1924-04-15

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Lapointe, that the special committee to whom was referred Bill No. 2, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, be given leave to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: I beg to present a petition from the Western Association of Congregational Churches,, representing all the Congregational churches in Ontario, west and north of Hamilton, in favour of church union.


Mr. R. F. PRESTON (Lanark):: I desire to present petitions from the members and adherents of Zion church and St. Andrew's church at Carleton Place, Ontario, and also from the members and adherents of Knox Presbyterian church, at Beckwith, Ontario, both opposed to the church union bill.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: I desire to present a petition from the officials and members of the Methodist church of London, Ontario, for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.



BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move, seconded by Mr. Lapointe, that the name of Mr. Ward be substituted for that of Mr. Forke on the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a special committee be appointed to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers, and any amendments to existing laws in relation thereto which may be proposed or considered necessary by the committee, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to print from day to day its proceedings and evidence taken, for the use of the committee, and to report from time to time, and that the said committee do consist of the following members, namely: Messieurs Arthurs, Black (Yukon), Brown, Caldwell, Carroll, Chisholm, Clark, Clifford, Denis (Joliette), Hudson, Humphrey, Knox, MacLaren, McKay, Munro, Pelletier, Power, Raymond, Robinson, Robichaud, Ross (Kingston), Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.), Sinclair (Oxford), Speakman, Stork, Sutherland and Wallace; and that rule 11 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the unanimous
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: I beg to move:
That the order for consideration of the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means have precedence over all other business except on Wednesday, April 16, and except the introduction of bills, until disposed of.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I have no objection to the budget being given reasonable priority, but I do not think it is necessary that it should have precedence over, say, the answering of questions. I am afraid the order paper would become badly cluttered if there is to be no answering of questions until the budget debate is disposed of. I should think that unopposed motions for papers might also be given consideration before the budget inasmuch as they take but a few minutes.


James Alexander Robb: I think the request of my right hon. friend is reasonable.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion with the proposed amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Report on Agricultural Credit, by Dr. H. M. Tory-Hon. Mr. Robb.
[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Superannuation

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Translation) Before, Mr. Speaker, passing to the Orders of the Day, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to an article which appeared, yesterday, in La Presse of Montreal, and which reads as follows :
Concert in the Penitentiary
The 35 members of the Knights of Columbus' orchestra, under the direction of Mr. J. A. Du Hayne, journeyed to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and gave a concert there yesterday afternoon, a delightful programme was rendered. It has become a custom to entertain convicts with musical concerts around New Year's day and Easter. Lt. Col. de la Bruere Girouard, Governor of the Penitentiary, thanked the musicians on behalf of the convicts.
I wish to find out from the hon. Minister of Justice how long has been in existence this custom of giving concerts to charm the leisure hours of convicts; who inaugurated this kind of pastime in the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary; what was the cost of said concert and who is to defray the expenses; by what authority did the governor, the worthy Lt. Col. de la Bruere Girouard, become the spokesman for the convicts; in what manner did he express himself to thank the musicians on behalf of the convicts?
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) (Translation):: With reference, Sir,
to the question of treatment of convicts in penitentiaries, opinions vary. Many believe that this treatment should be as harsh as possible. On the other hand, I notice, in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, a resolution stating that under the present act the most elementary principles of ethics, hygiene and humanity are violated. However, my hon. friend finds that there is too much entertaining. I shall make the necessary inquiries so as to furnish the hon. member with the information he desires.



PAINTING OF LATE PRESIDENT HARDING

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. II. LADNER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the Prime Minister if the government will consider having reproduced the beautiful painting depicting the visit of the late President Harding to Vancouver, the reproduction to be hung in the Hall of Fame in this building? The painting in question is being presented by Mr. R. J. Crombie of Vancouver on behalf of the people of Canada to the American nation,

and is now on view in Birks' store, Ottawa. President Harding's visit w'as the first of any President of the United States to Canada, and was a notable event in a century of peace. Has the government any plan to commemorate this historic event?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the government begins to hang paintings in the Hall of Fame I think they should be originals and not reproductions.



EMIGRANTS FROM CANADA TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, last week the attention
of the government was called to the fact that legislation had been introduced in the United States congress providing that no quota barrier should be erected against native born Canadians, but that other immigrants from Canada would be treated as though coming from the land of their birth. Thus Canadian citizens born in England would be refused admission if the British quota was exhausted. Has the government made any representations to the United States with respect to this discrimination against certain classes of our citizens?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, the government have no knowledge of any changes in the United States quota regulations which will affect Canada.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the superannuation of civil servants, to provide for contributions by civil servants to the consolidated revenue fund, to provide for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to civil servants and to the widows and children of deceased civil servants of superannuation allowances or gratuities, and to provide for the making of regulations by the Governor in Council to give effect to the terms of the said measure.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, it is intended
to go on with the budget debate, and we are merely advancing this resolution a stage so

that the bill may be tabled for the information of hon. members before the Easter holidays. The bill to be submitted will be based on the recommendations of the committee of last session, reported to this House on June 22, 1923, too late then for legislative action.
It will be introduced to carry out a promise made by the Prime Minister. It is proposed to submit the bill to a special committee for consideration-probably	the same special
committee that considered this matter last session.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could not the
minister tell us now what in his view the charge on the treasury would be? Can he not give us any financial details at all?


James Alexander Robb: I did have a memorandum of
such details but I cannot place my hand on it now. I shall be prepared to give the information as soon as the bill is referred to the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should have
thought the appropriate time to have the memorandum before us would be when the resolution is being discussed so that the committee may see what it is being committed to.
I hope my hon. friend will be able to find his memorandum, for it seems to me the information it should contain goes to the basis of the resolution,


James Alexander Robb: I will give it to my hon.
friend later. If he does not wish to advance the bill at this stage, it must stand over until after the Easter holidays.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not the
slightest wish to delay anything. I only desire that we conduct our business in such a way that we may know what we are doing. If the government are not in a position to furnish the information now, perhaps they can send it over to us later on.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Arthur Meighen: May I ask how rapidly
the government is proceeding with its plans for old age pensions and unemployment insurance? If I remember rightly, this superannuation measure was not mentioned in the Liberal platform, but the others were. It is said of the late Sir Richard Cartwright, that when a delegation came to him asking that a certain measure be adopted, he answered: He saw no objection; it had not been mentioned in the Liberal platform. Is it on that principle that this measure takes precedence over all that was contained in the platform? Also, what is the value of this resolution
15, 1924	1367
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
stage if we are going it blind, if we are just to pass the resolution and be told later on why we passed it? The minister should have had his information here, perhaps not as detailed as is given on a bill, but at least he should have had some general information as to what the scheme is and what it entails. We have not the slightest information about it, and to pass it now really is grotesque; it is absurd.


James Alexander Robb: I am prepared to send the information over to my hon. friend; I know it is in my desk in the office. However, if my right hon. friend desires it, we will let the resolution stand.


Arthur Meighen: I do not feel content to pass a resolution that we know nothing about.


James Alexander Robb: I move that the committee
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 14, 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 of Ways and Means.
Hon. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queens) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to associate myself with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) when he delivered his statement to the House, in which he voiced his regret that the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is not able to be in his place in the House and could not be here to present the annual financial statement. I am sure that it would have been a pleasure to. him to announce to the House and the country the successful consummation of the policy of economy and retrenchment which this government has put in force during the past two years. The announcement, however, that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Robb) was to take the place of the Minister of Finance was received by the people with confidence and assurance, knowing, as they did, that the record of my hon. colleague since he has been in public life would be assurance of the delivery of an able budget speech.
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to review briefly a few of the steps that have led up to the conditions that
1368	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
obtain in Canada to-day and which have culminated in the announcement of the Acting Minister of Finance that the government have been able to balance their budget and to effect a considerable reduction of the public debt. I will ask hon. members to look back over the period of the last two years, or a little more, during which the present government have been in power. By doing this we will see the many obstacles which the government have had to overcome in arriving at the position indicated by the Acting Finance Minister.
When the government took office we found that the exchange as applied to our dealings with our greatest customer, the United States, was at a discount of from 10 to 12 and sometimes 15 per cent. Conditions generally in Canada were not good. Unemployment was rife in our industrial centres; we found it necessary during our first year of office to pay out over a million and a half dollars for unemployment. Business was not steady; business men were looking about for markets; the purchasing power of the people was lower than it had been for many years. That was the condition that obtained when the government took office. One of the first things we did was to review the estimates that had been placed befo.re council by the officials under the regime of the ministers who had gone out of power, and our first act of retrenchment and economy was that of cutting those estimates down to the extent of over $130,000,000. In doing that we had to exercise great discretion in matters of expenditure. I think the best way to illustrate that is to give to the House the total expenditures for the years preceding- and following the time of the government's accession to office. In 1920, the year in which the armistice was signed, the total expenditure of Canada amounted to $785,869,611. In the year 1920-21, in which the control of expenditure was, with the exception of the last three months, in the hands of my hon. friends opposite, the expenditure amounted to $528,283,199. In 1922 it was $463,652,436, showing a gradual reduction of expenditure. In the year that has just closed a considerable further reduction was effected, so that the total expenditure amounted to $375,213,651.
As well as effecting economies in expenditure it was necessary that we should look also to our revenue. The outlook in the year 1922 was such that if we had carried on affairs as they were left to us by the government that went out of power we would have been face to face with a deficit of $200,000,000 that year.
It was necessary to grapple with that con-
dition, and to that end we had to find more revenue. The revenue in 1920 amounted to $349,000,000, in 1921 to $436,000,000 and in 1922 to $389,898,000. In 1923 the revenue had increased to $405,414,000. We have heard some criticism in the House, and particularly in the country, in public addresses and in representations made through the press, to the effect that the government had increased taxation. Let me say emphatically that it was necessary in some way to provide for the commitments that had been made during the years of the war and after.
If it was necessary for the government to increase taxation, it was necessary only by reason of the fact that the government that-preceded us neglected to make a proper impost of taxation when the people of this country had the money to pay taxation, and I am free to say, and I think the people of the country will agree with me, that any increases in taxation that we found necessary to make were largely along the line of taxation upon those who were in the position to pay. We increased the sales tax, and we have heard a great deal of criticism, especially during the past year, of that increase, but let me say that this was done after the business men and those engaged in industry in this country, those who had experienced the results of the taxation of the former government, and particularly of what is known as the luxury taxes, were ready to say to us, and say without hesitation that the best method of imposing the increased taxation was by means of a sales tax. So I would say to those who criticise that method of raising revenue that it meets with the approval of those who have to pay the revenue very much better than any impost such as the luxury taxes imposed by the former Minister of Finance.
Passing from that phase of the financial situation, we had to provide for a revenue that would not only pay our interest and our running expenses, but also for the whole capital cost of the war. It is not necessary for me to go into detail, because it has been very well put before the House on two or three previous occasions during this session, but I think it is. something that is worth repeating, for if there is one thing more than another that my hon. friends opposite fell down in it was in not providing the necessary revenue to meet the expenditure when money was flowing freely into this country during the war. I say again that it was necessary for us to provide for the capital cost of the war and demobilization, which amounted at the end of the fiscal year 1920 to $1,670,406,242. Aside from that, the previous government added $13,733,333 to the national debt.

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)


Mr. LADNER:: Is the hon. member aware that during the war Canada paid approximately 48 per cent of the cost of her share of the war?


John Ewen Sinclair: If my hon.
friend will pay strict attention to what I am saying and look at the blue books also he will find that the capital cost of the war is still outstanding, plus $13,000,000 more.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The American Bankers'
Association engaged an expert to examine the cost of the war to all foreign countries, the revenues raised during the war, and the amount paid on war account, and if the hon. gentleman will read that report he will find that Canada paid during the war 48 per cent of the cost of the war.	[DOT]


John Ewen Sinclair: My hon. friends on the other side are very ready to quote from the United States, but they were not so ready in years past to quote authorities from that country. If my hon. friend will look at the blue books published under the authority of this government and analyse the figures, he will find that those I have presented to the House are correct. There is nothing in the blue books or in any documents published under the authority of the Auditor General of this country that will show anything different. If my hon. friend has to go to foreign countries to bolster up his case and excuse the party he represents for not doing their duty during the war in finding the revenue necessary when such could have been obtained from the people who had the money, he must be in a very bad plight.
I was speaking, when the interruption took place, of the national debt. The national debt at the end of March last was $2,423,367,759.37. In the last two years our debt has increased considerably. In the year 1920-21, which was the first year after the armistice was signed, and a year in which the government of that day should have exercised a careful supervision over expenditure and exerted themselves to the utmost to raise the necessary revenue, the amount of $92,000,000 was added to our national debt. During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922, $81,000,000 more was added. I may point out that for the last three months of that year this government was liable for expenditure, but the programme for expenditure was largely laid down by our predecessors in office, and all that could be done by us was simply to slow up on the expenditure, and I think it is safe for me to say that if there had not been a strong hand exercised during those three months in controlling expenditure the addition to our national debt would have been much
greater. During the first year we had control of affairs in Canada, our national debt increased by $31,000,000, but last year we are in the happy position of being able to say to the people of this country that our national debt did not increase, but on the contrary showed a net decrease of $30,409,109.37, or an improvement when compared with the year previous of about $61,000,000. That was largely brought about by exercising a strong hand on economy, and also by collecting the taxes that were properly due without fear or favour. If we do not act with firmness and see that those who are able to pay, pay their just share of taxation, we cannot expect to bring Canada back to the era of prosperity which we all so much desire.
It is also to be remembered when considering this phase of the financial situation, that a large part of our expenditure is expenditure which we cannot control. In the year preceding last, our uncontrollable expenditure amounted to over $300,000,000. During the year that has just closed our uncontrollable expenditure has been reduced considerably, and when we analyse the figures closely we find that that reduction in uncontrollable expenditure is largely due to the increased earning powers of our Canadian National Railways. The management of the National Railways has been of such a kind that it has given results in this country; the increase of revenue has been very marked, and the decrease in expenditure in carrying on the railways has been equally, if not even more marked.
One of the principal factors enabling the government to balance the budget this year was the success encountered in the management of the Canadian National Railways, resulting in a reduction of the uncontrollable expenditure this year to about $250,000,000. The balancing of the budget was also made possible by the economies carried out in the general expenditure on ordinary consolidated fund account. These economies were rendered more difficult by the fact that during the war public works in Canada were allowed to stand. I am not criticizing hon. gentlemen opposite because of the fact, I am simply saying that it is the case, and that we encountered that difficulty when we assumed office. We found thes that the public works of the country had deteriorated greatly and in consequence during our first year or two in office it was almost impossible to economize in expenditure of this character. However, although delayed at first in carrying out economy we have striven to make up for lost time, and the estimates presented to the House this session bear evidence as to the
1370	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
sincerity of our efforts along that line. Sir, what do these reductions of expenditure mean to the people of Canada? That has been very clearly demonstrated in the budget brought down last Thursday by the Acting Minister of Finance. The reductions of expenditure made in 1923 amount to $29,000,000, those in 1924 to $59,000,000, and our estimates for the year we are facing, compared with the total estimates for last year, will show a reduction of $46,000,000.
There is one remarkable feature in connection with the reduction of the national debt which deserves special emphasis. It is that there has been a greater reduction of debt than has ever been announced by any previous government. It is a greater reduction than the aggregate reductions which characterized the golden era of Canada's prosperity under the Laurier-Fielding regime, from 1896 to 1911. The reduction made this year is also larger than the aggregate reductions made during the years of Conservative rule from 1911 to 1921. Sir, the budget so recently brought down is one which we may well be proud of, and one that should excite great pleasure among the people of this country.
It is scarcely necessary to refer to the reductions of duty that have gone into effect; they are apparent to everyone. But there is one feature of the tariff question to which I should like to refer. It was argued during the reciprocity election of 1911, and the same argument was brought forward at political meetings during the recess and during the present debate, that the farmers of this country require more protection, that from year to year agricultural products from the United States are being dumped in this country thereby demoralizing the markets of Canada, and that more protection in the matter of grain, vegetable and animal products should be given to our farming population. Sir, from my understanding of the situation no more unreasonable proposition was ever placed before the people. Hon. gentlemen opposite who represent the "interests" of this country-and I do not think it is unfair to them to make that statement -must be extremely anxious to make out a case when they say that the Canadian farmers need more protection. I repudiate any such idea. I say the farmers of the Dominion are not crying out for more protection. Let me devote a few minutes to an analysis of imports of agricultural products that enter Canada, and for the purpose of the comparison I shall take the latest figures available, as given in the trade returns for the nine months from April 1st to 31st Decern-

ber, 1923; it is not possible to get the figures in detail up to 31st March last. The necessity for more protection for the farmer vas set out in the amendment moved to the motion for the adoption of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne this session. Is that claim borne out by the imports of agricultural products entering Canada from the United States? If we look at the trade statement to which I have referred we find the imports of animal and vegetable products-except chemicals, fibres and wood, amounted to $141,493,793. We also imported animal and animal products to the amount of $32,561,941. Now let me separate the imports of articles that are not produced in Canada from the imports of articles that are produced here. In the first table of vegetable products, mainly food stuffs, we find a total of $97,890,344 imported. Those imports are divided as follows, and I shall ask that the statement be incorporated in Hansard in tabulated form:
Imports of Vegetable Products
Of a kind Of a kind produced in not produced
Total fresh fruits	
Total dried fruits	
Total prepared fruits and juices	Canada $3,370,641 854,087 802,215	in Canada $12,318,349 4,316,865 896,331 2.950.058Total fresh vegetables.. ..	3.069,238	80,485Total vegetables sauces and	461,500 6.153,722	Total grain	1,881,227664,360 609.546	Total prepared foods and	Total vegetable oils for food	613,138Total sugar products and refined sugar	4,086,746	37,000.142Total teas, cocoa and spices	9,486,221Hops, etc	724,068	Various others	1,183,802	2,367,603Total	$22,979,925	$74,910,419
Grand total of Vegetable products (manly foods), $97,890,344.
Now, Sir, that is an analysis of import:! as applied to vegetables and vegetable products.


Mr. STANSELL:: Could the hon. member place on the record the amount of vegetable products sold to the United States for the same period?


John Ewen Sinclair: Yes. Our
exports during that period from Canada were $321,893,404.


John Lawrence Stansell: Is that to the United States?


John Ewen Sinclair: That is the amount of exports from Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)


John Lawrence Stansell: To the United States?


John Ewen Sinclair: I have not analysed the exports to the United States. My analysis was of the imports. The duties we impose in Canada of course, have no effect on exports to other countries. The argument my hon. friend makes is that we should have higher protection in order to prevent the import of goods into the Canadian market.


John Lawrence Stansell: No, it seems to me a fair comparison to examine our imports of animal and vegetable products from the United States. The figures on the other hand would only be the exports to the United States, not taking the entire exports of Canada.


John Ewen Sinclair: If my hon. friend desires to analyse Canadian trade, he must go on the assumption that this country and other countries will produce and export articles that are indigenous to that country. In analysing Canadian trade we cannot confine it solely to the trade that passes between one country and another. If my hon. friend will look at our total Canadian trade he will see that the balance of trade between Canada and the United States is about $118,000,000 in favour of the United States. That is we still import $118,000,000 more than we sell them, but both the United States and Canada deal with other countries as well as dealing with each other, and if my hon. friend will analyse the trade between Canada and Great Britain he will find that the balance is about equal on the other side of the ledger. So that if we want to have a proper analysis of Canadian trade and our balance of trade, we must take into consideration the trade that goes to all countries. It is unfair to confine it to a comparison of the trade between any two countries. Now, sir, I might say with reference to the balance of- Canadian trade, according to my hon. friend's method of figuring, our exports exceeded our imports by $152,000,000 last year. In that respect I think our trade is in a very fair condition.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Did the hon. member give the imports of each animal product?


John Ewen Sinclair: The table I
analysed so far only applies to Canadian vegetable products. If the House will bear with me I will give some of the importations of animal products. In giving this summary, or in dividing the imports, it will be necessary to go into more detail and take each item as it is, and show what the duty is on each of the various items coming into Canada, because it is only by doing so we can get a true conception of what it means to the
Canadian farmer, and what it means to, particularly, Canadian consumers, the labourers in the industrial centres who purchase these articles. During the period that I have referred to, the nine months ending 31st December, 1923, there were imported into Canada animal and animal products of a total value of $32,561,941. Included in this total are animals for exhibition purposes which may be classed as a kind not produced in Canada. For exhibition purposes, we have a reciprocity agreement with the United States; allowing their animals to enter Canada free of duty and sales tax which privilege they extend to those of this country:
Summary
Animals and Animal Products
Of a kind Of a kind not Produced in produced in Canada
Animals for exhibition	
Animals for improvement of
stock	 $357,357
Common live stock	 130,119
Other animals living	 103.449
Bone, ivory and shell products 102,791
Feathers and quills	 235.968
Fresh fish	 370,207
Dried, salted, smoked or
pickled fish	 444.466
Fish preserved or canned.. ..	717.385
Other fishing products	 62,996
Fur skins unmanufactured.. ..	5,921.873
Fur skins manufactured.. ..	79,556
Hides and skins, N.O.P	 5.297,049
Leather unmanufactured	 3.085.253
Leather manufactured	 2,229,534
Hair and bristles	 500,002
Meats, fresh, chilled or frozen 2,465,877 Meats prepared or preserved
or cannod	 3,256.724
Milk and its products	 773,426
Oils, fats, greases or waxes.. 2,386,893 Miscell. animal products.. ..	2,094,789
Total	$30,615,714	$1,946,227
Total, $32,561,941.
Exports, $110,176,144.


Donald Sutherland: I am afraid my hon. friend's total is incorrect because the quantity of meat products imported, such as fresh pork and cured meats, aggregate more than the figures he has given.


John Ewen Sinclair: I think the
hon. member will find that the figures I have given are correct; I can assure him that I have very carefully prepared them. There is another table included in these figures which I think we might well take into consideration as indicating a very important balance in trade. I refer to the summary of agricultural and vegetable products other than food. This summary is largely comprised of one or two items, and shows in one column
Canada

1372	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
what is produced in Canada and in the other the commodities not produced here. This list is as follows:
me analyse the figures so that hon. members may see the rate of duty imposed upon these goods at present:
Summary
Animal Vegetables Products Other Than Food
Alcoholic beverages	
Gums & resins	
Oil cake meal	
Oils vegetables not food.. . Plants, shrubs, trees & vines Rubber and its products.. .
Rubber manufactured	
Seeds	
Tobacco	
All other vegetable products Various	
Grand total Exports..	.
	Not
Produced	produced
in Canada	in Canada
$16,285,454	
498,815	$ 1,204,888
15,876	27,883
163,370	5,782,141
925,388	
	6,155.750
2,100.166	
2,341,940	389,286
4,663.875	
1,831,852	1,190,742
	26,023
$28,826,736	$14,776,713

I will now give a summary of the imports of the three kinds which I have given in tabular form:
Grand Summary
	Of a	Of a kind
	kind grown	not grown
	in Canada	
Vegetable products		
(a) Mainly food		$22,979,925	$74,910,419
Vegetable products		
(b) Other than food	28,826,736	14,776,713Animal and animal products.	30,615,714	1,946,227$82,422,375	$91,633,359Total	
I realize that I have trespassed upon the temper of the House in reading these tables, but there is a further analysis that is necessary before the full import of these statistics can be appreciated.


Donald Sutherland: I do not wish to
interrupt the hon. member, but I scarcely understand how the animal products of Canada can be so low. As a matter of fact, during the year 1922, there was $9,286,000 worth of these products.


John Ewen Sinclair: Well, I have
given $30,000,000 for nine months.


Donald Sutherland: Does that figure
refer to such articles as might be produced in Canada?


John Ewen Sinclair: The figures
refer to articles of a kind produced in Canada. Now, with reference to these imports, which we are told should be given more protection in order to prevent the commodities of other countries and particularly of the United States being dumped into the Canadian market to the detriment of the Canadian producer, let 
Total Imports to Canada for nine months ending December 31, 1923
Vegetable products
(a) Mainly foods	$ 97,890,344
Animal products	 32,561,941

Vegetable products
(b) Other than food	 43,603,449
Total

An analysis of the above figures reveals the following facts:-
Total Fresh Fruits
Principal fruits which may be grown in Canada.-
Value Rate of duty
Apples	$ 700,089 00c. per bbl.
Cherries	 105,978	2c.	per lb.
Cranberries	 191,303 25, per cent.
Pears	
768,872	30c.	per bu.Peaches	
510,604	lc.	per lb.Plums	
374,365	30c.	per	bu.Strawberry	
719,430	2c.	per lb.Total	
13,370,641
Principal fruits not grown in Canada.-
Value Rate of duty
Bananas	J 4,315,644 Free
Grape fruit	 513,947	Free
Grapes	 827,014 2c. per lb.
Lemons	
998,909	FreeMelons	
378,802	3c. each.Oranges	
4,532,146	FreePineapples	
520,586	FreeVarious	
231,301Total	$12,318,349
Total.. $15,688,990
The highest ad valorem duty is 25 per cent. The specific duties vary according to the prices of the articles, and in many cases they are even higher than 25 per cent. The point I make is that if we impose a further duty on these items, which my hon. friends opposite are so ready to ask us to do, it will not benefit our producers, because at the time of the year when these commodities are imported our fresh fruits are not in season, and consequently by imposing a higher duty we are simply making our labourers and artisans pay more for fresh fruits out of season without any corresponding benefit resulting to our own producers.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Is it not a fact that
these articles are also subject to a dumping duty in addition to the duties the hon. minister has cited?


John Ewen Sinclair: The hon. member is quite correct; a dumping duty is imposed if the articles imported are sold here at a lower price than that which they command in the country of origin.

The Budget-Mr. Smclair (Queens)


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Which adds to the protection.	[DOT]


John Ewen Sinclair: It protects us from the dumping of inferior products. But it does not afford any protection to our people; it rather handicaps them if they want to buy fruit which is produced cheaply in another country. I do not think it is necessary to read the whole list of articles imported of a kind not produced in Canada; suffice it to say that they are mainly on the free list. Should any duties be imposed upon those articles, no benefit accrues to the Canadian producer because he does not grow them.
The argument I have presented with regard to fresh fruits is equally applicable to dried fruits, of which only a very small percentage are of a kind produced in this country and are valued at $854,087; whereas we imported $4,316,865 worth of a kind not produced in Canada. A small revenue tax is collected on these, varying from half a cent a pound up to 55 cents a hundred pounds. The same is true of prepared fruits of a kind not grown in Canada, of which we imported $896,000, and of a kind grown in Canada we imported $802,000.
Without wearying the House with an analysis of the whole table, I will deal with vegetables. These appeal more directly to the producer in Canada perhaps than any other commodity in this table. During the period mentioned we imported the following fresh vegetables:
Principal vegetables which can be grown in Canada
Cabbage.. Onions.. Potatoes.. Tomatoes,
N. O. P	
Value	Rate of duty
$	234,913	30%
337.650	30%
536,366	35c. per 100 lbs.
904,596	30%
1,055,723	30%

Vegetables of a kind not grown
Value
Sweet potatoes	 $80,475
Various	 10
in Canada Rate of duty 30%

1374	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
A large part of this represents horses for exhibition purposes. I may say that horses imported for exhibition purposes are exported but are not included as exports from Canada in our trade returns. Our friends would not say for a moment that we should put a duty, not to speak of a prohibitive duty, on horses or cattle coming in for exhibition purposes. We exported during the same period $392,651 worth for exhibition purposes. Cattle for the improvement of stock are free under the system of national registration; I need not go into that in detail. Of common live stock we imported only $130,119 worth, which paid a duty of 25 per cent, and in the case of horses a duty of $12.50 each. Of other animals, living, we imported $103,000 worth, to which different rates of duty applied. That makes a total value of animals imported of $2,340,188, 70 per cent of which represents horses for exhibition purposes. Our exports for the same period were valued at $10,791,026, over eighty per cent of which were cattle and were sent to the British markets.
I should like to refer also to the fisheries. We imported of fresh halibut during the period referred to, $36,916 worth at a duty of one cent a pound; of oysters in bulk, $156,000 worth at 10 cents a gallon; of fresh salmon, $80,000 worth at one cent a pound; of other fresh fish, $117,104 worth at one cent a pound. All these are subject to this low rate of duty. It would be unfair to contend that we should have a higher duty on fish. They are imported into Canada at a season of the year when we are not catching fish in large quantities, and to increase the duty would simply mean to increase the cost of living to the Canadian consumer. I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the House at further length in going into these figures. When my hon. friends of the Conservative party argue that the duty on these articles should be increased, they are simply asking for an increase in those living costs which already bear so heavily upon the labourers and artisans in the industrial centres. It is a mistake at this time, a mistake at any time and not in any way beneficial to agriculture, to increase the duties upon these articles.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Would the hon. gentleman say that the artisans and labourers of this country purchase these early fruits and vegetables that come in from the United States?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Certainly they do, in
some cases.


John Ewen Sinclair: Will my hon.
friend tell me where they can get them if they do not purchase them? The ex-Minister

of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), in the few remarks he made the other day after the budget speech had been delivered, referred to two articles that are commonly used and largely produced in this country, namely, eggs and cheese. I think he said that the imports of cheese into Canada had increased 86 per cent. Ordinarily when an outstanding statement of that kind is made, the period is given to which the figures apply. Let me give to the House a few facts in connection with the imports of cheese into Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The period to
which the 86 per cent increase of imports from the United States applied was the year 1923, ending February 29, 1924. The figures with respect to the decrease of our exports, 50 per cent, were for the same year. Other periods, of course, might be chosen.


John Ewen Sinclair: If my hon.
friend had then given the period to which his figures applied I would have had an opportunity to compare them with the actual facts. I would like to submit to the House a statement which I think is correct in regard to the cheese industry in Canada. I have under my hand a statement showing the imports of cheese for the last twenty years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was getting
mine down to date.


John Ewen Sinclair: My hon. friend
says he was trying to get down to late figures, but he should also apply those figures to late facts. I will tell him what the facts are: We import very little, if any, cheese of the kind that is manufactured in Canada. The cheese we import is sometimes high priced, sometimes not-Italian and Swiss cheese, cheese of fancy kinds which certain sections of our population are anxious to have but which are not produced in our country. During the last year a factory was started in Canada with a view to meeting the demand for this kind of cheese, and I may tell my hon. friend that one factory is sufficient to supply that demand. So that when he makes the statement that our imports of cheese have increased by 86 per cent and gives no information as to the kind of cheese that is referred to and as to the conditions generally with respect to the manufacture of cheese in Canada, his statement is calculated to arouse a suspicion in the minds of our people which has no foundation in fact. The imports of cheese for the calendar year 1923 amounted to $614,872 worth, and our exports for the same year were valued at $5,902,300.
Our exports were of Cheddar cheese and our imports were not: scarcely one pound of our

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
import was of this kind of cheese. So we find when we analyze my hon. friend's statement that it was made simply to create a spirit of unrest among Canadian producers and particularly among Canadian farmers, and made to bolster up the case for high protection on manufactured products. But every time that these assertions are made it is found that the real facts do not back them up, and especially is this the case in regard to cheese.


Donald Sutherland: What were the
figures in regard to butter?


John Ewen Sinclair: In 1923 we exported 2,403,086 pounds of butter and imported 1,523,381 pounds. Does my hon. friend think it would be wise to put a further duty on butter to keep it out?


Donald Sutherland: As high as the
American tariff.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does my hon. friend think it would be wise to increase the cost of butter to the labouring man and artisan in the industrial centres of Canada by a further duty on it?


Donald Sutherland: Our exports exceed our imports, so we have a surplus.


John Ewen Sinclair: To go into this matter thoroughly, my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) knows as well as any other member of the House, because he is a practical agriculturist, that in Canada, and when I say Canada I mean the whole country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we have a season of high production and a season of low production, and that is so because of our northern latitude. During our season of low production is it fair to those who consume this article every day, and who have no season of high consumption and low consumption as have the producers, to put on a tariff and prevent the importation of this product which our people wish to buy, in order to protect those people whom a high duty will not protect? That is the whole point.


Donald Sutherland: Is there a month in which we do not produce more butter than we consume in Canada?


John Ewen Sinclair: There certainly is, and more especially in the outlying provinces. Conditions may not be quite the same in Ontario, because that is the most southerly situated province in Canada, but we cannot base our tariff policy on the needs of Ontario alone; we must take into consideration the whole of Canada when we are making tariff changes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why don't you?
88 i


John Ewen Sinclair: My hon. friend is wrong. We did consider the whole of Canada. I wish to refer for a moment to animal products under the heading of eggs. Eggs have been referred to during this debate and also in the debate on the Address, as well as in many agricultural papers, and in fact the press generally throughout Canada. The general situation with regard to eggs, and I suppose the point my hon. friend has referred to is that the duty on United States eggs coming into Canada is 3 cents per dozen, while the duty on Canadian eggs going into the United States is 8 cents a dozen. Eggs are available to the common people of the country as a fresh and wholesome food and are used more than any other single article, because they can be purchased and kept in a fresh state and are available to the ordinary people when properly handled. Now what is the situation? The export and import figures show that for the fiscal year 1923 we imported 8,319,622 dozen, of which 8,256,168 dozen came from the United States. In dealing with eggs we must remember that it is an article in the production of which more particularly than is the case with any other article there is a season of high production and a season of low production. I think it is safe to say that in Canada generally during the months of December, January and February, our production of eggs in Canada is almost nil. Eggs are an article of food that our people wish to buy in the fresh state, and they will pay quite a premium for fresh eggs, so during the winter months there is a demand for fresh eggs which our Canadian producer's are not able to supply. I will read to the House a list of the imports of eggs into Canada, showing the provinces into which they are imported, and analyze the statement later.
Eggs imported in 1923
Quantity
Province-	in dozens	ValueBritish Columbia	. 298,950	$ 94,846Alberta	. 67,541	21,404Saskatchewan	. 23,516	7,896Manitoba	. 337,517	104,973Ontario	. 3,592,666	1,133,187Quebec	. 2,126,397	671,365New Brunswick	. 79.551	24,365Nova Scotia	. 95,374	28,448Prince Edward Island.. .	. 1	18Yukon	. 1,740	5506,623,253	$2,087,306
Not to take up too much of the time of the House, I may say that I have a table here which shows that the greater part of the importations of these eggs were made during the months of December, January and February, and a few in March. About five years ago the largest importer of eggs was the
1376	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
province of British Columbia, but during the past three years there has been quite a lot of activity to encourage the production of eggs in that province carried on by the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). The climate there is particularly suitable for producing eggs, especially during the winter season, and the result has been that to-day British Columbia is one of the smallest importers of eggs; in fact, they produce sufficient not only to supply their own needs but a considerable portion of the needs of the prairie provinces. You will see that almost the whole importation of eggs is into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Now, realizing that eggs are imported into Canada in the months when there is no production in this country, and the import figures show that during the months when there is production in Canada there is no importation of eggs worth speaking about, we see at once that a further duty upon eggs entering into Canada, which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance referred to a few days ago, would simply mean an increased cost of eggs to those who consume them in this country.
There is one feature in regard to the egg trade which may seem a little strange. During this time of the year, when eggs are plentiful in the republic to the south, it is common for large dealers to import eggs into Canada, and by means of that importation they are able to control and cut down the price in the Canadian market. I do not think that anybody whose economic principles are sound would object to that, because the cutting down of the price, when the supply is increasing, benefits the consumer although it may not be profitable to the producer. There is another feature about this question: When these eggs are imported and distributed in our Canadian market they have a tendency to decrease the consumption of eggs by our own people, a feature that is to be deplored. In order to offset that regulations have been passed requiring these low grade eggs to be marked according to quality in the same way that Canadian eggs are marked. Last year our inspectors inspected 6,623,253 dozen of eggs coming into Canada out of a total importation of 8,000,000 dozen eggs. I say that the Canadian producer is able to compete with his competitior in the United States providing that the competition is of a fair character. I think that the regulation now in force for the inspection of eggs is controlling and will continue to control the shooting in of low grade eggs from the American republic, to the extent that it affects or

destroys egg consumption in Canada. As to the decrease in prices in Canada, the needs of the industrial population in this country must be considered, and if these workers, under the operation of the law of supply and demand, can buy their eggs at a lower price they are entitled to do so. Therefore I submit to hon. gentlemen who advocate a higher duty on eggs that it would not be in the best interest of Canada, now or at any future time, to raise the duty upon an article which is really one of the necessaries of life, and thus cause the workers in our industrial centres to pay more for the commodity than they really would have to pay if our producers were in open competition with the producers of other countries.


Donald Sutherland: Can my hon. friend give the estimated production of eggs in Canada, the estimated quantity exported from this country, and the estimated quantity exported to the United States?


John Ewen Sinclair: I am not a
walking encyclopaedia


Mr. McMASTER:: Pretty near.


John Ewen Sinclair: -mueh as I
should like to give my hon. friend that information.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. gentleman has been giving us the details of imports. Surely he can give us the figures in respect to the exports also.


John Ewen Sinclair: In order to
assuage the anxiety of my hon. friend I may tell him that I am not refusing to give that information. I have before me a statement showing the estimated production of eggs in Canada. The first note I have relates to the statement of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) that the sale of Canadian eggs in the adjoining republic amounted to the small sum of $49,000. I do not know where the ex-Minister of Finance obtained those figures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The figures
will be found in the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the twelve months in question. My hon. friend will find that the quantity was 104,836 dozen and the value $49,227.


John Ewen Sinclair: I thought my
hon. friend stated that the figures were for the period ending February, 1924.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They were the latest I could get.

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)


John Ewen Sinclair: I took my
figures from the trade returns to be found in the official blue book. I find for the year previous we exported eggs to the value of $126,851.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Those were
exports to the United States.


John Ewen Sinclair: Yes to the
United States, and the quantity was 311,271 dozen.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was not
speaking of the general export, but simply the export to the United States.


John Ewen Sinclair: No doubt my
hon. friend chose the year that best suited his argument.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I took the
latest figures that I could get.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am very glad my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has brought up this point. I had taken a note of it but in my desire to condense my remarks I was almost passing it over. The estimate of egg production in Canada for 1921 is calculated by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics at 168,049,154 dozen, valued at $40,968,841, from 25,755,356 hens or an average of 78 eggs per hen. In 1922 the production of eggs in Canada amounted to 194,058,468 dozen, valued at $48,490,578, from 29,945,484 hens, or the same average production per hen as in the year previously. The point I want to make is this: We have heard a good deal of criticism, during this debate and during the discussion of the estimates, as to the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of raising the standard of agricultural products for export. In the statement I have just read you will find figures which suggest the necessity of doing all we can to encourage Canadian producers to pay further attention to production in Canada. By our egg laying contests the possibility has been demonstrated of doubling the production of Canadian poultrymen as shown by these figures. If that can be done-and that it can is beyond question; as a practical agriculturist I am well aware that it is within the possible accomplishment of Canadian poultrymen-we may yet see a production of 150 eggs per hen provided those engaged pay greater attention to the development of the industry. If movements along these lines are encouraged it is almost impossible to estimate the progress that can be made in egg production in Canada. We are to-day producing $48,000,000 worth of poultry products, chiefly eggs. Production may be
doubled by the application of proper methods to the industry. Now, as I said a few days ago, the expenditure we are making in Canada for inspection services is one of the best outlays that could be undertaken by this government. It raises the standard o' our agricultural products and enables those products to take their proper place in the markets of the world, especially in the British market which in the past has not been taken advantage of to the extent that it should have been by Canadian producers. That is true not only of eggs; it applies also to meat and dairy products.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend
promised to give us the figures of the export of eggs.


John Ewen Sinclair: In order to
gratify the desire for knowledge of my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland)
I may say that the exports of Canadian eggs for the year 1922 amounted to 4,399,534 dozens, whereas our production was 168,000,000. Mj' hon. friend will see that the people of Canada, in the rural and urban districts are depending upon that article of food for their sustenance. They could not use any article that would be more nutritive than fresh eggs.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: The productions did not respond very well to the invitations of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell).


John Ewen Sinclair: I am giving
the statistics. The efforts of the present Minister of Agriculture are now beginning to show their effects. If my hon. friend will wait till he gets the returns for next year, he will probably find better results. I think I have made it clear that the references made by the apostles of high protection, and their arguments that these articles should receive more protection, are simply out of place. They can show no article in the trade returns in regard to which a benefit would accrue to the Canadian producer by an increase of duty at the present day. Comparing production in Canada with production in the States, I may say that the average production of farm products, apart from sugar, com and cotton and the products of live stock, per capita of the United States is $73, as compared with $93 in Canada. Now if we produce more than they do in the United States, is it not to be supposed that we can produce it cheaper. Why should we enhance the cost to the consumers of Canada by an extra duty, when the price of our export surplus is based on the world markets?
1378	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)


Donald Sutherland: In order to keep
out the American eggs that are coming in at the present time.


John Ewen Sinclair: Am I right
in assuming that the interpretation to be given to my hon. friend's contention is that it is better to make the consumer of eggs in Canada pay more for the eggs he consumes, and also to discourage him from consuming eggs by bringing in a low grade product, rather than to give him a good article at a reasonable price?


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member
has contended that it is possible to increase the production of eggs enormously in this country. How can we encourage production by permitting foreign produce to come in.


John Ewen Sinclair: I have just
outlined the matter to the House. To encourage production in the line I have suggested means cheaper production than we have at the present time. We can increase production by the methods taught by the agricultural colleges and the experts in Canada, and we can increase production with the same number of hens that we have at the present time. We are feeding the hens to-day, and if by intelligent methods we increase production, I claim that we cheapen production, and we give to the consumers a better article at a lower price. If I understand my hon. friend's argument aright, he contends that the only way to increase production in Canada is to raise the price to the consumer by an artificial duty imposed by the government.
Mr, SUTHERLAND:	The incentive to
production is to show a profitable production.


John Ewen Sinclair: Yes.
In connection with the railway situation, I stated in my opening remarks that the railways were largely responsible or responsible in considerable degree for the showing made in balancing the budget. I think that the management of the Canadian National Railways under the present board are to be commended for the showing they have made. It is not too much to say that I be-
5 p.m. lieve that the government when they secured the services of Sir Henry Thornton as president of the board of management, secured a man who has proven himself to be a real asset to the people of *Canada. His management of the road as illustrated in the returns for the last year has proven that he has given to the country the value he was expected to give, and we believe he will continue to give that value. 
I\e have had a good deal of discussion during the session with respect to branch lines, a discussion touching upon almost every problem presented to the board of management, whose recommendations have been endorsed by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), and submitted to the House for its consideration and decision. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that we all heartily endorse the proposition of the board of management and believe that its adoption will conduce to the betterment of the railway. We believe the additional expenditures will be more than repaid by the cgnstruction of the branch lines.
I desire for a short time to refer to matters that are of more provincial interest and I wish to point out that the province from which I come does not benefit in any way by the extensions which have been proposed and the building of the branch lines. I am raising no objection to that and not making it a ground for objection to the extensions in other provinces. I believe those extensions are all justified, but I may say that while no provision is made, the people in the province of Prince Edward Island have been urging the present government and the previous government to provide for railway extensions and branch lines in that province. The necessity for this is particularly acute, on account of the development that has taken place in the last two or three years in the growing of seed potatoes in the Maritime provinces. This industry has proven to be particularly profitable to our people. They find a very ready market among the people of the southern states, where they do not grow a high grade potato. The seed potato is one of the articles on which we make the American pay the duty imposed by his own government but the production of which we cannot carry on with success any great distance from a shipping point. I think it is safe to say that if a farmer is located four miles, or five miles at the outside, from the shipping point, it is almost impossible to carry on the seed potato business on a large scale, because the transportation costs on such a bulky article are very great. The development of this business has created a desire among our people for short railway extensions. The government in power in 1911 foresaw the position we were in, and provided for a branch line to run from Emerald Junction to New London. The contract was let and signed, and the government which succeeded the government of that day cancelled the contract. The matter stands to-day just as it stood at that time, and those people feel the loss thus sustained by the cancellation of the contract.

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member now urging these branch lines on himself?


John Ewen Sinclair: The leader of the opposition will see my statement. He has heard what I have said and I think it is quite clear to the House just what I mean. I stand by what I said.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is a member of the government and I am asking him the question. Is he pressing this policy on himself?


John Ewen Sinclair: I am citing the condition that exists in the province in regard to railway extension, and when I have fully stated the case I am sure my right hon. friend will have no misapprehension as to the position I occupy, or the attitude the government is taking, in the matter. There is another section in our province that is also asking for an extension in order to develop fishing and advance the interests of agriculture in the special line I have mentioned: I am referring to that section frqm Hunter River to Rustico, a distance of eight miles. It has also been proposed, and indeed a petition was presented to the late government, to have another extension provided, and it is still looked forward to with confidence as something that will be taken up in the future. This other extension which I am now referring to is between a point on the Murray Harbour railway and a point on the Georgetown railway, namely, from Mount Herbert to Birts Siding, a distance of twelve miles, which opens up a country the equal of which cannot be found in Canada from the point of view of production. The people in all these sections are anxious to take up a special line of farming, and unless some outlet is provided it will scarcely be possible for those who live more than five miles from a railway to engage in this work.
Let me impress upon the House the fact that our people are not unreasonable. They know the transportation situation in the province, and they realise that we are passing through a transition stage in which we are continuing the work that was begun by the government of Sir Robert Borden in relation to the island's connection with the mainland and the standardization of its railways. The work was begun in 1913 and continued during the war. but I am very sorry to say that my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who interrupted me a moment ago allowed this work to lapse during the term in which he was leader of the government. Our people very much deprecated that fact; but fortunately the work has been carried on during the term of
this government. The people of Prince Edward Island take the view that in order to have proper transportation facilities this undertaking must be completed before extensions can be made; and I am free to say that, to my knowledge, the view which the management of the Canadian National Railways take of this matter is that the break in the continuity of the work which was permitted by my right hon. friend should never have been allowed.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that it was under the influence of this government that the Canadian National Railways continued the widening of the gauge?


John Ewen Sinclair: I am sorry that my right hon. friend was not paying attention to my remarks. I said that the work was begun by the government of Sir Robert Borden in 1913 and continued step by step during the years of the war. And I say now that it is carried on with unbroken continuity.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend is dodging the question.


John Ewen Sinclair: What is the
question?


Arthur Meighen: I asked the hon. member whether he was suggesting that it was under the influence of this government that the railway board decided to continue the widening of the gauge.


John Ewen Sinclair: My right hon. friend has formed a wrong impression of my remarks, but evidently the wish was father to the thought in this instance. I said that the work had been continued since he and his government went out of power, and I added that, according to my information, it was the intention of the management of the Canadian National Railways to continue the work until the standardization of the railways in the province had been completed. In that regard I think that the railway management are taking the proper step in tile interests of transportation in Prince Edward Island, and I know that the people of that province will support them so far as that question is concerned. The people of Prince Edward Island, who have been looking forward to these extensions to which I have referred, are not unmindful of the financial conditions that render economy imperative not only in connection with our railways but also in regard to public expenditures generally. But they also are firmly of the opinion that it is absolutely necessary that the work of standardizing the railways in that province should be pushed to completion before further exten-
,	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
sions be made. The present state of affairs is one that cannot obtain indefinitely, as the needs of the people must be met.
I do not wish to detain the House at much greater length. I have referred to many matters that are of interest generally as well as from a local point of view, and in regard to the budget, I think it is one that will appeal to the common people of this country. It makes for a reduction in taxation of $2.70 per capita of our population, or over $13 per family of five. I have now nearly closed all the considerations which I have at present to offer the House on this budget. I have endeavoured to give a distinct and fair view of the financial condition of this country, and of the many obstacles we have encountered in attaining a balanced budget. I have compared the result of our effort with that accomplished by any of our predecessors regardless of the political party in power. I have pointed cut that the budget of this year has not increased the burden of taxation now borne by our people, but that the reductions contemplated will mean a saving of $2.70 to every man, woman and child in Canada, I have referred to the increase in trade and production and have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that more protection is not essential for the prosperity and success of the Canadian farmer; and I have shown that the injury assumed by the former Minister of Finance to have been perpetrated on our egg and cheese production in Canada is wholly imaginary. Look at the improvement in our railways. To-day they are a real asset to our country; a few years ago they were one of our greatest liabilities. Compare the value of our dollar in the money markets with its quotations in the beginning of 1922. Note the increase in bank deposits and in the volume of our foreign trade. Our production for the year 1923 was over four billions of dollars. The era of prosperity now reached is not the transient effect of an accident, not the short lived success of a day, but the genuine, natural and direct result of the confidence and faith which business and industry have in Liberal policies and principles.
Let us hope that the season of our severe trial is at an end, and that we are at length relieved, not only from the dejection and gloom which a few years since hung over the country, but from the doubt and uncertainty which, even for a considerable time after our prospect had begun to brighten, still mingled with the hopes and expectations of the public.
On our present situation fortunate beyond our more sanguine expectations, let me congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, the House, and my country! And, as I conclude, let me

express my earnest wish, my anxious and fervent prayer, that now in this period of success, for the sake of our present age and of posterity, there may be no intermission in that vigilant attention of parliament to every object connected with the revenue, the expenditure, the resources and the industries, which have carried us through all our difficulties and led to this rapid and wonderful improvement; and that under the favour of Providence we may ensure the continuance of this unexampled progress.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose at this stage of the debate to discuss the tariff issues of the budget. No doubt the House will hear enough on the subject from other members, and should I find it necessary to discuss it later there may be an amendment introduced which will afford me the necessary opportunity. I wish, however, to make one comment upon the budget. I understood the Speech from the Throne foreshadowed the introduction of legislation to reduce taxation on the instruments of production, more particularly on those lines which have their origin in the natural products of the country. This has been carried out in the budget proposals by means of reductions either in the tariff or in the sales tax on the leading lines of instruments of production, such as farming, mining, fishing and lumbering; but it would appear that the paper-making industry has been overlooked, either accidentally or deliberately. It is certainly a business which is based upon the natural produce of the country. It is a very important industry in British Columbia, and there are four papermaking plants in the district I represent alone, as well as similar plants in other parts of the province. It appears to me that it would have been thoroughly in line with the declared policy of the government to have given the very expensive machinery which enters into papermaking-nearly all of which machinery has to be bought in the United States, -a rebate either in the sales tax or in the tariff, for the industry is by no means too prosperous at the present time. If the omission was merely an oversight, I hope the government will see their way to amend it when the resolutions come before the House.
I was sorry not to see either in the Speech from the Throne or in the budget any reference to a treaty with Australia, which was much talked of a year ago. I presume that the government has been unable to negotiate such a treaty at the present time. I hope, however, that it will engage their attention' for the conclusion of a treaty with Australia would be of very material advantage to the progress of British Columbia.

The Budget-Mr. Neill
Now I propose to lay some facts before the House in connection with oriental immigration -not as respects British Columbia alone but all Canada. I know the oriental question is somewhat tiresome to many members, but I do not intend to discuss it in a parochial or even a provincial manner. It is unnecessary to do so, because two years ago the House passed a resolution, placing themselves and the whole of Canada on record as being in favour of effective restriction of all oriental immigration. Therefore it will only be necessary for me to touch on the salient points and keep the discussion, if possible, on the plane of a national question. In fact in view of certain events which are happening to the south of us to-day, I may say it is quite likely to become an international question in the near future. I wish particularly to confine my remarks to an absolutely nonpartisan attitude. In 1922 the House will recall that the British Columbia members and some others debated the oriental question, and that not one of us introduced any note of partisanship; no reflections were cast upon one party or another. The result was that in a comparatively short debate-it lasted only one afternoon and evening-a great deal of what I think was useful information was given to the House, information that had the advantage of being unbiased and of representing the various points of view from which this question is regarded in the West. In sharp contrast to this, I had occasion the other day to look up Hansard for a debate on the same subject in 1913. On that occasion unfortunately a partisan tinge was given to the discussion. It was a very long debate, covering over two hundred pages of Hansard, but its informative value was very much impaired by the fact that every hon. gentleman who spoke took up a violent partisan attitude, and the debate degenerated into a series of reproaches, each party blaming the other for having or not having done something which they should not or should have done.
There are two phases of this question- the Japanese and the Chinese. I shall deal very briefly for the moment with the Chinese phase. When this parliament first assembled in 1922 we had a Chinese Immigration Act, which allowed Chinese to come in practically without limit on payment of a head tax of 8500. After the House two years ago passed the resolution to which I have referred, pronouncing in favour of effective restriction, the government, in the following year, 1923. brought down a Chinese Immigration Bill which allowed entrance of the following classes: Members of the diplomatic service and their servants; Canadian or naturalized Chinamen going away for a visit and coming back to Canada; merchants; students. Under section 9 the minister was allowed at his discretion to permit any particular individual to enter for a strictly limited period, which had to be specified. Section 41 also provided that within ninety days of the act coming into force any Chinaman who was then en route to Canada would be allowed to enter; which of course was a reasonable provision. There was also a section, and a very important one, which required all Chinese to be registered within twelve months, this registration to take place at various designated offices.
It has been said that the act was loosely drawn and provided many loopholes for evasion. There seemed to be too many exempted classes. But results are always the best criterion of the effectiveness of any legislation, so let us see what the results were in this case. I have under my hand the results for seven months after the act came into force. In that time there entered Canada from China 455 Chinese-a large number apparently. But of these 438 came in under section 41-the section allowing Chinamen en route to Canada to complete their journey within 90 days of the passing of the act- and of course this provision will never be available again. So we may dismiss these from our consideration of the effectiveness of the act. This leaves only seventeen to be accounted for. Of these ten were Canadian Chinamen coming back after a visit. Of the remaining seven, five were students, one was a consular servant, and one came in by virtue of section 9, under which the minister could let anyone in at his discretion. It appeared that this man was a student at Berkeley, California, who wished to obtain some data in connection with our universities. As he was coming here not as a student he could not be enrolled as one; therefore he was admitted under section 9, for six months. At the end of five months he went away. So the net result of the operations of the act for seven months is that five Chinese students entered Canada who will have to go away at the termination of their scholastic career, and one consular servant, who also will have to go away when his master dispenses with him.
I think it can be truly said, Mr. Speaker, that in view of this record, this is a really effective measure of restriction, and that it can be regarded as a permanent solution of Chinese immigration-a long fought out question in this country.
There are some 40,000 Chinamen in Canada. Of these only about 6 per cent are women, and consequently the birthrate is very low.

The Budget-Mr. Neill
In fact the birth rate is only 7.6 as compared to 21.4 of white people and 36.8 of Japanese *-note how much more prolific the Japanese are. So the result might well be that the birth rate will hardly keep up with the death rate of those 40,000, and in time we may look to their gradual elimination and the final solution of the Chinese question in Canada. I think British Columbia and Alberta-because Alberta shares in this matter-are to be congratulated, and the members from those provinces are also to be congratulated upon helping, by their non-partisan attitude in this House, to bring about that result, because had we been squabbling and attacking each other no doubt the government would not have felt itself called upon to take any very decisive action. Perhaps we may also congratulate the members of the government who carried out the wishes of the House and of the West in that regard. All this is very satisfactory, Mr. Speaker, but there is no rose without its thorn, there is no ointment without its fly, and there is always a nigger in the woodpile. Before we finish congratulating ourselves on the result of this act we must realize that we are confronted with a very pertinent question from British Columbia and the West generally : Why was this act not made applicable to the Japanese as well? The British Columbia members are well aware, and we emphasized that in the debate two years ago, that the Japanese situation was the more acute, and the resolution was passed not only with the approval of the government but also with an amendment moved by a member of the government largely changing the wording of it, that Canada as a whole stood for the effective restriction not merely of Chinese but of oriental immigration. Nothing could be clearer or more emphatic. And why was it not made applicable to the Japanese? Well, Mr. Speaker, we were told it was because the Japanese objected. I recall an occasion some years ago when I asked the government of the day to close up a certain office. It was a sinecure: there was nothing wrong with the occupant, but he was not doing anything to earn his money and I suggested that in the interests of economy the office should be closed. Of course I got the stereotyped reply that we always get from governments: "We must have a report on this." So in due time a report was made and I was furnished with the information that it would not be possible to close this office, that grave objections existed against such a procedure. Of course I was supposed to be satisfied with that, and I have no doubt it was presumed by the department in question that I would never be heard of again. But with what I have no doubt they
[Mr. Neill.)
regarded as stupid obstinacy, I insisted upon knowing what those grave objections were and who made them, and after the usual delay it turned out that the grave objections were made by the gentleman who occupied the position. That was all the objection; it came entirely from him and it was merely founded on the fact that he did not want to give up the job. We have the same thing here. "Japan objects," but surely, Mr. Speaker, that is not enough: we are entitled to ask and we do ask the Japanese why they object. And what answer do we get? We are met with a plethora of vague and illusory arguments-I will not call them arguments: statements-which cannot stand the test of logic or of the precedent of international law. We hear the argument used, "We are a proud nation"; in fact, I have heard so much about that "proud nation" that it almost gives me nausea. "We are a proud nation," says Japan, "and we cannot tolerate anything that looks like discrimination against our nationals." But is a treaty ever made under which one nation does not give something to another which may be regarded as discrimination against some other nation which is left out of the deal? That is patent; everything of that kind implies directly or indirectly some measure of discrimination. We may be held to be discriminating against the United States manufacturers when we give a very decided preference in our markets to British manufacturers. Why does the United States not call us to account and say:	"This is
a discrimination"-which it certainly is- "against our manufacturers; we demand that you withdraw that legislation." Not long ago we had the instance of the United States putting a very high tariff on cattle and wheat-Canadian cattle and Canadian wheat. The word "Canadian" may not have been inserted in the original tariff, but it was absolutely designed to hit Canadian cattle and Canadian wheat, and I am pretty sure that in the case of the last increase, made a few months ago, by which an even higher duty was imposed on wheat, the words "Canadian wheat" were actually used. And is it not on record that recently there has been talk of their putting an embargo upon these same Canadian products, and Canadian products only? There can be no question at all that the result of that tariff has been the loss of a large market for our western farmers; there is no doubt that it has cost our people millions of dollars. And what have we done about it? We know that it has been bad for us and for our trade. We believe, in fact we hope, as we are entitled to hope, that it has proved harmful also tc

The Budget-Mr. tveill
the United States; and we believe that in time they will realize that a mistake was made both from their point of view and from our point of view, and will repudiate that legislation. But in the meantime what have we done? Did we go down to Washington, rattle the sword in its scabbard, and give them to understand that if such and so was not done, "grave international complications" would ensue-as was done, in fact in connection with the Japanese question in the republic to the south of us a few days ago ? We did nothing of the kind, and had we done so I think we would have been very promptly and very properly told to mind our own business. What we did do was to accept the thing with such resignation as we could muster, recognizing the right of these people to control imports into their country in their own way and to impose what terms they saw fit with regard to such products as should be received. And if that is a proper procedure with regard to products, why not also with regard to people? Why have we not the right to say what people shall come into our country and form the basis of our future citizenship? Even in matters of immigration we find that the United States is discriminating against Great Britain in the establishment of a quota, but we do not find Great Britain, who is so very anxious to get rid of her surplus population, talking threateningly about "grave international complications." Why, Sir, the very policy that we seek to adopt in Canada is followed by Japan herself. Is our policy not this: That we wish to restrict Japanese and oriental immigration generally because we do not want to subject our white population to an intense economic competition with a race whose standards of living are lower than ours? Well, those are almost identically the words which Japan herself uses in restricting the immigration of orientals-orientals, mark you-from China, and also from Korea, the latter a province of Japan. Japan, I say, imposes these restrictions upon the numbers entering her own country, practically in the language I have just quoted, and she does it by Imperial Ordinance No. 352.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon.
gentleman suggest the exclusion from Canada of all goods from oriental or other countries where there is a lower standard of living than that of our own Canadian workmen?


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an adept at devising these-what shall I say?-these situations which may confront us some time in the distant future. We are
dealing now with immigration; let us make this country a white Canada and we will deal with the products later on. For the present let us confine ourselves to the immigration of people, not the importation of products. If the hon. member has any idea that the restriction of oriental immigration will affect our trade with the East, he may disabuse his mind of it, because experience the world over has shown that people will always trade where it is convenient and profitable to trade. Another reason: if they do not buy the goods from us, where are they going to buy them? Certainly not in the States; so that there is no fear that we will suffer in that regard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think my question has been misunderstood. It is simply because we are obtaining large quantities of goods from the Orient, those goods being produced under conditions where the standard of living is much lower than that which exists in this country, and my question was whether it was suggested that we should exclude all imports which were produced in a country where the standard of living is lower than in Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: My hon. friend apparently1
is drifting up the House; that is a question I would expect to come from my right. Would he suggest as a remedy that we put a tariff on these goods?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I simply asked whether the hon. gentleman would propose that.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not in favour of puting a high tariff on food entering Canada at the present moment, but I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of tariff issues, which I think have no bearing on this subject.
Now I wish to summarize the status of the situation to-day, so that we can see what confronts us with regard to the Japanese. Many years ago the immigration of Japanese into Canada was regulated by our ordinary Immigration Act. We had no special Immigration Act such as we had with respect to the Chinese, but in 1907, owing to the pressure of a large influx of Japanese, the government of the day negotiated what was called a "gentleman's agreement" with the government of Japan. I think the right hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) described it as a somewhat loosely expressed agreement, and I think that is a very good description. There has been a good deal of misconception and a good deal of misunder-
The Budget-Mr. Neill

standing has arisen concerning this mysterious document known as a gentleman's agreement. Once you make something hidden and mysterious all kinds of suspicions and myths and misunderstandings grow up around it. I think it might be profitable to put some portion of that agreement on Hansard, so that we would have something to start from and have a place of ready reference. I might say that a great deal, in fact almost all. so far as I know, that has ever been printed in regard to this gentleman's agreement is found in Hansard in the year 1913. when this debate I refer to was going on. It is not very long and the House will bear with me perhaps if I put it on Hansard, because this is a matter that is going to be of very great importance in the near future, and it is much more convenient to find the agreement in the Hansard of to-day than to turn back ten years ago. Here are the two regulations which form the basis of the gentleman's agreement. The letter is dated December, 1907:
Following is the agreement which was included therein:
The regulations (a) would be sent at once to the governors of the several prefectures of Japan, and the regulations (b) to the consuls of Japan in Canada.
(A)
The following classes of emigrants only are those to whom the Japanese government will grant permission to emigrate to Canada
1.	Emigrants having previously resided in Canada and holding certificates of such residence issued by the Japanese consular authorities in the Dominion, and the wives and children of such emigrants.
2.	Emigrants specially engaged by Japanese residents in Canada for bona fide personal or domestic service, upon production of written evidence of such engagement, attested by the competent Japanese consular authorities.
3.	Contract emigrants, where terms of the contract, works to be done, names and standing of the intended employers are satisfactorily specified; such contracts to be accompanied by a certificate from the Japanese consul of the district where the labourers are to be employed.
In addition to the above, emigrants brought in under contract by Japanese resident agricultural holders in Canada and especially required for the promotion of such agriculture; such contract to be accompanied by the certificate of the Japanese consular authority in the district where the labourers are to be employed.
(B) Copy of Memorandum to Consular Authorities. The consular authorities to whom application is made for the issue of a certificate attesting the genuineness of contracts for the employment of Japanese labour in Canada shall not issue the certificate unless they receive satisfactory evidence that such contract has the approval of the Canadian government.
As an exception to this rule, Japanese consular authorities in Canada may issue certificates to Japanese resident agricultural holders who require Japanese labour for the working of their agricultural lands at the rate of from five to ten labourers per one hundred acres of land held by the applicant.
It does not say whether it is per annum, per day or per month. It continues:

It is necessary, however, that before issuing these certificates all Japanese consular authorities shall exercise great care to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant and will take into close consideration the existing state of the labour market and of public feeling.
With reference to domestic and agricultural labourers mentioned in the regulations, the Japanese government do not contemplate that under existing circumstances these two classes should exceed four hundred annually.
The last sentence I read is not in Hansard; it is in the letter accompanying these regulations, and it follows closely the language used in the correspondence which the right hon. the Prime Minister tabled the other day, so we may conclude that it is fairly correct. It is well known that 400 was the figure referred to. I would like the House to note the language used there:	"The government of
Japan do not contemplate-"; that is the only binding clause in it, the only one that suggests that somebody will do something. "The government of Japan do not contemplate" doing such and so. It is not put any more definitely than that, and it is surely a very vague commitment on which to found what ought to be a treaty.
Now it is easy for me,* and it could very readily be not only easy but cheap for me to stand here and criticise the statesmen of twenty years ago. Times have changed since then, and I do not want to fall into that fault, because conditions were different then from what they are now. But I think two mistakes were made in that connection; first, there was an error made in the principle adopted in making this agreement-the principle by which we should surrender to a foreign nation our right to control our immigration; and the second error was in the details under which it was worked out, inasmuch as they were much too limited. But I must remember, and I will frankly admit, that conditions were different then. Canada was a very young nation in those days, and we did not possess or if we possessed, we had not learned to use the right to make treaties and bargain with foreign nations ourselves. In those days any negotiations of that kind had to be done through the British Embassy in the old country -a very slow, a very long and a very tedious method. Quick action was desirable in this case, and the government of the day and the men who went there to negotiate that agreement probably did the best that could be done at that time. The condition was urgent: the Japanese were coming in at the rate of between seven and eight thousand a year, and we find that after the passing of this agreement, in the following year only 495 came in; so at least it can be well claimed that this agreement, whatever its defects, had an immediate success in that regard. But unfortunately,

The Budget-Mr. Neill
while there was such a violent drop, conditions were such that it did not prevent the numbers rising again, as it did later on. The fact that the agreement was so loosely drawn made it possible to increase, perhaps without infraction of the agreement, the immigration to an extent that we find a few years ago, in 1919, the total immigration from Japan amounted to 1,178-a very big increase indeed.
Now the popular conception of that agreement I think has always been that 400 was the total limit of immigration into Canada.
I know I myself entertained that idea for many years until recently, and I think it was generally accepted in that way; but as a matter of fact far more could come in, as we have shown. In some respects there was almost no limit. We have heard a great deal during the late war of the evils of secret treaties, but these treaties were at least written and in a concrete form; but here is an example of the evils not only of secret treaties but of treaties that were practically unwritten, or at least very loosely expressed in the manner I have indicated. It makes it doubly hazardous to deal with an agreement-an international agreement remember-when it is expressed in this vague way. Now owing to the garbled version we thought that 400 was fixed as the limit of the total emigration; but that restriction of 400 a year was only confined to two classes. One was people employed in domestic service and that does not necessarily mean the employment of females only because the word "personal" was used in the agreement, which might mean men as well as women. The Japanese returns are classified so differently from what they are under our system that it is almost impossible to check the two up and show whether the proper number came in or not. If we were to take the total emigration of Japanese during those sixteen years which the agreement covers we would find that the number clearly had been grossly exceeded. But that would be improper because the return contains a large number of women some of whom were not subject to restriction under the gentleman's agreement. If, on the other hand, we eliminated all the women that would not be fair because a number of them might come in. or perhaps did come in, under the heading of "domestic servants." It is almost impossible to say whether the gentleman s agreement was adhered to or not, but I do find that the following classified people, according to our returns, came into Canada during the sixteen years that agreement was in force: There were 1,139 farmers, 145 mechanics, 484 clerks, 8 miners, and 737 not classified. These are all males. Well, it is apparent that none
of these should have been allowed in, because the gentleman's agreement made no provision at all for the entry of mechanics, clerks, miners or farmers, but only agricultural labourers; and of course in the majority of cases the unclassified might be anything at all. Therefore it is very difficult to say whether the Japanese government adhered to the strict letter of their agreement or not. It may be advisable to concede, for the sake of argument, that they did, because my own argument is based on something different to that.
I have before me a pamphlet issued by the Consul General of Japan in Ottawa in the year 1922. The title of this pamphlet is "Facts about Japanese in Canada and other miscellaneous information." I remember once reading a pamphlet called "Facts and Fancies" and somehow or other the Japanese pamphlet reminds me of it. I see that the title, very properly I think, makes a distinction between "facts about Japanese" and "other miscellaneous information." The suggestion is that the facts are facts and the miscellaneous information may or may not be facts. I think it is a very good definition because there are a great many facts that I do not find in this pamphlet, and a great many of the facts that are stated to be facts are certainly not facts at all. We were all furnished with a copy of this pamphlet at the time of its issue, and it was of course prepared by the Japanese authorities. Now, I turn to page 10 and it gives a statement of Japanese labourers sailing to Canada during the fourteen years between 1908 and 1921, and it shows that the total number of domestic servants that sailed during that period was 1,015. That is according to this little pamphlet. But, Mr. Speaker, it is well known that you can prove anything by figures, especially when you have the preparing of the figures yourself. I have here our census returns which are supposed, at least, to be more or less accurate, and I find that during the same period the emigration from Japan of domestic servants was 110. I am not saying there was deliberate fraud there at all, I do not think so. but when the returns of our government show 110 domestic servants coming to Canada whereas the Japanese returns gives the number as 1,015, the figures in both cases being applicable to the same period it shows how impossible it is to know what number of emigrants is or is not coming in to the country. There is no question but that the same difficulty exists, as regards the emigration of women. Now, the gentleman's agreement said that all women and children could come in provided the women were wives of Japanese in Canada; and, of
The Budget-Mr. Neill

course, any one would say the agreement meant the wives of Japanese then in Canada. However, I think there can be no question, although it is very difficult to prove-there is no question I think after careful consideration of these statistics-that there was a good deal of evasion practised in that regard. Many of these men, the majority of them, must have been single when they came, and the evasion I am afraid was worked in this way: The Japanese women could come in if they were the wives of Japanese in Canada. Well, what happened? Somebody in Japan, issued a book called The Picture Bride's Book the same as one of Eaton's catalogues, and the Japanese living in British Columbia would turn the pictures over and when he came to a picture that he liked he would select it and forward it with a sum of money to Japan. On the return trip the woman would come accompanied by a guarantee that she was the party represented. She brought with her a certificate of some form or proof that she was the wife of this man. I have no doubt that when she arrived the man married her willingly enough provided there was a certain amount of resemblance between the woman herself and the picture he had paid for. That is how, I think, the thing was worked. I do not say it was done with the connivance or knowledge of the Japanese government, but it was certainly done by the nationals of Japan. The same thing happened, although upon a larger scale, in California. There it was carried out on such a wholesale scale, it developed into such a scandal and caused such a fuss, that in deference to the pressure of public opinion the Japanese government themselves interfered and stopped the practice. For the Picture Bride's Book they substituted the " Kandokan " system, but I believe a great many more Japanese were brought in under the latter than under the former. I think there is no doubt that a great many of these women who came to Canada as wives were not wives. If we turn to page 13 of the pamphlet I have already referred to we find a statement of Japanese passengers returned from Canada. On page 9 is given another statement showing the number of Japanese passengers that sailed to Canada. Now if we deduct the one from the other it shows that in fourteen years, taking in the period from 1908 to 1921, there were 113 more Japs went back to Japan than came to this country and naturally the inference is " What on earth are the British Columbia people kicking about, if as a result of sixteen years' operation of the gentleman's agreement there were 113 fewer Japs in Canada than there were at the beginning." Now those are Japanese statistics. 
Let us turn now to our own statistics, and I think our census returns can be held to be more or less reliable. Our census returns show that in 1911, which was three years after the beginning of this period remember, there were in Canada 9,021 Japs. Now if we wish to get the correct number for 1908 we must make a deduction from the figures of 1911 to allow for emigration in those three years. A reasonable proportion, perhaps, would be 7,000, but to be well within the mark I shall say 7,500. In 1921 according to our census returns the number was 15,868 so that at the end of fourteen years the increase was at least 100 per cent. I will also refer to page 13 of this pamphlet, where they quote the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the debate in May, 1922, and he in turn quotes a remark made in April 1919 by the Hon. Mr. Calder then in the government, wherein he uses the following language:
I have gone into the situation very carefully, and I can tell the House that the agreement has been lived up to by the Japanese government to the letter. As a matter of fact, taking the figures for the last four or five years there are in the neighbourhood of four or five hundred fewer Japs in Canada to-day than there were in 1914.
This assertion is in line with the one I quoted from the pamphlet and yet I have quoted our own census returns, which show an increase in the Japanese population of 100 per cent.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Theresa Agnes Sprague.-Mr. Kennedy (Glengarry and Stormont) .
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Terry Andrea Maxwell Bruce.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 58, to incorporate The Confederation Canal and Power Company.-Mr. Rankin.


Alan Webster Neill: When the House adjourned
at six o'clock I had been pointing out the discrepancy between a statement quoted in the House by Mr. Calder, Which no doubt was made in perfect good faith, as well as a statement in a pamphlet got up by the Japanese

The Budget-Mr. Neill
Consul, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the records as disclosed by our Canadian census. The same thing can be observed in the United States; and it is remarkable how closely the conditions there approximate, either in the past or now, with the conditions in this country. Under pressure of public sentiment some years ago the United States government proposed to introduce an oriental exclusion law, but by reason of strong representations on the part of the Japanese they confined themselves instead to the introduction of a Chinese exclusion law, entering into a gentleman's agreement with the Japanese, which was very similar to our gentleman's agreement with those people. Under the Chinese exclusion law, in a given period of years thereafter, the Chinese population in California, which was a very large one, decreased by 50 per cent. I might point out that this gentleman's agreement with the Japanese was intended, as it was actually stated, to take the place and serve the same purpose as an exclusion act; but to save the face of the Japanese nation it was agreed that the arrangement should take that form. There was no four hundred limit as in our case; it was supposed to be absolute. Yet in the same period as I have indicated in which the Chinese population decreased by 50 per cent, the Japanese population increased by 25,000. That I think speaks for itself. This gentleman's agreement, both in the United States and in Canada, has proved itself a failure. I am willing for the sake of argument, if that will save time or save the face of the Japanese government, to admit that I at least for the moment am unable to prove that that government has been knowingly privy to any fraud in the carrying out of this agreement. The returns are so involved and divergent in their purport that it is impossible to prove anything of the kind, and I say frankly that I could not to-day show that the Japanese government were privy to any fraud in carrying out the terms of the agreement. But that statement does not apply to the nationals of Japan, who were acting more or less on their own authority. I am not looking at the methods but at the results; and the net result of this gentleman's agreement, which was intended to restrict, has not been to restrict but instead to increase the Japanese population, in a given period, 100 per cent. It has resulted in a large increase, out of all proportion, in the number of Japanese women coming into the country; and with their large birth rate of 31.8 per cent, nearly 40 per cent greater than that of Canada as a whole, the result will be by natural means to largely in
crease the Japanese population in this country and thereby foment and increase the economic disturbance which the presence of these people creates in whatever part of Canada they are living. Therefore I maintain that the agreement has proved a failure in that it * has not restricted Japanese immigration. So much for that.
In 1910 the Immigration Act was amended, and section 38, we find, gave the minister power to prohibit for a stated period, or permanently, the landing in Canada of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or the requirements of Canada, or of any immigrants of any specified class, occupation or character. That certainly gave us power to exclude Japanese or any similar class of immigration. But we do not have it now because in 1919 that section was repealed and a much stronger section put in its place, section 13, which not only goes the distance I have already recited but includes power to the minister to reject immigrants who, in his opinion, are undesirable from their probable inability to become readily assimilated. That is all on that subject, which I merely introduce now that I may refer to it in my general argument later on.
In 1913 we passed an act adopting a treaty of trade and commerce which had been entered into between Great Britain and Japan. It was devoted entirely to trade and shipping matters, but it contained a clause which allowed the nationals of either race to live and trade in the country of the other contracting party. Now, the act by which we ratified that treaty contained a provision which said that nothing in the treaty itself, or in our act, should be held to repeal or affect the provisions of our immigration law. There was a very long and acrimonious debate over the matter and on some correspondence which had passed between the government of the day and the Japanese authorities. The discussion centered for a long time around the point: Did this correspondence in any way modify or qualify the clause which stipulated that the treaty would be subject to our immigration law? The leader of the government of the day, Sir Robert Borden, said emphatically and repeatedly-and he was backed up by his ministers-that in his opinion the correspondence did not affect the stipulation, and never was intended to affect it, but was purely of an academic character, and that the section still stood good in law and in practice making the treaty subject to the Immigration Act of that day at least.
There was further discussion as to the point: Would this treaty be subject to any future amendment of our immigration law.
13S8

The Budget-Mr. Neill
There was no doubt that it was subject to the Immigration Act of that day. There was a long discussion on this point also, which developed some divergence of opinion, but I notice that the right hon. gentleman who is now the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) made a strong argument to the effect that the act of that date gave power to the minister to make regulations, and that this power could not be affected or vitiated in any way, but would always endure, and that under it we could make any further restrictive regulations that we might deem advisable. He made a strong and, I think, forcible argument in that regard. In any case, whether that is so or not, there is no question that the act of that day at least applied to the treaty then made. I would remind hon. members that this act contains section 38 which I have quoted.
Now, to summarize the situation up to date. We have, first, this loosely drawn agreement which, if adhered to by the Japanese government, was at least evaded by their nationals, especially in regard to the immigration of their women, resulting in a 100 per cent increase of the Japanese population. Then we have this treaty, subject, however, to section 38 of our Immigration Act, and perhaps subject also to section 13 of the 1919 act, which was even more stringent. Then we have the agreement made by the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) and recorded in the correspondence which he brought down a few weeks ago, whereby the number of Japanese immigrants under the gentleman's agreement was reduced from 400 to 150, but leaving intact all the other provisions of the original agreement. Then finally we have the resolution-and I think it is a very important one-passed by this House two years ago-in May 1922-affirming the opinion that we should have effective restriction of all oriental immigration. I leave myself in the hands of the House, Mr. Speaker, to say whether the foregoing is not a fair summary of the situation as it exists to date.
Beyond that we have two other phases that have only recently arisen. We have the fact that in California the legislature some time ago passed legislation forbidding Japanese to own, lease or hold agricultural land. That act was sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States. It practically means that something like 50,000 Japanese have been thrown out of occupation in California and the adjoining states. It naturally follows that there will be more or less of a desire on the part of at least a proportion of those 50,000 Japanese to make their way into Canada' by legitimate or illegitimate means. I saw in the 
paper the other night that about 20,000 of them may go to Mexico. I hope so.
Ihe other phase is the outcome of the Immigration Act wdiich the American congress recently passed, one of the most important features of which is the practical exclusion of Japanese immigration. This is the first time they have taken such a drastic course, and apparently they have gone at it in a very whole-hearted way. I have had some correspondence with the honourable congressman who had charge of that particular measure. He writes me that they had there the same difficulty that we have had, the difficulty of convincing congressmen from the eastern part of the States that the Japanese problem was not confined to the Pacific coast; but apparently they have at last managed to convince congress that the situation involved the whole country. Congress passed the measure by a large majority, some 330 for and some 72 against. The Washington papers of last week stated that the act was coming before the Senate and it was anticipated that the restrictive clause would be struck out, but that there was some feeling in favour of such a restriction and there might possibly be a close vote. That was the expectation a few days ago. But what happened, Mr. Speaker? We see in the papers to-day that the measure passed the Senate by a very large majority, 72 senators being in favour of retaining the clause and only 2 voting for its deletion.
Now, we have an Asiatic Germany as well as a European Germany. Just at the very moment when diplomacy was specially called for we find the true tactics of the Germans in evidence-the Japanese came down with a boast and a threat: the old game of the sword and the drum. At the psychological moment the Japanese ambassador practically threatened the United States as to what would happen if the legislation was passed. I think probably nothing tended more to its passing the Senate than this teutonic attitude. For instance, one senator said that:
The right and power of congress to exclude " whom it will " was not to be challenged. Other nations were aware of that, and it was unnecessary to seek the consent of any nation to proceed.
Another senator said:
The protest of the Japanese ambassador against the exclusion provisions was an impertinent communication, which would not be tolerated even by a fourth-rate power.
I presume that the measure will be ratified by the President and become law. I have not for years heard any news of a political character which has given me more satisfaction than this action by congress. As to this I feel like saying with the prophet, "Now

The Budget-Mr. Neill
is our salvation nearer than we believed." Certainly it is nearer than when I saw this correspondence brought down a few weeks ago. The very fact that that legislation is passed will also tend to set the tide of Japanese immigration still stronger towards our shores, and it behooves us to be especially careful in guarding our rights in this respect. For that reason I was sadly disappointed when I saw the correspondence and saw what arrangement had been made with the Japanese authorities. I was disappointed in two ways. First, in the immediate results: True there has been a considerable reduction, but the door is still left open, especially to women, and that in many ways is very undesirable.
I have looked up the immigration returns since then, and I find that there has been a substantial reduction. Fewer Japanese have come in since that agreement was arrived at than before, but unfortunately there is nothing to prevent an increase of the numbers later. This condition always arises when we make an agreement of that character with Japan. The last time it dropped from 7.000 to 495, and afterwards it went up to 1,200. Here it has dropped considerably, but the possibility is there, the opportunity is there, and we have no guarantee that it will not in the future, as in the past, go up again to a very large extent. We may have next year 1.178 instead of the number that it is now, or even more. Now, had the exemption been fixed, not at 150 of certain grades or classes or occupations, but at 150 of all grades of Japanese, the situation would have been much more satisfactory. It could not even then be regarded as a permanent solution, for nothing short of definite and permanent exclusion would reach that end, but it might be regarded as a temporary solution because the power would then be vested in us to check this immigration as it came in. So it *would have been taking a proper step to confine it absolutely to 150; it would have been a simple matter of counting heads- which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is the onty safe way in dealing with a question of this kind in connection with orientals.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries helped us a great deal out on the coast by introducing regulations in his department reducing the number of Japanese who could get, fishing licenses. We appreciated his action, and it will be remembered by many fishermen on the Pacific long after some of his more notable achievements have been forgotten. A few' months ago it became 89
necessary, in continuance of this reduction policy, to refuse to renew certain Japanese licenses, and the question that naturally arose was, whose licenses should be refused? An extraordinary situation at once developed. There had been no question of suspicion in regard to the men who had the licenses the previous year; there was no suggestion that there had been anything improper about their naturalization papers or their licenses. But this year as soon as it was discovered that some of these men had to forfeit their licenses, affidavits commenced to come in to the effect that certain fishermen w'ere holding their licenses improperly. These representations were to the effect, for instance, that a certain man in whose name a license had been issued had been dead for two years. Or, they would say, "This man over here was never on the west coast at all; he was up at the Skeena; this other man is in Japan," and so on. The unfortunate official who had to decide this question found his desk stacked up with affidavits, each one more vehement and positive than the last one, alleging that absolute fraud had been perpetrated by certain numbers of these Japanese, the whole idea, of course, being that if they could get these men whom they were accusing eliminated, they would themselves be able to get licenses. The official, of course, gave the accused persons an opportunity of rebutting the charges made, and presently an equal number of equally vehement affidavits were filed in defence of those accused and charging every crime in the calendar against those wTho had originally made the complaints. Now, it is of no importance to my argument which of these affidavits were wrong, which of the bunch perjured themselves or whether they all did. As to that I do not know, but it was a revelation of how little we know of what goes on when we are dealing wfith orientals. Had it not been for that chance occurrence in connection with the elimination of some of these men we would never have heard any suggestion that there had been any impropriety about the way they were holding their licenses. It therefore makes me anxious to see that the immigration, if it must be under the gentleman's agreement, is confined to a very definite number that would take in all classes, so that it would only be a question, as I have said, of counting heads.
So much for the result, so to speak, of that agreement; now7 a word as to the method. I was very sorry indeed to see the gentleman's agreement maintained. I had

The Budget-Mr. Neill

hoped it would have been withdrawn. It was an opportunity to place Canada, I was going to say, almost on a pedestal, certainly to bring her into considerable prominence in the North American continent, probably among all civilized nations, as having been the first, though a small and a young nation, to take a firm stand in the matter, to tell the Japanese that we were done with gentlemen's agreements and that hereafter we were going to be mistress in our own house. We should have been in the enviable position of having given a lead in the matter and the great republic to the south would have had no recourse but meekly to follow our example. Unfortunately we lost that opportunity. Now, this government since it has been in office-and I am not complaining of it in any way at all-have emphasized, I will not say the independence of Canada, because that does not express what I mean and might be misunderstood, but, if I may use the word in connection with a nation, they have emphasized the individuality or the individual entity of Canada as a nation. We saw that in the determination to negotiate our own halibut treaty with the United States, and also to sign it ourselves. We saw it more recently in the correspondence in connection with the Lausanne treaty, and in some other matters that I do not recall at the moment. But it is ten times more necessary that we should take such a stand in connection with immigration and ten times more necessary that we should control it ourselves than it was in any of the instances I have mentioned, and I regret very much that the same policy was not adopted. We should have told the Japanese nation that their objection to our restricting their immigration on the ground of economic competition was not a tenable one, in view of the fact that they themselves adopted exactly the same procedure in restricting immigration into Japan of Chinese and of their own subjects from Korea. We should have told them that we could no longer hand over to somebody else the control of one of our fundamental rights. We should have told them that entrance into Canada is not a right to be possessed by anyone, but is entirely a privilege to be retained by us and controlled entirely by us in our own interest. With the exception of this particular instance in connection with ourselves and the States there is no record in history of one nation, except under stress of military force and subjection, giving up such an important right to another nation. As I say, the two instances I gave were exceptions, and we find that the United States has now re-

pudiated the arrangement. I hope that it is our intention to follow suit. We should have told the Japanese nation that the gentleman's agreement was a generation old, that while we were then a young nation, what was suitable then is not suitable now. We have grown up and we must forget those boy and girl entanglements of the past. We are now a man among men, a nation among nations. We have the full rights of a nation, but we shall never be accorded recognition of those rights in the civilized world if we do not exercise and maintain them to the full. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have as much right as Australia or New Zealand to set up as our ideal of citizenship, a white Canadian manhood. It is so in Australia, it is practically so in New Zealand; why should it not be so here?
I do not suggest for a moment that this matter should have been put up to the Japanese nation aggressively, or in any way offensively at all. It should have been put up resolutely and firmly, and with this fixed determination, to get it into the minds of the Japanese statesmen that this matter had got to be settled, and that there was only one way to settle it, that the best solution both for them and for us was an effective measure of restriction. I say for both of us advisedly. For us because we will never be satisfied with anything less, and the longer it is left the more difficult it will be, with Canadian-born Japanese children growing up in increasing numbers to deal adequately with the situation; and it will be best for the Japanese nation too to understand once and for all, and understand now. what I do not believe they have grasped, that they must not think they can look here for an outlet for their overflowing population. It will give them an opportunity to turn to some other country where perhaps they will even be welcomed. They no doubt have the idea, and there is much in our past history to justify it, that perhaps in time they would overcome our prejudice against them and that we would allow them to over-run our country. The sooner they understand that is not so, and that our determination is for all time, the better for them, because it will afford them an opportunity to turn to other spheres and possibly to nations where they really would be welcomed.
The records of political history, and our own experience as business men, both unite to tell us that no arrangement can be satisfactory when it is framed in such vague and indeterminate language as this so-called, gentleman's agreement. "It is not contemplated"-that is the operative clause, so to speak, the binding portion of this agreement.

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
"It is not contemplated"-that is all. I wonder how hon. gentlemen would like to see an expression like that on a note given by some creditor of theirs-"It is not contemplated." That is the only binding clause in the agreement. The whole thing is wrapped up-we surround it ourselves inevitably, it is not in the thing itself-with pretence and suspicion, because pretence leads to suspicion. On the one hand, we are in the position of saying, "Gentlemen, this is an agreement, but it is not binding." On the other hand, we say, "Gentlemen, this is binding, but it is not an agreement." Which is right? They both cannot be, and yet we alternately use both, that is the situation.
I would certainly ask the government not to regard as final, indeed, there was nothing to suggest that they were final, the negotiations that are revealed in the correspondence brought down a few weeks ago. I would not ask them to renew those negotiations, but rather to drop them, and to come before this House with a bill constituting a true measure of effective restriction, which indeed would be thoroughly in accord with the expressed wish of this House as recorded in the vote of May, 1922, when we passed unanimously a resolution that we were in favour of effective restriction of all oriental immigration. I would appeal, I would pray the Prime Minister-I would paraphrase Scripture and ask him to forget the things which are behind and press towards the mark for the prize of our high calling. In this case the prize, the grand prize, would be the realization of our ambition to create in Canada a white Canadian citizenship, a citizenship all white, and all Canadian.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express the regret that we all feel on this side of the House at the enforced absence through illness of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). We hope he may soon recover; we believe it is the hope of the country at this particular time that he may have a speedy recovery. I think the country feels that it is a misfortune that he should have been taken ill at the present time.
I wish to say a word in respect to some of the statements .made by the minister, without portfolio (Mr. Sinclair) who spoke before six o'clock. Briefly I will take his own figures. He tells us that we are importing into this country from the United States $82,000,000 worth of products of the farm, which are entering into direct competition with our own farm products. According to him we must not increase our tariff; we must not defend ourselves against the nation that practically puts an embargo on our products; we are to 891
crawl-and he makes the excuse that we must not do it because of the artisans of this country. Well, all I can say to the hon. gentleman is that he and this government are not worrying very much about the artisan just now. I come from a section of the country that is right up against that competition, a section close to the border, and I am not afraid to tell him that we want a tariff and an increased tariff on that kind of product.
He says that it is impossible to put a tariff on vegetable products because of the artisans; it is impossible to put a tariff on early fruits because of the artisans. Let me tell him that the United States are several weeks in advance of us in our section of the country; their products come in several weeks earlier, and I would ask the minister or any other member of the government if those early fruits from the United States that spoil the early market of the growers in the province of Ontario and all along the border are for the artisans of this country. The people that use that stuff, selling at high prices, are the people that can well afford to pay, and it is from those people the tax should be taken, and not from the artisans. Who of the artisans in Ontario are buying tomatoes at 40 cents a pound, for they are coming in right at the present time. Are the artisans of this country likely to buy these tomatoes from t'he full pay roll that is going to come from this so-called reduced taxation, these reduced duties that are coming into force?
Take eggs, which the minister (Mr. Sinclair) spoke of. The same thing applies there. Fowls mature a month earlier in the warmer climate of the United States than they dc with us. We have to house our cattle and our poultry over a longer period. Why should the extra profit in that business be handed over to the United States people? Is it not pretty nearly time something was done for that particular industry?
Now I want to say a word to the minister without portfolio in reference to this so-called surplus and this so-called saving. The minister and the government put me in mind of a merchant who used to meet his bills by means of a note. When he had signed the note he would shove the bill in the drawer and say, "Thank God, that is paid." Now, that is exactly what occurred in this railway situation; it was exactly the same thing over again. We have bills payable coming due that this government will have to meet. Why should it not put those in its bills payable ledger? I very well remember that last year the Minister of Finance, who is unfor-
The Budget-Mr. Chaplin

tunately ill at the present time, in delivering the budget said, not exactly in these words but to this effect: "Dear me, up to the time that I met that unfortunate railway deficit I had a surplus. But I met that unfortunate deficit. It knocked my surplus out but I paid it." Now, this government has not met the obligation-it passes by on the other side and forgets to meet it. It has not been as frank as the Finance Minister was last year. The government thinks it is going to get the people of this country to believe that it has a surplus when in reality it has a liability on its hands. The government really ought to be frank about the matter but that is what it is not. It looks to me as if there was a sort of arrangement under which every minister comes along with a prepared statement of a campaign character, a statement got up in first class style. These ministerial statements are being issued to us in reams. It is against the rule to read speeches in this chamber but the Minister of Finance and young members of the House are allowed the privilege as a courtesy. And so we are getting these ministerial statements. We have had a number, I wonder if there are any more to come.
Before entering into any further criticism of the budget resolutions I wish to lay before the House an analysis of the French treaty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: You did that last
year. .


James Dew Chaplin: Oh no, I did not do it
last year. What I did at that time was to criticize the proposition. Now I am going to give an account of the workings of this treaty. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) told us the other day that the French treaty was working out fine-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


James Dew Chaplin: -and he gave us the illustration of agricultural implements. But when he was asked what the exports of canned salmon were he said: "Oh well, you will have to put a question on the order paper. I do not carry that information with me." There has been an increase in the export of agricultural implements, I am glad to say. But this government acts in a peculiar way. With one hand it signs a treaty giving the implement manufacturer some export trade \yith France, and with the other hand it extends the home market to the American manufac-
IMr. Chap!in. 1
turer. To such an extent has the home market been handed over, that during the past ten months 811,000.000 of agricultural implements were supplied to this country by American manufacturers. This government does not exactly follow the Biblical admonition. On the contrary it does not let its right hand know what its left hand is doing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is what you are
told to do, that is the admonition.


James Dew Chaplin: In other words the Minister of Justice was prepared to take all the encomiums that would come from an increase in the trade with France, but he did not want to tell the House anything about the possible losses under the treaty. Now I propose to give the House an exact analysis of the trade with France during the last five months. In the first place, however, I desire to say that I am not opposed to a treaty with France or with any nation. All I ask is, that if we make a treaty it be a fair and reasonable one and suitable for us. When I criticized the French treaty in the first place I declared that it was not reasonable or fair. I think the results of five months have pretty well shown that; I am quite satisfied that at the end of the year it will be demonstrated beyond all fear of contradiction.
I regret that I have to read quite a few figures. In order to get at the facts it is necessary to do this. I intend to place these figures on Hansard so that those who want to check them up can do so. The statement. I have prepared covers five months, including the month of September, 1923, which is the date of the treaty coming into force, up to the end of January this year. I have prepared a list of sixty articles imported from France showing the value in each case of the goods, the amount of duty collected, the amount of duty that would have been collected had the treaty not been made, and the loss to the country on account of the treaty. Not only that, but I have also prepared a further statement with respect to some of the treaty countries that had the benefit of these reductions which were given to France. I have prepared a statement dealing with Switzerland and Japan which I wish also to go on record. I shall read the list of articles referred to in their entirety. I should prefer not to be interrupted; if there are any questions to be asked I shall be glad to reply to them afterwards:

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
Goods Imported from France during five months, viz., September. October, November. December, 1923, and January, 1924, showing duty collected, also amount that would have been collected if French treaty had not been made.
Article	Quantity	Value	Duty	Duty that would have been collected	Loss$ *cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.65.320 gal. 83,354 "	85,816 00	14,288,65	61,964,91	47,676 26432,792 00	782,446 00	833,540 00	51,094 00133,735 00	40,165 00	46,807 25	6,642 2510,894 yds.	9,637 00	2,551 58	3,132 03	580 45139,669 "	96,350 00	27,644 68	33,722 50	6,077 828,252 00	2,367 17	2,888 20	521 0335,481 00	5,481 54	7,090 20	1,614 6670,607 00	20,685 43	24,712 45	4,027 0253,175 00	17,351 95	18,611 25	1,259 30108,799 00	29,048 96	38,079 65	9,030 69942,871 00	279,093 35	330,004 85	50,911 50255,255 00	80,397 48	95 720 62	15,323 1440,167 00	12,368 25	15,062 62	2,694 3714. Women and children's dress goods-	626,254 yds. 326,862 "	349,548 00 318,699 00	68,947 89 97,170 90	87,387 00 111,544 65	18,439 11 14,363 75260,773 00	80,043 05	91,270 55	11,227 5067,652 00	17,435 35	23,678 20	6,242 85107,124 00	28,193 35	37,493 40	9,300 0552,138 00	10,762 18	13,034 50	2,272 32201,224 yds.	106,599 00	28,830 29	34,644 67	5,814 38152,450 00	19,798 33	22,867 33	3,069 17167,327 00	19,323 13	[DOT]23,764 45	4,441 3237,223 lbs.	47,602 00	8,645 52	9,520 40	874 889.652 00	2,665 82	2,895 60	229 7867,544 00	17,609 68	21,951 80	4,342 1260,371 00	12,938 27	16,602 02	3,363 75361,545 00	54,874 01	69,143 84	14,269 8310,387 00	3,453 21	3,803 33	350 1135,055 00	5,590 75	7,011 00	1,420 2520,739 00	1,188 60	1,555 42	366 8225,782 00	6,275 78	7,090 05	814 2723,982 00	6,071 53	7,194 60	1,123 07110,817 00	28,630 13	33,809 70	5,179 5724,408 00	3,301 27	6,276 32	2,975 0512,338 00	3,683 68	4,009 85	326 177,028 00	1,458 77	1,932 70	473 9396,071 lbs.	44,642 00	2,621 11	2,882 13	261 02106,964 00	67,358 05	99,580 25	32,222 2046,795 00	11,293 50	12,869 62	1,576 1210,567 00	2,314 81	2,636 50	321 69310,875 00	97,606 95	116,579 61	18,972 6618,326 00	3,790 17	4,581 50	791 337,269 00	1,187 87	1,817 25	629 3818,703 00	4,006 15	4,675 75	669 6017,960 00	12,803 90	14,344 00	1,540 1016,884 00	12,966 30	15,195 60	2,229 3063,610 00	5,954 42	6,361 00	406 5321,933 00	6,140 79	7,676 55	1,535 7649. Fancy boxes, writing desks, care	52,692 00	14,579 57	18,442 20	3,862 63112,859 00	33,732 82	39.500 65	5,767 8547,928 00	12,296 40	14,379 20	2,083 807,768 00	1,590 15	1,942 00	351 858,828 00	2,255 73	2,648 40	392 679,110 00	2,714 21	3,188 50	474 2923,469 00	5,389 09	6,453 97	1,164 881,317 00	276 34	508 44	232 0847,268 00	75,641 16	8,271 91	707 75258,000 lbs.	39,885 00	2,701 53	3,875 45	1,173 92153,800 lbs.	29,097 00	3,143 80	3,845 77	701 9739,031 00	6,446 38	6,849 13	402 75
387,204 67

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
Goods Imported from Japan during five months, viz., September, October, November, December, 1923 and January, 1924, showing duty collected, also amount that would have been collected if the French treaty had not been made.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20. 21. 22. 23.
Article
Quantity
Wines	
Glue and gelatine	
Cotton piece goods fabric	
Cotton clothing, etc	
Embroideries	
Silk cloth	
Silk shirts, stockings, etc	
Rugs, carpets, etc	
Mfg. furniture and wood	
Paper	
Incandescent electric lamps	
China and porcelain tableware	
Drugs	
Toys	
Brushes and combs	
Buttons	
Jewellery, etc	
Fancy boxes and baskets	
Packages and coverings	
Nuts of all kinds	
Fresh vegetables	
Canned vegetables, pickles and sauces Unenumerated articles	
13,343 gal. 7,076 lbs. 118,400 yds.
277,999
29,682 00 6,795 00 15,608 00 11,435 00 18,592 00 156,409 00 18,855 00 22,438 00 15,533 00 9,378 00 23,942 00 152,118 00 3,902 00 31,863 00 132,470 00 65,321 00 23,802 00 17,846 00 39,042 00 33,352 00 9,230 00 42,271 00
1,606 74 4,233 20 3,507 03 5,339 87
35.440	58 6,127 08 7,024 93 3,324 61 2,476 80 6,938 85
36.440	83 928 90
8,180 98 31,602 18 18,222 79 2,532 30 4,936 28 7,595 79 10,865 99 2,536 33 7,865 51 5,951 96
17,115	56
1,868	62
5,072	60
4,002	25
6,500	20
51,743	15
7,068	05
8,283	50
3,935	15
2,750	95
7,182	60
42,225	20
1,008	65
9,558	90
36,991	77
22,862	35
2,804	20
5,647	60
8,093	75
11,205	50
2,730	68
8,575	76
6.376	25
7,657 90 261 88 839 40 495 22 1,160 33 19,302 57 940 97 1,258 57 610 54 274 15 242 75 5,784 37 79 75 1,377 92 5,389 59 4,639 58 271 90 711 32 497 96 339 51 194 35 710 25 424 29
53,905 07
Value
Duty
Duty that would have been collected
Loss
cts.
$ cts 9,457 66
$ cts.
$ cts.
Goods Imported from Switzerland during five months, viz., September, October, November, December, 1923, and January, 1924, showing duty collected, also amount that would have been collected if the French Treaty had not been made
Article
Quantity
	
2. Gloves, knitted or cut from fabric		
4. White cotton fabrics-victorias, lawns,	
	
	
	
	
	
	
11. Women and children's dress goods....	
	
14. Knitted goods		
15. Incandescent lamps		
16. Unenumerated articles		
Value	Duty	Duty that would have been collected	Loss$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.2,030 00	538 30	710 50	172 2060,737 00	16,795 05	21,257 95	4,462 90198,550 00	57,191 10	70,190 50	12,999 349,315 00	1,950 47	2,328 75	378 2828,546 00	4,450 95	5,709 20	1,258 2517,214 00	5,357 71	6,024 90	667 191,783,814 00	533,655 88	024,334 90	90,679 025,486 00	1,445 87	1,719 75	273 8874,128 00	16,678 84	25,944 80	9,265 96193,760 00	51,938 31	67,816 00	15,877 678,333 00	1,689 83	2.083 25	393 4219,111 00	5,790 90	6,698 85	907 9556,759 00	14,405 96	16,927 70	2,521 7419,886 00	6,122 15	6,960 10	837 9520,292 00	6,015 35	6,087 60	72 2212,087 00	2,571 06	2,697 10	126 04 140,895 98
The total figures of losses under the French treaty may be recapitulated as follows:
On	French imports	$387,204On	Swiss imports	
140,895On	Japanese imports	
53,000
On Norwegian imports, the amount would be $30,000 for the year, which would make a
{Mr. Chaplin.]
grand total for five months of $611,099. At the rate of $122,000 a month for 12 months it means $1,464,000. In addition to this there is a loss of revenue from wines manufactured at home because of a mistake that somebody made; when the treaty was brought back here it was discovered that the French

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
wines were allowed to come into Canada at 15 cents a gallon, whereas there was an excise tax of 30 cents charged on the home product, and of course that was something that could not be very well fixed up. The only way it could be arranged was by cutting off 22| cents and that was done. In other words, on an article that could well afford to pay it, this government lost 22J cents a gallon of revenue. That cost us another $120,000, making the grand total loss under the French treaty $1,584,000. That is not all, because there are a lot of treaty nations. There are nine treaty nations that are ready to take advantage of that treaty, and the sorry thing about it is that the loss occurs on articles that could well afford to pay the tariff-pure luxuries, such as velvets and velveteens, plushes and lace, lace collars and ribbons, silk fabrics and blouses and shirtwaists, furs, embroidery, perfume, cosmetics and toilet preparations, china and porcelains,- a bunch of articles that are used by the artisans and farmers of this country, not to speak of the wines, brandies, champagnes and cigarettes -a million and a half thrown away by an economical government which does not hesitate to spend another million and a half on an uneconomic proposition in London and upon the Scribe hotel in Paris. A minister of the Crown gets up this afternoon and gives us a long tirade about the tremendous struggle the members of the cabinet have had to stop each other from spending, and to stop the deputy ministers from spending for them, because of the economy they wanted to practise.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have shown you the loss in revenue on the articles coming into Canada. I desire to give the other side of the story also and to show exactly
9 p.m. what we have had out of the treaty. Unless I tell the whole story I might be accused of keeping' something back.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
estimate as to the loss?


James Dew Chaplin: The Minister of Finance last year estimated the loss at between $500,000 and $800,000. My calculations are based upon the ten-month period ending at the close of January, 1924, and the calculations in regard to the French treaty are of the same dates. The exports of Canada to France for these ten months were, in round figures, $15,400,000 while our importations from that country amounted to $13,100,000, leaving a balance in our favour of $2,300,000 for that period. The principal items that comprised that $15,000,000 were wheat, sugar,
pulp, including sulphite and mechanical pulp, agricultural implements, lobsters, salmon, pig lead, ore, asbestos, coal, tar and rubber goods. There are a number of smaller items which I shall not weary the House by detailing; I am not omitting them for any other reason than that I do not wish to delay the House. These however are the most important items. During this period that I have stated France took from us, in wheat, $6,400,000, in sugar $1,600,000; pulp, sulphite and mechanical, $1,467,000; pig lead, $266,000; ore, $115,000; asbestos, $378,000; coal, $50,000; tar, $350,000; agricultural implements, $1,600,000; rubber goods, $400,000; lobsters, $400,000; and canned salmon, $1,200,000. This makes a total of something over $14,000,000 out of the $15,000,000, leaving out odds and ends in other items which are too small to mention. In respect to wheat and sugar no change was made in the French treaty and we obtained no advantage in wheat. We had last year under the treaty the same advantage that we enjoyed before; and the same is true of sugar, of pulp, of lobsters, of pig lead, of ore, asbestos, coal and tar. There were only two items in the list in regard to which we derived any advantage, these being agricultural implements and rubber goods. I must say that we got a real advantage in agricultural implements, and at the time I noticed this I said that some of our manufacturers would benefit.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What was the increase in agricultural implements over the year before?


James Dew Chaplin: There was an increase of $800,000. Let us take the item of salmon. It will be remembered that when I criticised the treaty last year my complaint in regard to canned salmon was that although we were selling them a good deal of salmon the gentlemen who had made the treaty came back with an increased duty on this commodity, and I asked the question w'hether it was feared that we were selling too much fish to France. The result, at any rate, was a loss in salmon and lobster equal to the gain which we derived in agricultural implements. In other words, we lost on salmon and lobster $800,000. It will be observed that these various items that I have indicated, such as wheat, sugar, pulp, pig lead, ore, asbestos, coal and tar, are all purely raw materials; and my complaint against the French treaty was that quite evidently France did not want to buy from us any manufactured products or any article that had any finish on it. They bought, as I have stated $6,400,006 worth of wheat. But
The Budget-Mr. Chaplin

Germany takes $6,000,000 worth of flour; and Germany to that extent is a better customer. Now, I am not making any apology for Germany, but I am ready to trade with everybody on an absolutely fair basis. And that is the remark I made in regard to the United States a few minutes ago: let us trade on a fair basis which will give us a show. Last year we shipped to France, of wheat, 5,665,000 bushels; to Belgium, 9,232,000 bushels; to Italy, 13.451,000 bushels.
The Minister of Finance the other day took a good deal of pains to inform us that Canada had a favourable trade balance. We are all glad to know that#and it is a good thing that we should have such a balance. Indeed, one of our troubles is that we have been buying too much; and if we bought a little less it would, I think, be better for some of us. Let me point out to the minister that-leaving Britain and the United States out of consideration for the moment-Italy shows the best trade balance with us of any of the Furopean nations. The favourable trade balance with her is $16,000,000; Japan, among the smaller nations, comes next with $14,000.000; Belgium, $9,000,000; Germany, $7,000,000; the Netherlands, $3,600,000 and France $2,300,000. I am not blaming France for this; I am blaming our ministers. It is with the government, that the responsibility rests. France made a good treaty; we did not; and that is the whole matter. There is no use in trying to evade that fact, because it cannot be denied; and our arrangement with them is not going to work in any other way than to our disadvantage. I took the trouble to criticise the treaty last year, running the risk of being wrong; but the truth of what I said at that time has been demonstrated. Let me give further particulars as to how the treaty has worked out. To begin with, the treaty gives to France the right to have a fixed duty on a considerable list of goods; and if we wanted to change the tariff to-morrow we could not do so, so far as these articles are concerned. The queer thing about it is that some of the very goods on which they have a fixed duty are covered by the treaty. But do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the rates of duty on French goods entering France are the same as our rates of . duty on French goods entering Canada? Naturally one would think that in such a treaty the rates of duty would be the same; but they are not. Take, for instance, canned vegetables. When the treaty was made-of course, I must offer this explantation because the franc has changed somewhat in value in the interval-canned vegetables could enter Canada at a cent a pound,

and our exports to France were subject to a duty of S1./0 per hundred pounds, or If cents a pound. Again, automobiles and similar articles come in here at a duty of 25 per cent, but when we send them to France they are subject to a duty of 35 per cent. And this is called a treaty!
Now, let me trace the history of the canned vegetable trade to show how the trade has worked out under this treaty. My calculations are based for the ten months ending January in each year. In 1923 we sold to France 1,394,000 pounds of canned vegetables, and in 1924 only 21,000 pounds; during the same period last year they sold us 381,000 pounds. Before the treaty was made the French duty was 47 francs per 100 kilogrammes; by the treaty this was raised to 54 francs. I figure the franc at the date of the treaty to have been worth about 6f cents. The duty on our canned vegetables going into France is If cents a pound, while on the French commodity entering Canada our duty is a cent a pound. That is how the treaty lias worked out on this commodity. Then take canned fruits. They sold us 16,000 pounds in 1923, and in 1924 they had increased that quantity to 165,000 pounds, while we sold them nothing. In fact their minimum tariff duty was too high for us to do business on. Then take condensed milk. For the ten months to January 1922, we sold France $568,000 of canned milk, and early in the spring of 1923, before the treaty came into force, we sold them $118,000 more. Since the treaty has been in effect,-five months,-we have sold them only $1,325 worth. The duty on condensed milk was raised 50 per cent. At the time I asked the minister whether they wanted to stop us from doing business with France. Now hon. members see the result. Take the case of butter. The Minister of Justice is not in his seat to-night, and I cannot blame him for the way our trade has been affected by this treaty, but he had something to say last session about butter. He told the House that the idea was to sell fresh butter to France. I was glad to get the information. He also informed the House that;
The Quebec government had made a contract with a firm in Belgium for 20,000 boxes of butter at 60 pounds to the box. The hon. gentleman can figure how much that amounts to.
Well, I have figured that it amounts to a very considerable quantity-1,200,000 pounds. Of course, I was very glad to get the information. But on looking up the trade returns to date I am surprised to find that during the ten months we shipped to Belgium only 266,000 pounds of butter. I wonder where the other million pounds have melted. Per-

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
haps the contract referred to may have been merely an option, or an agreement of sale. However, I cannot blame the minister for that. He said he did the best he could and wanted to sell our butter to France. The truth is that we have not sold France one single pound of butter. As to cattle, our sales have decreased about two-thirds. We sold to France some oatmeal before the treaty came into effect; that trade is gone. We sold her some oats; that business is gone. We sold her some clover seed; that business has decreased. We sold her some hay; that business has decreased also. We sold her some canned lobster, to which I have already referred; that trade is cut in half, from $708,000 to $402,000. Our exports of agricultural implements to France have increased by $800,000. But our export of canned salmon has decreased $500,000. Our export business in auto parts has decreased somewhat, but the loss is not worth troubling about.
It will be remembered that when this treaty was before the House for ratification we found it contained a long list of about two hundred chemical products, the names of which no one knew the meaning of, but a few of these were picked out as being especially interesting to Canadian shippers. They are as follows: sulphate of ammonia, crude, calcium carbide, formic aldehyde, tri-oximethylene, acetone, acetic acid, acetate of sodium. The gentlemen who got this list up evidently were ashamed of the long list of 200 articles, so they kept it out of the book of particulars and just left these few in. I have looked carefully over the list and I cannot find one of the articles in the index of trade returns, which shows that so far as we know there have been no exports. Of these ten items that are important to Canadian trade, not one dollar's worth goes out to France.
For the benefit of some hon. members who have probably never seen a copy of the American tariff I would like to read a few words that appear on the front page of the 1922 tariff, as showing what some people who make tariffs somewhere have in their minds. I quote:
To provide revenue, to regulate commerce with foreign countries, to encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes.
We can all have our own ideas as to what the "other purposes" are. We have met those other purposes here; we see them in the placing by the United States of a rate of 42 cents on wheat, a rate of 8 cents a dozen on eggs against our 3, a rate of 8 cents a pound on butter against our 3-and we have not the
nerve, or have not a government with the nerve, to meet them.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) gave us yesterday a very glowing picture of the wonderful strides that Canada made during that halcyon period between 1896 and 1911. He was so much interested, however, in his well prepared speech that he did not want to have anybody interrupt him to ask a question. I tried to get his attention, but no, he would not listen to anybody. I hope we shall not have any more of these prepared speeches, because you cannot get a chance to say a word to a man. However, we had a very fine speech-a well written speech. The hon. gentleman described in a pitiful way the state of this country from 1878, when that terrible Tory government came into power and put the National Policy into effect. Well, I can tell that minister that I passed through that period. I was in Ontario all the time and I can tell him-and I defy any person in the House or out of it to deny it-that this country in its whole history never passed through a rvorse period than the years immediately prior to 1878. I have no quarrel with what he says about the period between 1896 and 1911-not at all. I may differ from him, however, as to the reason why the conditions were better then. If the Liberal party in those days had carried out their pledges they would not be able norv to talk about that as a halcyon period. I would like to have asked the minister-I do not see him yet-what he considered a- high protectionist policy. I would like to know what he thinks a high protectionist tariff is. I would like to ask any of the ministers what they consider a high tariff-25 per cent? 30 per cent, or something of that kind? I would not, however, expect any of them to answer. The Minister of the Interior forgot that the high protectionist party was in power at the time. We have a book of trade returns published by the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) and on pages 10 and 11 a list is given of import and export returns with respect to articles that are free and also, shown separately, to articles that bear duties. This table indicates to a hair's breadth what tariff was collected on the articles subject to duty, and the information goes back to 1868. And what do we find? That the period betw'een 1896 and 1911 was characterized by the highest average tariff for a period of that length in the whole history of Canada. Now I am not quarrelling with that, I approve of it; I am not finding any fault. But when a minister gets up and says, "Why, we put into effect a tariff policy that built up this

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
country," I want to let him know what they were doing at that time; he must have been asleep. This country was built up on a policy that the Liberals grabbed when they came into power and that they hung on to until they went out, and they went out of power because they insisted on bringing in reciprocity. That is what put them out of the game.
The Minister of the Interior further said, "Why, we are making a tariff for five and a half million people; we are making a tariff for the bulk of the people of this country; we are reducing the tariff so that these people can be relieved of their burden," Well, what is the relief afforded? It is on an article like agricultural implements, where the reduction is from 10 to 6 per cent. If the proposal is really an honest one, why do the government not reduce the duty on an article that the whole nine million people of our country consume? If they want to reach out and do the greatest good to the greatest number, why do they not reduce the duty on boots and shoes which we all wear?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not want anybody
to misunderstand me-I am simply asking the question. I am not in favour of that; not at all, and I would not vote for it. But if my hon. friends opposite are sincere in what they are doing they will put it into effect, and so will the gentlemen to my left who are supporting this government. To them I say, no longer are you the dilapidated annex; you are the overflow, I repeat, if the principle is sound put it into effect where nine millions of people will get the benefit, and not three and a half or four millions. Why reduce the tariff on an article where the duty is already low, ten per cent, when you can go after an article with a duty of twenty-five or thirty per cent, and effect something substantial by a reduction?


Some hon. MEMBER:: Furniture.


James Dew Chaplin: Furniture; you might reduce the duty on that.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Axes.


James Dew Chaplin: The Minister of Trade
and Commerce last year told us that we were exporting lots of bronze powder. I never found it yet in the trade returns, I can tell him that. It is not in this year, and it was not in last. I have looked through the returns for ten years, and I find that the article never was exported in ten years. It has got lost. Bronze powder! Let me say in reference to bronze powder that the duty

is 27i per cent. Bronze powder is used in the finishing of those axes that the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault) mentions. It is also used in the finishing of spades and shovels and some agricultural machines that have all been reduced in duty; but I do not find bronze powder on the cut list. The duty still stays at 27i per cent. Why? It is made in the constituency of the Acting Minister of Customs.


Mr. BUREAU:: Who is the Acting Minister of Cusioms?


James Dew Chaplin: I beg pardon; the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). I would venture the opinion, though, without having looked into it, that there is no considerable industry in the constituency represented by the hon. member who has just spoken that is touched by any reduction.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) said yesterday that the tariff was responsible for cast-iron labour organizations. I would suggest that he get in touch with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) and find out just what that means. I never heard of a cast-iron labour organization. Perhaps the Minister of Labour could tell us something about it. I would also suggest that Great Britain, which is practically a free trade country, at least it is always referred to by members to my left and by some hon. gentlemen on the other side as being free trade, has its labour troubles. I would venture the opinion that they have more labour troubles in Great Britain than we have. I would venture the further opinion, and I think the Minister of Labour will confirm it, that they have, if anything, more cast-iron labour organizations than we have. I do not know just what the Minister of the- Interior meant by cast-iron organizations; I do not know whether it was a derogatory term or not; but certainly it would not mean an organization that was malleable or elastic.
The hon. minister also said that tariffs developed mergers. I would like to know if it has not been proved here time and again that Great Britain is not free from mergers. I will venture the opinion that for every merger that can be named in this country taking into account the fact that Great Britain has probably five times the population ws have, you will find ten mergers in Britain. There may be some here; there used to be, so we were told, but the Minister of Labour got a bill through the House to hold them in order. He had the act amended this year,

The Budget-Mr. Cahill
but I have not heard of any prosecutions under that act. I have not heard of anybody being hauled before a tribunal to account for some wrong doing.


Joseph Archambault: Good government.


Arthur Meighen: Good government, leaves them alone.


James Dew Chaplin: I wish to refer now to a short article I saw in a Toronto paper the other day in reference to .the cut in duty on agricultural implements. The statement is contained in an interview with a gentlemar in Toronto representing the J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company, and he is represented as saying that he thought the tariff would be beneficial and that it would stimulate trade. On my way through Toronto over the weekend I dropped off to take a look at the outfit, and I found that this man was truly the representative of the J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company from Racine. Wisconsin, that they had a warehouse in Toronto, and that they were not manufacturing a dollar's worth of goods there. So I presume that when he said the reduction in duty would stimulate business, he meant stimulate business in the United States. That is what this government is doing, stimulating business in the United States. Here is what the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) said the other day after he had delivered his budget, and I must compliment him on the way he delivered it, on the short time in which he took to present it, and the ease with which he handled the subject. He said:
We shall have factories running full time and tradesmen working over time to supply the needs of those who will have money to buy.
I would like to ask this question, Mr. Speaker: What has helped to bring about stagnation and lack of employment in this country and the exodus from Ontario and Quebec?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The high tariff.


James Dew Chaplin: No, I will tell you.- It is the importation of $100,000,000 of goods that should have been made in our own factories; and the Acting Minister of Finance proposes in the face of the experience that we have had, to reduce the duties a little more in order to put a few more people out of employment! This new wizard of finance by some legerdemain hitherto unknown proposes to still further reduce the tariff to increase our imports and thus provide employment for an additional number of industrial workers! I would rather believe the stories I heard -when I was a boy taken from Gulliver's
Travels, the Arabian Nights Entertainment and Baron Munchausen, than take the thoughtful word of the Acting Minister of Finance in this matter.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac):	For
the first time in my parliamentary experience a budget has been presented to this House which I will have very much pleasure in supporting. The budgets of last year and the year before were in the right direction, but the present budget is a real accomplishment for the Prime Minister and the Liberal party, and something that I believe will meet with the general approval of the tax payers of the Dominion. It does not meet with the approval of hon. gentlemen directly opposite.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Mr. CAHILL:: The leader of the opposition says "hear, hear" and the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) smiles in co-operation with his leader. Nevertheless these hon. gentlemen do admit that this year's budget clearly draws a line between those who preach the principle of protection and those who are in favour of allowing the Canadian people to get their goods at the lowest possible prices.


Arthur Meighen: I wish it did.


Frank S. Cahill: They at last admit the
fighting ground is now clearly defined, and I am glad of it. I am glad that the line of cleavage between us is distinct and well defined, and that we have a platform upon which we can fight and appeal with confidence to the public. I am one of those who believe with Aristotle when he said "One man's privilege ends where the other man's rights begin." Hon. gentlemen opposite are the party of the privileged classes. We of the rest of the House are the supporters of the idea that every man should stand in an equal position before the government of the country. The ex-Minister of Finance when he was speaking on the budget the other day talked of paying due regard to the labouring interests and the interests of the producers of Canada. But what would happen if the producers of the Dominion were to come and ask the protectionist manufacturers of the country-those who are now enjoying the benefit of a protective tariff-to bonus the farmer for every head of live stock or every bushel of wheat he produced. What a howl would go up if such a request were preferred, and yet that is exactly the kind of claim my hon. friends opposite are advancing at the present time. My hon. friends make no attempt to disguise the nature of their request.

The Budget-Mr. Cahill
They are quite frank in asking on behalf of the protected interests to be allowed to coin profits from the tax payers of this country. I remember reading when Mussolini came into power in Italy that one of his first acts was to banish the professional beggars from Rome. If Mussolini were in this country to-day one of his first acts would be to banish the class of supplicants to which I refer. I have no quarrel with those who honestly believe that protection is a good thing. Doubtless there are many in this country who hold that view; but if I were to make profits from an industry in this country that could only exist under a system of protection I should consider myself dishonest. I should not consider I was getting my money honestly if I could not make a living out of an enterprise capable of standing on its own footing without the slightest assistance from the tax payers of this country. I a.m satisfied that many manufacturers do not view the question in that light, that even the leader of the opposition does not take that view, but that is the way it appeals to me. If a manufacturer cannot conduct his business without it being bolstered up by the money of the tax payers it is a case of others submitting to taxation for his benefit, and that is certainly not right conduct on the part of a citizen of any country.
The hon. member for West York referred to the labouring man in the Maritime provinces and to the wheat grower in the West. Take the case of a fisherman returning from the Grand banks to his home in Lunenburg with a cargo of fish. What would he think if, after going into the Boston market and selling his fish there, he had to give a portion of his gain from that sale to bolster up a plough manufacturer in Hamilton or some other place in Ontario. What benefit to the fisherman of the Maritime provinces would there be in such a policy as that? Or what encouragement or profit can a farmer who is growing wheat in Alberta and shipping it to Vancouver and from there to Liverpool derive from the fact that he had to pay a few more dollars for a binder in order to give protection to a manufacturer in Toronto or elsewhere in Canada? Such an argument is not reasonable or sound. It is a fact, that the customs duties in the past have been regarded as an easy way of collecting taxation.


Arthur Meighen: You might try boots
and shoes for another illustration.


Andrew Ross McMaster: One is always thinking of one's feet.


Frank S. Cahill: I should be quite willing
to have a reduction in the duty on boots and shoes, I hope it will come. I believe the 
people in this country will support that reduction when it does come. The provisions of this budget are not the last word in the matter of tariff reduction. I am not like my right hon. friend who attempts to preach against the government on the ground that they have reduced the tariff too much, and then takes the other tack that the reductions made are not going to help the consumer.


Arthur Meighen: What does my hon.
friend say?


Frank S. Cahill: I say that my right hon.
friend always tries to take both sides of the question. He preaches that the tariff reductions are not going to benefit the consumer at all and argues in the same breath that industries will be injured. His supporters argue in the same fashion. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Chaplin) deplored the fact that duties to the extent of something like a million and a half of dollars were cut off certain imports to this country as if that were not a decided gain to the consumers of Canada. The day when a Tory is pot taxing some person is looked upon by hon. gentlemen opposite as a lost day.
My hon. friends are attempting to make a great cry out of the fact that there is an emigration movement from this country. It is true that a great many people have left Canada, but that was largely on account of the huge and extravagant expenditures of previous governments. They felt that they were going to be taxed and taxed heavily, and in order to avoid it they left the country. The income tax is not conducive to good business, many of the taxes in force at the present time are not helpful to industries, but hon. gentlemen opposite left such a tremendous debt that taxation had to be resorted to. They talk about the expenditures for the war. Why after the war was over they spent money with a free hand. They built a merchant marine at a cost of some sixty or seventy million dollars. They made loans to Roumania and other European countries. We told them at the time that they might never expect to get a cent of it back, and they have not. They went on expending money in that way, and they are now criticizing the government for not reducing taxation, balancing the budget the first year after they came into power, or doing all kinds of things they never expected or hoped to do or never attempted to do when they were collecting the taxation during the time of inflated business in the var period and the immediate period after the war.

The Budget-Mr. Cahill


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman not remember-I think he was in the House at the time-when the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) warned us that we were taxing too highly?


Frank S. Cahill: My recollection is that the present Minister of Railways was not in the House from 1917 to 1921.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but the war was on before 1917. My hon. friend will find, if he will look up the record, that in the year 19.17 he was not alone in that warning to the government. This last tale of woe is a very recent edition. In those days the warning came very frequently that we were too severe and that we were taxing business too heavily.


Frank S. Cahill: I only came into the House in 1917 and I do not recollect any advice of that kind to the government from my side of the House after 1917. I think the general consensus of opinion then was that the government was spending money with too free a hand and not collecting enough taxation. During my experience as a member of the opposition, we were asking the government to collect heavier taxes from the profiteers;, we said that they were allowing them to escape and that they should bear a part of the burden of the war by taxation during that time.


Arthur Meighen: That is quite true. I do not want to be misunderstood. A vague cry to collect from the profiteers always went up, but whenever a concrete tax came down to be voted on the cry was the other way.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend will have the last word on every subject. It would be useless for me to attempt to argue with him, but the fact remains that during that period they were spending money as if the leaves of the trees were dollars and they owned the forests of the world; and they were taxing as if the trees were rosebuds and they should not touch them. During all that period they failed to collect the taxes that would have lightened the burdens of the taxpayers to-day. The same thing applied previous to 1898. We had an exodus from this country during that period. After the Liberal administration came into power in 1896 and got going for two or three years, conditions changed and people began to come back to the country instead of leaving it. I expect we will have the same result from the administration of this government. I feel confident that in three or four years we will begin to forget all about our tax troubles of to-day or our huge debt, because people will
be coming in and prosperity will be returning, under an administration that allows something of equality to the consumer and producer of the country, as against my hon.' friend's special privileged friends that he is so interested in looking after.


Arthur Meighen: What ones?


Frank S. Cahill: The manufacturers.


Arthur Meighen: Of implements?


Frank S. Cahill: Of implements and of shoes.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot speak as to boots and shoes. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will do that. As to the manufacturers of implements, my hon. friend's colleague told us a few days ago they lost over two million dollars in one concern in the last two years.


Frank S. Cahill: The hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) told the House that this budget was prepared for the purpose of catching the Progressive vote.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Frank S. Cahill: My right hon. friend says
"hear, hear." I remember he applauded that idea. It also catches the votes on this side of the House, and it will probably catch a vote of a majority in the neighbourhood of a hundred over my hon. friend's party. If we should go to the country, and if the members of the Progressive party and the members on this side of the House are good judges of the feelings of their constituents and their desires it should catch the same proportion in the country. That is the quarrel my hon. friend has uTith the budget. It is not what he -wants; far from it. But he will hope to succeed with the assistance of practically all the great organizations of this country at his back, because he will practically have the railway corporation, the banking institutions, the press of the country and all the special interests and specially priviliged people at his back, trying to fool the electors of this country again as they did in 1911. But it will probably take the people a few years yet to forget, and they will not have forgotten by the time the next election takes place, nor is it likely they will forget the administration of my right hon. friend till doomsday. After the election of 1896 the Liberal party remained in power for fifteen years, and it is probable that their present tenure of office will be longer than that.
It is wise for the government to practise economy. I do not believe in a government attempting to do all the business of a country. I think the government should practise
The Budget-Mr. Cahill

economy in their expenditure and reduce taxation as much as possible, in order to allow business to develop. The people will take care of the business enterprises if the government will look after purely governmental matters. I am tempted to quote from Macaulay a few words which appealed to me as one of the best political platforms for the Liberal part,}' that I know of. He said:
Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment ; by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law, and by observing strict economy in every department of the state.' Let the government do this: the people will assuredly do the rest.
If my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and his party had followed that policy this country to-day would not be
10 p.m. loaded with responsibility with which they are burdened. Far from it. We would have been in a much better position, and the country would have been back to that condition of prosperity which it enjoyed during the time of the previous Liberal administration, when the party tried to leave private business in the hands of private corporations. That, after all, is the best policy for any country, especially a young country.
I do not think the exodus from Canada to the United States is altogether due to the high taxation that has been necessary for the last year or two. I think our banking system is organized on a wrong basis for the development of this country. I hope we will be able to work out something in the Banking and Commerce committee that will give us a better banking system for the people. The present system is merely one for gathering, in numerous branches throughout the country, moneys to be devoted to investments at the head offices, which happen to be in the cities of Montreal and Toronto. This system does not make for a balanced development of the country. I believe that has as much to do with people leaving the country as has the tariff.
Another thing that I believe will have to be adjusted before we get any great volume of immigrants to this country is our naturalization policy. The principle of an immigrant's forswearing allegiance to his former state and swearing allegiance to the government of the country of his adoption is a relic of European conditions under which it was necessary for a man to pledge himself during his lifetime to fight the battles of the country into which he moved. For example, if a man moved

from Belgium to France, or from France to German}', the government naturally expected him to forswear his allegiance to his native country, because he would be required to shoulder arms in the near future in defence of his adopted land. That is absolutely unnecessary in this country. I think that we should have a simple system whereby an immigrant would declare his allegiance to Canada without being obliged to do something that is so distasteful to many people who come here. Forswearing one's allegiance is something that has no particular significance to tiie native-born Canadian inasmuch as he is never called upon to comply with any such painful obligation; but it does mean a great deal indeed to the immigrant who comes here. Something therefore should be done in this direction to facilitate the entry of immigrants into Canada.
In conclusion, I would observe that the budget is one that lends encouragement to the country generally, and I believe that it has been accepted throughout the length and breadth of the land. And if by any chance the government should deem it necessary to go to the country at this time I am convinced that they would come back very much stronger than they are to-day and much stronger than both of the parties combined who are expected to support the budget that is at present under consideration.


Mr. HIJBBS:: I wish to move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker. Before I do so, however, I want to compliment the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the presentation of his first budget to the people of Canada.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that the arrangement was that I should speak on the budget to-night. Evidently there has been a misunderstanding, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Hubbs: I have no objection to doing so; I withdraw the motion.


Charles Marcil: In common with you, Mr. Speaker, and every other hon. member of this House, I regret that on the present occasion I have not had the pleasure of listening to the Minister of Finance himself (Mr. Fielding) in the delivery of the budget speech. It has been my good fortune to have listened to, and supported by my vote in this House, thirteen of the seventeen budget speeches that have been delivered by that hon. gentleman, and while I shall not attempt to eulogize him in the presence of hon. members who have seen him

The Budyet-Air. Marcil (Bonaventure)
discharge his responsible duties as Minister of Finance in this House, I do desire to say a word or two in regard to my own personal experience with him. I had the pleasure of being in that part of Canada where he is best known, having had an opportunity at two general elections, in 1908 and 1911, of accompanying the Minister of Finance through the Maritime provinces where I witnessed the prestige and general confidence which he inspired in these three provinces by the sea. His record as provincial premier was behind him and his work as Minister of Finance in Canada was then meeting with success, to the general satisfaction and advantage of this country. I hope that Providence will spare him to return to us to continue the good work that he has done; for a man who has given forty years of his life to the service of his country cannot easily be dispensed with without a great loss all round.
It was also my good fortune to hear, with pleasure and approval, the present budget speech delivered by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). I have known the Acting Minister of Finance for some time; he represents the combined constituencies of Chateauguay-Huntingdon, an ideal combination of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. These constituencies have been represented in this House in the past by some distinguished men, to mention only the late Hon. Mr. Holton and Mr. Julius Scriver, two of the most distinguished members of the Liberal party hailing from the province of Quebec in the old days. The Acting Minister of Finance has worthily stepped into their place and is performing his duties in his present responsible position quite satisfactorily. As a man who has listened to various speeches in this House during many years, I wish to congratulate him on his performance, \nd more particularly on the brevity of his peech; and I hope that in the budget speech cf this year a record has been established which public men in Canada will emulate. The shorter a speech is the more effective it becomes. For many years in Great Britain, in the mother of parliaments, the budget speech has invariably been delivered in about an hour, and some of the greatest orations of Gladstone and other eminent statesmen have been delivered within that space of time. I trust that the example which the hon. the Acting Minister has set will be followed by all; and with that end in view I do not intend to speak at great length this evening. I think it is my duty however.
both to my constituents and to the people of the country at large, that I should refer to the budget to some extent. The keynote of the budget is, in a few words, the development of Canadian basic industries. The concluding paragraph of the speech of the Acting Minister of Finance defines the policy of the present government, which I know will have the support of the immense majority in this House and the equally immense majority of the country on the first occasion that presents itself for the demonstration of the confidence of the people in the administration. The words of the Acting Minister to which I refer are:
Whatever division of opinion Canadians may have, surely we share a united confidence in the future of our country. We have great natural resources. We have certain basic industries, upon the success of which, depend the growth of all other industries, the greater development of our trade. Of these basic industries, I would place agriculture, in all its varied branches, first. Next to agriculture, I would place our forests, our minerals and our fisheries. A real national policy is a policy that will encourage the growth and development of these basic industries. The more of the products of the farm, the fisheries, the mines and the forest we have going to market, the greater will be the earnings of our transportation companies-the greater the purchasing power of the nation and as a consequence we shall have factories running full time and tradesmen working overtime to supply the needs of those who will have money to buy. In that belief, Sir, we submit to-day proposals to lighten the burden of taxation on these primary, basic industries. Our budget shows a reduction in debt of $30,000,000 last year, and a reduction in taxation of $24,000,000 this year. It is confidently expected that this reduction will give such impetus to trade that it will result in greater development and prosperity to all the provinces of Canada.
I regret having had to -read an extract from a speech that is still so fresh in the minds of all hon. gentlemen, but I have done so because it epitomises in a few lines the precise policy of the present administration which, as far as I understand, is in keeping with the policy of the Liberal party as enunciated in convention in 1919. The four foundation stones of national prosperity are agriculture, the forests, the fisheries and the mines; and without the prosperity of these four great branches of industry no prosperity is possible in any other direction. We may venture to foster and to encourage the manufacture of anything under the sun, and we may attempt to compete with the Americans, with the French, with the English or with any other manufacturing nation. But we shall never attain success in any branch of manufacturing unless these four basic industries are prosperous in this country.
The hon. minister has faced a problem that was well-nigh overwhelming. Older members of this House and you, Mr. Speaker, will
1404	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure)
remember when we had to gather but $18,000,000 a year to meet the interest charges on a public debt of only $350,000,000. That is long, long since. Now we have to face conditions that are almost overwhelming compared with what they were in the old days. But the Canadian people are equal to the task. They have already accomplished what has never been surpassed by any other nation in the world. Therefore I am confident that with the working out of this policy and with proper legislative encouragement which will keep our people at home and attract newcomers-immigrants who will be willing to share our burdens and to abide by our laws and constitution, thus becoming good Canadians-the future of Canada is as bright as it ever was. In fact the position of this country is to-day the best in the world, for we are free from many of the disturbing questions which trouble many other countries, and which we hope will never arise here. As Canadians, regardless of provincial boundaries, come together and get to know each other better, so will all our difficulties be overcome, and we shall be able to build up on this North American continent a nation of which we and our descendants may be truly proud.
The Acting Minister of Finance is a Scotsman in origin, and therefore a very prudent man in dealing with money matters. After giving us this great relief of decreasing our public debt to the extent of $30,000,000 and reducing our taxation by $24,000,000. he turned to the fiscal year 1924-25 and said:
T come now to the fiscal year 1924-25. Estimates of revenue for the year upon which we have just entered cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. The revenue we would receive on the present basis of taxation wbuld be materially affected by reductions in taxes which, in view of the most satisfactory out-come of the year just closed, it is proposed to submit to parliament. It is hoped, however, to offset any considerable reduction in the revenue by a most rigid economy in expenditures. The estimates now before the House show a very substantial reduction as compared with the estimates of last year. We shall no doubt have supplementaries, but rigid economy will be exercised in their preparation; and in this the government hopes for and expects co-operation from all sections of Canada.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I am willing by speech and by vote to support any proposal that will tend to do away with waste and extravagance. But there is such a thing as productive expenditure, and I am going to call the attention of the government and the House to an expenditure of this class, not because it happens to be in my own constituency, for I am sure there must be many similar cases in the rest of the Dominion, but because such productive expenditure is necessary to help us meet our obligations. There

is no doubt that we must increase our population, and the most effective way to do so is to keep our people at home; this means that we must give them employment; to give them employment we must develop our resources, and to develop our resources the public moneys have on certain occasions to be brought into profitable and effective use. There are in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, large timber limits covering thousands of square miles. The country is barely developed, but on the seashore there is considerable settlement. In the centre of my constituency the Bathurst Lumber Company own five hundred square miles of timber limits formerly the property of Lieutenant Governor Robitaille. The outlet for these limits is on the Bonaventure river, practically half-way between Gaspe and Campbellton, the only deep water ports we have on the bay of Chaleur. In the old days the company had at its head the late Senator Edwards and other capitalists of these parts who established mills at Bonaventure and New Richmond, giving employment to several hundred men. For more than ten years under very trying circumstances they operated the mills but what with defective railway facilities, due to shortage of motive power and rolling stock, and lack of any deep water port on a shore line of 200 miles, they finally had to close them down. As a result the population of Bonaventure has decreased by eight hundred, and the mayor writes me that fifty families are preparing to leave in the spring for other parts of Canada or for the United States. There has been an exodus from Gaspe and Bonaventure, largely owing to the fact that we have lost our industries for want of effective means of transportation by rail and by water. The Bathurst Lumber Company, as my friends from the Maritime provinces know, is one of the soundest and most enterprising corporations in that part of the Cominion. At the present time they have a large industry at Bathurst, and to keep it in operation they have to cut their timber in Bonaventure and raft it 25 miles across the bay of Chaleur to Bathurst, where they are served by the Intercolonial railway. Consequently the people of my constituency lose the work of converting the timber into lumber, and have to go away to seek work, while our farmers are deprived of any home market and agriculture is decreasing every year.
What has happened to the Bathurst Lumber Company has also happened to the Province of Quebec Lumber Association, which owns large timber limits in the county. They moved across the bay to Dalhousie, and they are

The Budget-Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure)
rafting their timber over to this mill, with the result that the men living in the vicinity of the timber limits are left without employment. In the county which you, Mr. Speaker, have the honour to represent we have a large pulp mill at Chandler which was erected some years ago by capitalists from Philadelphia, but to-day it is owned largely by Canadians. They have to export their product down to Gaspe to find a deep water terminus, having no shipping facilities of any kind, and therefore the place is seriously handicapped.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to lay these concrete proposals before the government as they have already been laid before the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) by the Bathurst Lumber Company. The directors of that company say: Give us increased harbour facilities at Bonaventure. It will cost you $200,000 according to the estimates of last year. It will take at least four years to spend that sum of money, but if the government are prepared to do that, we are prepared to spend $300,000 on our own part, and the result will be the building up of an industry that will employ three or four hundred men. In order that the matter may be better understood I would like to have the privilege of reading a letter sent by Mr. McLean, president of the company, to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King). It reads as follows:
August 14, 1923.
Dear Mr. King:-
The people of Bonaventure, Quebec, have been requesting us for some time to start an industry at Bonaventure for manufacturing at least a portion of the timber that we are now cutting on the Gaspe peninsula at that point and we had a meeting there two weeks ago at which a very large number of the residents of Bonaventure were present and resolutions were passed at this meeting, copies of which I understand the Hon. Chas. Marcil has forwarded to you. The position is as follows: We are prepared to put in a good, substantial plant there for manufacturing providing we can obtain the necessary facilities to make a success of our enterprise, and in order to do this it will be necessary that we should have a protected harbour and dredging done so that sea-going vessels could go into the harbour and lie in safe protection. In addition to this, of course, we will have to have railway facilities but this is something that we can easily arrange outside of the harbour improvements required. We have agreed with the people of Bonaventure that we will proceed to put in this plant providing they can succeed in getting their harbour improvements made, and as they are desirous of having this done at the earliest possible moment in order that our construction work may begin there, we wish to add our plea for this work being done. Under the circumstances if you could arrange to have a survey made and ascertain what is necessary to make this a good shipping port where vessels could take cargo on or discharge cargo during a period of seven or eight months of the year, we would like very much to see this survey made. You probably know that Bonaventure is about half way between Matapedia
and Gaspe and it is the only available port on that whole coast where a deep water harbour is possible and as it so centrally located and also is at the mouth of the important Bonaventure river, where there are large quantities of wood, there is no reason why this could not be made a very important shipping port for that whole coast as well as a point where materials of all kinds could go in and be loaded on board cars for distribution to that whole district. We simply want to add our request to that of the people of Bonaventure to have this work done at as early a date as possible and we are prepared to proceed with our enterprise and give business for shipping so that the port would justify the expense of making the harbour.
Thanking you for your consideration.
Yours very truly,
Angus McLean,
President.
That was the proposal that was made to the minister at a time when he and his colleagues were striving to practise the most rigid economy. At first glance they felt it necessary to turn down the proposal, as they had been obliged to turn down many others relating to other parts of Canada. But I make a special plea in' favour of this one, for several reasons. In the first place, we are isolated from the large centres. We are 600 miles from Montreal, and we have a very inefficient railway service. We have a hard country to live in, because of the long winter season. It is a part of Canada in which very few immigrants from Europe will ever settle; they generally go to the Eastern townships, to Ontario or to the West, and not one in a thousand would dream of locating in the Gaspe district. We have a population born in the place; the people have lived there for generations, and it is in the interests of the country that these young people, who are ideal axemen, ideal men for the lumber camps and the lumbering industry, for the deep sea fishing we have on the coast and for agriculture as well, should be given employment and kept at home.
The minister, in response to the resolution that was sent to him, adopted at a public meeting held at Bonaventure on the first of August, presided over by Monseigneur Matte Vicar General of the new see of Gaspe, kindly sent down an engineer to make a very thorough survey of the whole situation, especially in view of the fact that under the Laurier administration $100,000 had been expended at Bonaventure for the purpose of creating a harbour and building a breakwater. But it is needless to say that from 1911 until 1921 nothing whatever was done; the work was abandoned and these industries moved away. The question is this:	Can Canada
afford to lose this population? Can Canada afford to lose this industry? Can Canada afford the $100,000 that has already been ex-

1406	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure)
pended?-because that expenditure has not resulted in deepening the harbour as it would be deepened by the extension of this breakwater and by deepening the basin as asked for. The report of the engineer is typical of conditions in many parts of eastern Quebec and, I believe, in the Maritime provinces. Our friends in Ontario and in the West do not have to contend with the sea; they are not familiar with these conditions, and I have no doubt that when they hear this report they will have some idea of the importance of this matter to the people living down by the sea, people who, as I have said, live under difficult conditions, far removed from the thickly settled portions of Canada. This is the report of the engineer:
Department of Public Works,
District Engineer's Office, Rimouski, P.Q., Oct. 25, 1923.
Sir:-
With reference to your telegram of Oct. 17th, and to your letter of Aug. 10th ult., re file P.Q. 36, in regard to harbour improvements which are being requested at Bonaventure river, County of Bonaventure, P.Q., I beg to submit the following.
Bonaventure river or St. Bonaventure, in the county of the same name, is situated on the north shore of the Baie des Chaleurs, 10 miles west from New Carlisle and 90 miles east from Matapedia. It is the largest village of the county; lumbering, farming and fishing are extensive. The fish export firm of Robin Jones & Whitman has a large establishment at that place, which is also a distribution centre; all kind of farm and dairy produce, cattle, etc., are yearly exported; several thousand cords of pulpwood are cut in the vicinity and shipped through this point.
In addition to this local traffic, the Bathurst Lumber Co., Limited, owns, on the westerly shore of the mouth of the Bonaventure river, flowing into the sea, through the easterly portion of the village, large saw, shingle and planing mills, which have been left vacant and idle during the last ten years, due to the fact that the annual timber cut done in their Bonaventure river limits was being rafted to Bathurst, N.B., to be milled in the company's plant at that place.
The annual cut of timber done by the Bathurst Co., in their limits of the Bonaventure river (about 500 sq. miles) approximates 20,000,000 ft. B.M. of lumber; approximately 10 to 15 million feet are also taken out of the Little Cascapedia river, the mouth of which is located about 20 miles west from Bonaventure river.
It is evident that this rafting over the New Brunswick of the lumber cut in the Bonaventure county means a serious loss to the local industry and traffic.
It is now proposed, however, as stated by Mr. McLean, president of the Bathurst Lumber Co., that the said company make at Bonaventure village the centre of their milling operations in the region: they will consequently reopen their mills, enlarge them if necessary to ensure employment to at least 300 men: the company stands prepared to an outlay of $300,000 to modernize the existing saw-mills, and to build a pulp rossing mill as promised to the population of Bonaventure, during the meeting held at that place on August 1, by the head of the Bathurst Lumber Co., Mr. McLean.
But all this industrial boom will take place only if the necessary shipping accommodation and harbour facilities are provided, permitting ocean-going freighters and steam barges to load and unload from a

wharf which should be built at that place with sufficient depth of water to allow safe navigation in the harbour: a deep water harbour has consequently to be found or created in the vicinity of the mouth of Bonaventure river.
In regard to deep water harbours, allow me to call your attention to the fact that the whole of this region of eastern Quebec lies as yet only partly developed, owing to the lack of transport facilities: there is only one railroad in both counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe operating from Matapedia to Gaspe, a distance of 202 miles, only one passenger train and one freight train a day. Moreover, owing to the bad condition of the road-bed, only very light cars are hauled so that the traffic is very poorly accommodated; consequently to relieve congestion of travelling and freight hauling, transportation by water should be resorted to. Unfortunately nature has not favoured most of the localities along this coast with natural facilities; harbours there are a-plenty but, in practically all of them the water is shallow and, with very few exceptions, unless they are improved, they do not afford the required accommodation.
Bonaventure river is located approximately half way between Gaspe and Matapedia and should be, from this geographical location, the commercial and industrial centre of the region. In former times, before 1914, such a condition was existing, and Bonaventure was enjoying a prosperous trade and traffic which would certainly be resumed with the revival of industry as above outlined.
With deep water harbour facilities at Bonaventure, this place should become a business centre of large importance. It would be the meeting place of both ends of the Gaspe peninsula and become the principal' timber market place of the region.
To meet the requirements such as described by the interested parties during the meeting held at Bonaventure. I consider that, in order not to have the expenditure already incurred by the department in the locality wasted, the existing training pier should be extended 1,000 feet in length by 20 feet in width in a straight direction, and 600 feet in length by 30 feet in width in a south direction: a basin along the easterly side of the 30-foot wide portion of the wharf should also be dredged as shown on accompanying plan.
The construction of the above-mentioned extension 1,600 feet in length by 20 feet and 30 feet in width would cost approximately $145,000; the dredging of a basin averaging 1,040 feet in length by 300 feet in width to 16 feet L.W.S.T., would involve the removal of approximately 68,000 cubic yards of material, measured in place, which at 50 cents per cubic yard would cost $34,000.
No borings have been taken out in vicinity, but I am of the opinion that the dredging can be done without meeting with considerable hardships.
The whole cost of the requested and described improvements should be approximately, including cost of necessary contingencies, $190,000.
Yours obediently,
P. E. Amiot,
District Engineer.
A similar letter was forwarded to the right hon. the Prime Minister, and I have no doubt that he will give the matter proper consideration when it is taken up in council. Here is the situation:	Even if a small
amount were granted in the supplementary estimates of say $25,000 or thereabouts, to commence this work, not one dollar of that money could be spent before next winter because the timber has to be taken out of

The Budget-Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure)
the forests and hauled down to the seashore, so the work practically would not begin until the spring of 1925. They could only do a certain amount of work each year, and this expenditure of $200,000 would cover certainly a period of two or three years, if not four, which would mean a spread of the expenditure. I am not asking for this amount to be spent in one year. The Bathurst Lumber Company spent this year $40,000 there in the construction of piers and booms for the distribution of their logs and to carry on their operations.
I hope I shall have the indulgence of this House for having brought this matter up, but I think I am giving expression to the feeling not only of the government but of many members in this House when I say that in applying rigid economy we must not go too far. We must not cut out what, as in this case, we might call productive expenditure. Whenever a reasonable proposition or a concrete proposal is made by a solvent corporation, when the work is already under way, when a large amount of money has already been expended, when the limits are there, when the resources are there, when the people exploiting them have undoubted capital, when their standing is of the first order, I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be false economy on the part of the Canadian government to turn down an offer such as this or to turn down any offer which would give an opportunity to develop our resources and give employment to our people and keep them at home. '
This question of carrying our lumber over into another province is not a new one. It has been discussed many times in the Quebec legislature. It has been brought up on several occasions by Hon. John Hall Kelly, now solicitor for the Lumber Association, and by Mr. Bugeaud, late member for Bonaventure and now on the bench, but the answer of the Quebec government was always this, that the clause in the British North America Act which prevents any barriers being placed against interprovincial trade applies to lumber as to everything else. Along the Ottawa river practically all the mills in this province are kept going by timber from the province of Quebec, and the same thing is true of New Brunswick to-day. The lumber manufactured in New Brunswick is brought over from the province of Quebec. I do not object to the prosperity of New Brunswick at all. I am advocating at the present time, and will continue to advocate, a closer relationship between Quebec and New Brunswick at that point, because our people from the province of 90i
Quebec and from New Brunswick are becoming more and more allied every day. There is an invasion of New Brunswick by Quebec, and I hope that the old settlers of the province of New Brunswick will stay at home and not be attracted by the lure of the west or of the United States, because some day they may find another Quebec in the province of New Brunswick. The French-Canadians are going into New Brunswick because they have an opportunity there; they have faith in that province, and I would like to see the old settlers of New Brunswick stay in that province rather than leave for the United States or the West.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say one last word in support of this proposal, and to ask the government to give it fair consideration. I think I have advanced arguments which cannot easily be refuted. They speak for keeping the people at home, for giving them employment, for developing our resources, and the moment the government have the necessary guarantees I hope they will find their way, notwithstanding the wise caution given by the Acting Minister of Finance, to at least complete this work so that we shall be able to keep our people at home and continue to share in the general prosperity of Canada.
Mr. Hubbs moved the adjournment of the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: Before putting the motion I wish to explain, in justice to the hon. member, that being a new member he did not realize he was losing his right to address the House again on this question by withdrawing his motion for the adjournment of the debate, in order that the hon, member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) might have an opportunity of speaking. According to May and Bourinot the House in such a case is generally very indulgent, and I hope that the hon. gentleman may not lose his right to address the House on this question. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to address the House in this debate and now move its adjournment?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION. INVITATION TO MEET IN WASHINGTON IN 1925

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Acting Under Secretary of State for External Affairs the following letter:
Ottawa, 14th April, 1924.
Sir,-I have the honour to transmit, herewith, copy of a letter which has been received from the agent of this department at Washington, D.C., United States, en-

Interparliamentary Union
closing copies of H. J. Res. 204, requesting the President to invite the Interparliamentary Union to meet in Washington City in 1925, and authorizing an appropriation to defray the expenses of the meeting, together with copies of Report No. 475 on the above bill.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) W. H. Walker.
Acting Under-Secretary of State
for External Affairs.
The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa.
. The resolution adopted by the House of Representatives reads as follows:
In the House of Representatives March 3, 1924
Mr. Temple introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed
April 8, 1924
Reported with amendments, committed to the committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.
Joint Resolution
Requesting the President to invite the Interparliamentary Union to meet in Washington City in 1925, and authorizing an appropriation to defray the expenses of the meeting.
Whereas the Congress, in an act approved June 30, 1914, requested the President to extend an invitation to the Interparliamentary Union to hold its annual meeting for the year 1915 in the city of Washington, and in the same act appropriated the sum of $40,000 to defray the expenses of the said meeting; and Whereas when the World War led to repeated postponements of the said meeting the Congress repeatedly extended the appropriation: first, the act of July 1, 1916 extended it and made it available for the calendar years 1916 and 1917; second, the act of March 3rd, 1917, extended the appropriation and made it available for the calendar year 1918; third, the act of April 15, 1918, extended the appropriation and made it available for the calendar year 1919; and Whereas this appropriation repeatedly extended has lapsed, no part of it having been expended, and the meeting thus arranged for in the city of Washington has not been held; Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President be requested to invite the Interparliamentary Union to hold its annual meeting for the year 1925 in the city of Washington.
Sec. 2. That for the purpose of defraying the expenses incident to said meeting the appropriation of $50,000, to be expended under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe, is hereby authorized.
I thought I should read that resolution which has been sent to me by the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs because many members of the House of Commons as well as of the Senate are members of the Interparliamentary Union.



EASTER ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before moving the adjournment of the House I wish to

mention to hon. members that to-morrow I propose to move that the resolution passed providing for an Easter adjournment until the 22nd' instant, be rescinded, and that the date for reassembling after the recess be fixed for April 24th, instead of April 22nd, should the House give unanimous consent. I may say that one of the reasons for making the motion is that the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have extended an invitation to hon. members from the West to visit, the Maritime provinces during the Easter vacation. A large number of hon. gentlemen are taking advantage of the invitation so extended but the time we have agreed upon will allow them scarcely any time to inspect objects of interest. I may add that the government itself would welcome two days' extension of the recess if the House is unanimous in its favour. I now move that the House adjourn.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Wednesday, April 16, 1924