts. But we all agree, I think, that for many years during the operation of that railway, under both governments, political influences were brought to bear upon the management to a greater or less extent. While, however, politics played its part in this matter, I do not see that it made very much difference whether either Liberals or Tories were appointed to work on the railway so long as they were reasonably fitted for their positions. But I

The Budget-Mr. Copp
want to dwell on this subject for a moment in order to refute the untruthful propaganda which we have witnessed in this country in regard to the Intercolonial railway. And I would point out here that it was not the Liberal party but my hon. friends opposite who were responsible for placing that railway under the Canadian National system.


Donald Sutherland: Does my hon. friend suggest that it should be again made a political railway?	-


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have said nothing of the
kind; I am not considering that question at all. Let me tell my hon. friend just what the situation is. When this government came into power it discovered the foundling on its doorstep, and after due consideration we decided that the best thing to do was to hand it over to the board of directors that had been duly appointed and have them manage the whole thing without political interference in any way.


Donald Sutherland: I hope the minister does not misunderstand me. He was referring to the Intercolonial railway, which in the past, he stated, had been a political railway, and he found fault with the present system. That is the reason why I asked the question. There is no use discussing the National Transcontinental : it is the Intercolonial to which the minister was referring.


Arthur Bliss Copp: As my hon. friend knows, there is only one railway. We took it as he and *his friends left it, and we are carrying it on by a board of directors to whom we have handed over the system for operation, and we are not interfering with the board in any way at all. But my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. MacLaren) and my hon. friends from other parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are condemning me because I have not interfered, or helped to interfere, with the railway management in regard to the Intercolonial railway. I am putting the responsibility absolutely where it belongs. It belongs to the Tory party in this House.


Murray MacLaren: Does the minister assert that what was formerly the Intercolonial railway is now an integral part of the Canadian National system?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: Then how does he reconcile that statement with the attitude taken by the Board of Railway Commissioners that the board has no jurisdiction over that portion of the national system formerly called the Intercolonial railway?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The statement I made is absolutely correct; my hon. friend well knows, that the Intercolonial railway to-day is a part of the Canadian National system under an act passed in 1919 when his friends were in power.


Murray MacLaren: Would the Secretary of State object to answering my question? Will he explain the attitude of the Board of Railway Commissioners, which, I understand, is quite the opposite to what the minister states.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend wants to get information regarding the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, I have no doubt that if he will see the chairman of the board he will be fully satisfied.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend tell the House when the act of 1919 was put into full effect?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not that information directly before me. What 1 have stated in regard to the Intercolonial railway is absolutely correct. It was taken over and made part of the Canadian National system in 1919, and this government has not in any way interfered in regard to the management. Let me refer to a statement made throughout my province that I was negligent in my duty when Sir Henry Thornton took charge and he and his board divided the system into regional districts. I hold no brief for Sir Henry Thornton, but I believe in being absolutely fair and giving credit to whom credit is due. I am not a railway expert and never expect t.r>
be. As a Maritime province man, I tell the House frankly that I would be very glad indeed had Sir Henry Thornton and his co-directors seen fit to extend the Atlantic region to Montreal or even further west. They did not see fit to do so; no doubt they had very good reasons for their action. But whether the Atlantic region might be made larger has no bearing whatever on the future success of the whole system. It is purely a local matter in which we in the Maritime provinces are very much interested,-and, I am bound to say, very much disturbed. But I do not believe that any action taken by the board of directors is, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unchangeable. I hope that the Canadian National Board will yet recognize that it will be just as advantageous to the whole system to enlarge the Atlantic regional district, and I shall always be willing to do anything I can to assist to that end- always bearing in mind that the system has been handed over to the board of directors to do the best they can with. I am bound to state that their management during the past
19G4
The Budget-Mr. Copp


Mr. MARTELL:: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Is he prepared to admit or to state as a fact that the Maritime provinces are not entitled to extra consideration on account of the Intercolonial Railway, and does he want to tie the Liberal party down to the government ownership of railways? If he does, many Liberals are against him.

The Budget-Mr. Copp


Arthur Bliss Copp: I cannot make it any stronger than I have. The Intercolonial Railway is now a part of the great Canadian National system; it has been handed over to the board of directors headed by Sir Henry Thornton, and it should be operated entirely as a business proposition in the interests of all the people. If indirectly any sympathetic consideration should be given .to the Maritime provinces on account of their peculiar situation, I feel sure that Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors will give that phase of it the best possible attention.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If my hon. friend will
pardon me again, is he prepared to say that we are entitled only to sympathetic consideration? Does he not regard our rights in respect to the Intercolonial Railway as a condition precedent to confederation? Have we not a right not merely to sympathetic consideration but to equitable and legal consideration?


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is a matter that is entirely in the hands of the board of directors.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It is not entirely in the hands of the board of directors.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The operation of this road is entirely in the hands of the board of directors. I am prepared to meet my friends in the matter of getting anything done for the Maritime provinces that can equitably and reasonably be done. I am simply saying that I have joined with my colleagues in taking the attitude that we are not going to resort to political considerations in that connection.
I should like to just refer to the attitude I took in 1919 when this matter was before parliament, on which occasion my views were placed on Hansard and before the public. When the bill amalgamating the different sections of the Canadian National Railway system was brought down, I opposed it. I believed that the-Intercolonial Railway should have been retained as a separate entity as it was at the time of confederation, and I so emphatically expressed myself at that time. For many days the bill was before parliament, and after it went through the committee of the House and came up for third reading I moved an amendment that the bill should not then pass but should be referred back and be amended so that the Intercolonial Railway should not form part of the Canadian National Railway system, but should remain as a separate entity. These were my remarks:
I register my protest against the Intercolonial being linked up to the Canadian Northern Railway system and the supplanting of the Intercolonial railway employees who have spent half a lifetime on this road, know the operations and are just as capable of occupying prominent railway positions in this country and fulfilling the duties appertaining to them as any person brought in from the outside. The employees of the old Intercolonial railway throughout the Maritime provinces are being supplanted by other employees who are* not any more capable, but are, if anything, less capable, than the men who have occupied prominent positions on that road. I have no word to say against those who will manage the Canadian National Railways system or the Canadian Northern Railway. I do not know what their success may be. I trust it will be of the very best. I have nothing to say against the government for passing this measure and operating the Canadian Northern Railway, as it has been forced upon them. But I do protest against the amalgamation of the Intercolonial Railway with that system. It never was the intention at the time of Confederation that we should be linked up with that system and operated as a company road.
I placed myself clearly on record on that occasion, but my amendment was not accepted by the government of the day and as a result the Intercolonial Railway became a part of the Canadian National Railway system and so remains at the present time.


Mr. BAXTER:: May I ask a question? If
these are the minister's views, why does he not take the railway out, now that he is in power, and put it back where it was?


Lewis Herbert Martell: That is what I say.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Intercolonial was made
part of the Canadian National Railway system by our opponents; it was placed there and left there and is now in charge of the Canadian National Railway Board. When this matter was under consideration the Liberal party opposed the taking over of some of the systems, but I believe a large number of the people to-day, if not the majority of them, are in favour of publicly owned and operated railways and the Canadian National Railway system as at present operated. At the first session of parliament after the Liberal party came into power we told the people that we were going to give the Canadian National Railways and public ownership a fair chance -and we are doing so-by not interfering in any way with the board of directors appointed to carry on the work.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: May I ask another question? Has the hon. minister changed his mind and come to the conclusion that the policy of the old one was the correct one?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would ask my hon. friend
if he has changed his mind in regard to the operation of this railway.



The Budget-Mr. Copp


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Yes.
Mr.' COPP:	My hon. friend, while he was
not then a member of this House, was a member of the Conservative party at the time they passed the act taking over the Grand Trunk; in fact he has been a v.ery influential member of the Conservative party ever since I have known him. My hon. friend now condemns the taking over of the Grand Trunk railway because of the fact that it is being operated, as he thinks, against the pprt of St. John, in favour of Portland, Maine. Well, my hon. friend supported his party at that time, and he was a candidate in the general election of 1921, and I would ask him if during his election campaign in 1921 he condemned the Conservative government for passing the legislation taking over the Grand Trunk. I submit that my hon. friend did not take that stand at that time. What did he say? I have here the remarks which he made on this subject during the session of 1922, when he found himself in opposition. It is all very well, Mr. Speaker, for hon. gentlemen to go around this country making speeches that will appeal to popular sentiment in their constituencies, but here we have on record what my hon. friend said in this parliament, namely, that his party when in power took over the Grand Trunk against the bitter opposition of the Liberal party at that time, because we found export freight going to Portland that we hoped would be carried to the maritime ports of St. John and Halifax. My hon. friend says that we should get clear of the Grand Trunk after we have acquired it. But what should we do with it?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I did not say that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Let me read what my hon.
friend said in the session of 1922. I am quoting from Hansard of that year, page 104:
In dealing with the railways I want to deal with something that is of peculiar interest to part of the Maritime provinces. I believe that in what I am about to say I shall have the wholehearted sympathy and,
I trust, the support of my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) and also of every other member from New Brunswick who sits on your right, Mr. Speaker. During the campaign a very strenuous attack was made upon the then government party for its alleged actions with regard to the harbour of Portland, Maine.
I felt, in fact I knew, that the newspaper allegations were not based upon facts. I want to say to my hon. friends that the problem now is theirs, a problem which otherwise the preceding government must have faced. From the standpoint of the city of St. John, where millions of the money of the taxpayers of that city had been expended, as well as many other millions of the money of the Dominion of Canada, for the provisions of wharves and railway facilities, I say that the time has come to do our business through Canadian ports; and if we are to have the obligation upon us of a vast railway system, we should at all events get for Canadian ports, and for no other than

Canadian ports, every pound of freight and every passenger that that system of railways can carry. When the hon. Minister of Railways does deal with this subject in the House, I trust we shall have an assurance that this government will practically cut off the connection between Montreal and Portland, Maine, and will divert the traffic to our two great winter ports-ports that are fairly well equipped but will stand better equipping yet-the ports of Halifax and St. John. I would not like the government to think that there is any rivalry between our Atlantic seaboard ports in regard to this question. Our true position is to insist here with all the power at the command of every one of us from the Maritime provinces that Canadian trade, as was said by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, shall flow through Canadian channels; and to ensure this we must develop not only the ports of Halifax and St. John, but, in time, other ports in these provinces, to take care of the immense trade which this country will produce. But when this system of railways is co-ordinated we must not continue to utilize an outlet in the country to the south of us to the detriment of our own ports.
We must cut off this connection, my hon. friend says. Now where would he cut it off? The Conservative party took over the Grand Trunk, and took it over not with the consent of the Liberal party, but against the absolute opposition of the Liberal party of that day, and this is another matter that we have on record. We had a very long debate over the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway in which I took part, and perhaps I may be pardoned for placing again on Hansard what I said with regard to it:
May I be permitted for just a moment to refer to the effect that this proposition will have upon the ocean ports of the Maritime provinces? I may be accused of being sectional, but I am not prepared to accept that responsibility. We of the Maritime provinces are possibly somewhat jealous of the few little favours that we have received from the government during the fifty years of Confederation. We have in the Maritime provinces two great natural ports in particular of which we are very proud, and which we hope to maintain and develop as we believe they ought to be maintained and developed. A few evenings ago the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) referred to this matter, and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) asked him a question in regard to the operation of this road and as to the effect it would have. The answer made by the Minister of Railways was that in the operation of this system we must get the very best railway operating men possible, it does not matter where they come from, and this railway must be operated along business lines without political or other interference. That being so, if this system is to be operated in a business way by business men, by railway operators of wide knowledge and experience, what conclusion must we arrive at? If I may be allowed to repeat the illustration again, if it is going to cost more to take freight originating in any portion of the western country and coming down to Montreal, to Halifax for shipment from that port than to Portland, what must the business railway operating men say? They will say: We cannot take it to Halifax, we will take it to Portland because that is a shorter haul and the cost will be less. That being so, the ocean ports of the Maritime provinces must necessarily lose a large volume of the business, and the money expended by the government in the development of those ports to date must be to a large extent rendered unnecessary as

The Budget-Mr. Copp
they will not be used, and those ports will suffer as a consequence. I realize that the operation of this road through American territory must of necessity draw trade away from the ports of the Maritime provinces, and we shall find our products and our ocean traffic going through foreign country channels by the operation of this road, according to the statement of my hon. friend.
That is the stand I took upon that occasion in regard to taking over the Grand Trunk. If the Grand Trunk had not been taken over, this question of the port through which the export freight of the West would go would not have been raised; but to-day it is a serious question for the people of the Maritime provinces and for the ports of St. John and Halifax, on which a large amount of money has been expended for development. The freight going over the Canadian National railways to the port of St. John to-day is practically nil. I hope that before very long this matter can be taken up and remedied. My hon. friend says that we must get clear of this outlet to Portland. Well, we have the road and it must be operated, but I have hope and very great confidence that after this matter has been given some study some reasonable arrangement can be made whereby a portion of the export freight from the western prairies will be brought down to maritime province ports. We had the very great pleasure a few weeks ago of having a number of the Progressive members, whom I see before me now, visit the Maritime provinces. They spent some time at Halifax and St. John looking over these ports, and I am sure they realize the splendid facilities we have there for the shipment of grain. Now, a question has arisen between the people of the Maritime provinces and the Board of Management of the Canadian National Railway system. Some people in the Maritime provinces say, and they think they are right, that the Canadian National Railways have a right to route grain just as they like. On the other hand, the argument is made that it is the right entirely of the shipper to say how his grain shall lbe routed, whether it is for export or for some local destination. But we shall never get anywhere by sitting down and grouching about this thing, that and the other.
The thing for the people of the Maritime provinces, for whom I have every sympathy and consideration, to do to-day, is to look into this question from a business standpoint. I think it would be wise on their part to choose a business committee who would do for the Maritime provinces what the Chamber of Commerce and Board of Trade of Port-125i
land, Maine, did for that city last year.
I have every confidence that if such a committee were appointed and went to the West and explained the situation of the Maritime provinces to the people there, that a thorough understanding could be reached of the problems confronting both East and West, and the difficulties under which the respective communities labour. By a full understanding of the situation on the part of each, a solution of the existing difficulties could be worked out which would be beneficial to both the East and the West, and to the country as a whole. To represent Sir Henry Thornton as absolutely unsympathetic to the Maritime provinces is unjust; I have not found him to be so, and I hope it is not the case. I cannot for one moment believe that a man of his great reputation and experience would consider operating the National Railway system in any other manner than in t!: ~ best interests of the country as a whole, lor many years . certain railways that compose that system were a burden to the people; but judging from the financial results of the last year or two there is reason to hope that that era will soon be over, and that in the near future the greatest benefit to the Dominion will flow from the operations of the National Railway system. The railway question is a big question and considerable time might be occupied in discussing it.
I have already talked too long or I would deal to some extent with the question of freight rates which has aroused considerable attention in the public mind. It costs considerable money to operate the National Railway system of Canada. It is a magnificent system, and ultimately may prove to be a big asset to the country, but it is costing the taxpayers of Canada a great deal of money We would all like to see a lowering of the freight rates. It is sometimes argued that if the rates are lowered the volume of traffic would be larger and the receipts would be considerably augmented. That is a question that remains to be settled but I can say from my own experience that the people from any section of Canada will be courteously and fairly treated in any representations they may make to Sir Henry Thornton, and their views *will receive the most businesslike consideration. Any suggestions I make in this matter are not advanced in any spirit of criticism: I simply desire to say that if the people of any section of the Dominion have grievances, either real or fancied, it is their duty to place those grievances before the board of management and to endeavour to have their difficulties adjusted.
The Budget-Mr. Copp

Let us try and realize that we are people of a common country with a great future before it. Let the people of the East try to understand the people of the West, and let those in the West try to get the viewpoint of eastern people. By doing that we shall be pursuing a course that is likely to yield a solution of our difficulties. One way to understand the western situation is to visit the West and talk to the people there. I paid a visit myself to the West and that formed the subject of some misrepresentation on the part of the leader of the opposition which, I may say, is his strong suit. It was represented that I journeyed to the West in a private car. I did not, I went in the ordinary way and had a good time. I met the people of the West and by personal observation realized what they were struggling against. The western people should also endeavour to familiarize themselves with the conditions in the East. If both sections of the country better understood each other's problems they would be better able to co-operate in developing this country in the future than they have been in the past.
In conclusion, I sincerely trust that the people of the Maritime provinces will abandon the policy of abusing each other, or abusing Sir Henry Thornton. I trust they will come to the conclusion, so far as the latter gentleman is concerned, that he is engaged in doing what he can, not only in the interests of the National Railways but for the benefit of the country as a whole. I believe that Sir Henry Thornton is just as friendly and sympathetic towards the Maritime provinces as he is towards any other part of the Dominion. Finally let me say that if we discuss our problems in the spirit which I have indicated there can be no doubt but that we shall arrive at conclusions which will be not only beneficial to the Maritime provinces but will be fraught with the greatest good to Canada as a whole.


Leon Johnson Ladner: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Leon Johnson Ladner: An hon. gentleman on my left says, "hear, hear." I have no doubt he was one of those hon. members supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). I submit, in opposition to the argument of the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) that we should look at the historical facts. If we
5 p.m. look at the United States in its prosperity, we must know that there are reasons for that' prosperity and for the advancement which the United States has made. The northern and southern halves of the North American continent are somewhat similar, in geographical area, in natural resources, in physical configuration, and in nearly every way. The two countries were discovered about the same time. The settlement of the United States took place perhaps a little earlier than that of Canada, but what do we find? The United States is a great, powerful and prosperous nation, with 110,000,000 population, while Canada contains only
9,000,000 people, not prosperous; and there are not so many people coming into Canada as are leaving it. While the United States are putting up barriers and trying to devise ways and means to prevent people coming into that country, Canada is spending her thousands of dollars in Europe endeavouring to induce people to come here. I ask why does that state of things exist? Why are people rushing to the. United States, and why can they not be induced to come to Canada? My contention is that it is because the United States some 60 or 70 years ago adopted a protective tariff, and although her prices may be theoretically high-yet in fact they are not and I will prove that. The standard of living and the wages people are able to earn there are sufficiently high to cause people in other countries, where the standard is lower, to go to the States to seek the comforts and the benefits of that new country. There was no other cause or reason why the people of Italy, France, Germany, Britain, and all other countries in Europe should leave their homes, their shores, their race, their traditions and their country to go to the United States,
The Budget-Mr. Ladner

those three years had increased 17 per cent;
100,000	more people were employed, factories were working full time; wages increased between 5 per cent and 35 per cent and 10,000,000 bushels of grain were consumed in the first two years of protection more than in the last two years of free trade and low tariffs. To show with what care the data was secured, .Sir Leonard Tilley informed the House that he had instructed his investigators to "get data that could not be shaken by any statement of fact that could be produced in the House." Farming conditions were much improved and the -farmers' home market was greatly increased. A prominent Liberal manufacturer named Green was asked the question:
If wages were high how could the price of commodities be low?
This was the manufacturer's reply:
Now we have doubled our production we have orders ahead, our expenses of management have not increased, and we can sell at lower prices than we could before.
Looking at the improved conditions from the standpoint of the farmer, the labourer and the mechanic, we find-and these are actual authoritative figures which can be verified at any time-all agricultural implements were from 5 to 20 per cent cheaper; for instance, ploughs were 15 per cent less; carriages which in 1871 cost $110 and in 1881 were $105 had dropped to $100; furniture of common quality was obtainable at low prices; stove castings and hardware were a little higher; wagons which sold at $64 in 1871 and $62 in 1878 had been reduced in price to $60 by 1881; boots and shoes were less, with the factory wages higher; tea was 5 or 6 cents a pound cheaper; sewing machines were $10 cheaper; the average price of woollen goods was lower than it had been for ten years prior to 1878; flannels and blankets were at as low a price as at any time within the past ten years, although the average duty on woollens had increased from 7-1 to 9 per cent; farmers' products had a better home market, higher prices being obtainable for vegetables, fruit, poultry, lamb, butter, cheese, oats and corn. In short, to use the words of Sir Leonard Tilley:
The labourer was getting higher wages, the manufacturer was making more profits, the farmer had a demand at good prices for all his products, the merchant had doubled his business, and the government's finances were in a very satisfactory condition.
Those were the results of three years' operation of the National Policy. And it is a well-known fact that in 1874 the United States raised their tariff. The mistake we have always made is that instead of keeping pace with the United States tariff duties we have

allowed ours to remain as low somtimes as half those of the United States.
This budget is the result of the importunate demand of our grain-growing farmers. In this connection it is interesting to notice how this section of our agriculturists stand in regard to the total agricultural production and wealth of the Dominion. I have collected some data from the Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics for March, issued by the Department of Agriculture. No doubt most hon. members have received their >copies. There can be no doubt that the readiness of the government to lower the tariff is actuated by pure political expediency in order to retain the support of their Progressive friends. That, of course, is their own business, but so far as the real interests of Canada are concerned, I submit the government has delivered a staggering blow to our economic life, and I shall endeavour to prove this from the data I will refer to. The gross agricultural production in Canada in 1923 was $1,342,000,000. Oi this amount the three prairie provinces Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba produced approximately $575,000,000 in general agricultural produce. The rest of Canada produced about $767,000,000. Therefore the agricultural production of the three prairie provinces constituted 36 per cent in value of the total agricultural production of the Dominion. So in effect the demand for lower tariffs comes from those responsible for 36 per cent of our total gross agricultural production only. Let us consider for a moment the total gross agricultural wealth of Canada. It is estimated in 1923 at $7,365,000,000, of which the three grain-growing provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, own $2,337,000,000, or 31 per cent. These three provinces have 22 per cent of our total population. But I submit that it is not all our agricultural producers who would insist upon lower tariffs. Many of them produce commodities which require a home market. This budget is the result of the political insistence of the graingrowing and grain exporting element of ou; farming population. But we must remembei that a considerable amount of our agricultural production is exported. The export of wheat and wheat flour from Canada for 1922-23 amounted to 280,000,000 bushels, which, according to the prices contained in this statistical pamphlet, were valued at $185,000,000. This export wheat and wheat flour amounted to 14 per cent of the total gross agricultural production, which means that the producers of that 14 per cent of the gross agricultural production of the country are dictating to the government a fiscal policy for Canada. In its

The Budget-Mr. Ladner
last analysis that is exactly what this proposition comes down to.
I would like for a few minutes to refer to the application of the budget to my own province of British Columbia. The outlook of the Pacific province is one of commercial, industrial, agricultural and mercantile development. We are a diversified province. We do not make our living entirely by growing wheat or by producing lumber or by following any one particular industry. The natural resources of British Columbia make that province eminently fitted for manufacturing and for commercial and mercantile life, and it is from that aspect that I propose to point out to the government the extent of the injury which is being inflicted by the present budget on the future prosperity of the people of that province.
In order to judge the situation rightly we must find out what the production is in these different natural resources. In 1923 British Columbia produced in agriculture 155,000,000 worth; fisheries, $20,000,000; minerals-second only to Ontario-$44,000,000; forest products, $82,000,000. It is interesting to note that British Columbia has 50 per cent of the commercial standing timber of Canada. Last year the export of lumber from British Columbia increased by 91 per cent over that of the previous year; the log scale increased 33 per cent. A very large and extensive shipping business is carried on. With respect to sea-going and coastal vessels entering and clearing from Vancouver in 1923 as compared with Montreal, the figures are as follows:
No. of vessels Total tonnage
Montreal	
13,906	14,692,000Vancouver	
26,480	14,184,000
In other words the shipping business of Vancouver is about equal to that of Montreal. British Columbia is third in the Dominion in manufacturing as regards number of plants, capital invested, production, and variety of articles produced. The figures I am about to give are taken from statistics compiled by the Department of Industries, being a department of the provincial government at Victoria. The number of articles manufactured last year was 482; number of plants, 2,718, nearly one-half being in Vancouver; number of employees,
41,000,	with a pay roll of $86,000,000 and a capital investment of $225,000,000; gross value of production, from manufacturing businesses, $258,000,000. The budget lately brought down, as worked out by the experts in the Vancouver Board of Trade and by business interests in the city-the Vancouver Board of Trade is a very large institution, comprising some two thousand members-the budget as
it relates to the industries of British Columbia, both directly and indirectly in an important way, affects 120 industries with a payroll of $43,000,000 a year, having 15,300 employees, or one-third of the wage earners of British Columbia. That is what the fiscal policy of this government means to our province; it is a stab at its industrial and commercial future, and it affects directly one-third of the pay-roll and one-third of the wage earners of that province. That is how serious it is.
In order that I may not be accused of speaking in generalities I will refer the government to a memorandum, a copy of which I believe they received, regarding the tariff changes affecting machinery and equipment manufactured in British Columbia, issued by the Metal Trades Employers' section of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, British Columbia division. There are 37 firms concerned, some being very large and important establishments, and the absurdity of the tariff reductions made by the government as affecting British Columbia is so cogently and so emphatically set forth in this memorandum that I hope that the members of the government, and especially the Acting Minister of Finance, will read it again and again. They point out that Washington and Portland, which are the western competitors in certain lines of machinery, have been obliged under the old tariff to sell their machinery in British Columbia at a higher price than the local product. Some may ask, then why object to the reductions in duty? The objection is this: You are again faced with the principle of mass production. In Washington they have a larger market to supply; they have a larger production, and if you reduce the duty a little bit it means increasing their production a great deal and by that surplus or mass production they can put their product on the British Columbia market and force the industries of that province to cease. That is exactly what is going to happen under the arrangement made in connection with the present budget. I understand that certain loggers' associations and other people interested in getting out the natural resources affected by this budget formally requested the government-and I believe they had their inspiration from some sources here-to make the reduction on these implements.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Was there no inspiration in the other case?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Well, the other case is the signed statement of business concerns which are hit by the budget, 37 of them. These are responsible people.
The Budget-Mr. Ladner


Charles A. Stewart: Are the
loggers not responsible?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I made no suggestion that they were not; I simply say that those signing this document are responsible persons. There may be two sets of responsible persons. But the data accurately worked out here shows that the small amount which would be saved the logger on certain machines would be merely a drop in the bucket so far as his financial activities and his investments are concerned. On one large machine involving some thousands of dollars the reduction in duties enables the logger to save perhaps, $200 or $300, but his investment in the business to make it successful is so large that the saving of this two or three hundred dollars will make him neither wealthy nor prosperous, but will in the end put out of business the people who are manufacturing these particular articles. The absurdity of such a policy as that must be apparent to hon. gentlemen opposite. Suppose a man built a sawmill requiring a planer. He may spend perhaps $100,000 in constructing that sawmill.


Charles A. Stewart: Has not the manufacturer of the articles my hon. friend is mentioning still the benefit of 20 per cent protection?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Protection in what?


Charles A. Stewart: Does he not get 20 per cent on those machines?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Twenty per cent, certainly, but I am endeavouring to show-


William Richard Motherwell: That is twice too high now.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The Minister of Agriculture says it is twice too high now; He is trying to do what will meet with the approval of the grain exporter; he is not so much concerned about the industries of our country as he is about getting the maximum price for his grain and in producing it as cheaply as possible. That is reasonable; nobody objects to that, but I say we must take a national view of this question, not a local or parochial view, such as was taken by the Minister of Agriculture throughout his speech the other day. We must take a broader view of it, and my contention on machinery is this: While you may save two or three hundred dollars on your planer, that is a mere drop in the bucket compared with a capital investment of $100,000 in your sawmill, and it will neither make the enterprise successful nor materially interrupt or interfere with the dividends; but by reducing the duties you put out of employment the men in British Co-
lumbia who are making the machinery. What good is there in that? These firms who are making the machinery employ people who make their homes there, and must buy lumber to build their homes, and in that way they help build up the cities and towns and make the country grow. The United States has endeavoured to keep her workmen and her business men at home by creating the economic barrier of a tariff around the country, so that Chinese and oriental labour and the cheap labour of Europe cannot flow in and compete with their own workmen. But the policy of this government is to drive from this country not only the industries, but the many thousands of people who work in them, and this budget, as I said before, affects one-third of the industries of our province.
Now I would like to read one or two extracts from this memorandum issued by the Metal Trades Employers' Section of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and sent to the government:
It might not be out of place to point out that no change is provided for in the budget in the protection afforded the Canadian manufacturers of other types of rolling stock. Evidently, Canadian railways are able to buy satisfactory equipment from Canadian car manufacturing plants, and are satisfied with the prices charged by those plants in comparison with the prices obtaining on box, flat, gondola and other cars in general use in the United States.
We therefore fail to see the justice of singling out one class of manufacturer turning out a type of equipment peculiar to the requirements of British Columbia, as has been done by the government in reducing the duty on logging cars from 30 per cent to 20 per cent.
I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, and particularly the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay),. who comes from British Columbia, what possible answer there can be to the statements contained here. Why have they killed or are killing this industry which makes a type of rolling stock peculiar to the requirements of British Columbia while at the same time they leave the great industries of this country which make cars for the railways free from tariff reductions. Where is the justice in that? It seems to be the very consummation of iniquity. This memorandum concludes with this very significant statement, and one of the members of the cabinet will be interested in this assertion contained in this memorandum, which is signed on behalf of these thirty-seven firms in Vancouver and other parts of the province:
One of the federal cabinet ministers in reply to representations made to him in this connection states that the government believes that the tariff reductions will stimulate industry in British Columbia and create a larger market for the product of the British Columbia machinery manufacturers. We are not prepared to admit that these tariff reductions will stimulate the logging, lumbering or mining industries in British Columbia to the slightest degree.

The Budget-Mr. Ladner
And that is the fact. It goes on:
As a matter of fact, American capital has in the past two years been flowing steadily into British Columb a for investment in logging, lumbering and mining enterprises. Any hesitancy we have heard expressed-
And these are business men talking, not theorists sitting in government positions.
-on the part of American investors in connection with the lumbering business has been the uncertainty of policy on the part of the provincial government in connection with strictly provincial legislation, and having nothing whatever to do with the tariff, and as stated, we do not believe that the changes which have been made on lumbering and logging equipment will have the slightest effect in stimulating the lumbering industry.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is the
cabinet minister referred to?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just to relieve my hon. friend's mind, I might say that I, as one of the ministers, have advised them of that opinion.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is it then the Minister of Public Works who is referred to in this memorandum?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Let us see how the
memorandum concludes:
It is true that the tariff reductions doubtless will stimulate the importation of American equipment for the normal number of new installations which would take place even if no change had been made in the tariff, as well as for the replacements and repairs, but that stimulation can only be at the expense and not to the benefit of British Columbia metal trades employers. The lower tariff which the government have submitted to parliament will, we believe, jeopardize the position of the numerous British Columbia plants built up under the old tariff, will disrupt their Organizations, lessen or eliminate their pay-roll entirely and ultimately react on the forcing interests who have inspired the government in bringing about this change in the tariff.
In other words not only will these industries which have been created to supply special demands in the logging and mining industries be put out of business, but logging and mining will also suffer as a result, and certainly will not benefit, as stated in this memorandum, to the slightest extent.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: Does the hon. member consider that the Canadian tariff has been high enough during the last twelve or fourteen years to satisfy the manufacturers of this country?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have been endeavouring to show, and the point I wish to make is, that our customs duties have not been high enough, that the United States have maintained a customs tariff for the last fifty-five years that is from fifty to two hundred and fifty per cent higher than ours.


John Pritchard: Why did not the
hon. member's government make the tariff
higher when they had the privilege of doing so?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The United States has
maintained a higher tariff with the result that it has 'been able to build up its industries and keep its workmen at home, and we are gradually struggling to get back to this country our workmen who have left.


John Pritchard: Why did not your
government make the tariff high enough in the ten years they were in power?


Leon Johnson Ladner: No doubt because they
encountered such a vociferous and strenuous campaign, political and otherwise, from the provinces and other portions, from the members of the present government, for instance, against any raising of the tariff. But I am not speaking for the previous government.
I am simply giving my own ideas based upon some study of the historical development and upon some examination of the statistical facts to-day, and I say that if we, the northern half of this continent, had maintained the tariff of the United States we would have approximated them in population and prosperity.


John Pritchard: If the hon. member
had had the tariff high enough to suit his purpose, does he think that would have prevented the emigration that has been going on from this country? Would we have been able to assimilate all our immigrants?


Leon Johnson Ladner: How does the hon.
gentleman explain that the United States have assimilated their immigration? We are not different from the United States, except that we have a greater area, a larger acreage in wheat, greater mineral and lumber resources; in fact, we excel her in all our natural resources.


John Pritchard: Provided you had accomplished your aim, where would you have got a market for your stuff?


Leon Johnson Ladner: We would have got a
market primarily at home, because we would have had the people to consume the produce, and in addition a situation which would have attracted capital in here. That would have enabled us to expand our industries and engage in mass production like they do in the United States, and we would have to search the world for a market for our surplus production, just as the United States is doing to-day. Instead of that, we are today the objects of the surplus production of the United States, and our own workmen are being driven from this country because cheap goods from China and Japan, where the
The Budget-Mr. Ladner

workmen work for five and ten cents a day, and from Germany and Great Britain, with their highly industrialized system, are coming into this country, and all we are doing, in the words of President McKinley, is carrying the burden and drawing the load instead of the other fellow.


John Pritchard: Does the hon. gentleman think that the Americans have succeeded in creating a satisfactory market for the farmers of the United States when so many states of the Union have practically become bankrupt in the last few years?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The great trouble with
hon. gentlemen to my left, and I have the moat kindly feelings for them, is that they make this great mistake-they look almost entirely to the interest of the farmers and grain growers rather than to the interest of the people of Canada as a whole. If the United States had adopted that policy, I mean the policy of aiding only the agricultural interest, it would not have been the country it is to-day. But it adopted a national policy and built up the United States as a self-sustaining, unifying economic entity. It now occupies such a strong position that in recent years it was able to combat the disturbing economic forces of the rest of the world, and to gain for itself the prosperity it now enjoys.


John Pritchard: I do not wish the
hon. gentleman to misunderstand me. I am just as anxious to develop Canada as he is and if we can do that by building up industries b}7 all means do it. But I cannot understand how we are going to absorb the hundreds of thousands of people who are coming to our shores in the manufacturing industry. We do not want them on the land because there we are already producing a surplus for which we cannot find a market.


Leon Johnson Ladner: With a real national
policy we should absorb them as the United States did. Then we should have a home market. We have a certain industrial development to-day and what is the result of the application of this budget and of the low tariff that we have had for a number of years past? . People have been leaving the country. It does not require many people in a community to create commercial activity; but if you take away a certain proportion of the number then there are so many less people to consume what other people produce. The policy pursued by the United States, and the figures I read a few

minutes ago demonstrated the fact, has built up that country and established a home market.


Mr. MILLAR:: Will my hon. friend explain why the American farmer is worse off than the Canadian farmer at the present time even though the United States has such a home market and has a population twelve times greater than we have.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, I think I can. There has been a surplus production on the other side of the line. In past years a great amount of land has been brought under cultivation and they have gone on increasing their production with the result that the supply has been greater than the demand. The depression which has prevailed has been world-wide and you cannot frame a policy to meet a temporary condition. In devising a policy we have to be guided by the experience of the past, and by the course pursued by other nations. We must try, as far as possible, to make our country self-dependent and self-sustaining. Of course, if hon. gentlemen do not believe in becoming a national entity, in building up Canada as a great self-sustaining country like the United States, I suppose they will carry on their activities on a free trade basis.


John Millar: What is the object of going on producing if the home market is not any good?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The people at home must live, you cannot leave them to starve. They will consume what they require, and if more is produced than is required you have a surplus and, you have low prices. But that is only a temporary condition which in time will adjust itself in accordance with the economic law of supply and demand. In the course of time people who find it unprofitable to produce at these cheap prices will find that higher prices will prevail because there will be fewer farmers producing. Having supplied the home market the producers will then be able to ship whatever surplus they have to the markets of the world'.


John Pritchard: The hon. gentleman
advocates protection on imports from the United States in order to create a home market in Canada. He says that is what has been done in the United States. But apparently the results achieved there have not been what were expected; the farmer has not got his home market.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Where do they get their food? Do we send it to them?

The Budget-Mr. Ladner
Mr. PRITCHARD. Does not the hon. gentleman know that the prices of food products are regulated by the markets of the world?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not the point. The farmers of the United States are substantially supplying the 'home market. My hon. friend will find there is not a great volume of agricultural products going into that country from the outside.


William Richard Motherwell: This is a dialogue.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would not mind if the Minister of Agriculture participated in it too. He did not say very much in his recent speech and he has the opportunity to make up for it now.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Come on in, the water is fine.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not think anything is lost by a little exchange of ideas. We get up here with prepared speeches and sometimes advocate theories that are not very wise. So it does not do a bit of harm, even in the case of members of the cabinet, for hon. gentlemen opposite to exchange views with hon. gentlemen on this side.
I have departed somewhat from my notes. However, I have covered my subject in its entirety with the exception of one question and that has to do with the boot and shoe industry in British Columbia. I have a communication from the manager of a leading concern which has been in business there for a number of years. It deals with the effect of the British preference and this is what the writer says:
Shoe workers in Great Britain only receive about half the wages that the same operators get in this country and in addition they are manufacturing their shoes from German leather and using other materials which are obtained from Germany. It is impossible for us to compete with this. We have not made any money in our manufacturing department for several years and unless things take a change for the better soon we will have to give up the manufacturing business. We are operating with about thirty-five to forty less hands than formerly and to these we can only give work four or five days a week. If the government think they are going to build up a country by cutting off the protection they are greatly mistaken. Our employees and their families and others like them will continue to drift to the States where they can get work.
There you have a business man, connected with a large manufacturing industry, writing to a member of parliament and urging him to bring before the country the conditions of that industry. A large sum of money has been invested in that industry, several scores of people are employed by it, and these men have their homes, and form a large body of consumers. The question is simply this:	Is
it in the interest of Canada that ten, twentyfive, forty or fifty cents be saved on a pair of shoes and an industry of this character destroyed? Is it to the interest of this country -as it has been held to be for many years past-to protect our industries or is it better instead of allowing for a period of temporary depression, to eliminate these industries and force the people employed in them to move to other countries? Should we not protect our industries so that we may have them here when times are bad as well as when times are good?


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Is the hon. member in favour of the British preference or would he prefer to see it abolished?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am in favour of protecting our industries, and if the British preference works against that principle then I say it should be modified accordingly, to keep it as it is would not be in the interests of this country. I do not think it is in the interests of this country. When we placed the proposal before the British people of a preference we were told it was not sound economically and they did not want it. I do not see why on a business principle we cannot regard this matter in the same light, and I believe we should. I stand for a reasonable protection and not for an arbitrary protection. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should protect those industries which exist here; give them protection in order to retain them in this country and to encourage others to come here. We should protect the industries which are indigenous to the country, those which manufacture products from the natural resources of Canada; and, contrary to the dews of the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) if we follow a policy similar to that pursued in the United States since 1828 we will find that Canada will become a prosperous and happier nation; and our children will be able to live under the British flag.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: In rising to
offer some remarks on the budget that was presented to parliament on April 10, I desire first of all to tender my sincere felicitations to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the able presentation he made to the House of the conditions of the country and the fiscal changes that are to be made to bring about, as I hope and believe, beneficial results to agriculture and the other
The Budget-Mr. Finn

pursuits akin thereto, as well as to the great industrial activities throughout Canada. The Acting Minister of Finance is to be congratulated on the lucidity of that presentation, and to be commended on the fact that so short a space of time sufficed him in which to make so important an announcement to this House; for within the four corners of his comprehensive budget there is spelt the future prosperity of this Dominion, or at all events, undoubtedly, the prosperity of the country in the coming year. I am sure that hon. gentlemen will congratulate the minister most heartily not only from this side of the House but from the ranks of those who represent the people of western Canada, the Progressives; and I am inclined to think that in the hearts even of hon. gentlemen of the official opposition there is a feeling of admiration for the acting minister. But because of party considerations those gentlemen are prevented from either congratulating the Acting Minister of Finance, or giving credit to the government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King).
I regret very much the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who, had he been able to be with us this year, would have delivered his eighteenth budget speech. I am sure that every hon. gentleman in this House, irrespective of party affiliations, will join me, as a fellow Nova Scotian with the Minister of Finance, when I say that there is no outstanding figure in Canada comparable with him to-day; nor is there any hon. gentleman in this House or outside of it, who excels him in sterling integrity and nobleness of character, and in those other fine attributes that make him the princely man that he is- the little gray man from the East. When I look back on the record of the Minister of Finance it is with a degree of pride and pleasure that I call him the son of Nova Scotia. Perhaps the first political thoughts I had I gathered from him as a young man in the city of Halifax; the political ideals I possess to-day I gleaned from him in my early life when he was the Premier of Nova Scotia. And later on in the parliament of Canada he and the late lamented chieftain of the Liberal party, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, inspired me with political principles which I hope, with God's grace, to carry with me to the grave. I hope therefore that the day is not far distant when the Minister of Finance will again meet with us in this House, if not immediately to assume the onerous duties inseparable from the administration of his department, at least to take an active interest in the gov-

emment of the country. I trust that, so far as his health will permit, he will be able to give his wise counsels to the government, to this House and to a country which he helped to make grand and great. The fiscal policy known as the Laurier-Fielding tariff, of which he was primarily the author, was instrumental in bringing about that golden era of fifteen years; and Canada's position under the influence of that policy is a sufficient answer to the carping criticisms of hon. gentlemen opposite who would have the people believe that the administration of their affairs by the Liberal party seeks to cripple industry and to undermine the foundations of our national life. During the eighteen years that the Minister of Finance has been in office his administration of the Department of Finance has been such that no criticism of the kind we have been hearing can stand. But such criticisms, I am free to confess, I do not believe are shared by all those who happen to disagree with us; they come more from some hon. gentlemen whose views are well known to this House.
Now, Sir, it is very reassuring to the country that within three years of the government succeeding to power and after a period of acute financial depression and of pronounced industrial inactivity, due to post-war conditions, the Acting Minister of Finance is able to announce a surplus of $30,000,000. Leaders in the financial and commercial world were of opinion that if we could balance our budget this year the government would be doing its full duty to the people. In a word, the budget is an indication that Canada is getting on her feet again and coming back into her stride of 1896 to 1911-a stride that would have been quickened and sustained! had the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier been returned to power to put into force the reciprocity pact, which would have given to all parts of the Dominion, but particularly to its extremities, that prosperity for which we have been waiting since 1911, that prosperity which the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) has promised the constituency that I have the honor to represent.
When the Liberal party came into power in 1896 the total revenue of the country was only $37,000,000 and there was a deficit of $300,000. Contrast that condition with what we find to-day, an estimated revenue of $396,000,000, and an estimated expenditure-after the pruning knife has been used by the Acting Minister of Finance on the estimates and the supplementaries to be brought down -of $328,000,000. When the real significance of this is brought home to the- people they

The Budget-Mr. Finn
will appreciate the wisdom of the Prime Minister and his associates in bringing down the budget, which I believe spells success for the whole nation.
We have been told by our opponents that we have not kept our promises, particularly our fiscal promises. The Prime Minister has on many occasions in this House made it clear that the platform of the Liberal party of 1919-and I had the honor of being at that convention-was a chart to guide the government in taking such a course as would best meet the diversified interest of thi3 country, commercial, agrarian and industrial. When our friends opposite charge us with lack of faith, I retort that the government has shown true statesmanship in making such fiscal adjustments as appear in the budget, without disturbing those underlying principles which govern the prosperity of all sections of the country. I remember in 1911 in the great city of Toronto-where the prayer for protection is accompanied by the prayer that they shall have nothing but eternal prohibition-I remember in 1911 when the Liberal party was appealing to the country on reciprocity the leaders of finance and industry in Toronto, who were against it, said that the keystone of the arch of reciprocity in this country was wheat. Well, Sir, if that was so, why in the budget brought down in 1919 by the then Minister of Finance, Sir Thomas White, did he put wheat and grain products, including flour, on the free list, leaving the market open to our friends to the south of us? I assert that the Conservative party were not returned to power on the policy of reducing the tariff on wheat, to the point of making it negligible. But Sir Thomas White as Minister of Finance saw the necessity of taking that course at the time, just as the Acting Minister of Finance realizes today the conditions which he must meet with his budget. The budget may not be foursquare with every utterance of our public men on the side of Liberalism, but it is four-square with the principle that the government must do what is right. And if in the past they made the mistake of promising too much, for the future they may not make so many promises but rather do what they believe to be right at the time and therefore in the interests of the country.
Now, Sir, in 1896, when that veteran of Conservatism, the late Sir Charles Tupper, was in his prime, he spoke of the awful wail that was going forth from our industries that were being crushed and annihilated by the budget of the Liberal government, and he
drew a picture of gloom and ruin that staggered the imagination of the people. But not a scintilla of evidence has been produced up to the present time to bear him out. His gloomy predictions have been repeated from time to time by the various leaders of the Conservative party who have succeeded him. But the history of this country from 1896 to 1911 completely contradicted those forebodings, and we can say confidently that the sage of the Conservative party was wrong, and with equal confidence we can say that his successors are wrong to-day.
The basic industries of this country are its very life blood. If we disregard agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing, our economic foundation must surely fall. I do not say that these basic industries alone should be the infants, the children, the youth or the men of any government, but we must admit that they and particularly agriculture, are the foundation and stepping-stones of our national success. As the great West develops and is filled with people of the type of hon. gentlemen opposite, those people will give aid to the East and the East will in its turn by its industrial development help the West, and with East and West flourishing we will have a condition to remind us of that era of prosperity to which I referred a few minutes ago.
Coming from an industrial as well as an agricultural county, from a province which follows both these activities as well as lumbering and fishing, I would be recreant in my duty, I would be untrue to my trust, did I not say here and now that the industries of this country must receive that measure of protection which is due them in order that they may survive, in order that they may grow and prosper. But they have passed the infant stage; they are old enough now to sit up and take notice and vote when occasion requires, and much as I desire to stand behind industry, I must say to them that as one of the younger men in the public life of this country it is my duty to do them justice and nothing but justice. If manufacturers availed themselves of protection in order to retain markfets and to sell their goods at reasonable prices, then protection would be all right as a barrier, but the moment they take advantage of 85, 90 or 95 per cent of that protection and add it to the selling price of their goods, they stultify themselves, they wrong the working classes, whether on the farm, in the machine shop or in the fisheries. All men have a right to live, and if we approach the fiscal problems of Canada in that spirit, if we deal with those
The Budget-Mr. Finn

problems in an open and aboveboard way, we shall go far to heal the breach between the different elements in this country and arrive at a solution of our difficulties that will bring us in the future that prosperity which I am sure every hon. member of this House desires, irrespective of party.
After all, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the budget brought down by the Acting Finance Minister and at various other budgets brought down previously, you find that during Conservative rule, under the Right Hon. Robert Laird Borden, under the present right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), as well as in the budgets brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), under the present Prime Minister practically no change was made in fiscal policy, except in 1919. It is estimated that the reductions in the tariff under the present budget will be in the vicinity of $1,000,000, the major part of the total reduction, or about $23,000,000, coming from the reduction in sales tax. What was the reduction announced by Sir Thomas White when he brought his budget down in 1919? It was about $17,000,000, and he stressed the point that in the interests of agriculture as a basic industry the cost of the implements of production should be brought down through tariff reduction, but that it was not fair to do that unless there was reduction of the tariff all round; that when you reduced the duty on the implements of production you should reduce also the duties on the raw materials entering therein. It was in 1919, then, that he said the time was not ripe. This is 1924, five years later; if the time is not ripe now it never can be, unless it is rotten; therefore this is the opportune time to bring down the reductions in tariff which will help to ameliorate the condition of the agriculturist of the West, the fisherman on the sea, the miner in the pit and the lumberman in the woods, besides doing a little for industry as well. That is the happy position of this happy governmental family and its children who play behind them on this side of the House, and if hon. gentlemen on the other side will only emulate us in our desire to carry out these fiscal reforms they may be over on this side sooner than they think.
* Next in importance to tariff as affecting industrial activities in this country is the question of transportation, whether by rail, on the ocean or on our lakes and rivers. It is necessary that transport rates shall be such as to permit the free access into the markets of our goods at fair and equitable rates. The industries of this country are interprovincial in their character. Canada's geographical posi-

tion is such that unless we are able to establish reasonable rates over our great transcontinental system we cannot hope to build strongly and well this Dominion and to keep it intact, the East with the West and the centre with us both. Let me speak more particularly for my own province of Nova Scotia-and I do so not in any selfish or sectional way, but from the point of view and in the light of facts that unless some things are done for the Maritime provinces we will begin to die more quickly than we think, but not as quickly, I hope, as some hon. gentlemen on the other side would seem to imagine.
I would like to be reminiscent for a few moments and to carry hon. gentlemen back to the early days when we in the little province of Nova Scotia were enjoying a great measure of prosperity. It was before my day and the day of many hon. members of this House, but it was a day when the hum of industry and the din of traffic were heard from one end of our peninsula to the other. But, Sir, those days seem to have passed, and in the light of what has happened we sometimes wonder whether those who opposed the entry of our province into confederation were right, in the final analysis, or were wrong. I hold in my hand an extract from the speech delivered by Sir Charles Tupper away back in the year 1860. There is no one but must admit that the Right Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, besides possessing the retrospective view, could also look into the vista of the future, and he had a vocabulary which permitted him to express in golden words, sometimes perhaps not as measured as other men's might be, that which was going to happen in the future; and in the light of experience we wonder' perhaps how he had the vision. He says:
Independently of the great Red river and Saskatchewan country lying between Canada and the Rocky mountains, between those mountains and the Pacific- an immense country now fast rising into importance- we find these five British North American provinces, with a population larger than the "old colonies" had at the time that' "the ignorance and injustice of the British government lost them,-the brightest gem of the Crown of England."
We hear, Mr. Speaker, of Imperialists; we hear of patriotism; we hear of standing by that great national unification even at the expense of our future, industrial and commercial, yet Sir Charles Tupper never lost the opportunity to hit where the hitring was good; nor did Sir John A. Macdonald refuse to do so when he brought down his National Policy, and when in reply to a question how it would affect the Motherland he said, "So much the worse for the Motherland." They stood for Canada, but when we on this side of the House attempt to make an utterance

The Budget-Mr. Finn
that we should stand behind our country first and foremost, we are branded as disloyal, we are held up to ignominy, and we are criticized to such an extent that even seme of our own followers begin to believe it after & while. But ouf first duty is to Canada. The tie that binds us to, the Motherland today is a tie of sentiment, a tie of love because of her looking towards us, and because of her protection during those many years. We have been the brightest gem in her diadem, and if that is so, then it must be that we to-day must consider first the future of Canada, and afterwards that of the Motherland and all parts of the British Empire, because she as the mother of nations is well able to look after herself, and we as one of her children are growing into nationhood, and that nationhood cannot be kept back from us; it can only make us stronger and greater, to be a bulwark behind her in the future, as she has been behind us in the pa^t.
What, in 1860, did Sir Charles Tupper say in reference to the reciprocity pact incorporated in the treaty of 1854. He said:
The Reciprocity treaty has undoubtedly largely benefited both the provinces and our American neighbours. The proposal to abrogate that treaty, although mooted in the States is not very likely to be seriously entertained by a country whose trade with the British North American colonies, has, under its influence more than trebled within four years, having risen from sixteen millions in 1850 to sixty millions in 1850; employing a tonnage of over three and a half millions of tons upon the lakes and the Atlantic coast, half of which belong to the States. The evidence that these colonies are destitute of all influence with the Imperial government lies around us in thick profusion. Never were the interests and feelings of subjects more trifled with than have been ours in a question of the most vital importance.
Away back in 1860, seven years before confederation was realized, did Sir Charles Tupper work, did he argue, did he plead for the building of the Intercolonial railway in order that interprovincial traffic might move between Upper and Lower Canada and the Maritime provinces, perhaps in a union less than the confederation we have to-day, and that is the reason why we in the Maritime provinces still hold to the principle that later under the terms of confederation, under section 145 of the British North America Act, guarantees were given us that the Intercolonial railway would be built from the city of Halifax to a .point on the St. Lawrence river, in order to open up avenues for transportation, and to give us in lieu of our coast trade relations with the United States, where our traffic was water-borne, the markets of central Canada, and of western Canada also as that country grew and developed. I submit that that section in the British North America Act 126
carried with it an inference that the rates over the. Intercolonial would be such as to permit us to get into the competitive markets of Canada, both in central Canada and in the West as that country grew and developed. That, Sir, was the keynote of our entry into confederation, and I intend a little later to deal with the question as to how far the feeling in connection with this particular subject has been met with sympathy by the governments of this country.
Sir Charles Tupper goes on to say:
The night of darkness that now enshrouds the prospects of these provinces in connection with their railway operations will be but the harbinger of a bright and glorious morning of advancement and prosperity and in a brief period we shall possess a continuous line extending from Halifax ito Windsor, opposite Detroit.
Our climate is more healthy than that of England; the fertility of the soil is unsurpassed by her; our geographical position, relative to the new world* is the same as she occupies to the old; our equally magnificent harbours presenting the same facilities for commerce; while the iron, coal and limestone-the possession of which has rendered her the great manufacturing mart of Europe-here abound to any extent in close proximity and of the most excellent quality.
Who can doubt that under these circumstances, with such a confederation as these five provinces, to which at a future day the great Red river and Saskatchewan country, now in possession of the Hudson's Bay Company, and British Columbia, will be added-as would give us the political position due to our extensive area, our resources and our intelligent population, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, would in a few years exhibit to the world a great and powerful organization, with British institutions, British sympath ies and British feelings.
When the day came for the actual bringing about of confederation, there was in our little province of Nova Scotia a champion of a cause other than that of confederation, and he was a champion worthy of his adversary's steel. It was the Hon. Joseph Howe who was being carried away from the paths that led to confederation. And when we of this new school look back at those days in the light of what has happened we wonder whether or not Mr. Howe was right in regard to certain matters. If he was, then we were wrongly forced into confederation-as was said by my hon. colleague the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black)-at a time in 1867 when the people were not permitted to vote upon the issue. That is the testimony borne to this fact by my hon. friend, and he does not belong to my school of thought or to the party to which I owe allegiance. To continue my quotation from Sir Charles Tupper:
He made much capital-
That is Mr. Howe-
-out of my failure to submit the issue to a vote of the people, claiming that they had been dragooned into

The Budget-Mr. Finn



The Budget-Mr. Finn
Thornton will do his duty by the people of Canada. I look upon him as one of the biggest assets which this country possesses. If he never directed that technical mind of his to the administration of this railway, but devoted himself to the interests of the people of Canada generally, and applied himself- possessed as he is with a wonderful personality-to the future development of this country, we would not be paying him too much when we paid him $50,000 a year. But having taken hold of the railway system and, within a little over a year, established an esprit de corps in every part of the system, he has made the men feel that the road belongs to them and to the people, and that it is their child to look after, to nurture, to develop and to work for. Under these circumstances the road1 cannot fail; no more can Sir Henry Thornton fail.
I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the Canadian National Railway system and its operation, that the cutting down of and final obliteration of the deficit within a few years will be largely the work of that wonderful mind, of that great railway magnate, who has associated with him capable men as his assistants, to gather in the business for the railroad and to give to the people a first-class service with up-to-date equipment, modern trains and quick despatch.
These are the outstanding points in Sir Henry Thornton's management, and I think it is only fair that expressions of this kind should come from hon. members in this House; for I believe that Sir Henry Thornton's heart is in this country and with its people, and the one thing that will encourage him will be the success not only of the Canadian National system but of the people who make up our population of eight millions to-day.
I desire now to put on record a comparison of the exports from Halifax, Nova Scotia, and St. John, New Brunswick, for the years, ending March 31, 1920-24 inclusive, as to both quantity and value of wheat, flour, apples and general merchandise shipped from these ports.
I am not going to read the details of the statement, but I will submit it for publication, because it is food for thought not only for hon. gentlemen in this House but also for the people of the country who have at heart the future welfare of the port of Halifax. The figures I am about to give are interesting as showing the relationship of Halifax to its sister port of St. John, and the relationship of both these ports to the rest of Canada. And I hope that especially the two hon. gentlemen who occupy seats in this House representing St. John, as well as other hon. gentlemen from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, will take the facts into consideration. I find that during the five years referred to the total quantity of wheat exported from St. John was 48,792,175 bushels and from the port of Halifax 2,861,612, leaving a balance in favour of St. John of 45,930,563. The value of general merchandise exported from St. John during the period 1920-24 inclusive was $229,082,492, while the value of the general merchandise exported from the port of Halifax during the same period was $116,883,558. This, it will be seen, leaves a balance in trade value in favour of St. John of $112,198,934. Now, the total value of exports from St. John during these years was $354,214,082, and the total value of exports from Halifax amounted to $173,255,633; or a trade balance in favour of St. John to the extent of $180,958,449.
I come now to the export of wheat for the four >ears prior to 1920, that is to say, for the period 1915-19. I have not given this period in conjunction with the figures I have just quoted, because I have not the value of the products for these years. I find however that in 1915 we exported 588,657 bushels of wheat from Halifax whereas there was exported from St. John 5,966,542. Lesser amounts for Halifax in the four succeeding years total 5,161,818 bushels as against a total from St. John of 40,749,860. In other words, there was a balance during those four years in favour of St. John of 35,588,042 bushels.

Comparison of Exports from Halifax, N.S. and St. John, N.B., for the ^ears ended March 31, 1920 to 1924 Inclusive Quantity and Value of Wheat, Flour, Apples and General Merchandise Exported
1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	ValueBush.	$	Bush.	$	Bush.	$	Bush.	$	Bush.	$2,662,068	6,555,626	199,084	516,548	Nil	Nil	300	516	160	248St. John, " 	13,338,174	34,674,844	7,877,996	19,183,805	6,659,747	9,596,018	9,513,392	12,023,083	11,402,896	12,954,621Bbls.	Bbls.	Bbls.	Bbls.	Bbls.	565,102	6,109,146	669,242	7,912,233	569,695	4,781,602	567,001	3,974,688	597,289	3,983,796925,983	9,762,494	687,123	7,059,296	749,674	5.297,623	1,066,368	6,268,438	1,313,309	6,994,959486,739	2,435,532	869,855	5,006,492	1,131,132	4,988,433	1,096,560	4,652,195	1,273,824	5,455,02020,599	140,552	82,325	621,565	30,736	220,209	28,818	147,813	41,249	186,27038 025,980	22,450,121	14,737,004	20,640,002	21,030,45167,386,041	54,273,340	34,337,605	36,281,240	36,804,266111,963,931	81,138,006	49,451,455	54,720,574	56,940,11653,126,284	35,885,394	24,507,039	29,267,401	30,469,515
Balance of trade in favour of St. John		58,837,647		45,252,612		24,944,416		25,453,173		26,470,601
St. John, Total Export of Wheat	 48,792,175 Bushels
Halifax, "	"	
2,861,612	"Balance of wheat export in favour of St. John-	45,930,563	"
Value General Merchandise exported St. John, 1920-24
inclusive	$ 229,082,492
Value General Merchandise exported Halifax, 1920-24
inclusive	 116,883,558
Balance in favour St. John	$ 112,198,934
The Budget-Mr. Finn

but little to show for that expenditure in the Maritime provinces it may help you to realize our position. All we have to show is the Intercolonial, and the Halifax and Southwestern railway from Halifax to Yarmouth. The province of Nova Scotia put into that road $6,400 a mile and we never got a dollar of it back when the road was handed over and made a part of the Canadian National system. The same with the railway in Inverness county towards the construction of which contributions were made by the municipalities concerned. The same with the line running down through Richmond county to St. Peters. When, as a Maritime province member for Nova Scotia, I attend the Railway committee and look at the railway map of Canada and see roads that are projected for the future in our Canadian West-almost paralleling in some cases lines already built, so that they will run within a few miles of each other-and' when we are willing, in order to promote the development of that country and its future and the prosperity of its people, to share according to population the cost of that railway extension, surely we are not asking too much that any small measure of deficit that may possibly come through the reduction of rates in order to give us what we are entitled and enable us to take our place in the industrial sun of this country should be met, surely we are not asking too much but only that which is our right in all justice, and it must be conceded that we have complained less in a substantial way than any other part of Canada with respect to the vexed question of railway rates.
Now, Sir, the Crowsnest pass agreement went into effect and the result was that the arbitraries in the West are, 25 cents-new and 20 cents-old. That is west of Port Arthur. The fifth class is 12, and the old rate was
10.	I want to be fair to the Railway Commission, to the government and to parliament, and to say that the rates west of Port Arthur, and the arbitraries that bore no relation to the local rate, are fair and equitable. They were adjusted and we have no complaint to make on that score. It is only with reference to the arbitraries over Montreal and west and east of Port Arthur and Fort William that we complain. Under the Crownest pass agreement it was estimated by the Railway Commission that the reduction in railway rates was equal to 30 per cent. Under that agreement these rates only apply to traffic moving from west to east because when the agreement was entered into there was no Panama canal, there was no movement of eastern grain-that is from the eastern boundary of Alberta-westward to Vancouver and down through the Panama 
canal to the markets of the world. But immediately that route was opened up the western farmer, the grain grower, the boards of trade, and the provincial governments made representations to the federal government and to the Railway Commission and as a result in July, 1922, the rate on western bound traffic that did not come under the Crowsnest pass agreement as to grain and grain products was decreased 20 per cent. An appeal was taken to the Governor in Council. That appeal was sent back to the Railway Commission, and on the 10th October, 1923, a further reduction on western bound traffic was made of 10 per cent. To-day traffic moving west of Fort William and Port Arthur to the port of Vancouver over the Canadian Pacific Railway, and bound through the Panama canal enjoys a reduction of 30 per cent while we in the East had to be satisfied with over 100 per cent increase in the arbitrary, and had to be satisfied, until the other day when the National Railways brought down a new schedule of rates, which came into effect on the 14th day of April. There are shown below the 1st and 5th class rates as in effect before and since the recent reduction made effective with respect to rates between Ontario points and the Maritime provinces on April 14th last:
Classes in cents per 100 lbs
Old	New	Old	NewFrom To	1st	1st	5th	5thMontreal, Que.. .	112	112	61*	55*Toronto, Ont.. ..	144	125*	72	63Sydney, N.S. Hamilton, Ont.. ..	147*	130	74	65London, Ont	162	144	81*	72Windsor, Ont.. ..	169	150*	84*	75*Montreal, Que.. ..	108	104	54	52*Toronto, Ont.. ..	130	119	65	59*Halifax, N.S. Hamilton, Ont. ..	133	122	66*	61* 'London, Ont	147*	137	74	68Windsor, Ont.. ..	155	144	77*	72The following are the	distances	between	Winnipeg and tidewater	via	the	Canadian	
National and Canadian Pacific Railways. Canadian National Railways
Winn ipeg-Hali fax	
1993	milesWinnipeg-St. John	
1830	milesWinnipeg-Quebec	
1352	miles
The above mileages are figured via the shortest route which is over the Transcontinental line.
Canadian National Railways Winnipeg-Portland via Nakina, Longue lac North
Bay, Ottawa and St. Henri.. .. ,. .. 1651 miles. Canadian Pacific Railways
Winnipeg-St. John	 18S4 miles
I submit that this is not a perceptible reduction, because it was held throughout
Canada that the 7 per cent reduction that was made by the Railway Commission after the Crowsnest pass agreement was put into

The Budget-Mr. Finn
effect was not appreciable; and if 7 per cent was not appreciable, I think that the rates I have quoted here to-night are far from being appreciable, and the only redress we have, so far as the traffic department of the Canadian National system is concerned, now that these rates are filed, is to go to the Railway Commission. It will be the duty of the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to do the same as the province of British Columbia did, namely to apply for a hearing before the Railway Commission and obtain redress from them. If we fail to obtain that redress then we will have to appeal to the Governor in Council to see that justice is done Maritime industries. We will expect the same treatment from the government for the industries of the Maritime provinces as was extended to agriculture in the West during these past two years. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government will hearken to the fair demands of the provinces by the sea, and, that the Railway Commission will also listen to these demands, and perhaps it will not necessitate an appeal, in the final analysis, to the Governor in Council.
In the Maritime provinces we have been waiting a long while. Over a year ago I suggested to the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island that these three provinces should ge't together and should pay, if necessary, $10,000 to $15,000 a year, during the years in which it will be necessary, to get a first-class railway expert to come to Ottawa, to confer with the Maritime province members, irrespective of party affiliations, and to intelligently advise in order to establish the inequalities existing in the rates from the Maritime provinces to Montreal and.to the West and the western rates. In summer this expert should be at Moncton, which is a central point to the three Maritime provinces. In that way I think we could have united and intelligent action, in order to secure the removal of these inequalities. If proper representations were made on the advice of the technical officer, I think the result would be satisfactory. That has not yet been done, Sir, but I would urge that it be done immediately, because there never was a time when united action on the part of the Maritime provinces was more necessary than the present. We are now given the opportunity, by the filing of these rates, to take the matter up, under the Railway Act of Canada, with the Board of Railway Commissioners, and finally with the government if it becomes necessary so to do.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Do I understand the
Board of Railway Commissioners has any jurisdiction over Canadian National rates?


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Board
of Railway Commissioners has jurisdiction over the Canadian National Railway rates.
But it has no jurisdiction-and perhaps the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) was thinking of this-over the question of the building of branch lines and their location. That power is withheld from it and vested directly in the board of management of the Canadian National Railways. The point raised by my hon. friend comes to me more clearly, because it was raised by myself some time ago, and by the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), when wye were arguing before the Railway Commission two or three years ago that the Intercolonial was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, because it was not under the Railway Act of Canada. The point was that the board of management of the Canadian National system was the board of management of the Intercolonial railway; but the moment the Intercolonial was put within the National Railway system by order in council, then the Railway Act applied, and that railway became subject as to rates, to the Railway Commission either on application or of their own motion. These rates have been filed by the board of management of the Canadian National Railways under the Railway Act with the Railway Commission, and are there to-day.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: They have been filed?


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes, and the railway is subject to the Railway Commission of Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, a question was asked in this House, either on .the order paper or verbally, by the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), in connection with the cost of operation of the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railway system, and the central region of that system, and if my memory serves me aright the relationship was 82 to 1.23. The Intercolonial, with its branch lines, as you might call them, in the Maritime provinces up to Riviere du Loup is what is called the Atlantic region, and it was estimated by the technical 10 p.m. officers in that branch of the service that it cost $1.23 to earn $1.00, and that it only cost 82 cents in the central region to earn $1.00.
I do not think that the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) wanted to be unfair, but it seems to me that his comparison was unfortunate. If he does not know I will tell him that the railway from Riviere du
The Budget-Mr. Finn

Loup to Montreal is the best paying section of the Intercolonial, and has the easiest grades, as well as a large traffic. Its receipts go to swell the central region fund, thus helping to reduce the cost of operations of that region. The traffic originating in the Maritime provinces for Montreal and which should be credited to the Atlantic region arising as it does either from industry in those provinces or from imports through the port of Halifax and St. John, goes instead to the credit of the central region; it is not credited to the Intercolonial. Moreover, freight accumulating at Montreal for the Maritime provinces, either purchased by our people or directed to be sent to our ports, is undoubtedly traffic which in all equity should be credited to the Intercolonial railway in the Atlantic region. But this is not done. Indeed, I find that the traffic over the Central Vermont down to Portland and New London is also credited to the central region; and the traffic on the Grand Trunk form Chicago to Portland through Montreal and, as well, down to New London, is likewise credited to the central region. So that the earnings of one of the best paying pieces of railway in Canada and the United States, the Grand Trunk from 'Chicago east in American territory, which has a considerable earning capacity and a great surplus, are all credited to the central region which has its headquarters in Toronto and radiates east and west, north and south. Yet the ex-Minister of Finance, coming from the province of Ontario, tries and I say this advisedly, to throw cold water upon any attempt that is made to secure a reduction in rates for the Maritime provinces, endeavouring to make out that it costs SI.23 to earn $1.00 in the Atlantic region as compared with a cost of 83 cents in the central region, notwithstanding that the central region takes to its credit all the earnings of the best paying pieces of the Atlantic roads, including all the traffic that originates in the city of Montreal and that which goes from the Maritime provinces west.	This I say is
absolutely unfair. At least, the Intercolonial railway should be credited with the earnings in connection with freight that originates in and destined for the Atlantic region.
I had not the pleasure of hearing the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) deliver his maiden speech in this House when he spoke on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I was unfortunately compelled to go south owing to ill health; I went early in January, returning in March and therefore missed practically the whole of the hon. gentleman's speech. However, I have since had the

pleasure of reading it. My hon. friend in his
opening remarks expressed his felicitations with reference to the announcements of His Excellency; extended his sympathy to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the late Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin); and also complimented the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). After that introduction he entered upon a discussion of the position of Nova Scotia, dealing with her present conditions and her future prospects. With a great many of the statements of the hon. gentleman I am heartily in accord; but there are some things that he said which I think might better have been left unsaid. I do not think it came with very good grace from the hon. gentleman on his debut in parliament to try to convey the impression to the people that all the patriotism and all the national spirit was embodied in members of his own party, while hon. members on this side of the House were if anything devoid of all national sentiment. Perhaps before I conclude I may be able to convince my hon. friend that when it comes to practical loyalty and real national spirit we on this side have our full share, whereas some hon. gentlemen opposite, including my hon. friend himself, may be considered as being rather deficient in this respect. The hon. gentleman says:
It is true that for many years past, I have given allegiance to the Conservative party.
From which we may gather that he has ceased to give that allegiance. If he has, he should not be where he is; if he has not, he should not have said what he did say.
I believed in the principles of that party; I believed in confederation; I believed in the wisdom of uniting the British communities of North America in one Dominion. I believed in the National Policy, and I believed that never was national decision more wisely made than when at the outbreak of the Great War, Canada's government of the day placed itself and the country unreservedly on the side of those who sought to repel German aggression.
The government led by the right hon. leader of the opposition followed the Union government, and its brief tenure of office reminds me of the young Irishman who when about to be sentenced to be hanged was asked if he had anything to say. He replied, "Yes, I am only eighteen years of age and about to die. So soon I am done for, I wonder what I was begun for." When my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition soliloquizes on his short term of office he may well say, "So soon I was done for, I wonder what I was begun for." I do not wish to do the hon. member for Halifax an injustice, but it seems to me he desires to .revive the controversy which divided the people during .the war. There were differences of opinion at that time

The Budget-Mr. Finn
on the question at issue. To me those differences are now a closed book. The future of our country lies with us who are marching together, forgetting the past, taking care of the present, and looking to the future. My hon. friend goes on to speak of the platform of 1919, and he used language that on reflection I do not think he would now repeat in this House. At any other time it might be excused, but not when the right hon. Minister of Finance is ill here in Ottawa after having given fourteen years of his life to the province of Nova Scotia, twelve as premier, and eighteen years to the Dominion, as Minister of Finance, fifteen years under Sir Wilfrid Laurier and three years under our present leader. In view of his splendid record and his outstanding personality, I feel certain that my hon. friend would think a second time before he again uttered these words.
I ask were the commitments made in solemn convention in Ottawa in 1919 adhered to? Indeed, it is notorious that they were not. They have been more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and the breach has been repeatedly and cynically condoned by the Prime Minister himself and by the hon. Minister of Finance who, laughing in his sleeve at what he thinks is the guillibiliity of the electorate, advances his unworthy view that platforms are only useful to attain power. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a too low and debasing plane on which to conduct public business; it is unacceptable and repugnant to our people; it will not wash.
I could have understood my hon. friend uttering such words in the heat of political debate; but I find that he had his speech written. Therefore he knew what he wrote, if he did not then he did not write it. Next he speaks of the by-election down in Cape Breton and pays some attention to the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). The hon. minister does not need any person to fight for him, he scarcely needs anybody to electioneer for him, for he is a whole political team in himself; he is a factor in this parliament and in this government; he is factor not only in Nova Scotia but in Canada, and is an outstanding public man whose word is listened to 'and believed. My hon. friend says that during the campaign in North Cape Breton in July last the press reported the same minister appealing to the electors of. that riding at North Sydney on July 28th as follows:
A revision of freight rates on the Canadian National railways has been prepared and is now awaiting the return of Sir Henry Thornton from the West to put them into effect. It provides for a general reduction in rates affecting local traffic between Ontario and the Maritime provinces.
My hon. friend adds:
Polling day passed, and again , the electors trusted the government.
The government had nothing to do with the revision of these rates. They were being put in effect by Mr. Dalrymple, vicepresident and traffic manager of the Canadian National system, independent of the government and of parliament, and subject only to the provisions of the Railway Act. The hon. gentleman continues:
Have any of the members of this House seen the revision of freight rates? Seven months have passed and no one in Nova Scotia is conscious of any reduction. They continue to labour under rates which Hon. E. H. Armstrong, the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, describes as "excessive freight rates choking our industrial life."
What the hon. Premier of Nova Scotia said was right. The fact that reductions in the rates to Montreal and west of Montreal to Port Arthur and Fort William were filed on Ae 14th of April is an answer to my hon. friend and a vindication of the statement made by the Minister of National Defence that these rates would be put into effect on the return of Sir Henry Thornton. So my hon. friend the junior member from Halifax was a little too previous in criticizing the Minister of National Defence. A little further on in his speech he said:
In order to get a proper setting for the picture of to-day one must recall those prosperous and self-contained conditions hinted at by the minister in those days. Ten banks were then operated and controlled in the province. To-day not one so remains. Fortunes were then being made by many different importers, exporters and shipping men, their varied activities affording generous employment to all who wished to -work.
My hon. friend is right when he says ten; I cannot recall every one of the ten, but I can recall quite a few of them. First, there was the Union Bank of Halifax, which had been doing a very good business. Who was the president of that bank? Who was the dominating influence in that bank? The late John F. Stairs, who was a Tory representative in this parliament with . T. E. Kenney, who was president of the Royal Bank of Canada. One handed it over to the Royal Bank and the other Tory, Mr. Kenney, took it. I ask my hon. friend, can he blame any gentleman on this side for that transfer of a local bank to the Royal Bank of Canada?
Now we come to the Merchants Bank of Halifax, which name was changed when it got its new charter to the Royal Bank of Canada. The late T. E. Kenney was president of that bank and later Wiley Smith, who never was in parliament but who was president of the Liberal Association-


An hon. MEMBER:: Liberal-Conservative.


Robert Emmett Finn: Liberal-Conservative Association, yes, of the city of Halifax-he would turn over in his grave if I called him a Liberal.

The Budget-Mr. Finn
So the Merchants' Bank became the Royal. They absorbed the Union Bank, the Bank of Windsor having first been absorbed by the Union through the efforts of Mr. John F. Stairs and also of Max Aitken, now Lord Beaverbrook, who made the trips up to Windsor, brought back the certificates and gave them to Mr. Stairs. My hon. friend is a local director of the Royal Bank of Canada, but all he has to do, I understand, is to deal with the question whether notes that are very small can be discounted and not sent to the head office, which is in the city of Toronto.
Now we come to another bank that carried on business in Halifax, the Halifax Banking Company. That bank was absorbed by the Bank of Commerce. Who was the president for yearn? You could not pull him out with a block and tackle, the Hon. Robie Uniacke, also one of the leading Conservatives of the city of Halifax. So my hon. friend cannot complain that any gentleman on this side from Nova Scotia or from Halifax had anything to do directly or indirectly with the transfer of that bank to the Bank of . Commerce. Then there was the Peoples' Bank of Halifax, which was absorbed by the Bank of Montreal. The president of the Peoples' Bank was Patrick O'Mullin, once a Tory candidate for the legislature of Nova Scotia, where the hon. junior member for Halifax sat for three years and then got tired, left it and stayed out until he came up here. Then came along the Bank of British North America, which was absorbed by the Bank of Montreal, and that bank has not very many of our political friends upon its board; if they are there I do not know them.
These were our great banking institutions in the province. The hon. gentleman speaks of ten: he must include the Bank of Yarmouth, which failed, and then we had in the early days, before I can recall it, the Bank of Liverpool which also failed. So we had two failures of banks in Nova Scotia, and the others were absorbed and their head offices taken from Halifax to Montreal or Toronto. By the way, the Bank of Nova Scotia, bearing the name of our native province, also had its head office in the city of Toronto, and if anyone of Liberal persuasion ever got a seat on the directorate it was only because the door must have been forced open by some providential means, not by any act on the part of the gentlemen who are the directors of that bank-Mr. George S. Campbell, who was the president, Mr. Hector Mclnnes, who sat in the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia and ran for a seat in this parliament but was defeated; the later Senator McKeen, who re-
signed his seat in favour of Sir Charles Tup-per; the present Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, Governor Grant, and last but not least a former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Laird Borden. It seemed to Liberals in Halifax that a sign should have been put up on the door of the Bank of Nova Scotia, "No Liberal need apply." These are the facts, Sir, in connection with our great banking institutions in the province of Nova Scotia. I only mention this matter because it would seem that my hon. friend had no other argument than that of trying to blame the administration or the Liberal party for the sorry condition existing in connection with those banking institutions in our province.
My hon. friend goes on to deal with Quebec statesmen and Ontario statesmen. He says:
Mr. Speaker, these things ought not so to be. These were not the prospects that were held out to Nova Scotians at the time that Ontario and Quebec statesmen were proposing that the Maritime provinces should enter a union to safeguard the defence position of the country and create a nation. When these statesmen toured the lower provinces after the Charlottetown conference, .they naturally dilated on the benefits that would follow the adoption of a plan of confederation. The politicians who attended the conferences were in favour of the adoption of their scheme, of course, but it was received coldly by the public of the province. Indeed, it has never at any time been approved by the voters.
The hon. gentleman does not even intimate, let alone press home the fact, that when these gentlemen did come down to the Maritime provinces to attend that conference in Prince Edward Island their bodyguard before, and after, on both sides and in the middle, was no less a person than the late Right Hon. Sir Charles Tupper. My hon. friend merely mentions the statesmen that came down from Upper Canada and ignores absolutely the statesman from Nova Scotia, Sir Charles Tupper, who was the back and front of the whole movement in connection with the entry of Nova Scotia into the confederation. But that is by the way; it shows the broadness and fairness of my hon. friend in dealing with great public questions that are discussed in this House. The hon. gentleman says further:
The irony of the situation to-day is that the Canadian government, through its ownership of the Grand Trunk, with its chief railway terminus at Portland, is the chief instrument through which United States ports continue to be enriched by trade from the provinces situated west of New Brunswick. The present government has gained some friends by providing lower duties under the preferential tariff when goods enter through a Canadian port, although like much of their legislation the step is faltering and incomplete.
The hon gentleman has been for years or was for years a member of the firm of Pick-ford and Black. Since the death of Mr. MAY 12, 1924
The Budget-Mr. Finn
Pickford he has become the head of that firm. He has been an outsanding steamship man in Halifax all his life and no one knows better than he does that for years Portland was the winter port of Canada under the Tory government. It was the winter port, and not by virtue of ships flying the British flag calling at a Canadian port as they do now and then going to Portland of their own accord, on their own business and in their own way-and i I is no one's else business if they do. My hon. friend knows that right up till 1896 the then government gave a subsidy running into hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Allan line to make Portland an eastern terminus and' to call at Halifax, put off the mails and go about their business. It was not until after we came into power that that subsidy was withdrawn by Mr. Fielding from the Allans and they ceased to go to Portland, and later a subsidy was given to the Canadian Pacific because they' went to a Canadian port, St. John. II my hon. friend casts aspersions on the Libeials on the ground that they made Portland the terminus he is absolutely making a statement that is faulty. I say again that all the steamships that leave the other side and come to Halifax or St. John can turn round the next day and go to Portland, and no one can stop them. Furthermore, the government of this country, Sir Henry Thornton and all his traffic officers, cannot prevent the man in Chicago or any person along the route of the Grand Trunk from shipping his goods through Portland or elsewhere as he sees fit. My hon. friend must know that if there was interference with the transit of goods on American railways through American territory by the government of Canada or by the management of the National Railways, the United States Interstate Commerce Board would immediately interfere and make it so hot for the Canadian National management that they would not know whether to take the goods off or leave them on. So my hon. friend in trying to impress the people of his native province, and particularly the people of the city of Halifax, who are naturally disappointed at the condition should not accentuate a situation that we all understand, and that we would try to ameliorate if it was possible for us to do.
My hon. friend also speaks in reference to the preferential tariff, and thinks it faulty and incomplete, but in line with the way we do thmgs on this side of the House and the way Mr. Fielding does it. I disagree with him. Mr. Fielding brought down his budget last year and he gave a further reduction of 10 per cent in the present preference, 10 per
cent of 33-1/3, or 3 1/3, and he said that that 3 1/3 would apply only to goods brought irto Canada through Canadian ports. My hon. friend is a shipping man, and he knows that if the budget had provided that the whole British preference should apply only to goods coming through Canadian ports, with no direct bne of steamers to Halifax, and with no connecting link with the Canadian National Railway system, it might so dislocate trade and interfere with the transport of goods into the markets of central and western Canada that we would have stagnation, and at once from the centre of our Canadian universe, Toronto, we would have heard a sorrowful wail that Mr. Fielding had interfered with traffic and had put a great embargo on the transport of goods into Canada. My hon. friend, as a shipping man, must know that it would not be wise to bring in such a measure as that all at once, but I agree the day is fast coming when the whole British preference should apply only to goods brought in through Canadian ports because the tendency across the line is to so treat us. They have brought in a measure whereby their Shipping Beard are going to give a differential rate on goods transported over the railways of the United States to American ports to be put in American bottoms; and that is going to boycott all ships flying the Union Jack or the Canadian flag. It is a matter in which the British government will be interested, and no doubt if it comes into effect it will be time for us to act in conjunction with the British authorities in an investigation. My hon. friend goes further and says:
"Canada," as it was called before confederation, finds a good market in Nova Scotia for its products manufactured and sold under a 10 per cent to 35 per cent tariff at correspondingly high prices, and tabes payment, not in trade, as Cartier foretold, but in cash, which Nova Scotians raise by selling their fish, potatoes, fruit, lumber and other natural products in the highly competitive markets of the world.
I wish my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) were here to hear what I have quoted. The hon. member for Halifax should vote with us on the budget as brought down because he speaks of a high tariff which only gives protection and puts the money into the pockets of the manufacturers because they will not take what we raise in trade; they want the cash earned by our hardy fishermen and other workers in the province of Nova Scotia. My hon. friend (Mr. Black) goes on to say, and this is another crack at his own party.:
Located on the circumference of a circle, Nova Scotia cannot become a factor in the Canadian industrial system because she cannot overcome the costly carrying charges to reach the centre and the other
The Budget-Mr. Finn

side of the circle in competition with the mass producers situated at the centre of the circle in Hamilton, Kitchener. Toronto, Montreal, and other cities. And her banking control, with its collateral benefits, has gone to the latter mentioned cities, absorbed, not by commerce, as Cartier prophesied, but as the result of legislative enactments imposed quite naturally by those sections who command a majority in the councils of the nation, who also naturally make the fiscal policy suited, not to the needs of the smaller provinces, but to their own.
Will the ex-Minister of Finance put that in his pipe and smoke it?


Mr. STANSELL:: Would the hon. member inform us whether he is talking in support of the budget proposals or of the amendment?


Robert Emmett Finn: Which amendment does my
hon. friend refer to, the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) and was discarded, or the amendment moved by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) ?


Mr. DOUCET:: I rise to a point of order, .Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman has been quoting for the last half hour from a speech delivered in a debate this session that has already been disposed of.


George Newcombe Gordon: I think the
point of order is well taken. The hon. member suggests that the hon. gentleman who has the floor is quoting from a debate, I believe the Address, which has already been disposed of. It would be improper, of course, for the hon. gentleman to refer to that debate by way of citation or quotation during the present debate.


Robert Emmett Finn: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that I have transgressed the rule, but the effect is as I have stated.
There is the further question of loyalty, and of building up our own ports and working out our own destiny. I would like to point out that down in the port of Halifax there is a steamship line running from Halifax to Jamaica and to San Diego in Cuba. That line of steamers, while it is not subsidized by the government of Canada, and should not be, flies, not the British or the Canadian flag, but the Swedish flag. These two ships are chartered by the firm of Pickford and Black in the city of Halifax, and are engaged in transporting goods to and from the West Indies. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Black), who is the senior member or the president of that company, is a great believer in keeping our young people within the province of Nova Scotia, in having our fishermen return to their native soil, and having our hardy sons, who make the best sailors in the world, put on Canadian ships running from our own ports.
IMr. Finn.]
My hon. friend speaks of our lack of loyalty and the failure of our province to measure up to its future success. I am going to ask how it is at all possible for us to grow and develop as a Maritime people when we see these ships running from Halifax flying the Swedish flag, ships that are chartered from Sweden-the only thing bought by the charterer being the coal-the profits made going to Sweden and into the pockets of the firm or company of Pickford and Black Limited. Actions speak louder than words.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that what the hon. gentleman is stating is absolutely incorrect. If t{ie ships are chartered they are manned by those who are willing to go to sea in them. Their supplies are bought in Halifax and they are run just as any other ships going from that port are run.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am glad to hear my hon.
friend-including his desk mate the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet)-applaud the Swedish flag. I must say, however, that the explanation of the junior member for Halifax does not satisfy me. If I were a Nova Scotian sailor I would, before I would serve under a Swedish flag with a captain sailing out of a British port down to the West Indies, go and eat salt and die of thirst.
Now my hon. friend (Mr. Black) discussed the fisheries of New Brunswick and gave out a report which, I think, does not augur well for the future of that industry. He said that according to British reports lobsters were canned in the swamps of New Brunswick, in an old bam, and were covered with swamp water. He attributed such conditions to the present Minister of Justice. When he made such a statement it was not the Minister of Justice who was swamped, but my hon. friend himself-both swamped and canned. My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax further said that in the evening of his life, he had at great sacrifice to himself, come to the Parliament of Canada to administer a shocking blow to the government and to be the instrument by which that government would be either knocked senseless or brought to a realization of what the people of the Maritime provinces and the city of Halifax expected. He said that if he did not have at heart the interest of the people he could have remained at his own fireside, where he would have enjoyed the wealth that he has accumulated and the comforts that he has surrounded himself with. I desire to say as a young man, and I am some distance yet from fifty, that I have-and I have never boasted of the fact-given eighteen of the best years of my

The Budget-Mr. Finn
life to the service of the people of my native province, to the service of the people of the city and county of Halifax, and now for the last year or so to the service of the people of Canada. In that work I have sacrificed my profession and to-day, were I not in public life, I would have to start all over again. At present I have not the time to practise my profession because it takes all my time to look after the interests of the people I have undertaken to represent. For seventeen years I have represented (them successfully and continuously in the province of Nova Scotia, and I never received from any government, directly or indirectly, one dollar for any services of mine except what I was entitled to receive by statute. I do want to say to my hon. friend, however, that during those seventeen years during which I have been working in the interest of the people he has been paying attention to his own business. I do not blame him for that, but when he wants to hold himself out as a martyr on a political cross in this country I want to tell him that he is not entitled to wear any medal. I want to say that while I am entitled to wear medals for public service he has a portion or "what jingles in the pocket" because the firm of Pickford and Black, of which he is a member, received money from the government of this country during a period of thirty years. The subsidies paid to Pickford and Black by the respective
governments of Canada	since 1893 are as
follows:	[DOT]
Canada, West Indies, South	America	$1,577,602
St. John and Demarara	 536,083
Halifax and Jamaica	 90,000
Halifax and Bermuda	 30,000
Halifax and Cuba	 41,666


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Any service given?
Mr. FINN I will come to that. My hon friend had better not be too particular about the service. I have travelled on some of these boats myself.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Did it hurt them?


Robert Emmett Finn: I will come to that. My hon.
me. The total of the subsidies I have given is $2,275,352. As to the steamers my hon. friend from Kent refers to. I went down some years ago to Bermuda in the old Alpha, I think she was about thirty years old then. The next time I saw her she was in British Columbia; she was sold in Victoria. Then there was the Beta. She had to be reconditioned and was built up like Noah's Ark. The government of Canada decided she had not the proper accommodation and that a change would have to be made.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I should like to know when my hon. friend was in Noah's Ark, what particulars he has of his experience?


Robert Emmett Finn: My knowledge of Noah's Ark is what I have read in the Bible. If my hon. friend has not read that Book lately, or has forgotten what he has read I would ask him to again read that portion of the Scriptures dealing with the Ark along with the lamentations of Jeremiah to which my hon. friend's remarks bear a resemblance.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I know the Ark was pitched within and without. I do not know how long it took to do the work but I should like my hon. friend' to tell us how to do it efficiently.


Robert Emmett Finn: It might have been pitched within and without but the only thing my hon. friend needs to look after is that at the next election he is not pitched out.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There is no danger.


William Anderson Black: I should like to ask my hon. friend if he is aware that the subsidies to Which he refers were paid to joint stock companies composed of patriotic citizens of Halifax who subscribed capital for the purchase of these boats and who included some of his Liberal friends. The money was received by these joint stock companies and not by Pickford and Black.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am satisfied with the statement of my hon. friend. I do not want to do him any injustice but I must say this:	He
participated in these profits and he could not possibly have what he has around him to-day in the way of luxuries in the city of Halifax if he had been in business for patriotic reasons or for his health. When the subsidies were withdrawn from the Pickford and Black steamships, the Royal Mail Packet Steamship Company was subsidized to run its boats to the West Indies, the subsidies were paid to Pickford and Black Limited as attorneys and agents of the Royal Mail Packet Steamship Company. Pickford1 and Black did the business for these steamers and looked after their freight. Pickford and Black stevedores were employed. The Royal Mail Packet Steamship Company received for services, through Pickford and Black, the sum of $3,175,601.77, making in all a complete subsidy of $5,450,954.49.
I would not have mentioned these things, Mr. Speaker, had I not carefully read the speech of the hon. junior member for Halifax and, which I do not think he could have read himself before delivering. I would not have made these remarks, but I think his personal allusion to that splendid financier, the

199S
. The Budget-Mr. Finn

Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance. justifies me in laying bare all facts that I believe the people of Nova Scotia should know with regard to the hon. gentleman who has the honour to have a seat in this House. Now my hon. friend wants to know also what the two members for Halifax were doing in this parliament for the last two years- that they never let a yap out of them.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: We are hearing the yaps now.


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes, quite a few yaps. I would like to say to my hon. friend that before I had the honour of a seat in this House, when I was in provincial politics and moved into a larger field, where I would be expected to assist in advancing the interests of the port of Halifax. I, as a member of the government of Nova Scotia, interested myself in and studied the freight rate question. As a result of my work-and I do not say this as a compliment to myself, but in vindication of my position which was assailed by the junior member for Halifax-I was asked by a representative delegation of forty gentlemen from the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, to accompany them and be their spokesman in the presentation of their case to the late government of which the right hon. leader of the opposition was prime minister. That delegation arrived in Ottawa, and at twelve noon on June first, 1921, we met the Prime Minister of Canada, and every member of his government I think but one. A meeting was then arranged by the then Minister of Public Works, the Hon. F. B. McCurdy, and I presented to the government the situation in reference to the Maritime provinces, both the grievance and the remedy. I may say that prior to doing that, in the legislature of Nova Scotia in the session of 1921. I moved a resolution which was seconded by the leader of the opposition then, Mr. Laurie Hall, K.C. I went up to Fredericton, and discussed with the government the advisability of securing a resolution of the same character from the legislature of New Brunswick. That resolution was drafted bv myself, discussed with them and no change was made. It was moved by the Premier of the province of New Brunswick and seconded fcv the leader of the opposition, Mr. Baxter, who now has the honour of a seat in this House. That resolution read as follows:
Now be it hereby declared to be the sense of this House of Assembly of the province of Nova Scotia that the faithful observance of the terms and conditions of the compact of confederation and a generous national spirit require that the convenience, accommodation and welfare of the people and of the in-

dustrial interests of the Maritime provinces be steadily kept in view as the primary purpose to be achieved in the administration of the Intercolonial railway:
And that such railway having been constructed to serve a special purpose should be administered upon principles adapted to affect such purpose and as a separate system, giving such advantages in freight and other rates to the people of the Maritime provinces as will afford them access to the markets of other provinces of the Dominion upon such terms as wil, admit them to a fair competition.
And that adherence to the spirit of confederation requires that such change in the administration be made at once as will remove the conditions disadvantageous to the Maritime provinces which at present exist.
That resolution was passed unanimously, as also was the resolution by the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia, in the year 1921, some three years ago. Two years before that I appeared before the Railway Commission of Canada presenting the views of the province of Nova Scotia, I was associated with the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) in representing the interests of the Maritime provinces, and I think he represented the province of New Brunswick at that time. There are just two paragraphs of my submissions to the government that I am going to read.
These, Sir, are some of the reasons that move the people and governments of the Maritime provinces tc come to you to-day and ask you to preserve our rights to allow us to participate in the great industrial development of Canada by enabling us to secure markets in central and western Canada.
And I closed by saying:
These are some of the reasons that I submit for your consideration. The matter is one which is in the heart and mind of the people of the Maritime provinces. We are a unit in this thing. We are not representing any party or any creed or any race, but are asking that the terms of confederation, which were guaranteed to us in 1867, be carried out. Thus shall we go on and work out our destiny, which I believe to be great; and I am sure the people of the Maritime provinces will appreciate any effort on your part, Mr. Premier, and the part of your government, to give to us in the Maritime provinces that which we deserve, that which is our right, and that which we intend to hold fast and tenaciously.
I am going to state what the Prime Minister, now the hon. leader of the opposition, said in reply to our presentation. He said
11 p.m. that it, opened up a new avenue to him of thought. There were some things that he had not known in the presentation which were food for thought. He said unfortunately that he had to leave immediately for England to attend the Imperial Conference, and that the thing that worried him was "to find the right and do it".
I will be fair to the leader of the opposition and will admit that he did not retain the office of Prime Minister for any length of time, so that perhaps he had not an opportunity of

The Budget-Mr. Finn
carrying out what he had undertaken to do in the statement he made. But the thing is to ascertain what is right and to proceed to have it done. That is all we ask in the Maritime provinces, and such a request is not, I think, unreasonable. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Black) rather left the impression in this House, in Nova Scotia and in my own constituency that I had sat idly by and had not pressed the claims of the city and county of Halifax. Let me say that, contrary to my doctor's instructions after a very serious operation last May, I came into the House of Commons on the night of June 29 last on crutches and at four o'clock in the morning got on my feet and raised my voice in behalf of Halifax, urging that an appropriation be voted for the elevator to which my hon. friend has referred. And who, if I may put it that way, gave me the run for my money? No less a person than the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). When the estimate was brought down for the construction of a grain elevator at Halifax amounting to $200,000-I am sorry that my hon. friend from Halifax is not now in his seat- the following debate occurred:
Mr. Meighen: The information I have is that there was an elevator there that had a little grain in it some years, and for some years none. I fancy it was burned down. Any way it is not there now. I had a return on this the other day. I think it was used substantially just once. I believe it was partly built by the railway and partly by the city. At any rate there were joint contributions. Can the hon. member tell us just what special event the government has in mind that caused it to deem it the part of wisdom to build a large elevator there?
Mr. Maclean (Halifax): I have been personally advised by two or three of the largest shipping companies using that port during the past winter, that a modern elevator of a million bushels capacity would be of great service to the port and of some use to shipping. At the present time a great deal of shipping might go to Halifax were it not for the reason that they are unable to secure grain cargoes for a portion of their carrying capacity.
Sir Henry Drayton: Could the hon. gentleman not think of something that might be useful to Halifax and at the same time would cost a little less money?
Mr. Maclean (Halifax): I am told by shipping men, business men of Halifax that this expenditure would be extremely useful to the port of Halifax. I believe that is a fact. The quantity of shipping which enters or leaves any Canadian port is largely determined by whether or not they can obtain a partial loading [DOT] of grain. That is necessary as regards the port of Halifax.
Sir Henry Drayton: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that Halifax has not handled grain for years, except during the war. When there was the grain to handle, the elevator handled it all right. But the business there is absolutely negligible and must be so as long as we have a charge for hauling grain on the railway and railway costs are heavy.
Mr. Macdonald (Pictou):	My hon. friend overlooked one thing, namely that the quantity of grain moved depends upon whether ships will be available to carry it. Contracts to carry grain are not made by the railway people themselves, and the grain broker
127}
who wants to ship to Liverpool will ship via Halifax if there are facilities and ships there to carry the grain. During the past few years merchants have not been regularly shipping to Halifax because there has not been space. Indications arc that this space will be obtained and work will come for the elevator. My hon. friend ought surely to encourage the idea that we should have facilities in our ports in winter for shipments of grain instead of sending the ships to American ports. If he wants to oppose the idea that we should have within our own boundaries and harbours facilities by which Canadian produce can be carried abroad and imports can be brought to our ports, that is a very curious policy. If he wishes to have the ships in winter going to Boston and other American ports instead of to Canadian ports, that will be the policy of my hon. friend.
Sir Henry Drayton:	My hon. friend always conveniently forgets everything he likes to forget. There is another winter port, that is neither Portland nor any other American port, and that is St. John. He also forgets that usually grain travels by the cheapest railway route.
I may say to my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, to the leader of the opposition, and to the ex-Minister of Finance, that the elevator is absolutely necessary and is going to be built; and I hope to see it in operation when navigation closes on the St. Lawrence. It has not been so far started owing to the fact that the plans drawn by the engineers of the Canadian National Railway [DOT] system and the technical engineers who were called in were beyond the requirements of the port not as to capacity-because that remains fixed-but from the point of view of machinery needed. The requirements in this respect are such that a considerable reduction can be made, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the interests of economy has ordered a revised specification. The matter has been in the hands of the Railway department and the report of the engineers will be dealt with by the minister, tenders will be * called for and the elevator will be built. My hon. friend wanted to know about the promised Dartmouth pier. I can inform him that the Dartmouth pier is already under construction, having been begun over two and a half months ago, giving employment to a good many men who were out of work. The necessary pine is being brought from the southern states and will arrive either tomorrow or the next day. When it comes construction will be started immediately and the pier will be completed to connect up Dartmouth with the Canadian National system to Windsor junction. On the completion of this work I hope that the relation that Carle-ton bears to St. John, Dartmouth will bear to Halifax, and that Dartmouth will share in the business of the port. I am looking forward to beneficial results to the town in which I was born. I have one more quotation and then
The Budget-Mr. Finn

I-am through with this phase. Speaking at four o'clock in the morning, I said:
It seems to me that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) takes a very pessimistic and gloomy view of the development of an eastern national port, namely the port of Halifax. It is equally as pessimistic a view as my hon. friend took when, as chairman of the Railway Commission, he laid down that very explicit doctrine that geographical disadvantages should not be taken into consideration in the fixing of rates. We are a part of this great confederation ; and the great leaders who have passed to the beyond held out to us in Nova Scotia and to the citizens of Halifax the promise that if the province remained in confederation Nova Scotia and Halifax would become the Atlantic frontage of the Dominion. And if my hon. friend will only go and look at the motto above the entrance to this magnificent structure, raised and reared by his government, he will see there written these words:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both East and West.
We may have the wholesome sea but wre have not the gates. But it was in the wisdom of the late Liberal Chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to foresee the future and build the Transcontinental, taking the road to Moncton as a common centre for the shipment of grain and other products of the West in winter, from Halifax and St. John. When the short line is completed from a point above Port Arthur on the Canadian National up to the Transcontinental, with easier grades and shorter mileage, the people of Halifax feel that it will be the duty of the Canadian National system to see that grain and other products of the West not routed through any other ports shall be carried to the ports of Halifax and St. John in w inter.
. If these things are not done then perhaps some of the things spoken of by a gentleman in the legislature of Nova Scotia and referred to in the press of the Maritime provinces may come to be more than mere words and cold type. I regret that the state of my health to-night forbids my entering as largely into this subject as I should like. But it is vital to the interests of Nova Scotia, it is vital to the city of Halifax, that proper attention be given this matter. I say it is vital to the city of Halifax, which Sir Charles Tupper declared would be, as a result of the *national policy, a forest of masts if that province remained true to confederation. We are spending to-day millions of money for the development of the port of Portland, and this is the result of an act of administration on the part of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in the taking over of the Grand Trunk and the terminals at Portland. This was a legacy bequeathed to the present government, who have in turn handed it over to Sir Henry Thornton and his board of management. I believe that Sir Henry Thornton is willing to do the right thing by the Maritime provinces, and my hon. friend must know that he has recommended that an elevator should be built at Halifax with a capacity of at least 750,000 tons, if not a million. It is his intention to divert to Halifax, as he has a right to do, that proportion of the grain and other products from the West that can and ought to be carried through that port. The rate to Halifax will then be the same as to St. John or Portland or New York. Montreal carries one cent less and when the differential referred to by my hon. colleague (Mr. Maclean) is removed as between St. John and Halifax, then New York, Portland, St. John and Halifax will be on a parity. There is no sound reason why Halifax should not share as a national port in the shipment of products of the West and of central Canada to the Old Country and the Mediterranean in future. These are my hopes; and I regret that my hon. friend should take

the gloomy, pessimistic view he has displayed in reference to the future of Halifax as a port. I do not share that view and I am sure that if we both live a few years longer and Halifax is gixen an opportunity he will have reason to revise his opinion and will be quite willing to help to make it what it was always intended to be, the eastern gateway, one of the national ports of Canada, in the carrying of Canadian products from the West and Central Canada to the markets of the world.
I would not have referred to this matter had not my hon. colleague from Halifax undertaken to say that I had been recreant in my duty and had failed to present the fair claims and demands of the port of Halifax and the province of Nova Scotia while a member of this House. I have pointed out that my energies, so long as I have been cognizant of the facts, have been directed to bring about an improvement of conditions and so restore prosperity at the port.
Now, a word or two in respect to the fishing industry in Nova Scotia. We have been told-not by the hon. member for Halifax-that we have lost our West Indian market. I am informed by competent authorities that:
Nova Scotia exporters to-day have a better hold on all markets than ever before in the history of the trade. American exporters have never had any profitable large export trade on dry fish, although for a period of some five or six years, say from 1913 to 1919, a large Gloucester fish concern-the Gorton-Pew Fisheries, Inc.-made a determined effort to enter the foreign dry fish markets, and during that period they were fairly large exporters. Their efforts in this respect were largely the cause of the very disastrous failure in 1919. This concern was in the hands of receivers for some three or four years, and last year was reorganized on a new basis. The writer was informed by both the receivers that had the business in hand, and by those interested in the reorganization, that it was to be their well-defined policy to steer clear of all export business except what was incidental to their other operations. Gloucester will always have a considerable quantity of fish that cannot be used for the domestic trade that has to be dried and exported. The total volume of American cured fish that is exported to foreign markets is so small that exporters in other countries hardly know that anything is going on. As a matter of fact the only place in which it is an menace is Porto Rico, which market is what is known as a consigning market, taking a large proportion of inferior qualities of fish that is shipped from Newfoundland and Canada and has to be sold on its merits, being-fish culled out from shipments made to other markets. Lunenburg however, does continue to ship the regular Lunenburg cure of codfish to Porto Rico, and is, therefore, more or less up against Gloucester competition-the Gloucester exporters having the advantage of the Fordney tariff.
It was not American competition that during the past few years made the dry fish export trade of Canada unprofitable, but the upset world conditions, chief among which was the ruinously low rate of Brazilian exchange-Brazil being one of the largest, if not the largest, market for dry fish in the world. This spring for the first time in four years the accumulation of old stqcka of fish produced in Norway, Iceland, Great Britain, Newfoundland and

The Budget-Mr. Finn
Canada have been cleaned up-I do not mention the United States as they are such a small factor that they can be overlooked-so that to-day practically all markets are in excellent shape with prices 25 per cent above those ruling a year ago.
It must be admitted that the demoralisation of the fish trade during the past three years has had a most serious affect in the Maritime provinces, as owing to the price obtainable by the fisherman it did not provide him with sufficient to pay his bills and a large number of fishermen migrated to the United States. In the province of Quebec, where we are largely interested, the fishermen sought other occupations in Canada. Twenty-five per cent advance in price means that this year every available boat on the Gasp6 coast will be put into operation. It is estimated that the number of men fishing will be again back to normal. The improved position also means that the Lunenburg fleet, instead of being only 40 to 50 vessels as predicted last autumn, will probably be between 60 and 70 vessels.
There is one unfortunate situation in regard to fishing operations which particularly pertains to the province of Nova Scotia, in that while the price of dry fish has materially advanced, the price of pickle cured codfish as produced for the boneless fish trade in the United States has gone down in value about 50 per cent per 100 pounds. This class of fish has in recent years been sold at high prices in the United States; in fact at prices that gave returns at least one-third more than if the fish had been dried. Owing to Gloucester and other operators in boneless fish having written Nova Scotia producers that they will have to lower their price this year, many Nova Scotia fishermen have become discouraged and it looks very much as if there would be a further exodus to the United States. We have recently had advice from Cape island, which was the centre of the production of pickle cured codfish, that very few boats will be fishing this year. The cause of the decrease in the value of this cure of fish is apparently due to the American public turning away from the use of salt codfish as a regular food article. We are in a position to size up the situation as we have been carrying on large operations in Portland, Maine, during the past six years, operating chiefly in boneless fish. Our output last year w'as very disappointing-only a little over half of our expectations. On a recent visit to Gloucester the head of the Gorton-Pew Company and other heads of Gloucester houses, informed me that their experience had been the same. The result is heavy over-supplies of this quality of fish at the present time. While this business seriously affects the south shore of Nova Scotia where 75 per cent of the fish caught during the past few years has been pickle cured for the boneless fish trade, the interests involved are not nearly so important as those concerned in the dry fish export trade, so that on the whole it would appear to me that conditions generally pertaining to the fish trade are in much better shape than at any time during the last four years. During the past year the great difficulty was not in marketing dry fish with a profit, but the fact that supplies in Canada and Newfoundland were very short. This owing to decrease in the number of men fishing, estimated at 25 per cent in Newfoundland and 30 per cent to 40 per cent in the Maritime provinces and the Gasp6 peninsula.
We can assure you that the dry fish exporting houses are doing their utmost to encourage the fishermen and small dealers throughout eastern Canada to as much as possible get back to ordinary fishing operations, which have always meant so much for the prosperity of the Atlantic coast. There is no doubt whatever that the production of both dry codfish and pickle cured herring, mackerel and alewives has seriously declined during the last twenty-five
years. We would say to the extent of about 25 per cent as regards dry fish and 50 per cent as regards pickled fish. We can pretty well judge of this by our own operations. Whereas in the five years previous to 1914 we handled an average of 200,000 quintals of dry fish per year, our average for the last three years has only been 150,000 quintals. While competition from the United States is negligible, there is no doubt whatever that our export fish trade is up against very severe competition from European countries, particularly Norway and Iceland. It would appear that production costs are less than with us. In regard, however, to at least part of the Canadian production, we have the advantage of producing a superior article which out-sells the Norwegian cure in Brazil and Mediterranean ports.
A movement has recently been made to start a campaign of education in connection with the various branches of the fisheries, such as the best methods of handling fresh fish, smoking fish, canning of various fish products and the introduction of the very best possible methods among the fishermen in the various fishing districts. This educational campaign is to be carried on under the direction of the Biological Board of Canada. Steps are now in progress to establish a station at Halifax, which, although it is being directed by the Biological Board, will be distinctly along educational lines. In addition to the proposals as set forth above, steps will be taken to adequately investigate the movements of fish and the putting before our fishermen the results obtained, as well as up-to-date information of the very best ii.cthuus Lhai are being used in European countries.
Mr. Speaker, we have every reason to believe that conditions will improve and that as a result our fishermen will return from the United States, and we hope ultimately to have such a development of the industry as will equal if not exceed its past greatness.
There is just one other matter that I want to place before the House. I refer to the efforts of Sir Henry Thornton in behalf of the port of Halifax. The results obtained by him are due to three causes. The steamship business at Halifax has greatly increased That has been due, first, to the fact that the 10 per cent reduction in the differential applying only through Canadian ports has brought freight from the Old Country and from foreign countries to Halifax for transportation throughout Canada; second, the differential having been removed, putting Halifax on the same basis as St. John and all other Atlantic ports, is bringing a greater tonnage of freight to Halifax; and, third, Sir Henry Thornton on taking over the presidency of the Canadian National Railway system saw to it at once that his traffic officers went to the Old Land and there went amongst those who intended to come out and settle in our country, saw that they were transported across the ocean by steamship lines that were working in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways, namely, the Cunard and White Star, and that that traffic which went to American ports in other years was brought into Halifax. During the year
The Budget-Mr. Finn

1922 ships sailing into the port of Halifax numbered 491 as against 768 in 1923.
I have the returns with respect to the port of Halifax for the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 since Sir Henry Thornton took charge of the Canadian National Railway system, and they are a matter of pride and satisfaction. The port of Halifax so far as passenger traffic and improved freight position are concerned is coming into its own. The following will show the increase in business . at the port for the season 1923-24 compared with 1922-23. The time given is during the closing of the St. Lawrence which is from November 22nd to April 22nd:
1922-23	1923-24
	No. of		No. of	
ships	Tonnage	ships	TonnageNovember 22 to 30..	.. 16	69,550	23	120,924December	.. 73	389,421	83	464,938January	.. 72	373,722	91	534.6S9February	.. 67	331.422	81	535,138March	.. 67	380,981	67	485,748April to 22nd.. ..	.. 51	324,115	65	462,854346	1,869,211	410	2,604,287
The number of passengers landed in 1922-23 was 11,242 and in 1923-24, 28,588. In other words, nearly 18,000 more immigrants were brought in in 1923-24 than in 1922-23, through the policy of Sir Henry Thornton and his traffic management, as well as the policy of the hon. Minister of Immigration and his department. I understand that the figures for this coming summer will be in excess even of these, because during the summer months-what never has happened in Halifax before-the Cunard line, the White Star line, lines from Mediterranean ports, and also the Holland-American line, have about seven sailings a week in all into Halifax, which means that large numbers of immigrants will be landed at that port and that freight will arrive there destined for various Canadian points, so that the port of Halifax will be busy this summer as never before. The ships that came into Halifax this year were of the type that never came before. The following are some of the names of the larger ships with their tonnages:
Tons
Belgenland	 27,200
Empress of	Scotland	
25,037Empress of	Canada	
21,211Minnawaska	
21,400Laconia	
19,670Samaria	
19,602Andania	
18,950Lapland	
18,565New Amsterdam	
17,149Tuscania	
16,700Doric	
16,600Cameronia	
16,288Lancastra	
16,243Veedham	
15,450
iMr. Finn.]
These are ships of perhaps the greatest tonnage sailing from New York and from Liverpool and Southampton on the other side, calling at the port of Halifax, landing thousands of immigrants, giving employment to our stevedores, bringing freight that has to be handled leaving at the port thousands of dollars for provisions and supplies. With that outlook for the port of Halifax I do not think we need be very pessimistic for the future, so long as Sir Henry Thornton is permitted, to occupy the presidency of the Canadian National system and gives his best energy and [DOT] ability to doing the right thing by the port of Halifax and also by the port of St. John in winter and by the Canadian ports on the St. Lawrence in the summer.
There is one other set of figures that I want to place before the House; they are from a return brought down in connection with imports and exports via the Canadian National through the ports of Portland, St. John and Halifax in 1922 and 1923. The figures are as follows:
Canadian National-	Imports	1922	Exports
Portland				121,658
Halifax	.. 594,508	104,786St. John	.. 392,151	159,433Portland	.. 810,667	1923	121,879Halifax	.. 602,210	106,765St. John	.. 381,624	161,123Canadian Pacific- St. John	1922	373,929St. John	.. 929,882	1923	393,107
It will be seen that as regards imports over the Canadian National, Halifax in 1922 had a balance of trade over St. John to the extent of 200,000 tons and in 1923 of 221,000 tons. So that from these figures, on the whole the port of St. John is on an equality with the port of Halifax-perhaps a little better than Halifax, because through the Canadian Pacific they get both imports and exports and that equalizes the falling off of traffic as between the two ports and gives both an opportunity to develop as they should as sister ports in the Maritime provinces.
In view of the statements I have placed before the House to-night-and I must apologize for having kept the House so long-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well, I may say to my hon. friends who say "hear hear", that I have not transgressed any rule, if there is any rule in this House-


Mr. FORKE:: There is no rule.

The Budget-Mr. Finn


Robert Emmett Finn: Since I have had the honour
of occupying a seat in this House I have spoken only once, at four o'clock in the morning, for ten or fifteen minutes, and I have not since that time, except to interject a remark or two, taken up any of the time of the House. I felt here was an opportunity to deal with the situation in the Maritime provinces, and to give hon. gentlemen in the Progressive party who represent our Canadian West in this House an opportunity of hearing some of the things we expect to have done and some of the things that are being done and that we are helping to do. I regret exceedingly that when the representatives of the Progressive group were in the city of Halifax, through a loss in my immediate family I was unable to extend to them a hearty welcome, but I called at the provincial parliament buildings and through Mr. McBride expressed my regrets at being unable to greet them personally. I should have liked to show them in a kindly way some of the advantages of Halifax, which I know was done by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) during their stay in our city.
In conclusion, I wish to say that there are a few things we desire the government to do at the earliest possible date. Our terminals at Halifax are not completed. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the money that was spent was spent in the right place or not, but the stage for questioning that has passed. With these ships calling at the port of Halifax, and with immigrants pouring in through that port and being carried over the Canadian National railways, it is necessary that the immigration sheds at the south end pier should be completed at as early a date as possible. The landing quay is 2,500 feet in length and will accommodate three ships alongside, each from six to seven hundred feet in length. It will accommodate their passengers and the freight they have. Pier No. 2 is the most up-to-date pier either in the United States or Canada. It was built during the time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was Acting Minister of Railways, and I have not the least hesitation in saying that if the plan of the then Minister of Railways had been carried out and the terminals had been built in the inner harbour, we would not have had the condition we have to-day as regards the south end terminal, but as I say, the time for discussing that has gone by. I would like the government to give consideration at the earliest date possible to the finishing of these sheds in order that we may have the facilities to handle the passenger and freight traffic that is coming into our port.
1 might say further that when the elevator is built and ocean steamships can get at Halifax the basic cargo of wheat which they all need, it is my hope and belief that these ships that are now going on to Portland will make Halifax their port and get their basic cargo there,, and thereby save two days on the round trip. Coming into the port of Halifax is a day shorter for the ships than to go to Portland, and they save a day going back to the Old Land, or two days on the round trip. That is a tremendous saving to these high-powered ships of great tonnage, which are run at great expense. But if the basic cargo of wheat can be provided at Halifax these ships will of necessity make Halifax their home port on this side of the Atlantic, and in that way employment will be given to our stevedores, the ships will buy their supplies in Halifax, and the crews will spend their money in our city and some of the prosperity of the old days will come back. I say that with good hope because it would mean a saving of a whole month during the year to the steamship companies. Each ship would be able to make two trips more in the year. If that is so, with our facilities at the port of Halifax, and with the freight rate to Halifax the same as to Portland there is no reason why we should not come into our own.
I place these matters before the government and I hope they will receive fair consideration and action. I know that the revenues of this country are used almost to the limit. I am not going to ask for impossibilities, but surely if our railroads are going to bring returns and help reduce the deficit, this will be money well spent, and a penny spent wisely is spent well. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for listening to me at this length to-night. My only justification is my interest in the Maritime provinces. I have tried to place before you some of the reasons that have actuated me in the action I have taken, both as a member of the legislature and government of Nova Scotia, and also as a member of the Parliament of Canada, as a trustee not only for the people of Halifax but for the people of Nova Scotia. Let us all look forward with the hope of a united Canada, a hope that will mean much to us on this side and hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. WILLIAM ELLIOTT (South Waterloo) :: Mr. Speaker, after listening for three hours and thirty-five or forty minutes to the address from the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn), I have come to one or two conclusions. The main conclusion which I have arrived at is that the competition has shifted
2004	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Elliott (Waterloo)
from Toronto to Halifax. My second conclusion is that it will take much water to wash the linen of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, although perhaps I should not include New Brunswick in that statement. There is still another thought suggested by his speech, and that is if the hon. member had a real province to talk about, how long would he talk?
Perhaps it is not too late-I do not refer to the time of day-for me at this stage to offer my congratulations to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). He certainly set a wonderful example of brevity in presenting his budget to the House, and by the way the lesson presented by the Acting Minister of Finance has been totally lost on the "minister for Halifax".
Let me likewise express the hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will speedily be restored to health, and that he will in the immediate future be able to take his place on the government benches in this House.
I wish to say at the outset that in the remarks I have to make, and I am going to be as brief as I can, which will probably be good news, I am going to speak entirely for the constituency which I represent. I am dissociating myself with any party in this House, and that, by the way, is becoming quite a common practice. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) made it quite clear to the House that he was as free as the winds that blew over the western prairies, and much to my surprise the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Stansell), I think, arose in the House and proclaimed almost the same sentiments. I shall claim the same liberty in the remarks I am going to make. I feel that some things I am going to say will perhaps not be acceptable to all members of this House, but what I wish to do is to express the opinion of the constituency I represent, and express it just as clearly as I possibly can.
Before, however, beginning on that I wish to say that I am sure this country is pleased to find that we have already reached the stage where the finances of this country are at least balanced. The Acting Minister of Finance in his presentation showed not only a balanced budget, but a surplus. That to my mind is one of the things which this country has been looking for and expecting for many years, and I am sure the country owes a debt of gratitude to the government in that regard.
One or two other matters have occurred to me in connection with this budget. First, I would say that the sales tax reduction on a great many articles, and on the necessities of life, does not go far enough. We have one article which enters into the construction of the homes we live in-that is lumber-from

which the sales tax has not yet been eliminated. It seems to me that this is a very important matter. Lumber is a very necessary article. The cost of building our homes has reached a tremendous figure, so much so that we are finding it very difficult year by year to engage in such work, and any reduction which could be brought, through the abolition of the sales tax as it applies to lumber, would be very acceptable, I am sure, to the great mass of the people of Canada. The constituency which I represent contains, perhaps, one of the greatest combinations of agriculture and industry in the Dominion. We have a population that is very dense, although the constituency is very small; its dimensions are only about twelve miles by twenty-four so hon. members will see it is very compact in character. In the county of Waterloo we have two cities, the county is the only one in the Dominion to enjoy that distinction. As well as these two cities there are a great many small towns and villages, all of which are large industrial centres. Coming back to the agricultural situation again we find that those engaged in agriculture there are perhaps in a little better position than they are in most other parts of the Dominion. There is not a spot in the riding from which we cannot, in one hour's ride, reach three or four large cities, as well as a great many small towns. Galt, Kitchener, Guelph, Brantford, Hamilton, and Stratford, all cities with a large population, can be reached from any part of the riding in just about an hour's trip by car. This means that the farmers in that part of Ontario are engaged in what we call diversified farming-the true type of mixed farming. About 80 per cent or four fifths of the products of these farmers are all disposed of in the towns and' cities that surround the district. Now, when you go out and tell those farmers that their home market is no good you have got a job on your hands. Speaking of those farmers I want to say that their home market is a real market, and I cannot stress that point too strongly here to-night. Of course that is a special condition. I know that situation does not exist in the West, nor does it exist in a great many other parts of Ontario, nevertheless in the riding for which I am speaking [DOT] to-night it is a real factor and a factor of which we are particularly proud. So I have come to this conclusion, as I am sure a great many others have, that you cannot injure agriculture, you cannot do anything that will lessen the buying powers of the farmer, without injuring the industries in the towns and cities. On the other hand you cannot do anything to injure industry with-

The Budget-Mr. Elliott (Waterloo)
out injuring the farmers. This is not only true of the constituency which I represent but it is applicable throughout the entire Dominion. If we are going to accomplish anything in the way of getting together and formulating a policy that will be acceptable to us all we simply have got to forget our occupations and resist any desire to legislate simply for industry or for agriculture-we have got to get together and agree upon some plan that will be acceptable to the great mass of the people. Unfortunately this has not been done; and when I listen to the speeches pro and con in this house it does seem to me there is a lot of talking going on that is increasing the breach between agriculture on the one hand and industry on the other, whereas our efforts should be devoted to bringing the two together. To my mind that is one of the important things we have got to do. We must get together on this question and formulate a policy that will be in the interest in the whole Dominion. So much for agriculture.
Up to the present time the budget that has been presented by the Acting Minister of Finance has been one with which I can agree perfectly; it is a budget from which I think great good is going to come. We find that agriculture is going to be relieved of certain expenses which it has had in the past. I do not want you to think that we do not have any difficulties so far as agriculture is concerned' in the riding which I represent; we have difficulties just as other places have, not as to what we have to sell but as to what we have to buy. We find, when we come to the markets to buy the necessities of life- for example our boots and shoes, our wearing apparel, our implements and so on-that they cost us too much money, they are too dear; and when we compare the prices we have to pay to what we have to buy we are right up against a problem which is a very difficult problem to solve. I notice that the provincial government in the province of Ontario have a commission going round at the present time in an honest desire, as they say, to try and solve the rural problem. To my mind it is quite a simple thing to find the trouble; the difficulty will be to solve the problem. I believe that marketing and marketing costs are, possibly, at the root of our troubles in Ontario to-day and not so much the tariff. If the tariff were wiped off our implements completely and off the articles of consumption I do not believe that it would make very much difference to us. But we have got to get cheaper transportation ,we have got to get cheaper articles of consumption
one way or another, so that the price of what we have to buy will more nearly correspond to the price of what we have to sell. As I said up to the present time the budget is perfectly satisfactory. But I happen to represent a great many industries in the south riding of Waterloo. I am very proud of these industries and in talking over the matter with those engaged in them I find that their objection is not so very much to the budget as brought down as it is to the possible trend in which it is going. When we have the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) coming forward with the statement that this was a step that sounded the death knell of protection; when we have the Minister of Agriculture coming forward with almost a similar declaration, we are sometimes led to hesitate and wonder where we are going, what direction we are taking. I am perfectly willing that the tariff should! be as low as possible, I believe in a low tariff, but I want that tariff to be a fair one. I believe in a fair and square deal not only for agriculture but for industry; and when we find that our manufactures to-day are right up against it in the way of hard times it is only with a good deal of hesitation that I am willing to accept the budget as it is brought down. If it is the intention of the government to go ahead with this process of elimination, if it is their intention to go ahead and gradually reduce the tariff on various articles-perhaps it would be boots and shoes next session or textiles-if it is the intention of the government to go ahead and do that I want to tell them frankly that I cannot follow them.


Donald Sutherland: Is that not the
policy of the government and the party with which my hon. friend is identified? Is that not the doctrine laid down in their platform?


William Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend is right. I do not wish to argue that point at this time. In talking to manufacturer's I found one or two things bothering them very greatly. In the riding I represent we have a great many textile industries; in fact I am told by the woollen textile men themselves that I have more textile industries in the south riding of Waterloo than there are in any other constituency of Canada. If that is true-and I believe it is-I think it is my duty at least to see that these industries get a fair and square deal.
Coming back to the troubles which our industries have had in the past, especially the textile industry, I had reason to believe, as
2006	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Elliott (Waterloo)
I thought a great many others had reason to believe, that something would be done in the budget to deal with those countries which have a depreciated currency. This is a question which has been brought to the attention of the government so much and so often that I naturally hesitate to go over it again. I believe that if the government had dealt with those countries as they should have been dealt with, and placed their manufacturers on an equal footing with our own Canadian manufacturers, the woollen and textile men of Canada would be fairly well satisfied. The question of depreciated currency is going to be rather a serious one. Reading from the Yorkshire Post, which by the way is a Conservative paper, I find the following:
Not only have the British manufacturers felt the competition of the French woollen textile trade because of low prices through the depreciation of the French currency, but the manufacturers of Canada have suffered likewise.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that shows that even the textile manufacturers of Great Britain, who have perhaps one of the greatest organizations in the world to-day in that line of manufacture, are feeling the effects of the depreciated currency of other countries. If those men feel the effects of depreciated currency in England, what must the effect be in Canada? I would like the government to deal with this matter. I think it is a serious question; besides it is something that is not fair. We have the British preference with Great Britain. If we allow Great Britain, for instance, to compete in the markets with our Canadian manufacturers of textiles, with their depreciated currency and with the low wages which they pay in England, and allow those articles to come in here and drive our Canadian workmen and our Canadian manufacturers out of business, I think it is a serious question for Canada, and I know it is a serious matter for the constituency I represent. It is all very well to say that these men ought to be able to compete with the world. But there is this viewpoint-and it is the same in all industries-that these industries are established and, are here already, and it would be a hard proposition to say to these men, "We do not want you, we will drive you out of existence". I do not think the government would take that view; in fact, I know they would not. Therefore, I hope that nothing further will be done in the way of increasing the British preference in regard to our woollen industries, until the whole question is properly investigated and we understand the situation fully.
	;
We have in the constituency which I represent a great many boot and shoe industries. We all know that these men are having a hard time financially. Many of them are in difficulties. I have a letter which I received from one of the manufacturers in South Waterloo, which is perhaps of interest and from which I will read a few extracts. The letter says:
So intense is competition amongst the 170 or more firms in Canada that no less than 25 shoe manufacturing concerns failed last year, and the casualty list since the war now exceeds 70.
Sometimes we are met with the statement that these men are profiteers, and that they are not operating their factories on an economical and business basis. Well, after we have presented all our arguments in this regard, the fact remains that these men are financially up against it. I do not think it is the intention of the government to say to these men, "We are going to still increase the British preference and make it harder for you to do business". I think that is the view-point we must consider; and in this industry, until we know the facts of the case until this question, as well as other questions, are investigated by a properly constituted commission appointed to inquire into them we should not make any changes in our customs tariff.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I sometimes think that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association are responsible for a lot of the troubles we have in Canada to-day. Some way or other the people of Canada-and I think with some degree of justification-have got it into their heads that the manufacturers have not been dealing fairly with them. I believe they have that idea in their minds, and whenever the Canadian public get an opportunity they are quite ready to swat the first head they come across. When we see the extreme demands of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, it only alienates support. If they would come before the people and government with a reasonable proposition, something that was in the interests of the whole of Canada, and not merely in their own interests, I know that the people would respond; and it would go a long way towards gaining sympathy for the manufacturers. Unfortunately, however, they have been following a policy that has more or less alienated support, and they are to blame very largely for a little of the unrest, suspicion and distrust in the minds of the Canadian public to-day.
There is another very important feature of this question which I think should not bo lost sight of, and that is the investment which

The Budget-Mr. Elliott (Waterloo)
labour has in this country. It is all right perhaps to put an industry out of business. It is all right to go to that industry and say, "We are going to reduce the tariff and going perhaps to make it a little harder for you to carry on." Well, it might be said that affects the industry alone; but wherever industry is established we have a great many workmen, as for instance, in the riding I come from. I represent thousands of workmen who have become good Canadian citizens, men who hare a stake in the country, who have, through their toil, built homes for themselves, bought real estate and property, and who own a very large percentage of 12 m. the property in the constituency.
That is an investment which is too often lost sight of in dealing with public affairs.
These men are entitled to somewhat fairer treatment than they have received in the past, and if the government and its officials would pay more attention to this phase of the question and accord them a little more consideration when our policies are being framed there would be a good deal more satisfaction. In the riding which I represent a great many of the factories are idle, a great many of the looms are out of commission, and I know that dozens of men, whole families, entire connections-sisters, cousins and aunts-have all gone to the republic to the south, having sold their properties and left the work in which they have been engaged over here, in order to take up new positions in the United States. This is a distinct loss to the community, for these people were good Canadian citizens; and this is of course one of the conditions with which we are faced to-day. I do not say that the government can prevent this because there is a natural drift back and forth between the two countries. Personally, I believe that eventually a good many of these people will come back, but at the same time ju-st at present it is a very considerable loss to Canada for our citizens to emigrate to tb* United States.


Mr. WHITE:: Does the hon. gentleman
think that a higher tariff would be of benefit?


William Elliott: I do not wish to enter into an argument on that question to-night.


Mr. SPENCE:: You do believe it, though.


William Elliott: I will tell my hon. friend some other time. I come now to the consideration of what I regard as one of the most important matters before the people of Canada to-day. I have no doubt that there is a great difference of opinion in this respect,
but it seems to me beyond question that there is a great demand throughout the province of Ontario for a better system than we have had in the past of securing the information which we require in order properly to formulate our tariff policy. There is, I say, an insistent demand all over the province in this regard; and I refer particularly now to the appointment of a permanent tariff commission. I do not say that the appointment of such a body would get rid of all our tariff troubles, but certainly it would afford the people and the government a means of obtaining some facts which I do not believe they possess at the present time. I firmly believe that a tariff commission would be of considerable advantage. In the year 1912 when Sir Robert Borden introduced the bill which at that time embodied a permanent tariff commission, that measure passed the House of Commons but was thrown out by the Senate.


Mr. HARRIS:: Did it pass the House of
Commons as brought down?


William Elliott: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: I beg to correct the hon.
gentleman; it did not.


William Elliott: I have the
bill here before me; it is No. 88 in the bills of the year 1911-12.


Joseph Henry Harris: Let the hon. member read the amendments and he will find that this particular bill did not pass as brought down.


William Elliott: I read the
debates that took place at the time and I am not aware that very many amendments or any serious changes were introduced. I understand that the bill was passed by the House of Commons as submitted, but I may possibly be wrong in that respect.


Joseph Henry Harris: It was passed with amendments.


William Elliott: I may be
wrong, but that was my understanding at any rate. However, the bill was thrown out by the Senate largely because there was no public demand for it. It was contended that the people had not asked for it, that nobody wanted it, and that it was merely a subterfuge on the part of the government of the day to evade responsibility in the framing of [DOT]the tariff policy at that time. It seems to me that there is a good deal of misconception as to the functions of a commission of this kind. The other day in this House a question was asked by one hon. gentleman of another whether he considered the commis-
2008	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Elliott (Waterloo)
sion appointed in 1920, of which the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) was chairman, and which toured the country from coast to coast, a real tariff commission. Well, personally I do not call that investigating body a tariff commission; I call it a tariff committee. And more than that, the evidence which that commission took was not of such a character as a properly constituted commission, such as I have in mind, would hear. Hon. gentlemen should not confuse the work of a real tariff commission with the investigations of these committees that have been appointed at various times. Both Liberal and Conservative governments in the past have appointed committees that have toured the country for the purpose of ascertaining the feeling of the people with regard to possible tariff changes; and the very fact of such investigations have shown the need of something of the kind. We have had governments appointing commissions that have travelled around the country at much expense, and this very fact is an admission on the part of those governments, both Liberal and Conservative, of the need of an investigating organization of this character. There is no question about that.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is it a fact that the leader of the Progressive party in the Upper House vigorously opposed the tariff commission in
this House in the session of 1911-12, and still holds the views he expressed then?


William Elliott: I suppose the hon. member is right; but I am not responsible for the views which any other hon. gentleman
either in this House or out of it may hold.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is the hon. gentleman a member of the party to my left which is led by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) ?


William Elliott: Mr. Speaker,in my campaign of 1921 I accepted the Progressive platform with certain reservations. On every platform on which I stood up to address the electorate I advocated the appointment of this tariff commission for two or three reasons. And since then on various occasions, whenever I have had an opportunity, I have never failed to stress the importance of the matter. I have taken this ground, that I was opposed not only to an increase but also to a decrease in the customs tariff until the whole question should have been referred to a properly organized commission. And the views I expressed in that regard at that time I hold to-day. I have received great encouragement from the different organizations within my riding in connection with this matter; I have letters 
from the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Galt, from the Trades and Labour Council of South Waterloo, and from the Town Council of the town of Preston, besides, as far as I know, from every organization within the south riding of Waterloo. They have all endorsed my position on this question. Moreover, I have resolutions from the Brantford Trades and Labour Council as well as from a great many other bodies throughout the province of Ontario endorsing the stand I have taken. I am convinced therefore that there is great need of such a tariff commission as I suggest, and without doubt the people are realizing that need as they have never done before. I hope, then, that the government will take my advice, although I do not suppose that they will; they never do. If they will take my advice they will immediately proceed to form such a commission, and I feel safe in saying that a bill for the purpose would be supported by a large majority in this House. I have been particularly insistent in emphasizing my position for several reasons. One is that my party's platform contains the following clauses:
That all corporations engaged in the manufacture of products protected by the customs tariff be obliged to publish annually comprehensive and accurate statements of their earnings.
And:
That every claim for tariff protection by any industry shall be heard publicly before a special committee of parliament.
That calls practically for just what I have been advocating for a great many years. In fact the demand has been coming from all over the Dominion, for the great mass of consumers are realizing the importance of this question. Therefore, I hope the government will deal with it as I have suggested, and I think such action would be received very gratefully throughout the country.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I have spoken very hurriedly and have tried to present my views in as few words as possible. I repeat that I have on many occasions voiced my opposition to an increase or a reduction in the. tariff until the whole question has been referred to a properly organized commission. I am still of that opinion, and therefore I do not see how I can support the budget as brought down by the government.	.


Mr. JOHN HUBBS (Prince Edward):: Mr. Speaker, I see very little in the budget proposals that will be of much interest or advantage to the people; on the contrary, I think in the main they will be detrimental to the best interests of the nation. It is true

The Budget-Mr. Hubbs
the elimination of the sales tax on farm implements and its reduction on boots and shoes will be of some benefit to the people. But if the exorbitant sales tax has been found detrimental to business-and I do not think this will be denied-why did not the government take it off altogether? The sales tax is a nuisance. It is hard to handle, and is evaded in certain quarters.
Why should the sales tax be taken off farm implements and retained on canning machinery? A canning factory is certainly associated with the activities of farmers. Yet the man who equips such a factory has to pay 35 per cent duty plus 5 per cent sales tax on his machinery. Is it fair that this tax should be taken off farm implements and the duties lowered on those implements, while canning and other machinery are not given similar relief? Is it fair that the sales tax should be taken off mining machinery, and yet left on canned goods, boots and shoes and clothing that the miner has to buy? I might ask the same question with respect to logging machinery. It is purchased by large companies, yet the retail buyer of lumber has to pay the sales tax, and lumber is an absolute necessity in the building of our homes. To my mind a reduction of the duty on farm implements and on mining and logging machinery is where the trouble will arise. It will be remembered that two years ago when the British preference on woollen goods was increased by 2J per cent no one thought it of much importance. A year ago the British preference was further increased by 10 per cent. It was strenuously opposed from this corner of the House, but. no one expected that it would be so disastrous to our woollen industry, yet it has resulted in half of our woollen factories closing their doors or going into liquidation. I am afraid that a lot of our implement manufacturers will be in a similar position within the next two years. Recently I saw a letter addressed by a manufacturing firm in Toronto to their agent in my home town, instructing him to dispose of his samples and return his sample cases because the budget proposals had forced them to close their doors.


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend give me the name of the firm?


John Hubbs: I did not take it down, but I can get it for the minister. Naturally one would have thought the government with its knowledge of the unsatisfactory results following the French treaty, which has reduced our revenue within the last year by nearly
two million dollars-practically all on luxuries as pointed out by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin)-and the disastrous results following the increase of the British preference would have tried to rectify those errors instead of proposing the tariff reductions contained in the budget. The hon. minister tells us that by lowering the tariff and allowing the Americans to flood our markets he will bring prosperity to Canada. Has that been our experience in the past? If reducing the tariff is such a good thing, why not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and make everything free-why not hand Canada over to the United States in a lump instead of piecemeal, and be done with it?


George Perry Graham: Where is that flag?


John Hubbs: We will soon be an adjunct of the United States anyway-at least, a dumping ground for their surplus products.


William Richard Motherwell: It is pretty hard to warm up that old yarn of 1911 over again.


John Hubbs: The hon. Minister of Agriculture says that it is pretty hard to warm up the argument of 1911. Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 would prefer the Reciprocity agreement of 1911 to this budget, for under reciprocity we would have got something for our money; but the country gets nothing out of the budget. The sole advantage accrues to the government, which gets the votes of hon. members to my left to keep them in power for another couple of years. There is one thing sure, the people are not getting anything out of the budget.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Did not the party with which the hon. gentleman is associated tell everybody throughout the whole Dominion in 1911 that we were giving Canada away and getting nothing for it in return?


David Spence: Reciprocity was wrong then, and lowering the tariff is wrong to-day.


John Hubbs: My hon. friend from
Parkdale has answered the question. In the 1911 campaign the slogan of the Liberals was, "Down with the big interests". I would say that they had certainly downed the big interests with this budget, and those who have not been downed will certainly be on the shelf and will not attempt to go ahead and build up the country as the needs of the country demand. Besides, has the United States ever given Canada anything? When the late government got reciprocity in wheat products and potatoes, you know what happened; as soon as it affected the farmers
The Budget-Mr. Hubbs

of the United States, congress stepped in and not only replaced the former duty but made it higher than ever. I admit that the farmers of this country are having hard times; they are having difficulties, but where- lies the remedy? Surely it is not in bringing European farmers here to grow more farm produce when we are unable to sell what we are producing at what it costs to produce it? Surely it is not in sending our boys and girls to the United States to get work, in closing down our industries so that our people cannot get work at home and must go somewhere else? Surely not in ruining what few industries we have and our all too-limited home market ?
The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Me-Master) made the statement the other day that in 1917 the president of the Massey Harris Company said he believed his company could make more money with the duty off farm implements, provided also that the duty was taken off the raw materials that went into the manufacture of same. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman get the president of the Massey Harris Company to repent that statement now. I admit that the Massey Harris Company made a statement in the papers the other day, but I would consider that that was only good advertising. The Massey Harris Company know they are whipped but they are not going to take it without a straggle. I consider that that piece in the paper was only a bit of very good advertising. Now at the time the Massey Harris president made that statement there is no doubt that the Massey Harris Company was making money and the farmers were making money ' also. But the trouble with the farmers is that they did not save their money; like many of the rest of us, they spent it as it came, rather fast and rather easily; they put it into automobiles and luxuries as most of us did-we spent our money as we went along, keeping up with the Joneses. That is the trouble we find ourselves in to-day; our money is gone and when hard times come along we are not piepared to meet them. If you will show me a farmer who saved his money through those good umes, did not buy automobiles, continued with his horse and rig and paid attention to liis business, I will show you a man who is well to do and who is not worried over the troubles of to-day. I would not care if by ruining the manufacturers of this country we would build up Canada, but the experience of the world has been that to be prosperous the farmer, the artisan, the merchant; the professional man, must all work together in

order to build up the nation. The unanimous opinion of the International Agricultural Institute at Rome is that one artisan will keep one farmer. That being the case what we want in this country is more artisans, and we can-net have them without more manufacturing; we cannot encourage industry unless we make it possible for them to compete with the highly specialized and highly protected industries to the south of us. Are we to part with our industrial communities in order to employ underpaid workers in Europe when the textile mills and the Canadian industries that have been a great factor in the building up of this country for the last fifty years are compelled to close their doors? It is not because Canadians are buying less goods, it is because the British, French and Germans can undersell us owing to their cheap labour and their depreciated' currency. Our great trouble is not too high tariff, it is the lack of money and too high tariffs in other countries which make it impossible for the people of Canada to dispose of their surplus products. We have an over-production of farm products and, as is always the case when you keep a market flooded, the prices have to drop. The market of the farmers of this country is ruined before they get started. You can go right down into the stores of this city to-day and see American berries on sale. The market for berries, cherries, peaches and other things that the farmers of this province produce is killed before our berries and small fruits are icady for sale. During this past year hundreds of cars of eggs, butter, cheese, milk, pork and other produce have continuously been coming into this country. Why should we keep our tariff on these articles at about one-third of the United States tariff? What we need in this country is a good, constructive tariff, one that will protect the farmer as well as the manufacturer. We need more cities and a population in the urban centres to consume our surplus farm produce. What is the sense of bringing more farmers into this ^country and producing more when we cannot sell what we produce now at what it costs to produce it? And why allow United States farmers to take the cream off our markets for fruit and vegetables just because their season is earlier than ours? If the rich want fresh fruit and vegetables the year round, let them pay for them; place a duty high enough that the government will get the benefit and the general burden of taxes will be lessened. Why allow the United States, or any other country for that matter, to dump goods into Canada that can be produced here, unless they at least

The Budget-Mr. Hubbs
pay a duty equal to the duty charged us in their country? Why continually buy from the United States and pay them a bonus for accepting our money? At present there is a discount on our money of about 3 per cent. Last year, ending in February, we bought from the United States goods valued at approximately $603,000,000. Had that rate applied on the whole amount we would have paid them in bonus $18,090,000, over half enough to build all the branch line railroads contemplated this year by the government, or nearly four times the cost of completing the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: And thirty times what it costs to complete the tower.


John Hubbs: True, Mr. Speaker. We get a certain amount of that back, but I hate to think that our money is not just as good as United States money, and if the people of this country would quit buying stuff from the United States and buy Canadian stuff-


Robert Forke: Is it the farmers who are buying American raspberries and that sort of stuff?


Mr. BOYS:: Quite a lot, and you know it, too.


John Hubbs: As I said, I hate to think that our money is not equal to theirs, and if our farmers and the people in our cities and towns would quit buying from the United States, and buy Canadian stuff instead, we would soon get the exchange at par. Take our own restaurant in this building. We are eating American canned goods and French peas, "petit pois," when our own factories in Canada produce goods equal in quality, if not better, and yet our government even is setting the example in buying American goods.


George Perry Graham: That is not the government, but a committee of the House.


William Alves Boys: But the government have the majority on it.


John Hubbs: There was a time when Canada manufactured practically all the binder twine used in this country, when we had twenty-three firms manufacturing this product in different places throughout Canada, but today owing to the removal of the duty we have only three firms manufacturing binder twine in Canada. It is practically the survival of the fittest. These firms are supplying less than two-fifths of the binder twine used in Canada, and the farmers are paying more today for binder twine than they did before the duty was removed. The same applies to the
wool industry, the implement industry, and in fact to all industries in this country where the duty is removed. Why not deal with the United States, with France and England, in fact with all nations, in a business way? Surely none of these nations allow sentiment to interfere with their business with us. Selfpreservation is the first law of nature, and we should give them the same treatment they give us. How can we barter with these nations when we have no tariff to barter with? Is Canada forever to be the dumping ground of the United States and European nations? I think it is time we took a tumble and practised a little business ability like our neighbours. One lumber man of this city told me the other day that a few years ago he saw a chance to sell some box shooks in the United States. "I succeeded in placing an order for six cars," he said, "and I shipped one car over. Two days after, a United States official called at the plant and wanted to know what these shooks cost me. I told him and then he wanted to know what they were made of. I took him out into the yard and showed him I made them out of the short ends that always accumulate in a lumber yard, and he went away satisfied apparently, but I just managed to get one car more over before I was stopped, and the other four cars had to be cancelled." That is the way they do business.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Why was the balance of the order cancelled?


John Hubbs: They raised the duty, because it was interfering with their business in the United States. I might say further that a merchant in my town told me the other day that that week there had been two travellers there with woollen goods and one of them did not have any Canadian samples, and the other only had two or three. He said, "Furthermore, one of our big clothing manufacturers told me he had sent all his patterns to England, and was having his orders for clothing made up there on account of the cheap goods and cheap labour." Now is that good business for Canada? Are we ever going to build up Canada so long as we let down our industries and force our people out of this country? I would like to ask the government, if low tariff is such a good thing, why has not the United States adopted it and other nations of the world? Surely all the brains are not in this government. The United States tariff is in practically every instance three times higher than ours, yet they are enjoying prosperity, while if we are to accept the voice of hon. members to my left Canadians are starving.
The Budget-Mr. Hubbs

If Americans are not prosperous why are our boys and girls going over there at the rate of fifteen to twenty thousand a month? Why not admit the true situation and follow the example of practically every nation in the world to-day and put on a tariff that will mean something, a tariff that will give confidence not only to the people of Canada* but also to other nations so that people will come and settle in this country and help to develop our great natural resources.
We have in Canada to-day legislation and railroads to meet the needs of a population of fifty millions of people, and the eight million people we have are obliged to pay the taxes and carry the load that fifty millions of people should be carrying. If the government would adopt a policy that would give confidence and work to the people of this country, instead of our people going to the United States, the Americans would be coming over here.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, we are allowing American publishers to flood this country with magazines and periodicals, which are doing nothing more nor less than educating our boys and girls to become citizens of the United States; and not only that, but hundreds of thousands of dollars are going out of this country annually to the United States to buy perfumes and cosmetics advertised in these same journals. Let the government put a prohibitive duty on these magazines and encourage the publication and the reading of Canadian magazines. Educate our people first of all to be Canadians, and you will have less demand for free trade in this country.
There is just one thing I overlooked-I do not want to detain the House as it is getting
late. But, instead of the sales tax, and instead of the troublesome income tax that bothers everybody in making up their returns, and which some pay and some do not-keeping a record of everything sold makes an endless amount of work-I would say if the government have got to raise money-and	they
must do so to pay off the debt of this country-the only fair way to do it is through a land tax. I know it would be hard, I know a lot of people will object to that, but it is a most simple tax to collect, and it is easily collected through the municipalities. The man who has land or property pays the assessment and the poor man who is living in a rented house and is struggling to get along, has no tax to pay. This sales tax hits the man who can least afford to pay; it hits the labouring man, the consumer, on his clothing, on his boots and shoes, on his canned goods, on everything that he has to buy, and he is the man that can least afford to pay the tax. Therefore I say the government should consider some other form of taxation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am entirely opposed to the budget. Let me emphasize again, what we must have in this country if we are going to build up Canada, is a good constructive tariff. If I had the framing of it I would say put on a tariff so high that nobody could fly over it with an aeroplane and so deep in its foundations that a submarine could not dig under it.
On motion of Mr. Preston the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 12.45 a.m.