1925-04-14

THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 8, consideration of 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, and the proposed amendment thereto of Sir Henry Drayton.
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am now going to undertake my maiden budget speech. I would not have undertaken to interject a number of thoughts into this debate except for the fact that there appear to have been very many things said on the opposite side of the House, very many matters referred to, that should be put right-matters upon which hon. members should at least have the viewpoint of others; and when I say others I do not mean particularly my own views. I shall deal with a number of subjects that have been under discussion in this House-unemployment, the tariff, and very many other questions that hon. gentlemen opposite have interested themselves in.
I want to commence-and I regret that the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) is not in his seat-by referring to certain matters that that hon. gentleman has brought before the House. During the debate here on Wednesday last the hon. gentleman referred to me. He was dealing with the question of the Civil Service Commission having exclusive jurisdiction over the fixing of the salaries of civil servants and he said: "Has the government made no effort at all to remove any such discrimination if such discrimination exists?" He had at the previous sitting of the House, as well as at the particular sitting in question, indicated that there was discrimination between the salaries of male and female employees in the civil service, and that the government should of its own motion remove that discrimination. I had stated that the government had no authority other than was given in the Civil Service Act, section 45B, which provides that the Civil Service Commission shall fix the rates of pay of civil servants, such rates to become effective on approval by the Governor in Council. And so my hon. friend at the last sitting of the House said: "Has the government made no effort at all to remove any such discrimination if discrimination exists?" I would respectfully refer my hon. friend to a perusal of the files of parliament last year wherein he will find that in the case of the postal workers the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission was sent back to that body three times by the Governor in Council without any result; and finally the recommendation of the commission was approved by the Governor in Council because evidently it was impossible to persuade the commission that any changes were advisable or necessary.
Then the same hon. gentleman, at a former sitting of the House, drew the attention of the government to a specific instance of distress and lack of employment on the part of a newly arrived immigrant into Canada. He cited a specific instance and read into the record a letter which will be found at page 1459 of Hansard1. This letter referred to an individual immigrant who had come to Canada and who, according to the letter of that particular immigrant, had suffered great hardship and distress since his arrival. At the time I asked the hon. gentleman if he would give me the name of the immigrant in question and he very kindly sent the name to me across the floor. I at once took the matter up with the Deputy Minister of Immigration and, again without making public the name of the individual in this House, I want to read the reply of the deputy minister as it affects this particular individual in whom my hon. friend from East Calgary manifested such marked interest. The letter from the Deputy Minister of Immigration is dated March 24, and states:
I have received your message, covering a letter read by one of the members of parliament in reference to an immigrant at Calgary, and, as the name was given to you in confidence, it is not mentioned in this memorandum. There is no question that the record is a proof that we should not have allowed this family entry into Canada. It is a pity that, with all we have endeavoured to do for this man, he has in no way attempted
The Budget-Mr. Murdock.

to meet the conditions here. The family arrived in August of last year. It consisted of the father, mother and three children, aged 4 years, 2 years and 2 months. The father was 24 years and the mother 23. They were immediately placed in a vacant Land Settlement Board property near Condor, Alta. Work was obtained for the father with Mr. H. Meeres, a farmer of that district. The family had only $1.40 on landing and Mr. Meeres at once spent $50.50 towards getting furniture and supplies for them. They were only there two weeks when they became discontented and wrote in f-o the Land Settlement oince that they wished to 'reave. The supervisor called on them on September 3th; talked the matter over with the family and they [DOT]decided to remain.
On October 0th the Land Settlement office was ad-vised that, despite all the advances made by Mr. Meeres, the head of the family had left his employment and had gone to work for another farmer. The Hatter he also left without giving any notice.
The man being out of work, our Land Settlement office took up for a second time the question of employment for him and secured work with a farmer named Bice at Condor, Alta. Mr. Bice undertook to give this man work not only during threshing and during the subsequent fall work but also undertook to give him employment during the winter months cutting posts, but Bice informed the supervisor on October 19th that the family was practically useless to him.
Another position was then found with a farmer at Blackfalds, where the family proceeded on November 4th. This farmer provided them with a cottage in which to reside. On November 13th the Land Settlement Supervisor visited them but the immigrant refused to accept work, stating that his wife would not go out to farm and that she wished to be deported.
The family were then taken to Red Deer, where work was procured for the father at Greencourt with a lumber company who offered to give him steady winter employment. Nothing further was heard by the Land Settlement office of either the man or family until the immigrant turned up in Calgary on December 20th. Two days later he called at the Land Settlement office and was informed that work could be obtained for him, although it would take a few days. The immigrant advised the officials that he did not wish to go out into the country until after Christmas. He called again on January 2nd and informed the Land Settlement officers that he had himself located a position and did not desire to go to the country.
According to letters, appearing in the press, this immigrant still wishes to be deported, although he has secured a permanent job with the Consumers' Milk Company at $75 per month.
The facts in connection with this case show that the immigrant has been placed in no less than seven different positions by the Land Settlement branch, none of which he retained for any length of time and in several instances leaving his employers in bad circumstances in so far as farm labour is concerned. Although in a permanent position at Calgary at $75 per month, he is still writing to the papers and wishing to be deported.
And those, Mr. Speaker, appear to be the facts of the case in regard to which we heard so much a short time ago, and on account of which this government was so wrongly condemned, in so far as its immigration policy was concerned. Again I am sorry my hon. friend is not in the House, because I have something that should be of special interest to him, considering that he is one of the representatives from Calgary. I notice that the hon. gentleman representing West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) is here and I am sure he will bring

this matter to the attention of our hon. friend. I have here a clipping from the Calgary Herald dated April 3, 1925, and of course I would expect, if my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) were in the House, that he might raise objection to the accuracy of anything emanating from the Calgary Herald. He might intimate that it was not altogether sound and fair in so far as these matters are concerned. Be that as it may, this article in the Calgary Herald of April 3 is captioned in large headlines and reads:
Refusing to accept jobs, two hundred men ordered out of labour bureau.
Majority of them alleged to be persistent idlers, and when Superintendent Carnill fails to persuade even one to take farm work, he closes door on them. Civic authorities checking up situation and police are making an investigation. Farm hands may have to be imported.
I notice in this article, which is of considerable length, a statement which is alleged to have been made by the acting mayor, Dr. T. W. Crawford and Commissioner A. G. Graves, in which they are supposed to have said:
"These men have been hanging around the city the best part of the winter", said the acting mayor, "and it will be necessary for the civic authorities to take some action to see that they either go to work or move on. You can say that we are going to take some action to get these loafers out of the city but we haven't definitely decided what that will be."
I would not, Mr. Speaker, for one moment suggest that this is even a fair sample of those citizens of Calgary who have been out of work during the past winter. I only call these particular circumstances to the attention of the House because my hon. friend from East Calgary laid so much stress upon the case of the individual in regard to whom I read a letter from the Deputy Minister of Immigration a short time ago, and I am sure my hon. friend from East Calgary would not undertake to justify actions or an attitude such as is indicated by the letter from the Deputy Minister of Immigration, or such as is indicated in this newspaper clipping which I have just read.
iMir. IRVINE: I understood my hon. friend to say that this man to whom he refers was really an unfit citizen. My point then was that the government should not have brought him here; and I understood that under the government's supervision he was collected and brought to this country.


James Murdock: If my hon. friend had
been in his seat he would not have had any such misunderstanding.


Mr. FORKE:: He was in the gallery.


James Murdock: There is nothing in the record that I can see that this young man of twenty-four years of age and his wife who

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
was twenty-three years of age were not perfectly fit and proper subjects for citizenship in this great Dominion. The only trouble appears to have been that, for what reason we do not know, the young man was offered seven jobs, and evidently, at the time my hon. friend was speaking in this House, was holding a job at $75 a month, and was still contending that Canada was no good to him and praying for deportation. I do not know but that deportation possibly is the best thing under the circumstances, and I think that that is what the department has now under consideration.
For a few moments now I will turn to eer-tain references made by my hon. friend from East Calgary in his speech of April 7 on the budget. He proceeded, by various figures, which I assume are quite accurate, to show that the per capita debt of Canada is $548 per head, or an average per capita debt of $2,740 for a family of five. I regard it- as rather unfortunate that the hon. gentleman did not in any way indicate how it came about that this country of ours has at this time such an enormous burden of debt. There was no criticism by the hon. member on account of the fact that during the war, when the government and Canadians as a whole were doing everything possible to win the war and were regarding the winning of the war as the most important thing to be accomplished, the government in power then and for several years after the war did not undertake to reasonably lighten that enormous burden of taxation of which the hon. gentleman makes so much, and places solely at the door of this government. It seems to me that if the hon. gentleman, speaking for labour, had desired to be reasonably fair and consistent, as my experience indicates representatives of labour do desire to be, he would in some slight measure have dealt with the question of whether the previous government should not have undertaken to pay their way as they went along during the period of the war, when millionaires in certain cases were being made over night, in very brief periods at least, on account of the exorbitant profits that they were enabled to make as a result of war conditions. That it seems to me would have been a fair position to take if the hon. gentleman had felt so inclined.
A little further on in the course of my hon. friend's speech he made reference to the Liberal platform, and hon. gentlemen will have observed with what sweeping haste he passed over each item of that platform one after the other, only in casual reference and away to one side, and not with the thought of dealing accurately and consistently with each item. He referred early in the course of his remarks to the obligations placed upon
Canada as a member of the League of Nations, to the obligations placed upon Canada holding membership in the International Labour Office of the League of Nations, and he endeavoured, it seemed to me, to convince this House that no step and no action had been taken by Canada in order to ensure social justice for the workers of Canada, which was exactly what was contemplated when part XIII of tthe treaty of Peace was framed, to ensure social justice for the workers of the world. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) never bothered to indicate that Canada, as he well knows if he cares to analyze, stands pretty high amongst the nations of the world in its considerate and decent treatment of labour, and that, even before it was found necessary to incorporate part XIII into the treaty of Peace for the purpose of ensuring social justice to the workers of the world, Canada had gone a long way in the direction of securing for the workers of the world many of the things which are only now being developed in certain other countries. So we find the hon. gentleman going to great lengths in order to show that this government had done nothing whatever. It seems to me that he made one mistake. While referring to the Liberal platform, he had occasion to read a part of its preamble and a number of its paragraph terms. He read this:
Resolved, that the committee recommends that the National Liberal convention accept in their entirety as a part of the Liberal platform, in the spirit they have been framed and so far as the special circumstances of the country will permit.
Then he proceeded to enumerate; but the proposal which my hon. friend overlooked was that the agreement was that these were to be accepted-
As a part of the Liberal platform, in the spirit they have been framed and so far as the special circumstances of the country will permit.
Does my hon. friend, claiming to represent labour in this House, come here and, just after arguing that the tax burden on a family of five in Canada was $2,740 per annum, contend that, even so, every one of the proposals in the platform of the Liberal party, regardless of how many millions of dollars were involved, was to be here and now inaugurated and made effective, and that this government was entitled to the condemnation of this House and of the people of Canada because that had not been done? I do not think my hon. friend even talked about the question sensibly and I can hardly believe he was serious. Let me assure my hon. friend that a number of the questions that he so casually refers to have been dealt with to a much greater extent than the hon.
The Budget-Mr. Murdock

member appeared to know when he was discussing the matter.
But there is one other matter upon which I wish to speak as referring t-o the hon. member for East Calgary. I accepted money for considerably over twenty years to represent labour. I was not fired in the final analysis. I understood and I have documentary evidence to the effect that my services were fairly satisfactory; but I know nothing of the aims, ambitions and contentions of labour, and all my experience in those twenty years has been for naught if the declarations and claims of my hon. friend are the real aims, claims and ambitions of labour. Let me, if I may, because time is passing, refer to one. We found the hon. gentleman preaching what, with my knowledge of the aims and claims of labour, is the rankest kind of heresy in this House, as we heard him on the floor of this House make this statement:
All that I am contending for at the present time is that combines are necessary; combines are not necessarily evil, but combines cannot be broken, and even, if they could be broken, it would be very bad business.
If labour generally throughout the length and breadth of Canada does not repudiate that dbetrine as the rankest kind of heresy, then I know nothing about the views of labour. We found the hon. gentleman, as he always is, extremely eloquent in asserting that the government had decided to attempt this reactionary move. What reactionary move? To undertake to interfere, I suppose he would say, with the natural and orderly processes of business in the form of a combination, no matter how much that combination might be sapping the life or industrial blood of this country.


Mr. IRVINE:: Will the minister really
say that it is not a viewpoint generally held by labour that combines are a natural outcome of the industrial process?


James Murdock: Yes, I will go that far
with my hon. friend and admit that combines are largely the outgrowth of our present industrial processes; but that does not for one moment prove that they should not be grappled with, if detrimental to the interests of the people of this country.


William Irvine: Did I not point out also
that they should be grappled with, but in a different way from that in which the government was grappling with them?


James Murdock: If my hon. friend did,
I overlooked it entirely and I searched for evidence of that. I have read to the House the hon. gentleman's language. It is very specific and definite.


William Irvine: Let the minister read some
more of it.


James Murdock: I do not believe it
stands for any qualification. It says:
But combines cannot be broken, and even if they could be broken, it would be very bad business.
I will leave it for labour to determine whether that is proper gospel or just rank heresy.


William Irvine: I have no doubt what
labour will think if they read the rest of the passage.


James Murdock: I come now to anothei matter upon which I think some discussion should be held and that is the question that has been made so much of in this House and elsewhere throughout the country, a question upon which we note in the Tory papers gentlemen are speaking in various parts of Canada as aspirants for preferment in the next federal election. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) some time ago in this House intimated that some 2,000 factories had been closed and he was very insistent to the extent of saying, "By the figure 2,000 I am prepared to stand." It seems as though that deserves a little analysis. Last fall there was held in the city of Ottawa a convention composed of the mayors -of eleven of 'the important cities of Canada, representatives of the two large railways, eight of the provinces, the Trade and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and some others, for the purpose of considering the advisability of determining in conference of those charged with the responsibility of expending public money, either in the provinces or the cities as well as representatives of the federal government, and to devise some uniform plan whereby winter work could be carried on to as great an extent as possible, even though such work had heretofore been done during summer only, for the reason that it was cheaper to do it that way. ,At the conference there were four representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and rather early in the proceedings one of those gentlemen got away from the object of the conference and attempted to decide by resolution what was going to be the cure-all for the particular question we had under consideration. His proposal was to convene a special session of parliament to increase the tariff and by that means to take care of the ills which we were supposed to have met to deal with. During the course of his remarks this distinguished gentleman made a declaration which I desire to bring to the attention of the House. He said that 1,361 factories

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
had been closed down in Canada during the past two 3'ears-and the House will remember that this was in September, 1924. He was asked whether he would be good enough to give us the names of those factories and their location and he replied, "I shall be glad to supply that information but I have not got it here." We waited for some time for the .information and as it was not forthcoming we wrote and asked him for it. On October 25 there came to the office in consequence a considerable list, but it showed simply the article affected as well as the place of manufacture: for instance, we found on the list, "Tools, Windsor, Ontario; chains, Hamilton, Ontario." So indefinite was the statement that it could not be checked and we felt that this was not the information that had been .promised us. We therefore wrote for further information, calling the attention of the hon. gentleman to certain peculiarities in bis statement in regard to the factories which it was claimed had been closed down. For example, a honey factory had been closed at Lambeth and another honey factory at Listowel.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The minister says that he wrote to " the hon. gentleman " calling his attention to certain things.	.


James Murdock: I said, distinguished
gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, it can't be me then; who was it?


James Murdock: My right hon. friend is too touchy; he will know that I am referring to him when I do so. In the meantime I am dealing with the statements of an officer of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association who at a conference in Ottawa had agreed to give us a list of the names, with the location in each case, of 1,351 factories which he said had been closed down. He gave certain information which we considered not all that had been promised and we therefore wrote him for additional facts. We found that a honey factory had been closed at Lambeth and another at Listowel; a shipyard had been closed at Canning, Nova Scotia, and a com cure and1 foot comforts factory at Niagara Falls; an oleomargarine factory had also been closed at Quebec, and many others were on the list. We intimated, as I have said, that this was nlot satisfactory, so a little later, to be exact, on January 26, there was prepared a list signed
by this gentleman and "handed to me on January 31 by an officer of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. This list disclosed on analysis some very peculiar oversights. In the first place there were only 1,251 names of factories, of which 761, or 61 per cent, were found not to be listed by R. G. Dun & Company as carrying on business on or after January 1, 1923. Then, 152, or 12 per cent-those gentlemen who have been talking about factories closing down might pay attention to this-were listed as in business in January 1923 and in January 1925, according to R. G. Dun & Company; while 22, or 1.7 per cent, were not listed in January 1923 but were in business in January 1925. Again, 307, or 24.5 per cent, went out of business between January 1923 and January 1925, this number including firms that failed and firms that withdrew from business for other reasons. The representative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association had stated at the conference :n September 1924 that the list of factories he had contained 1,351 names, but there were only 1,251 in the list which he later furnished to the department after several requests. But this does not necessarily prove the whole story and I shall therefore take occasion to place on the record more accurate data secured from the reports of R. G. Dun & Company.
Now, this government has been held up to ridicule throughout the length and breadth of Canada by certain gentlemen of the Tory party because of the deplorable, the awful conditions that have arisen in this country as a result of its low tariff or revenue tariff tendencies. Those gentlemen opposite would have the people of Canada believe that never at any time in the history of the country except when a Liberal government was in power could such conditions exist. In view of this, I am going to submit a comparative statement which at least will be illuminating to those who might believe any such thing. I have here a table showing the commercial failures in Canada by branches of business in the years 1914, 1915, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924. It is interesting and will bear some study, especially when you find the Tory press or a Tory aspirant to office contending that only under a Liberal government can any of these commercial failures take place. This list is as follows:



COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
3 e H 04 o Manufactures	1914	1915	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	No.	Liabilities	No.	Liabilities	No.	Liabilities	No.	Liabilities	No.	Liabilities	No.	Liabilities	No.	Liabilities	$	$	$	$	$	s	Iron and foundries	10	213,302	8	90,005	3	115,011	11	1,264,578	17	873,211	11	866,492	9	303,600	Machinery and tools	37	612,190	51	730,998	20	4,046,847	28	7,138,818	60	10,830,493	72	5,068,100	45	1,710,883	Woollens, carpets, etc	1	70,000	5	45,300	7	124,104	4	23,648	7	608,992	12	1,463,900	Wool.Cotton, hosiery, etc	1	235,000	2	6,100	3	926.743	7	Lumber and carpenters	98	3,934,340	175	4,115,701	26	1,034,253	85	2,041,646	134	4,860,837	107	3,804,630	97	7,994,176	Lumber.Clothing and millinery....	102	923,359	2	1,180,201	53	3,096,484	127	6,429,289	148	3,614,203	132	3,782,297	114	2,230,570	Hats, gloves and furs	18	150,490	12	541,202	10	170,834	21	705,049	26	1,592,206	21	816,536	18	493,036	Chemicals and drugs	8	201,921	21	354,498	2	19,000	9	166,409	7	48,155	11	179,124	17	117,680	Paints and oils	1	70,000	2	38,204	2	54,522	3	8,500	2	29,000	Paints.Printing and engraving....	33	265,441	32	282,302	7	499,900	14	113,154	30	329,816	25	343,886	26	352,620	Printing.Milling and bakers	38	100,268	46	381,392	22	1,180,602	47	1,710,511	54	763,253	48	731,548	34	386,870	Leather, shoes, etc	23	380,222	14	410,503	9	287,116	17	811,232	30	6,586,389	37	687,468	20	1,353,773	Shoes,Liquors and tobacco	9	71,614	12	521,802	5	294,000	12	467,514	19	386,885	19	925,533	10	180,770	leather.Glass and earthware	24	635,244	25	1,611,701	2	9,658	4	93,800	7	319,302	8	1,322,158	11	433,634	Glass.All other	211	3,199,800	250	3,605,709	96	5,117,511	172	11,945,739	312	8,096,404	287	12,382,410	210	19,492,146	Other.Total manufacturing..	614	11,063,191	655	13,877,414	255	15,871,216	559	33,976,790	857	39,080,791	792	31,791,332	625	36,542,658	Total trading*	2,164	18,677,935	1,888	21,696,890	771	7,704,505	1,739	29,886,569	2,717	33,040,203	2,319	31,339,763	1,720	21,324,089	Agents and brokers	120	5,303,968	118	5,588,017	52	2,918,580	153	9,435,752	121	5,983,965	136	2,679,287	129	6,664,228	Total commercial failures!	2,898	35,045,094	2,661	41,162,321	1,078	26,494,301	2,451 j	73,299,111	3,695	78,068,959	3,247	65,810,382	2,474	64,530,975	
Wholesale and retail stores, hotels, restaurants.
fManufacturing establishments, wholesale and retail stores, and agents and brokers.
2000	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Murdock

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
It will be noted that with respect to woollens, carpets and so forth, there were no failures in 1920, because of the fact that that particular industry was at that time making enormous and exorbitant profits at the expense of the people of this country. The same applies to cotton hosiery, and so forth, in 1920; there were no failures in that year for the reason that I have just given.
Mr. LADNER:: Why does the minister take only the first two years of the war and leave the others out? Would it not have been sounder to take the years preceding the war and compare them with the years after the war?


James Murdock: We wanted to get at
least two full years of Tory rule, and in 1914, which, as is well known, was a panic year generally on this continent, there had at least been a measurable period of Tory government. I would not be unfair enough to indicate that the tail wagged the dog, or that the Tory government was responsible for the financial depression which prevailed on this continent in 1914. I would not do that; all I am trying to indicate is that here is a good, clear year, 1914, the larger part of it before the war-


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister not agree that 1915, after the Germans had made their terrific onslaught, was a year of great depression generally, and that as respects the reasons for the losses in the period to which he refers it is hardly fair to take the first two years of the war as a basis of comparison? There was no relationship to the actual facts, the conditions were so abnormal.


James Murdock: I shall not take the
slightest objection if my hon. friend makes that argument when he is dealing with these figures later. I realize that he can take whatever view he cares to take on the matter.
In view of the figures I have read, Mr. Speaker, when anyone starts to talk about the number of failures, yes, and the liabilities having regard to the worth of the dollar, it is evident that the figures for 1914 and 1924 will bear a very fair comparison.
What reams of eloquence we heard, Mr. Speaker, from the opposition benches last year, and I think the year before, about the deplorable and awful conditions under which the
boot and shoe industry and the woollen and textile industries of this Canada of ours were suffering as a result of a Liberal government being in office. There had been so very much made of that, that it seemed to me advisable that we should place on Hansard some accurate figures for the various years to show whether there was anything really substantial to certain clamour that was made, or whether it was just simply a part of the Tory propaganda for protectionist friend purposes. If there is no objection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on Hansard a comparative statement showing the number of persons reported on the payrolls of thirty-seven mills engaged in the manufacture of woollen yarn and cloth and in wool pulling and carding, by months from 1920 to 1925, the figures and numbers of employees for three months of 1925 being included.
The statement is as follows:
Dominion Bureau of Statistics General Statistics Branch
Number of persons reported on payrolls of thirty-seven mills engaged in the manufacture of woollen yarn and cloth and in wool pulling and carding, by months 1920-1925
1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925January 1.. ..	No	3,237	3.883	4,402	3,783	3,249February 1.	.	Records	3,489	4,146	4,734	4,661	3,685March 1	
3,435 4,208 4,707 4,482 3,856April	1	
3,166	4,383	4,583	3,945May	1	
3,193	4,307	4,540	3,952June	1	
3,278	4,295	4,510	3,802July	1	
3,298	4.360	4,250	3,561August 1..	..	3,425	4.383	4,449	3,824September 1. .	3,820	4,389	4,428	3,376October 1.. ..	3,960	4,397	4,502	3,932November 1. .	4,120	4,563	4,643	3,850December 1. .	4,141	4,685	4,544	3,437
42,562 51,999 54,292 46,605 10,790
Index number of employees in manufacturing group-thread, yam and cloth (includes silk and cotton): Jan. 1920, 100; Feb. 1921, 85.4; Feb. 1922, 97.8; Feb. 1923, 103.5; Feb. 1924, 94.6; Jan. 1925, 94.6; Feb. 1925, 99.3; March 1925, 101.3.
I should also like to place on Hansard another statement from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showing the number of persons reported on the .payrolls of ninety-one manufacturers of boots and shoes by months during the period from 1920 to 1925; also giving the index number of employees in the manufacturing group-leather and its products for the period in question.
2<m

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
The statement is as follows:
Dominion Bureau of Statistics General Statistics Branch
Number of persons reported on payrolls of ninety-one manufacturers of boots and shoes, by months, 1920-1925
1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925Jan.	1. .	. No	5,561	11,653	10,950	10,333	9,732Feb.	1. .	, Records	8,127	11,615	11,661	11,164	10.436March 1.	8,920	11,399	11,568	11,031	10,552April	1. .	9,275	10,906	10,899	10,988	May	1.. .	9,283	10,788	10,316	10,815	June	1.. .	9,852	10,321	9,944	10,391	July	1.. .	10,331	10,872	10,322	10,067	August 1.	10,564	10,773	10,153	10,269	Sept.	1. .	10,486	10,810	10,115	10,042	Oct.	1. .	10,837	10,710	10,634	10,263	Nov.	1. .	10,903	11,403	10,871	10,337	Dec.	1. .	11,529	11,633	11,307	10,295	115,668	132,883	128,740	125,995	30,720
Index number of employees in manufacturing group-leather and its products: Jan. 1920, 100; Feb. 1921, 66.1; Feb. 1922, 85.6; Feb. 1923, 84.7; Feb. 1924, 80.5; Jan. 1925, 71.0; Feb. 1925, 74.8; March 1925, 75.8.
the previous government and of this government, details being given for the years 1910 1915, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923:
Number
of wage Value of earners Products 4,759	$ 7,072,360
4,039	10,214,059
7,450	$43,254,749
8,148	47,615,179
6,234	22,895,750
7,470	29,062,772
8,264	33,472,087
It will be noticed that in 1923, when we were hearing about the terrible disaster that had come to the woollen and textile industry, there were 141 establishments with a capitalization of $43,148,218 and 8,264 employees, or more than had been recorded in the previous years, whilst the value of the products had increased to $33,4172,087.
Number Amount
	of estab-	of
Year	lishments	capital1910 .. .	.. 162	$ 8,692,7051915 .. .	.. 60	10,651,4681919 .. .	.. 122	331,863,4351920 .. .	.. 130	38,052,9841921 .. .	.. 170	34.639,9361922 .. .	.. 137	37,102,3821923 .. .	.. 141	43,148,218
I should also like to read, because it is rather illuminating, a statement giving figures with respect to the wool and textile industry in Canada for the period of 1910 to 1923. I have not been able to secure all of the essential figures for 1924. Again, these figures are for certain years of the adminstration of
I should explain that in the case of wool pulling establishments a number were not reported in 1915. In 1910 there were four of these.
Now let us take the establishments manufacturing boots and shoes in Canada, taking the period from 1910 to 1923:
Establishments manufacturing Boots and Shoes in Canada 1910-1923
1910	1915	1919	1920	1921	1922Number of establishments	
180	146	161	173	177	181	189Capital	
$23,630,649	$30,881,172	$38,680,581	$34,347,026	$31,644,855	$29,881,921	$30 533	591Wage earners	
15,920	14,290	13,144	11,045	11,268	11,968	' 12 439Number of pairs	
18,891,860	17,693,966	15,046,985	17,194,206	18,123 894Value of	Products.. ..	$33,987,248	$34,064,696	$63,579,035	$66,817,174	$44,665,381	$45,503,858	$45 596	012
In 1920, in the first part of which boom times were said to be prevailing, we find the number of wage earners getting less and the number of pairs less. In 1922 we find an increase in the value of the products produced. In 1923 there was also an increase in the number of wage earners, in the number of pairs produced and in the value of products.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I undertook, because I realized that my hon. friends opposite might
want to know something about 1924, to get as nearly as possible a comparative statement for the years 1923 and 1924. I have here an explanatory statement as regards wool and textiles for the years 1923 and 1924, and a comparative statement with respect to boot and shoe establishments for 1923 and 1924. These statements I should like to have placed on Hansard.
The statement is as follows:
Woollen Textiles-1923
Establishments	Employees	Salaries	Industry	No.	Capital	No.	and wages	of ProductsWoollen cloth	.. 47	$14,819,633	3,634	$3343,575	11,640,694Woollen varn	7.611,761	1.339	1,078,941	6.245,173Carpets, mats and rugs.. ..	.. 13	3,327,805	889	889,906	3.283.964Woollen goods, n.e.s	.. 25	6,608,677	998	1,001,902	5,103,977Total woollen textiles.. ..	.. 99	$32,367,876	6,860	$6,314,324	$26,273,808

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
Woollen Textiles-1924
Establishments	Employees	Salaries	ValueIndustry	No.	Capita!	No.	and wages	of ProductsWoollen	cloth	.. 47	$15,648,594	3,163	$2,932,411	$10,466,032Woollen	yarn	. .. 14	8.375,413	1,409	934,749	4,281,325Carpets,	mats and rugs.. ..	.. 13	4,078,387	702	722,157	2,396.226Woollen	goods, n.e.s	.. 25	7,458,504	947	953,825	5,257,710Total	woollen textiles.. .	. .. 99	$35,560,898	6,221	$5,543,142	$22,401,293Boot and Shoe Industry	lishments was burned down and another has resumed1923	'	1924Number of establishments	
121	121Capital	$24,043,716	24,433.099Number of employees	
10,903	10.863Salaries and wages	
11,047,985	10 716,974Value of production	
36,436.966	33.010,490
The number of pairs of boots and shoes made by the above establishments in 1923 was 13.722,689; in 1924 the number was 13,496,830.
One point I desire to touch upon is the statement that in 1924 twelve boot and shoe establishments went out of business. That looks serious; that no doubt is the text upon which our Tory friends are basing the statement that disaster and ruin'has overtaken the boot and shoe industry in various parts of the country. But that does not at all convey the real situation, because while twelve boot and shoe factories went out of business in 1924 there were sixteen new establishments which came into being. This would appear to indicate that the boot and shoe industry was not in such a serious situation as many hon. gentlemen would like to have us believe.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Can the minister give us the numbers of pairs and the value of boots and shoes imported in those years he is discussing?


James Murdock: If my hon. friend would look at the customs record he could probably get that information for himself, and as I have a considerable way to go yet I would ask to be excused.
When I state that twelve boot and shoe factories went out of business and sixteen came into being in 1924, some distinguished gentleman in the opposition is liable to ask, what is the comparative number of employees of those that went out of business and those that came into being in the boot and shoe industry? Anticipating that inquiry I asked the Dominion Statistician for that information and received the following reply:
In reply to your letter, the twelve boot and shoe establishments which went out of business had a total of 326 employees, or an average of 27.1 per establishment. I might add that one of these estabopprations within the last month or two.
With regard to the new establishments, we have received to date returns from only 10, for which the average number of employees is 26.7 or practicallv the same as that for the establishments which ceased operations. I would add that at least one of the new establishments is quite large, but, as you know, we are not permitted to give out particulars regarding an individual concern.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that deals with certain references to factories closing and the serious conditions of the boot and shoe and textile industries which hon. gentlemen opposite are so anxious and so willing at times to talk of.
There is a further matter for which the right hon. leader of the opposition gave me the text some time ago. I refer to his remarks concerning certain comparative unemployment conditions in Canada and in the United States. In order that I may not misinterpret what he said let me quote his exact language. The right hon. gentleman was referring to the serious unemployment conditions in Canada in comparison with the conditions which he said existed in the Unitad States, and on page 18 of Hansard we find the statement which he made, with the absolute degree of assurance which always characterizes the hon. gentleman's utterances. He said:
The index figure now is 83.9, showing that more than sixteen per cent less are employed now than on the 1st January, 1920.
He was referring to Canada. He continues:
I would like the corresponding figures to be produced from the United States and to ascertain if there has been sixteen per cent or even one per cent reduction in the same (period in that country.
And meeting the challenge of the right hon. gentleman, we produce evidence in the form of the United States Department of Labour Monthly Labour Review for March, 1925, and we analyze to find out whether there was the one per cent which the hon. gentleman inquired1 for. The Monthly Labour Review, published by the United States Department of Labour, March, 1925, at page 129,
The Budget-Mr. Murdock

gives the necessary figures for comparative purposes, and we are therefore able to arrive at the following comparison between Canadian and United States change in employment conditions as between January 1920 and January 1925, as follows:
Canadian Index Number
January 1920	 100
January 1925	 83,9
United States Index Number
January 1920	 H61
January 1925	 90
This shows that while there had been a change of 16.1 in Canada there had been a change of 26.1 in the United States and these figures are not from the Minister of Labour in Canada, but from the Secretary of Labour for the United States alt page 120 of his March Labour Review. I realize that my bon. friend, with his ever readiness to get around the point, may take the position that that comparison of figures is not altogether accurate, because the figures which I quoted were for the general index of employment in United States manufacturing industries January 1914 to January 1925, while the figure 83.9 for Canada, refers to all employment; so that we will have to concede that the hon. gentleman might make a point in that comparison, and therefore we will have to get right down to real concrete, comparative figures of manufacturing in the United States and in Canada. Returns from employers in Canada have not only been tabulated for all industries, producing the figure of 83.9, which I gave the House a little while ago, but they have been tabulated and index numbers worked out for each industry. One of the divisions of this tabulation is manufacturing which is the basis of the tabulation adopted in the United States. This comparison shows the following for the years 1924 and 1925:
Manufacturing Industries
	Canada	United States
1924 Januarv			95.5
February			96.6
March			96.4
April			94.5
May			90.8
June			87.9
July			84.8
August				85.0
September			86.7
October			87.9
November			87.8
December			89.4
1925 January			90.0
February			
March			
		
Still a little better in January than the United States, although hon. members will recall that the figure 90 for the United States means a reduction of 26.1, whereas the figure 75.5 as regards the manufacturing industries of Canada for the month of January means a reduction of 24.5.
, The figures for the United States are not available for the months of February and March.


Mr. STANSELL:: Was the period when the figures for the United States were low as regards labour about the time of the presidential election?


James Murdock: My hon. friend will
note that in July and August last, the United States manufacturing figures were below those of Canada, although they started from a point
16.1	above those of Canada on January 1, 1920. The only thing I am at present endeavouring to do, hon. members will understand, is to reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), who desired to be shown *if there had been a change of one point in t'he manufacturing figures of the United States. These figures prove conclusively that there has been a greater change in unemployment figures in the United States than in Canada.
On the same date that the right hon. gentleman asked for this information, he also produced what was supposed to be certain figures from Montreal indicating the condition of unemployment there. I am ^lad to read to the House an editorial from La Patrie of Montreal, dated January 15, 1925. I do not suppose that it will be charged that La Patrie is too distinctly favourable to this government. I think possibly it can be assumed that this is simply a reasonably accurate conception of existing conditions in Montreal ,as of January 15. The editorial, by the way, intimates that I said something which I do not recall ever having said, but that does not matter particularly. It reads:
Unemployment
We are at the present time, from the employment viewpoint, going through the worst period of the winter. All the work which the rough season interrupts is now suspended, and as the snowfall has been so far comparatively small, we are deprived of the best palliative against unemployment.
And yet, as La Patrie predicted in the early fall, we do not see the shortage of employment take in Montreal the character of a crisis, as was to happen according to the provisions of Hon. Mr. Murdock, Federal Minister of Labour. There are evidently

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
a number of workers who at the present time do not find any employment, as is always the case every season in a city as important as Montreal; but those who are without any employment are not without resources or are efficiently helped by our ordinary organization for public assistance, and we do not, as we did a few years ago, see bands of famished unemployed using force to have meals served to them in public eating houses.
We had stated, last fall, that the employment situation in Montreal was normal or even a little better than in 1923. We based that statement upon information received from the St. Vincent de Paul Society, which, in our judgment, always knows better than anybody else what position the popular class finds itself in when facing the subsistence problem.
This information, which we presented as trustworthy, is now confirmed by the Dominion Bureau of statistics. An official report just published tells us that employment in the province of Quebec was somewhat better in 1924 than in 1923. The statistician's index number, which was 95.2 in 1923, rose to 95.S for 1924. The improvement is not considerable, but it is important if one considers that the public powers predicted an increase in the scarcity of employment.
Let us add that according to official statistics employment conditions, during 1924, were better in the province of Quebec than in any other province of the Dominion, with the only exception of British Columbia.
I do not subscribe personally to all that is stated in that editorial. I give it to the House as an indication of the view of a prominent publication in the city of Montreal and as an offset to some of the claims made by the leader of the opposition.
In the course of every opportunity that presents itself, we find hon. gentlemen referring to the very much better conditions existing in the United States and intimating that unemployment there is in no way comparable with that in the Dominion of Canada. Let us see and do not let it be the word of the Minister of Labour that determines the matter. Let us take the views of others. Let us take the facts, figures and analyses that come to us from sources official and otherwise. I hold in my hand a clipping from the New York Times of March 8, 1925, which states:
United States ranks third in unemployment. Great Britain has largest total, Austria second, France and Finland lowest.
This is so good I think that it should be placed on Hansard. It is not very long:
The latest figures on unemployment in various countries reveal the fact that the United States, where it is quite commonly said there is full employment of population, is third on the list of countries having the largest number of persons idle, with Great Britain first and Austria second.
Figures obtained from the Foreign Department of Moody's Investors' Service support the fact that the unemployed in the United States number about twenty out of each 1,000 of population, while the number in Great Britain is twenty-six out of
each 1,000 and Austria about the same as the United States. In Austria the total number since the first of the year has increased to 187,000, or about 29 per
1.000,	but owing to fluctuations of employment the figure twenty represents an early 1925 average.
The lowest rates are in France and Finland, which report practically no unemployment. Of the Central European countries, Hungary makes the best showing with only about three out of every 1,000 unemployec followed by Czechoslovakia and Poland, with abou five and six per 1,000 respectively. In Germany out o: every 1,000 inhabitants more than seven were out Oj work at the beginning of the year. Denmark leads the Scandinavian kingdoms with a rate of over eight per 1,000, while Sweden's unemployed number less than three per 1,000. The relatively low figures reported by Russia are of interest, although statisticians ar? inclined to Question their reliability. In the Western European countries, Belgium makes the best showing with a rate of 2.39 per cent, as compared with 9.26 per cent in the Netherlands. The rate in Switzerland is only 2.42 per 1,000, while that in Italy is 3.36 per
1.000.
The following table shows the number of unemployed in the principal countries at the beginning of 1925, together with the population:
		Number	Rate per
Estimated	of unem-	1.000 ofPopulation	ployed	pop.Austria	.. 6,500,000	130.000	20.00Australia	.. 5,800,000	32,708	5.64Belgium	.. 7,700,000	18,444	2.39Canada	.. 8,800,000	10,540	1.20Czechoslovakia.. ..	.. 13,600,000	73,006	5.37Denmark	.. 3,300,000	27.518	8.34Finland	... 3,400,000	1.803	.53France	.. 39,200,000	11,863	.30Germany	... 59,900,000	436,450	7.29Great Britain.. ..	.. 44,700,000	1,158,000	25.91Hungary	. .. 8,000,000	26,020	3.25Italy	. .. 40.000.000	134,719	3.36Netherlands	.. 7,100,000	65,740	9.26Norway	.. 2.700,000	20,500	7.60Poland	.. 27,200,000	155,245	5.71Russia	1,300.000	9.85Sweden	.. 6,000,000	17,344	2.89Switzerland	.. 3,900,000	9,451	2.42United States.. ..	.. 110,000,000	2,100,000	19.09
I am sure my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) will note that last item.


Mr. MANION:: It is one-tenth of what the minister said before. I hope he is as close in all his other statements as he is in that one.


James Murdock: My hon. friend goes out of his way a little to be unfair. If he wall look up Hansard he will find that the quotations to which he is now referring were placed before him and the House only as newspaper reports for what they might be worth.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did the minister say that the unemployment figure in Canada was 10.000 or 100.000?


James Murdock: I was just about to take up' that point. Newspaper reports are not always reliable; for example, I do not agree

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
with the estimate of the New York Times which places the unemployment in Canada during that particular period at only 10,540. This article, by the way, was dated March 8, 1925, and in my judgment it would be unfair, indeed untrue, to suggest that this was the total number of unemployed in Canada at that time.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think that any quotation which suggested that the unemployed in Canada in that period was only 10,000 is worth taking up the time of the House to give?


James Murdock: I do not suppose that the right hon. gentleman would decline to concede to a humble member on this side of the House the right to take up the time of the House with such matters as he regards as sufficiently important. My right hon, friend is ever ready to jump in and take up all the time he wants, interrupting when he sees fit, and if he will kindly permit me to use my own judgment in this respect I think we shall all appreciate the courtesy.


Leon Johnson Ladner: For information, may 1 ask what is the extent of unemployment in Canada according to the records of the department? The minister would probably know what the figure was at that time.


James Murdock: As my hon. friend
knows, there are no accurate records collected in Canada which are absolutely reliable and by which we could say definitely just what the number of unemployed were.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But approximately.


James Murdock: Or reasonably approximately even. Now, I do not think it would be unfair or inconsistent to admit that there were in Canada during the past winter at one time or another probably from forty-five to fifty thousand people unemployed; I do not think that would be beyond the mark. But if we had any number comparable with the figures which the United States admits- and I shall prove in a few moments that the United States does admit it-we should have had 200,000 unemployed in Canada for our
8,780,000,	that is to say, in proportion to the number of unemployed across the line.


Arthur Meighen: Who in the United
States admits that there were 2,000,000 unemployed there? Is it the same newspaper?


James Murdock: The figures are obtained from various sources of information. I will try to satisfy my right hon. friend if he will only possess his soul in patience.


Arthur Meighen: The minister never answers a question at all; he simply smiles and talks around it. What is the use of quoting, as to the conditions of affairs in the United States, the same newspaper that talks such humbug about Canada?


James Murdock: We shall quote something else besides newspapers before we go much further. This particular statement of the New York Times was commented on by the Regina Leader under date March 21, I shall not read the entire editorial but there is one passage that does strike me, as I think it will strike hon. gentlemen directly opposite as well as those to their left. I hope my right hon. friend will listen to this:
The New York Times is, when it comes to business news, about the most conservative and ablest conducted daily newspaper in the United States, and for that reason the information it publishes on unemployment and business failures may be accepted as accurate. This information does not support the contention that all that a country requires to become prosperous is a high protective tariff. The tariff now in force in the United States is the highest in the history of that country; yet the United States is the third on the list of countries in the matter of unemployment, and its business failures do not show the improvement in business conditions which many had hoped for.
For what it may be worth, I give that to hon. gentlemen. Now, we find frequently that labour takes an interest in the conditions of unemployment; and hon. gentlemen opposite show great anxiety about the welfare and prosperity, present and future, of labour. They always stress the point that they want to get high protection for their friends, to be divided up reasonably with certain workmen, or at least that the workmen shall be given what they would describe as a fair wage. Here are some references that various labour representatives make to the condition of unemployment in the United States, as gleaned from various labour publications. This is from the Cleveland Federationist, February 19, 1925:
The Department of Labour of the state of Illinois is authority for the statement that October, 1924, in Illinois was the worst October in four years. Thousands of people have been without jobs during the summer and fall, and the October survey conducted by the Free Employment Service showed that there were fewer people at work in the factories of Illinois than there were on the average in 1922.

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
The following reports from organizers of the American Federation of Labour as appearing in the January, 1925, issue of the American Federationist, in reporting on conditions in Illinois, stated:
John A. Cooley, Eldorado. One mine has been closed down, throwing 350 men out of employment.
Henry D. Felix, Litchfield. The American Radiator Company is working only about half time and 450 workers in this plant have been laid off.
Thomas Murphy, Murphysboro. Mine No. 9 in this section, which employed 185 men, has been abandoned. Times are very bad with much unemployment among all classes of labour.
The Labour Review, Portsmouth, Ohio, February 21, 1925, says:
Building mechanics in search of employment should remain away from California, particularly San PVan-cisco and vicinity, where the supply of building mechanics is greatly in excess of the demand, according to an official announcement made by the officers of the State Building Trades Council of California.
The Trades Union News, Philadelphia, Pa., February 19, 1925, says:
The unemployment situation in Camden, New Jersey, has been so serious during the past few weeks that Mayor King deemed it advisable to call a conference to discuss remedial measures	" The
woeful condition of unemployment in Camden is acute," Commissioner Staley stated. " Hearts are bursting in despair with men unable to find employment. The Bureau of Charities has exhausted its appropriation for the year, and nearly all who apply for groceries and coal are not men who beg
charity	" More than 600 men recently applied
for employment in one day at the Camden Bureau of Charity.
The Labour Advocate, Nashville, Tennessee, March 20, 1925, says:
There still is a labour surplus in the automobile and allied industries of Ohio, and the mining industry is below normal, but the building and steel industries are improved, according to a report released by the Employment Service of the United States Department of Labour.
The Union Advocate, St. Paul, Minnesota, January 1, 1925, says:
Of 15,544 applicants for jobs at the Cleveland branch of the State Employment Office in November, 1924, 4,724 were placed.
The following reports from organizers of the American Federation of Labour as appearing in the January, 1925, issue of the American Federationist, reporting on conditions in various localities in the state of Ohio, stated:
C. H. Grabham, Byseville. The mines in this locality are overcrowded and fully half of them are closed down.
John F. Bunce, Findlay. There has been no improvement in conditions in this section. The Adam Axle Company has laid off 200 workers and the Ditcher Company 30.
Dan. W. Wallace, Gloucester. Twenty-one employees of the County and State Highways Department have been laid off.
Stanley Ogg, Hamilton, Ohio. Many men have been laid off in the metal trades, and a few have been hired at the Ford plant. The foundries are working part time with reduced force.
The Union Advocate, St. Paul, Minnesota, February 26, 1925, says:
Losses in employment in the factories of New York state in January that are not entirely seasonal are reported by the state industrial commissioner. Employment is still 7J per cent below January, 1924, and 10 per cent below January, 1923. This means that nearly 120,000 workers who had jobs in January, 1923, are out of a job to-day.
The Union Advocate, St. Paul, in its issue of February 19, 1925, says:
Unemployment indicates bad industrial conditions. The hoped for prosperity that was to follow the election of a Republican president has not materialized. Labour conditions in St. Paul are at a low ebb. Thousands of building tradesmen and others are out of work, and merchants complain about business conditions.
Collections are difficult, and merchants are obliged to carry the accounts of unemployed workers for food and other necessities. The general impression is that conditions have not held up since the election, and great disappointment and resentment exists.
Assurances given that the success of the Republican ticket would be the signal for great and permanent prosperity caused many to expect much and are now asking the auestion, where and when will the prosperity strike.
Following is an extract from the report of General Vice-President A. O. Anderson, of the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, appearing in t'he Blacksmiths' Journal, January, 1925:
In the Northwest, whether confidence has been restored or not restored I cannot say, nevertheless we have now an unusually large number of men who are unemployed, and presumably a large number of those same men who did all they could to further the election of Coolidge and his gang who are still looking for that confidence, so that they may be able to secure some kind of occupation whereby they may be able to keep the wolf from their doors during this winter, but in place of adding men to the various industries reductions are being made daily, so the prospects are rather slim for any improvements.
There are a great many other reports that I might give in that connection, but I am going to pass along hurriedly to one article which I think should be placed on Hansard, as it indicates the view that at least some labour men in the United States have of the tariff and its cure-all properties:
Some tariff buncombe-its lesson "ancient and fishlike smell" emanates from speech of Senator W. M. Butler.
William M. Butler is United States senator from Massachusetts. He is also president of a number of corporations and a director in many more, including textile industries. Senator Butler recently delivered an address before the Boston Chapter, Inc., American Institute of Banking, and this is what he is reported as saying to that body:

The Budget-Mr. Murdock

And this sounds very much like what we hear from across the chamber at times:
"In order to protect the American workman in his American wages and conditions of living, we must maintain the American protective tariff policy. This policy has given us our development and prosperity and any other policy would be destruction."
In Massachusetts, where Senator Butler is so keenly interested in industry and (maybe) the interest of the American workers, thousands of toilers in the textile mills for months drew no wages at all-American or other-because the mills were shut down.
Information from reliable sources indicate that many textile mills are shut down and that those working at all, are operating on greatly curtailed schedules. The workers in the textile industry surely, when they read Senator Butler's speech, will as the Indianapolis News in an editorial remarks, "think that it has an ancient and fishlike smell."
, Now let us look elsewhere. Here is a book published by the National Industrial Conference Board, in New York City in 1925. It is captioned "Wages and Hours in American Industries." There is much good information in this book for the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, if he really thinks that conditions in the United States in 1924 were reasonably comparable with conditions in Canada. I thin'k this book, if he peruses it sufficiently, will indicate to him that possibly we were well off in Canada in comparison with conditions prevailing in the United States, but in case the right hon. gentleman mijffit not peruse the book, I am going to give just a few short extracts. The first is found on page 39, and is captioned '^General Trend 1914-1924" and reads:
The spring of 1923 found industry operating close to capacity production in a few industries, notably automobiles, was exceeding any previous records. The textiles and metal trades were operating on an active basis and in fact nearly all industries found conditions highly satisfactory.
Between March and May, 1923, there was a widespread movement to increase wage rates, and advances of from 10 per cent to 15 per cent became general. Weekly earnings immediately responded to the higher hourly earnings and with continued full time operation, or in some cases overtime, they maintained an upward trend until the middle of the year.
That is for 1923. Then we go on to page 40 of the same publication:
By July, 1924, employment had dropped nearly 25 per cent from the total of the preceding July. Hours of work were substantially at 1921 levels and weekly earnings were considerably lower than in 1923.
I quote further from page 59 of the same publication:
A distinct change was noticeable in August-
This' was in 1924.
-when the downward trend gave way to an increase of 2.4 per cent this was the more marked, since August is normally a poor industrial month, owing to midsummer conditions.

The upward trend was continued in September with a further gain of 1.9 per cent, bringing employment to a point 28 per cent lower than at the 1920 peak and 20 per cent lower than the average for 1923, but 4.4 per cent higher than in July 1924.
Then we come to the reference to the iron and steel industry in the United States, page 83:
The iron and steel industry enjoyed a considerable spurt of activity at the beginning of 1924. This is best indicated iby the gains in employment, which advanced about 19 per cent between December, 1923, and March, 1924. After this brief period of improvement the recession was rapid until July, when total employment was hardly more than half that reported in June 1920, and 25 per cent lower than in March, 1924. In August there was a distinct reaction upward and in September a still more pronounced gain, bringing employment to within 61.7 per cent of the total for June, 1920.
Then we come further to the reference to the textile group:
Of the five industries included in the textile group, the cotton industry in the north faced the most difficult problems. The short crop of cotton forced prices up to a point which made the manufacture of fabrics at existing wage levels, to sell at current prices, next to impossible. The result was a progressive curtailment of working schedules until a point was reached where many mills were completely shut down for weeks at a time. Between July, 1923, and July, 1924, total employment fell off 32 per cent, and average hours of work per week declined from 46.1 hours to 40.0 hours.
, That Mr. Speaker, is a further example of the conditions in the United States which we have been so often told are exceptionally good.
Let me now refer to a comparison between retail food prices in Canada and those in the United States and other countries. We have been chided by the opposition on every possible occasion on the ground of our alleged failure to do anything at all to reduce the cost of living. Let us see just what we have done in that respect; let us see .	5 p.m. what a comparison with other
countries will show. I have here, on pages 46 and 47 of the Monthly Labour Review, which is the official publication of the Department of Labour of the United States, a comparison of retail price changes, giving the index number of the retail prices in the United States and in other countries. Some nineteen countries are included here, and Canada appears to be in about the second best condition of any of the countries referred to. If there is no objection, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate that this comparison should be placed on Hansard in order to show that Canada is at least in as favourable a position as almost any other country as regards the retail prices of food.

The Budget-Mr. Murdoch
The statement is as follows:
Comparison of Retail Price Changes in the United States and Foreign Countries The principal index numbers of retail prices published by foreign countries have been brought together With those of this bureau in the subjoined table after having been reduced in most cases to a common base, namely, prices for July, 1914, equal 100. This base was selected instead of the average for the year 1913, which is used in other tables of index numbers compiled by the bureau, because of the
fact that in numerous instances satisfactory information for 1913 was not available. A part of the countries shown in the table now publish index numbers of retail prices on the July, 1914, base. In such cases, therefore, the index numbers are reproduced as published. For other countries the index numbers here shown have been obtained by dividing the index for each month specified in the table by the index for July, 1914, or the nearest period thereto as published in the original sources. As stated in the table, the number of articles included in the index numbers for the different countries differs widely.
The Budget-Mr. Murdock

These results should not, therefore, be considered as closely comparable with one another. In certain instances, also, the figures are not absolutely comparable from month to month over the entire period, owing to slight changes in the list of commodities and the localities included at successive dates.



INDEX NUMBERS OF RETAIL PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN OTHER COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
Country	United States	Canada	Austria (Vienna)	Belgium	Czecho- slovakia	Den- mark	Finland	France (except Paris)	France (Paris)
									
localities	51	60	1	59	22	100	21	320	143	29	16	56	23	36	13	13included	foods	foods	foods	(foods, etc.)	(17 foods)	Foods	foods	(11 foods)	(11 foods)Govern-	Depart-	Parity	Ministry	Office	ment	Central	Ministry	Ministrycom-	of Industry	of	Statistical	Bureau of	of	ofagency	Statistics	of Labour	mission	and Labour	Statistics	Department	Statistics	Labour	LabourJuly,	July,	July,	April,	July,	July,	January-	August,	July,Base=100	1914	1914	1914 = 1	1914	1914	1914	June,1914	1914	1914Month	1921	169	195	450	1628	276	1205	410155	190	434	1454	1138	429	382178	411	1362	1169	359. ..	149	171	399	1366	1145	328142	165	389	1371	1157	363	317T	150	384	1388	1188	312T . 	145	148	379	1303	236	1323	306A iig	152	154	384	1351	1369	350	317159	386	1428	1404	32915f)	155	391	1463	1401	331149	149	394	1484	1324	348	32147	148	579	393	1475	1230	3231922	139	149	748	387	1467	197	1151	319139	143	871	380	1461	1145	323	307904	371	1414	1124	294138	1043	367	1415	1127	304Ain v	136	138	1374	365	1444	1132	315	317TnnA ""	138	137	2421	366	1475	1139	307139	138	3282	366	1430	184	1144	297136	141	7224	366	1290	1165	312	289139	13531	371	1105	1166	291138	11822	376	1016	1157	290142	139	11145	384	984	1140	314	297144	140	10519	384	961	1122	3051923	141	142	10717	383	941	180	1108	309139	142	10784	397	934	1103	331	316145	11637	308	926	1096	321143	12935	409	927	1047	320Tvr&v	140	140	13910	413	928	1016	337	325inn^	138	14132	419	933	1004	331144	137	12911	429	921	188	1003	321143	142	12335	439	892	1087	349	328141	12509	453	903	1103	339147	144	12636	458	901	1140	349148	144	12647	463	898	1133	373	35512860	470	909	1112	3651924	146	145	13527	480	917	194	1089	376Fob	144	145	13821	495	917	1070	399	3S4143	13930	510	908	1067	39213838	498	907	1035	380ATn v	138	133	14169	485	916	1037	393	378Jimp	133	14457	492	923	1040	370134	14362	493	909	200	1052	360141	137	15652	498	897	1125	399	366Sept	144	139	15623	503	908	1125	374
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Murdock
INDEX NUMBERS OF RETAIL PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN OTHER COUNTRIES-Concluded
Country Number of localities	
Commodities included	Italy	Nether- lands	Norway	Sweden	Switz- erland	United King- dom	South Africa	India (Bom- bay)	Austra- lia	New Zea- land47	6	31	49	33	600	9	1	30	2521 foods	29 (27 foods)	Foods	40 (foods, etc.)	Foods	21 foods	18 foods	17 foods	46 foods	59 foodsMinis-	Central	Central	Office	Bureau	Censustry of	Bureau	Bureau	Minis-	of	of Cen-	andComputing agency	National	of	of	Social	Labour	try of	Census	Labour	sus and	Statis-Econ-	Statis-	Statis-	Board	Office	Labour	and Sta-	Office	Sta-	ticsomy	tics	tics	tistics	tistics	OfficeJanuary-	Base=100	1913	June	July,	July,	June,	July,	1914	July,	July.	July,914	1914	14	1914	1914	1914	1914	1914Month	1921	542	209	334	283	229	278	163	186	178February	540	189'	308	262	225	263	166	156	184	175556	183	299	253	221	249	154	181	169564	179	300	248	217	238	154	173	169May	544	173	292	237	209	232	151	162	168	167509	170	290	234	208	218	169	165	166July	501	170	292	232	205	220	174	161	164August	534	171	297	234	205	226	136	177	158	163542	176	290	228	203	225	183	154	161581	173	288	218	199	210	180	149	156November	584	172	281	211	192	200	128	179	146	152585	169	268	202	189	195	176	143	1501922	January	577	165	257	190	185	185	121	169	142	147February	560	164	245	189	173	179	119	160	140	145March	546	164	238	185	162	177	119	161	141	141April	524	163	234	182	159	173	121	157	143	144May	531	159	230	178	152	172	120	158	146	145June	530	158	227	179	153	170	118	158	146	143July	527	157	233	179	157	180	116	160	148	144August	531	155	232	181	152	175	116	159	149	HISeptember	537	154	228	180	153	172	117	161	149	139October	555	149	220	17S	153	172	119	158	146	139November	562	146	216	170	155	176	120	155	145	139December	557	147	215	168	155	178	118	157	146	1381923	January	542	148	214	166	155	175	117	151	145	139February	527	149	214	165	154	173	117	150	144	140March	524	149	214	166	156	171	117	149	145	141April	530	149	212	163	158	168	117	150	152	142May	535	147	214	161	161	162	118	148	156	143June	532	145	213	161	165	160	118	146	162	142July	51S	145	218	160	164	162	116	148	164	142August	512	143	220	161	162	165	115	149	165	143September	514	142	218	165	163	168	115	149	161	145October	517	145	217	165	162	172	117	147	157	146November	526	149	221	164	166	173	120	147	157	147December	528	149	226	164	167	176	118	152	156	1471924	January	527	150	230	163	168	175	120	154	155	150February	529	151	234	162	167	177	122	151	153	149March	523	152	241	162	167	176	122	147	152	150April	527	152	240	159	165	167	123	143	150	150May	530	151	241	159	165	163	122	143	151	150151	240	158	168	160	120	147	149	150July	150	248	159	168	162	117	151	148	149150	257	163	166	164	117	156	147	146September	152	261	165	166	166	117	156	146	145
The Budget-Mr. Murdock
[Stage Direction]
Then, on pages 50 and 51, we have the index numbers of the cost of living in various favourable condition, South Africa, and, I think, one other country, being a little better House may have the benefit of the comparison of the cost of living in Canada with that

[Stage Direction]
IA=Food; B = Heat and light; C=Clothing,
Year and month	Bul- garia (12 localities) 1 A, B,	Australia (30 localities) A. B, D	New Zealand (25 localities) A, B, D	Can- ada (60 localities) A, B, C, D, E	United States (32 cities) A, B, C, D. E	Germany (71 localities) A, B, C, D	Egypt (Cairo) A, C, D, E,	Hungary A,B, C, D, E,	Belgium (59-61 localities) A, B, C, E	France (Paris) A, B, C.E,	Italy (Milan) A, B, C, D, EAver- age 1901- 1910= 100	1911 = 100	Average 19091913 = 100	1913	= 100	Average Oct., 1913, Jan., Apr., [DOT] and June, 1914=1	Average Jan., 1913, to July, 1914 = 100	Average 1913-1914= 100 *	Apr., 1914= 100	First half 1914 = 100	111	4169	4103	2100	4121	126	4104	4105	2100	4 190	130	4119	4118	* 118	<278	129	4143	4142	2 157	4 487	134	4 161	4174	2184	4 858	® 2861919	148	8137	4179	4199	2 201	<2435	*238	® 2801920	175	8155	4 192	4 200	11	2 237	4 4696	453	9 341	8 4411921	1612	167	8 163	4 161	4 174	13	2 189	4 6072	379	11307	® 5011922	72 2434	156	149	4149	4 170	150	2 167	4 25624	374	11 296	4941923	10 2631	168	151	w 150	ii 173	i® 317945	162	4 502292	428	11 334	4941924:	i	f 156	* 151	i® 1100000	2 159	2 597420	480	510Feb	[ 167	| 157	48 151	i® 1040000	2 158	21008182	495	365	517J	1 158	13 150	170	i® 1070000	2 150	21332613	510	521{	13H7	i® 1120000	2 157	21339454	498	522f 16158	13 144	i®1150000	*157	21527075	485	366	5181	is 144	169	i® 1120000	2 157	21595300	492	518i* 145	15 1160000	*158	21635900	493	512i* 147	i® 1140000	21627300	498	512i* 147	171	i® 1160000	503	5161*147	
1	From Ministry of Labor Gazette, London.
2	From International Labour Review, Geneva.
91913 = 100 for June, 1923, and months thereafter. 4 December.
5 July.
8 June-July. 7 May-July.
fMr. Murdock.]﻿APRIL 14, 1925
The Budget-Mr. Murdock
countries from 1914 to 1925, and they appear to show, again, that Canada is in a fairly off. I would ask that these figures be placed on Hansard in order that the members of the in other countries. The statement is as follows:

[Stage Direction]
D=Rent; E=Certain miscellaneous articles]
Greece (101 localities) A, B, E
Spain (Madrid)2 A, B, E
						Uni-				
Den-	Fin-	ted	Nor-	Swe-zer-	mark	land	King-	way	denland	Austria	Czecho-	<100+	(21 lo-	dom	India	Ire-	(31 lo-	(40 lo-Africa	(33 lo-	(Vi-	slova-	locali-	cali-	(.620	(Bom-	land	cali-	cali-(9 locali-	cali-	enna)	kia	ties)	ties)	locali-	bay)	A, B,	ties)	ties)ties)	ties)	A, B, C,	A, B,	A, H,	A, B,	ties)	A, B,	C, E	A, B,	A, B,A, B, D	A, B,	D	c, D,	C, D,	A, B,	C, D,	C, D,	C, D,c	E	E	C, D, E	E	E
Netherlands
The Hague A, B, C, D, E
Amsterdam, A, B, C, D, E
1914=100
100
100
June,
1914=
July, 1914=100
Dec., 1920 = 100
Mar.,
1920=
100
159
360
346
602

[Stage Direction]
5	252
6	219 181 174
179 178 173 171
170
172 176
6186 6 190 6 177 *165 154
158 156 153 1150 150 153 156 160 160
164
*i78
6 117
6	147
7	190 « 253 10 275 io 302 io 302
237
25i
[Stage Direction]
4	139 8 166
6 219 6 257
5	370
6	236 198 178
io 95 85 81
io 102 io 97 86 82
84
83
82
8	September.
9	First quarter.
10	June.
n Second quarter.
I2	Average, January to October.
13	Not including clothing or miscellaneous articles.
14	January to June.
15	Million.
I* Includes food and rent only.
The Budget-Mr. Murdoch
[Stage Direction]
We have heard a great' deal about the number of Canadians who have gone to the United States during the past few years. I have often thought that hon. gentlemen opposite- yes, and hon. gentlemen possibly in all parts of the House-have not given as much attention as they should to the actual causes that have brought about in many cases the emigration of Canadian workmen to the United States. A few years ago the United States inaugurated a quota restriction regulation, with the result that during the boom times, particularly the early part of 1923, industry in the United States found it difficult to get a sufficient number of workmen, and through friends of Canadians in the United States opportunities were frequently offered to Canadian workmen to go to that country. Another new condition in the United States is the immigration into that country of people from Mexico. I am going to ask permission to place on Hansard, Mr. Speaker, a statement showing the number of immigrant aliens admitted to the United States from Canada, Newfoundland and Mexico during the two years ended December 31, 1924, by months.
The statement is as follows:
Immigrant aliens admitted to the United States from Canada, Newfoundland, and Mexico, during the two years ended December 31, 1924, by months
Country of Last Permanent
Residence
Newfound-
During 1923-	"Canada	Mexico	landJanuary	
7,995	3,238Feburay	
7,405	5,506March	
8,857	7,508April	
16,427	7,097May	
18,912	8,258June	
19,157	8,248July	
16,184	9,110August	
16,396	9,322September	
16.657	8,097October	
15.858	6,131November	
20.962	4,925December	
17,559	4.184Total	
182,369	81,624
During 1924-
January	
15,598	4,920February	
14,092	6,461March	
13,474	12,954April	
17,517	10,696May	
17,216	7,587June	
19,177	4,949July	
7.76S	2,001	46August	
10,154	2,385	87September	
9.905	2,325	174October	
10.143	1.870	236November	
12.321	1,631	281December	
11,733	1,489	259Total	
159,098	59,268	1,083"Prior to July, 1924, Canada and Newfoundland were combined.	\

These figures show that in 1923 the number of Canadians who went to the United States was 182,369, and the number of Mexicans 81,000, while in 1924 the figures were 159,098 from Canada and 59,268 from Mexico. But there is another side to that question: not all the Canadians who went to the United States remained there, by any means. Many of them went there to work for a while and to return to Canada as soon as they could. I have here a report showing the number of Canadians who returned from the United States, after an absence of six months or longer, during the eleven months ended February 28, 1925, and I would ask permission to place it on Hansard.
The statement is as follows:
Report of returned Canadians from the United States, after an absence of six months or longer, during the eleven months ended February 28, 1925.
e
April	 3.608
May	 4,170
June	 3.962
July	 4,426
August ..	..	4,023September..	..	2,952October	
2,844November..	..	2,614December..	..	2,618January	
1,395February..	..	1,641Totals	
34,253"O QJ © CO .h o g o* S .54 o o & e T3 3 w *0 c 03.2 % " ^	T3 © .2 ~ 
c3 c3 [DOT]-< w " -c C 3 c3 ©	tn a
*£{ o c		
[DOT]_ -C n	cs 5 '-3	o
C £ O		H
289	190	4,087505	261	4.936447	311	4,720405	296	5,127552	416	4,991434	239	3,625394	242	3.480357	215	3,180353	194	3,165199	121	1.715239	132	2,0124,174	2.617	41,044
I also have a statement of Canadians who went to the United States and returned within six months, each of whom paid the head tax of $S on his admission to the adjoining republic, which amount was refunded when he returned to Canada.
The statement is as follows:
During	1923	1924January	.. .. 2.839	3.614February	.. .. 2,927	2,839March	.. .. 3,473	5,503April	.. .. 3,749	5,813May	.. .. 4.418	5,888June	.. .. 4.384	5,030July	.. .. 3.397	3,803August	.. .. 3,376	3.272September	
2.626	2.218October	.. .. 3,150	1.610Noyember	.. .. 3 813	1.693December	.... 5,250	2,033Total 	.. .. 43,432	43,316
These figures, which are very interesting show that in 1923 Canadians to the number of 43,432 returned from the United States and

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
secured a refund of their head tax payment having been in that country less than six months. In 1924, 43,316 Canadians returned under the same conditions. What do the figures indicate? Do they indicate a lack of employment in Canada? No, because a great many of the forty-three thousand odd who went to the United States in each of the years mentioned were eminent gentlemen, high in the business circles of Canada who, it may be with their families, went to California or Florida for a vacation of weeks or months, as the case may be, paid the head tax for themselves and their dependents, and on returning to their homes or places of business in the six months period had the head tax they had paid refunded to them. Yet these are cited by my hon. friends opposite as workmen leaving Canada to secure a job. In reality they were individual citizens of this country so well placed that they could go to the other side to take a holiday for several months.
Robert James Manion: I should like to ask my
hon. friend a question in order to obtain information and not with a view to making an argument. Is it not true that people from Canada who go to the United States on a holiday are not entered as going there to live? I ask the question for information because I am certainly of that impression myself?


James Murdock: My hon. friend may be right; in many cases that is so. I think, however, that it may depend upon the particular port of entry and how strict the immigration officer is. At any rate that used to be the case in years gone by. I have been through nearly every port of entry on the international boundary, and know something of the conditions. I know that sometimes they charge the head tax even although the person entering the United States says that he is only going across for a visit of a few weeks. Personally I was never charged the head tax, but what I have stated is the actual fact.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must really hasten along. In doing so I find it necessary to refer to a question connected with the member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). It has to do with one of the most unfortunate episodes that has ever occurred in this House, at any rate since I have been a member of it. A discussion was under way here when my genial friend, with the enthusiasm that characterizes him, talked about one-third of Canada being ready for annexation and being ready to vote for it.


Robert James Manion: May I correct my hon.
friend?


James Murdock: I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman will not even now change his viewpoint.


Robert James Manion: I do not want my hon.
friend to put into my mouth words that I did not make use of. He corrected me a few minutes ago in regard to the statement that I attributed to him wherein he was quoting somebody as saying that there were twenty million unemployed in the United States. Now I must correct the minister in the same way. I did not make the statement that one-third of Canada would vote for annexation; I said it was the statement of an outstanding man whose name was familiar to every hon. member in this House. I did not make the statement that one-third of Canada would vote that way and my hon. friend must not seek to put such words into my mouth.


James Murdock: I will read the hon.
gentleman's own words which are to be found
at' page 158 of Hansard :


Robert James Manion: I am not' so sure if at the present
time a vote were taken in the section of which he speaks it might not carry, due to the terrible conditions brought about by the foolish policies of this government.


Robert James Manion: Wait a moment. Just before that, if my hon. friend will permit me, I quoted the authority for the statement.


James Murdock: My hon. friend said on
the occasion referred to:
I did not give that as my own statement; I gave it as the statement of an outstanding gentleman in this country-


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear,


James Murdock: -a gentleman whose name is familiar to everyone in the House. He said to me that if a vote for annexation were taken in this section of the country, which comprises one-third of the people of Canada, it would carry overwhelmingly.
Well, let us see what the result of that was. On the strength of a press despatch with reference to this statement going out from Ottawa the following item was published in the Chicago Tribune of February 15, 1925:
Canada Hears Third of Nation Would Join U.S.
Ottawa, Can., Feb. 14.-(United News.)-Talk of secession from the British empire was heard in the Canadian parliament last night when opposition speak- ' ers, battling with the government, declare that if a vote were taken "tomorrow in an area comprising one-third of the Dominion's population" it would be overwhelmingly in favour of annexation to the United States.
Minister of Labour Murdock told the House of Commons that it was "criminal" for the opposition to bring this issue into the debate. But Dr. Manion,
The Budget-Mr. Murdock

one of the opposition leaders, stuck to his guns, declaring that' he would back the secession statement with facts.
With the great trek of Canadians continuing across the international boundary line into the United States, Canada, according to many politicians, faces a crisis.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: May I ask the minister if he is quoting from another American paper?


James Murdock: I said I was quoting from the Chicago Tribune of February 15, 1925. The item was sent to me by a personal friend, a good old boy raised in Zorra in the county of Oxford, who loves Canada and everything in it, and who wanted to know if that was the kind of talk that was going on here because, he said, he did not believe it.
My hon. friend in his speech on the budget referred in very critical and unkind terms to this government. He said many things with respect to us, and among other criticisms referred to those hon. members who went over to the Wembley exhibition. He said something about his not having voted for the appropriation to meet the expenses of the trip but that he did not dodge the vote. "I do not dodge votes," said my hon. friend. At the time I could not see what the purpose was of a statement of that kind, or why the hon. gentleman should make such a positive declaration. Accordingly I took the trouble to have some figures compiled in order to find out if the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River was always "on the job" when a vote was taken, because that is what he seemed to want us to understand. I find that in 1922 the hon. member voted on nine occasions, was paired on two occasions, and on two occasions missed the vote. In 1923 he voted on seven occasions, was paired on six occasions, and on twelve occasions did not vote. I find that in 1924 the hon. gentleman voted on ten occasions, was paired on six occasions, and on eight occasions did not vote. I do not know even yet what his statement at the time had to do with the particular question under discussion, but it seemed to me that it was quite proper the House should know what my hon. friend's record in the matter of voting had been. When attention is being called to these matters, it seems to me to be proper to bring to the notice of my hon. friend just what his record in the matter of voting had been.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give
his own record?


James Murdock: I will be glad indeed
to have it checked up.


Robert James Manion: I wish the hon. minister
would go ahead and give it now. I venture to say it is not any better than mine.


James Murdock: I am quite sure it is
better than the record I have just read. I missed two or three votes last year, Mr. Speaker, because certain hon. gentlemen wanted "to uphold the honour and dignity of parliament;" otherwise I would have been able to vote.
We had a great deal of discussion on certain matters. I wan-t if I can, Mr. Speaker, to see ourselves as others see us. We would get the blues absolutely if we ever came to the point of being convinced by our Tory friends opposite of what a bad job we were making of running this country, and how nearly to the merry bow-wows Canada has gone since the Liberal party came into power. Therefore I do not think it would do any harm if we digressed for a short time to ring a note of optimism into this discussion and to bring to the attention of the House what the press of Canada thinks of us and what are really the conditions as shown by the press. I am not going to deal only with papers that are favourable to the Liberal party. Let us take the other newspapers and go over them as briefly as we can. I will quote first Agricultural and Industrial Progress in Canada, published monthly by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It should be a reasonably conservative journal. In the issue of March 25, 1925 I find the following:
The coast province-British Columbia-is very active. Its building programme is of considerable dimensions; its lumber prospects are better with new sawmills and new logging camps opening up in districts that have been lying fallow. The mineral situation is active, showing all signs of a progressive year. Agricultural development along all lines is quite normal with a better outlook, and altogether British Columbia is looking forward to a first-class business year.
My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) and my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) will be glad to bear that. Then, Dun's Review March 5, 1925-


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister
think the government is responsible for that?


James Murdock: I did not say that.
Mr. MoQUARRIE:	I do not think so.


James Murdock: No, but I think the
government's policy has helped.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: Then the hon. gentleman does think so.


James Murdock: Then, Dun's Review
published in Toronto has the following:

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
Industrial activity is growing slowly and the outlook appears quite bright. Lumbering companies are discontinuing operations for the season in so far as cutting is concerned but are still holding a number of employees in reserve for the spring drive. Lumber merchants anticipate a steady trade all through the summer and look with particular favour upon the prospects for export trade to the American side, where prices have been rising and supplies are in a narrow compass. An extensive building programme has been mapped out for the province and artisans and labourers in this line should be well employed until the snow flies. Overall and shirt factories in most cases have all the business their capacity allows.
Then referring to Quebec, Dun's Review states:
Clothing manufacturers have more spring orders on hand than at this time a year ago, but bookings for fall are coming in more slowly.
Car loadings reported by the Bureau of Statistics are:
The number of cars loaded in 1924 show an increase of 53.723 over 1923.
From the beginning of 1925 up to the week ending March 14, car loadings have exceeded those of a similar period in 1924 by 5,784, the totals for these periods being 564,662 and 558,878. It might be noted that in this period of 1925, there have been over 20,000 fewer grain cars than in 1924 and the increase in other cars must be considerably greater to offset this decrease.
The Toronto Financial Post, March 20, captions an article in these words:
West is getting back to a much sounder basis
What one good crop has helped to do for Manitoba.
Then the Ottawa Evening Journal, March 16. 1925:
Work is started in sulphite mill.
The Ottawa Citizen of March 18, 1925 says:
Kingston lead mines will open up again, Syndicate takes over plant and will instal modern equipment.
The Montreal Gazette, March 27, referring to the Brantford Cordage Company, says:
Brantford Cordage Company.
To issue block of first preferred stock.
This increases their productive capacity by about fifty per cent. At the present half of the Canadian requirements in binder twine are imported and this addition to the plant will enable the company to share, in a larger way, in supplying Canadian domestic requirements. The Brantford CoTdage Company have since their inception grown until to-day they are the largest manufacturers of binder twine in the British Empire.
And I understand they are not using the bottle of protection any longer. Then the Montreal Gazette, March 27, captions an article in this manner:
Good showing by Steel of Canada.
Profits equal to 9.3 per cent on common after all charges.
Working capital up.	.
Increase of $664,000 brings excess of current assets to nearly twelve millions.
We have in the same paper on the same date an advertisement of the Brantford Cordage Company which has this to say about that concern:
The company is the largest manufacturer of binder twine in the British Empire and owns and operates a plant occupying seven and a half acres at Brantford, Ontario. There has been completed and put into operation last January a third mill with the most modern equipment, which increases the productive capacity of the company approximately fifty per cent. The business is largely domestic, but the company's product is also exported to practically all the grain-growing countries of the world. Owing to its low manufacturing costs, the business has been able to meet all competition.
The Vancouver Sun, of March 19, publishes an article captioned in this way:
New industry located here.
K. and L. Box Company to erect $100,000 plant in royal city.
The Kitchener-Waterloo Record of March 23, says:
New industry for Kitchener.
Threshing dust and fire preventer company will assemble machines in this city.
The Winnipeg Tribune, which will not be charged with being too favourable to this government, has an article in its issue of March 19, referring to unemployment in Canada, the last part of which says:
But just as the present industrial depression is being felt in all our cities, so will the period of prosperity which lies in the offing be equally general and widespread.
The Port Arthur News Chronicle, March IS, 1925, publishes an article on this question, and my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River ought to get this:
One 'hundred men will work from June to November on new dam.
The Hamilton Herald, February 17, 1925, says:
Plants here hum as large orders come.
McLaren's Limited now working night and day on output.
Steel of Canada, too.
Greening's working double shifts; government to spend fifty thousand dollars here.
The Toronto Globe of February 13, 1925, says:
Hamilton factories find business good.
Working full time and on Saturday afternoons. Extra hands engaged.
Steel plant also busy.
The Montreal Gazette, February 26, 1925:
January steel production up.
Ingots and castings output reached total of 27,126 long tons.
Pig iron advanced.
January output was 25 per cent above that of December. Prices moved upward.
The Hamilton Spectator, which is not too friendly to the government, on February 17, 1925, published the following:
The Budget-Mr. Murdock

More signs of prosperity in factories here.
McLaren's working day and night on orders.
Steel Company opens mill at Ontario plant.
B. Greening Wire is using some double shifts.
The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, February 13, 1925, says:
Cost of charity is much smaller.
Little being spent on relief this winter in comparison with last year; believe $9,000 will cover bill.
The Smiths Falls Record News, February 26, 1925, says:
Almost a record staff of men at work in the Frost and Wood Company's implement plant. Some excellent foreign orders have been received, which they are Imsy working on at present, and shipments of carloads are being made daily to the seaboard.
Reductions in the price of farm implements were made last April and further reductions became effective in December, and there is every evidence that these lower prices to the farmer have already stimulated the placing of orders that had been held back by the higher prices which prevailed during the past few years.
The Hamilton Herald of March 3, states:
Other Hamilton firms feel the return of better times.
The Globe of February 13, states:
Hamilton factories find business good. Working full time and on Saturday afternoons-extra hands engaged.
The Ottawa Citizen of March 31, says:
Profits practically doubled by Smelting Company of Canada.
The Hamilton Herald of March 27, states:
Industry in Hamilton to get impetus. Brightest outlook in years, says C. W. Kirkpatrick, New plants likely. Many delegations visiting city with an eye for industrial sites.
There have been more inquiries and delegations here during March than during any two months last year," said Mr. Kirkpatrick. "The department has had an average of one and two delegations studying the industrial situation and looking over industrial sites in this city every day this month."
This is all optimism, something that our hon. friends opposite should take a large dose of.
The Hamilton Spectator of March 28, under an editorial caption " Looking Up," has this to say:
The period of depression through which Canada has been passing has been extended longer than was really necessary, it is now admitted, because of the fact that money was both tight and afraid. If industrial representatives are now seeking sites for expansion, it can only be interpreted as meaning,that investors realize the time to put their money to work again is at hand. The improvement in the local unemployment situation has not been sensational, but it has been steady. By ones and twos the army of the jobless is being depleted, as the men return to lathe and bench and make the acquaintance of pay envelopes again. It will not be a boom year, but there is every evidence that trade and commerce will be more brisk than it has been in any other year since the armistice. The greatest asset will be confidence.
I commend that to the consideration of my hon. friends opposite.
fMr. Murdock.]
The Chatham News of March 28, says:
Chatham Sheet Metal Works well pleased with prospect for business this season.
The London Free Press of March 28, states:
Sheet Metal Works is opened in city.
The Toronto Globe of March 27, says:
Prosperous season for wool growers. Nice surplus for distribution among shareholders and shippers.
Then it goes on to say:
The Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers are smiling. After transferring $10,000 to reserve, paying an 8 per cent dividend on capital stock, and reserving over $2,000 for income taxes, the company still has sufficient surplus on the year's operation to pay bonus of one-third cent per pound to all 1924 shippers.
I come now to the monthly letter of the Royal Bank of Canada and I find this:
In Ontario, statements from 5,832 concerns, employing 709,878 people on February 1, 1925, indicate an increase of 16,821 over the number employed at the beginning of the year. The labour requirements, both in manufacturing and logging, are increasing.
Then we find in Agricultural and Industrial Progress in Canada, published by the Canadian Pacific, a publication which was referred to a short time ago, this article under date of April, 1925:
Montreal, Que.-An increase of approximately 50 per cent has taken place in the live cattle exports to the United Kingdom in the period January 1 to March 19, 1925, as compared with the corresponding period last year. Up to March 19 the exports of cattle in 1925 were 14,662 head, as compared with 10,531 in the same period in 1924 and 9,511 in 1923.
Ottawa, Ont.-Canada exported meats to the value of $2,528,070 during the month of February, as compared with exports of $1,294,046 in the corresponding month of 1924, according to a report of the External Trade Branch. Shipments for the twelve months ending February, 1925, had a total value of $27,843,848, compared with shipments worth $22,291,385 in the preceding twelve-month period.
That does not look like too bad business.
Ottawa, Ont.-Canada's exports of automobiles continue to increase and New Zealand is the Dominion's best customer for such vehicles. Last month a total of 4,008 passenger autos, valued at $1,843,551 were exported, and of these New Zealand took 1,114. These shipments compare favourably with January when 3,732 autos were exported and with February, 1924, when 3.230 were dispatched to foreign markets.
Hamilton, Ont.-There has been a noticeable revival of building activity in Hamilton since the beginning of the year and, if present anticipated business crystallizes, the city will experience in 1925 one of the best building seasons for some years. The latest project on foot here is the announcement that from forty to fifty residences will be built by one contractor in a new section of the city being developed.
Winnipeg, Man.-Approximately $1,000,000 ahead of last year, to date, in contracts let and buildings under construction.

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
Then we have the Montreal Star of April .6, which has an article captioned:
National Brick had more favourable year
It sa3^s:
C. C. Ballantyne, the president, remarks that while the sales for the fiscal year show only a slight improvement over the sales of the previous year, the higher profits were obtained through improvements made at the plants, which have resulted in greater efficiency and lower manufacturing costs. While the demand for brick has enabled the plants to operate only at 60 per cent of capacity, ho stated that the directors consider the outlook for the coming year as favourable, and an improvement is anticipated.
Evidently, he has an optimism for the future of his company if not for that of his party. The Galt Reporter of April 3, has .this to say:
Campbell Chrome Leather Belting Company, Limited, is Galt's newest industry.
The Monthly Commercial Letter, issued by the Bank of Commerce for March, 1925, makes this statement:
That general business has not receded is evidenced by the fact that car loadings continued to be equal to those of twelve months ago, although the grain crop is so much less in volume. In industrial districts of the Dominion there have been fewer complaints of unemployment in February. It may also be noted that permits for building construction issued during January exceeded by 22 per cent those of January,
1924.
I am very sorry the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has left the chamber, because this is something that he should really hear. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman and some of his associates should get in step with their press. The Tory press and some of the members of the Tory party are entirely out of step. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River had this to say on April 2 as reported in Hansard, page 1795:
Now, Sir, what does the Conservative party offer the country in place of the policies which I have been criticizing? They offer a stable tariff policy which will bring about prosperity and success; and they offer it to all classes, to manufacturers and to farmers to the 2,000,000 farmers of Ontario and Quebec who require protection.
And so forth. He goes on to complain bitterly about the tariff. This is an advertisement from the Montreal Gazette of April 6,
1925,	over the signature of the "London Free Press, western Ontario's foremost newspaper." These two Tory papers are certainly out of step with the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River and some of his colleagues. This is what the advertisement says:
A rich industrial area. The London market.
Then there is a picture of the belching smoke.
London itself is the home of four hundred and sixty-four thriving industries. And these thriving industries bring wealth to London and spend it there.
And fa the territory surrounding London are to be found innumerable towns and cities, each with its quota of factories and factory workers. Ingersoll, Woodstock, St. Thomas, Aylmer, Tillsonburg, St.' Mary's Stratford, Sarnia, Chatham, Glencoe, Petrolia, Clinton, Goderich, Wingham, Listowel and other towns are the sites of a great variety of thriving industries.
The wealth expended in these towns and paid to factory workers is no less important than the revenue from the rich agricultural districts in this territory. The whole of this territory, in town and country, is catered to >by the London Free Press.
That is optimism in advertising; and it is to be hoped that the London Free Press and the Montreal Gazette will be just as optimistic in their news columns when referring to the budget debate and the work of this session of parliament.
I want now to refer to one other matter which I think we might call Tory propaganda. Here is a letter sent out by the Canadian Labour Press under date February 5; I presume it is a circular:
Attention General Manager
Gentlemen, In view of the near approach of another general election the Canadian Labour Press deem it an opportune time to issue a series of bulletins (to Ibe posted in different factories, labour temples and other prominent places in the country) dealing with the need of effective tariff protection in Canada.
The Canadian Labour Press realizes that without tariff protection Canadian industry and Canadian labour will be greatly handicapped and the various arguments presented in the bulletins will be with the idea of educating labour to a sound and sensible viewpoint on this important question. We know of no more effective manner of reaching Canadian workers than by a series of concise and forceful bulletins such as the one enclosed.
That is Tory propaganda, and it will be seen that in this they are sailing under false colours, for it is sought to give the impression that labour is back of it. It is well for this House to know that the Canadian Labour Press has no standing with organized labour; it is unauthorized; and it is handled by certain gentlemen for their own purposes and in their own interests. I think it can be shown that, generally speaking, they have been pretty sane and reasonable. Why not? Note their head offices-Room 25-A, 207 St. James street, Montreal, Quebec, and 79 Adelaide street east, Toronto, right in the heart of the Tory district in each case. They start out with this kind of propaganda, which is being disseminated among the various manufacturing interests in the industrial centres of the provinces. The document winds up thus:
The Budget-Mr. Murdock


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Read the
article.


James Murdock: Perhaps I had better
do so. The article in its entirety reads:
Says Many Thinking the Prime Minister not Pro-Canadian
Canadian Press Despatch
Montreal, April 7.-Frequency of the Prime Minister's visits to the United States was referred to in an address by Senator Gideon Robertson, late minister of labour in the Meighen government, in an address to the Liberal-Conservative Association here last night.
"Throughout Canada," said Senator Robertson, "many people are thinking that the policy of the Prime Minister is not pro-Canadian."
Senator Robertson declared that a year ago the budget was held up for four days while the Prime Minister went to the United States, and that last Friday when the budget was before parliament "the Prime Minister got suddenly tired and went to New York- and is there now."
The Speaker said there were many indications to prove this feeling, and he was amazed that Quebec did not take more interest in "that tendency on his part." He thought that this province would be the last in the Dominion to look favourably on a pro-American policy.
Senator Robertson denounced the government for the sums expended on royal commissions, and went exhaustively into the financial standing of the country.
That is Tory propaganda. But what are the facts? There was a slight delay last year in the discussion of the budget but it was due to bereavement in the home of a very responsible member of this House who desired to be present during the debate on the budget and who had a right so to wish. That was the only adjournment of the budget debate last year, and it ill becomes my distinguished

The Budget-Mr. Murdock
predecessor to have tried to make the situation appear otherwise.
But let us analyze it further. The distinguished gentleman who was telling this story for the purpose of trying to fool the people, and particularly those in the province of Quebec, receives his instructions from, makes his reports to, and receives his pay cheque monthly from an organization with headquarters in the city of St. Louis, Missouri. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, so far as I know. I do not in the slightest object to the position that the hon. gentleman finds himself in, but how little indeed must our Tory friends have of reality to present to the people of the country when they have to resort to such camouflage and subterfuge in an effort to fool the electors in the event oi an election coming in the future.


Mr. McMASTER:: What international union is he connected with?


James Murdock: He is vice-president of the Order of Railway Telegraphers. He holds the same position in the Order of Railway Telegraphers that his successor held in the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. His successor's headquarters were at Cleveland, Ohio, up until the 9th day of January, 1922. The distinguished gentleman of whom we have been speaking has his headquarters at St. Louis, and his pay cheque comes from there monthly. That is all right. But why should he go out and start to talk about something that is not material or worth while?
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have taken up so much time. I am not quite through yet, but I think I can finish in the few minutes remaining before six o'clock.
We have heard from the opposite side of the House, and particularly from our distinguished friend the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), about the terrible foolishness of this government in its tariff policies. We have been charged with everything that is unfair, even dishonest, I think, and untruthful in our declarations, and in our relations with the House and with the people of Canada. I think the distinguished gentleman who represents West York, and who was Minister of Finance in the previous government, should really give some attention to the position of his own government. When they had an opportunity to fix everything up ship-shape, what did they do? We find that in the Speech from the Throne which was delivered to this House on February 14, 1921, His Excellency was made to say:
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the customs tariff. In order to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted
an extensive and thorough inquiry, and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province. The hearings necessary for this purpose have now been completed, and the conclusions founded thereon will be submitted to you in due course.
And, Mr. Speaker, they are still due. Those conclusions have never been submitted; they have never been, so far as I know, compiled. The bills for the inquiry, which covered the length and breadth of Canada, have been paid. My friend, the member for West York, the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie), and my predecessor in the office of Minister of Labour, toured this country to find out all about the tariff and what should be done about it, and they put words in the mouth of His Excellency on February 14, 1921, indicating that they were going to deal with the tariff; but let us come now to May 9, 1921, when we can visualize the distinguished member for West York on the floor of this parliament delivering his budget speech, and here is a portion of it:
It is not proposed to put into effect now a general revision of the tariff schedules. While Canada must make her own tariff and while that tariff must be a tariff dictated in the interests of Canada and her people, it is not advisable that frequent changes should be made.
Did you ever hear of crawfishing? Is not that as fine an example of it as anyone ever heard? and it emanates from men whc have-shall I say, to put it as kindly as possible-the nerve to get up here on the floor of the House and charge this government with this, that and every other thing. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Tory party did not have the nerve to make the changes in the tariff that their friends wanted, because they knew the people of Canada would not stand for it, and now they are continually finding fault with this government because it has not done so, and does not propose to do so.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- REPORT

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent may I on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), table the annual report, in English and in French, of the Canadian National Railway system for the year ending December 31, 1924.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It must be by leave of the House, of course, because we would have to revert to Motions. I understand that the hon. gentleman is given leave to lay this report on the table.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The Budget-Mr. McQwrrie

After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, respecting the London Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Canada, and to change its name to London Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 38, to incorporate Guaranty Trust Company of Canada.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 34, to incorporate the British Consolidated General Insurance Corporation, and recommending that the title of said bill be changed to "An Act to incorporate the British Consolidated Insurance Corporation."-Mr. Irvine.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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, and the proposed amendment thereto of Sir Henry Drayton.
William Garland McQuarrie: 
Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I do not think
the minister indicated any such thing. He was very fair in his statement regarding Senator Robertson; he stated the senator was entitled to the money and made no insinuation at all.


William Garland McQuarrie: No insinuation? The minister mentioned the matter and I presume had some reason for doing so.
The minister also referred to the tariff and claimed that there had been some "crawfishing," as he said, by the previous administration in regard to tariff revision. It is quite true, as the minister stated, that the Speech from the Throne in 1921 did contain a reference to tariff and tariff revision, but I think the minister should have' been fair enough to explain to the House that there was a good reason why that revision was not proceeded with, namely the fact that certain changes were being made in the United States tariff and it was only right and proper that this country should wait to see what the changes were before bringing in a revision; and he should also have stated that an election took place shortly afterwards and that the Tory government had no opportunity to bring this revision into effect. No doubt, when the next election is held and the Conservative party is returned this tariff revision will be proceeded with.
As I stated previously the minister dealt with many departments, but said very little about his own. I have been wondering if the Labour department as at present administered is serving any useful purpose. If my memory is correct, during the last election the minister stated that the functions of the Labour department were three-fold at least: first, to break up combines, trusts and mergers; second to provide a cure for unemployment, and third to settle labour disputes. I remember in the budget debate of 1921 the Prime Minister filled quite a number of pages of Hansard in speaking about combines, trusts and mergers, and in commending the action of the same minister who was then plain Mr. Murdock, of the Board of Commerce, for the action which he had taken. I find on page 3606 of Hansard of that year the following by the Prime Minister :
The interim report concludes with a minority report by Mr. Murdock, in which the following appears:
My belief is that it would be very much in the public interest for the public of Canada to know something more of the reasons that prevented the Board of Commerce of Canada from performing its functions in controlling profiteering and combines against the public interest as by law intended.
I think we all remember that during that election the hon. gentleman (Mr. Murdock) paraded around this country and on platform after platform stated what he would do if he became Minister of Labour. I take it for granted that that was the reason why he was made Minister of Labour. The question then presents itself to the House, has he done anything to make good?	So far as I know
he has not done anything to break up any combines, trusts or mergers. Certainly there

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

have been no prosecutions. I think there have been demands for prosecutions made just lately. If my information is correct, boards of trade in British Columbia and other places have been bombarding the minister with requests that certain combines should be prosecuted. One of these combines is known as Nash or Mutual combine. What has the minister done about it? I hold in my hand a report which has been presented by a commissioner who was appointed. This report contains sufficient information and sufficient material to justify prosecutions being started. Nothing has been done. The minister says: We have put it up to the provinces; let the attorneys general of the provinces deal with this question. Well, the attorneys general of the provinces are considering what action they can take, but nothing is being done. Is that the proper course for the minister to have taken? I submit, it is not. I have authority for that statement, my authority being no less a person than a Supreme court judge in the province of Nova Scotia, Hon. D. D. McKenzie, who was at one time leader of the opposition and afterwards Solicitor-General in this administration, and who has now been elevated to the bench. He took part in the debate of 1921, and at page 3293 of Hansard, he said:
I do not look to the municipal councils, or to the local governments, for the administration of the law governing matters of this kind. We have a federal law dealing with trusts and combines.
He went on to lefer to the suggestion which had been made, or which he alleged had been made, that private individuals might lay informations, and then he said:
Could anything be more absurd than to imagine that any man is going to bear the burden of carrying through the various courts a case against a combine, with the support of all the other combines in the land behind it, and nothing on the other side but an ordinary man who found that he was charged too much for a pair of boots, a keg of nails, or something else he bought from that combine. The best legal talent of the land would be arrayed against him, and counsel's fees would be running up-
And so on. And then he proceeds:
I thank my good friend from York (Mr. Maclean) -pardon me for mentioning his name, but I wish to show him my appreciation-for standing up in this House and stating that there should be a public prosecutor to deal with these cases. I agree with him. Until that is done and the government have a secret sendee from one end of the country to the other, and the combines realize that there is power behind the presecutor, we will have the governing of prices just to suit these combines and trusts.
I wonder if any such prosecutor has been appointed. If so, who is he? So far as I am aware no such appointment has been made. Mr. McKenzie goes on to say:

And the government says to its darling: " Don't be concerned; we knew it would die. Now be happy and contented, for we have carried out our promise to you.. We were always behind you, and we will continue to be behind you, and you will have things absolutely your own way, except of course that, for appearance sake, we must ask the attorneys general in some of the provinces to do something, but we know there is nothing they can do."
That is exactly what the minister is doing now-asking the attorneys general of the provinces to do something. That is the minister's record as to combines, trusts and mergers. He did not say a word about that subject in his address.
Then we come to the second function, to provide a cure for unemployment. The minister's cure for unemployment is to say that there is practically no unemployment in the country. I wonder how many people in Toronto, in Montreal, in Hamilton and in other places will agree with him. I wonder what the provincial premiers will say when they hear of his statement that there is no unemployment in the country. Certainly this government has decided this question, to this extent-it has decided that it will do nothing to assist in relieving unemployment.
We come now to the third function of the Labour department, to settle labour disputes. We did not hear from the minister a word about the coal strike in Nova Scotia. You would think there was no strike down there. You would think there were not thousands of people starving in that province. You would think there was no trouble of any kind there. I suppose in his mind sunshine pervades that province just as it does other provinces in this Dominion and there is no cause for trouble there at all. It seems to me that, instead of being in this House at this very instant, the Minister of Labour should be in the coal fields of Nova Scotia trying to see if it is not possible to settle that strike. The minister is not down there and perhaps there is a reason for that. I am informed that there is a reason and that that reason is that some years ago, when the minister was an official of an international union, he visited Nova Scotia and assisted in a strike on the railway of the coal company, and that, as a result, as regards the coal mine and steel workers, he is the most unpopular man in Canada. I think it is a standing disgrace that the Minister and the Department of Labour are not trying to ameliorate conditions in Nova Scotia. It is true it might be injudicious for the government to take sides in this dispute; but when women and children are starving in those coal fields, the government should do something. We cannot disbelieve the statements which appear in

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
the press, from so many reliable people, and we know that in Ottawa it has been found necessary to open an office for the purpose of receiving relief for these miners. The Minister of Labour, instead of coming to this House and spreading sunshine, should be down in Nova Scotia trying to do something to settle that strike. This wonderful man, this Minister of Labour, it seems to me, has fallen down. When we consider the statements made by him prior to elections and when we consider and examine his record since he has been a minister, we wonder what has happened to this reincarnation of Jack the Giant-killer. I do not propose to deal at any further length with the "maiden budget speech" of the Minister of Labour.
I wish to take this opportunity of referring to a tour which I was privileged to take with other members of this House and members of the Senate to South Africa last year. It is only fit and proper that some member of that delegation in this House should acknowledge the courtesies extended to us in South Africa and elsewhere. You, Mr. Speaker, I think will be interested in what I am going to say, because of the fact that in 1910 you made a similar trip, and you will be able to follow my remarks and, I hope, will commend them. The tour was made under the auspices of the Empire Parliamentary Association, which has a branch in Canada. All the members of this House are not members of that association, but they should be; it is a splendid organization, and one that is worthy of the support of all parliamentarians in this country. This was the first united parliamentary delegation of its kind to an overseas dominion that had ever been attempted. The Empire Parliamentary Association was formed when many of the dominion statesmen were in London for the coronation. In 1913, a number of British members of parliament toured the whole of the dominions, and in 1916, representatives of the empire parliaments held a war-time conference in London, visited the munition-making areas and went over to France. Since the armistice an unofficial delegation has visited Canada. But the programme of this tour was the most ambitious of all inasmuch as members of all parliaments in the empire except Newfoundland were to spend two months together in South Africa studying the potentialities of the union on the spot and exchanging counsels as to the various problems affecting the empire. The delegation was headed by the Right Hon. J. H. Thomas, then Colonial Secretary, with Viscount Burnham as his deputy; and when the British delegates had to leave, when 129i
the delegates were at Victoria Falls, Sir George Foster was appointed chairman. I would like to pay a tribute to Sir George Foster. He was a credit to Canada on that tour. He was without doubt one of the most eloquent speakers on the whole delegation. He received a wonderful reception in South Africa, and considering the fact that he celebrated his seventy-seventh birthday in Zululand, it is truly remarkable that he was able to carry on so splendidly. I might mention that this was not a trade mission in any sense of the term. It was purely and simply a fraternal visit, if I might put it in that way. The Canadian delegates were chosen by a committee on which I think you, Sir, and the Speaker of the Senate acted. There was no politics about the matter. The whole tour was non-political, all parties being represented. The Canadian delegates were Sir George Foster, Senator Robert Watson of Manitoba, Senator Willoughby of Saskatchewan, Senator Gustave Boyer of Quebec, the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Fafard) the hon. member for St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert (Mir. MacLaren), and myself as representing New Westminster. I am sorry to have to report that when we were in the Transvaal, it was necessary for Senator Boyer, on account of ill-health, to return to Canada, and he was unable to complete the tour. All expenses were borne by the government of South Africa from whom the invitation was received. It originated with General Smuts. It is unnecessary for me, of course, to say anything about General Smuts' record, how he was one of the Boer generals who fought against us in the Boer war, how later on when peace was declared he became a thoroughly loyal British subject and how during the late Great war he took a very prominent part on the side of the allies. General Smuts is a very outstanding figure in South Africa. After the invitation had been received the elections were brought on in South Africa and a change of government took place. General Hertzog, the head of the Nationalist party, was returned to power. He was not considered an imperialist; in fact, during the election his party, according to their statements, stood for the secession of South Africa from the British Empire. It was expected therefore in view of these facts that the invitation might be withdrawn by General Hertzog, but on the contrary it was renewed.
We sailed from Quebec on July 25 on the Montroyal arriving at Liverpool the first of August. We were met by representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway over there
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: I was on the water wagon myself so I cannot be blamed for the snakes I saw. At this snake farm there were so many snakes that really I saw snakes for nights after that. There are snakes all over South Africa but the people pay no attention to them except to kill them when they cross their path. There is one snake called the Black Mamba which has earned the respect of all including the natives. If that snake bites a person he has no chance in the world to recover. They have serums of all kinds but there appears to be no real antidote for the Black Mamba. In going through the sugar and cotton plantations where snakes are very common, I for one was very careful where I stepped; I was really frightened. One South African said to me not to be frightened about them; that they would not attack us. I observed "What about the Black Mamba?" My informant said to me, "Never mind about the Black Mamba, he won't bite you either unless you happen to get between him and
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

his hole." The trouble was to know where the hole was located. In the rivers and streams of South Africa crocodiles abound. Generally speaking things may be very pleasant to all appearances but you have to be careful in that country.


Robert Forke: Have they got prohibition there?


William Garland McQuarrie: Prohibition is not in force in South Africa; they say they do not require it. I may say that the use of tea has brought about quite a decrease in the consumption of alcohol and of intoxicating liquor generally. The tea habit has attained to wonderful proportions in South Africa. You are awakened at six o'clock in the morning to have tea, and at eleven a.m. everyone must have tea whether they want it or not. Tea is served in all the shops, the offices, the banks and other institutions; if it is not on hand there people go out and get it. Then they have afternoon tea, in fact tea on all occasions; it is a wonderful country for tea. But there is no prohibition of intoxicating liquor; the South Africans say it is not necessary and they aver that South Africa produces so many grapes that they never will have prohibition there. On the train on which we travelled there were liquid refreshments of all kinds,-whiskey, beer and wines, and, if you were fastidious, champagne. Everything was free including smokes of all kinds; it is a wonderful country.
On our trip we visited various places. I cannot specify them all but I might mention a few of them. First of all Tongaat, Umfol-ozi, Empangeni and Eshowe, in Zululand. Perhaps I might tell you something about Zululand if you are interested. They have certain peculiar customs which may appeal to hon. members. In Zululand they do not go in for much clothing. The families are quite large but it is unnecessary to buy clothing of any kind for children up to the age of about twelve years; they do not wear any because clothing is not needed. The climate is such that clothing is not a requisite; in any event the wearing of clothes is a habit. I saw a war dance of 2,000 Zulu warriors, dressed up in feathers and paint with their big shields and their assegais. It was most impressive to see those 2,000 Zulu warriors perform their war dance, and I can imagine they would be formidable opponents to encounter in actual conflict. This dance principally consisted of stamping with the feet. When those 2,000 Zulus stamped their feet in unison-and they are not small feet-the very ground where we were standing shook.

There were also 200 Zulu ladies at this war dance; apparently they were there for decorative purposes. Their clothing consisted mainly of a string of beads.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Garland McQuarrie: They were perfectly
modest about it; the standard of morality among the Zulus is very high indeed. As far as I could see those Zulu women were just as comfortable and as well satisfied with themselves as our ladies would be in a ball room.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: There was nothing
wrong about it. They were very fine looking women. Among the Zulus a man can have several wives but there is one disadvantage- he must buy his wives. If he sees a young lady whose charms appeal to him and he wishes to marry her he goes to her father and makes a deposit of a head of cattle and then becomes engaged to the young lady. He completes the transaction by paying from eight to ten head of cattle for his bride. But he has to work hard in order to get those cattle unless he has good credit. Of course they have their Duns and their Bradstreets over there, and if a man has a good rating he can get his wife first and pay for her afterwards. When a man gets three wives he does not have to do any work; he retires. We interviewed an old native there, and through an interpreter we asked him how long since he had done any work, and he said it was so long he could not remember. He did not do any work because he had three wives. I Should explain to hon. members who may think of going over there that there is another disadvantage connected with this proposition, and that is that if you have three wives you must have three houses. They found over there that three women in the capacity of wives cannot live together. Their houses are not like ours. They are huts made of straw and mud and that kind of thing, but still at the same time they mean houses to them. As far as work is concerned, I might explain that even the white men are not supposed to work. As a general thing white men do not work in South Africa. It is no place for any white man to go if he wants to make a living by working, except as a skilled workman. There are too many blacks. The blacks outnumber the whites by eight or nine to one. They work for a very small wage, something like a shilling a day, and plenty of labourers are available. The South African literature states that it is inadvisable for any person to go to South Africa unless-

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
lie has at .least two thousand pounds, which would be the equivalent of about ten thousand dollars. We also visited Pietermaritzburg, Cedera, Howick, and Ladysmith, where we saw some evidences of the seige. I personally had a conversation with an old gentleman who had been all through the seige. We also visited the battlefields of Oolenso, Wagon Hill and Spion Kop. At Colenso we also visited the electric plant-a huge electric plant which has been put up by the South African Railways. It is not a water-power plant; they have to bring their coal for sixty miles, but they think it is going to pay them very handsomely. They will electrify their railways or part of their railways. It struck me that if it paid them to make power by coal brought that distance, it would be profitable in this country to electrify our lailways where we can get water-power. Then we visited the Waschbank and Harrismith. At the latter place we saw a coal mine. We visited also Cocolan and Westminster. Westminster is an estate belonging to the Duke of Westminster. The Duke was in South Africa during the Boer war. He has spent a lot of money in that country in an endeavour to help British people to go there. He has a wonderful estate and sells land to settlers on long terms of payment. He is doing a great deal of good.
Then we went to Maseru in Basutoland. That is a different proposition from Zululand. It has an elevation something like 5.000 feet and sometimes gets quite cold. Therefore they have to wear clothes, and not only clothes but they wear blankets. At Maseru, we saw a wonderful sight, called a pitso, a gathering of the Basutos, something like 20,000 men on horseback and 25,000 women and old men not mounted. It was something like a pow-wow, as we understand it. The Governor General of South Africa was there. He is also the administrator of the native territories. The native chiefs of Basutoland were also present. There are about twenty-five or thirty of them. The Governor General and his party were on one platform, and facing them on another platform were the Basuto chiefs. They were dressed up in very unique costumes.	Some of them	wore long
coats, top hats and spats.	Others had
uniforms. One man had a full colonel's uniform, and another man had a very fine uniform with brass buttons, and on his shoulders he had "Lift attendant". He was proud of his costume. We attended the pitso, and the speeches of the native chiefs were interpreted to us, or to the Governor, I suppose, but we heard them. The paramount chief made a speech there, which was something like this.
We wish you to convey to His Majesty the King our expressions of loyalty. We wish you to tell him that we are perfectly satisfied with the administration which is being given to us by British officials, and we do not desire any change of status.
That same condition prevailed all through the native territories, and I take it that it is a remarkable commendation of the manner in which British officials govern those natives. They do govern them. They punish them when necessary, but they are fair and just. They display the ordinary British justice which appeals to the natives, and the natives are perfectly satisfied with that administration. We also attended a council of the chiefs of the Basutoland; that is, a parliament. They have their leader of the government and leader of the opposition and various ministers, 'and so forth. Parliament was opened by the Governor General in due form. The budget speech was made and proceedings took place in the ordinary way. They were very dignified about it. One old chief, the leader of the opposition, was quite a wonderful man in his way; that is, he weighed a good deal; he was something like 575 pounds in weight. He was so big that when somebody in South Africa ordered a suit for him from a Bond street tailor, the tailor wrote back saying there must be some mistake in the measurements because there could not be any man that large. Several letters passed between them before he was able, to get the suit at all. The native chiefs are very dignified and very much interested in their work. Their indemnities are not very large, but they are provided with lodging and food and appear to have a very good time. The natives of South Africa are pretty well satisfied with themselves, as long as they are not educated. Then we went to Bloemfontein, and there we saw a war memorial which had been erected by the women of Canada as represented by the Daughters of the Empire. It is a noble column of Canadian granite, containing the names of places where engagements were fought by the men of the Dominion. It is supported by a rectangular base, carved with representations of the maple leaf, and contains the names of the men and their regiments. It was unveiled by the Governor General of South Africa, the Earl of Athlone, on the 17th September, 1924. The Prime Minister, General Hertzog, and many other public officials were present. I might say in this connection that there does not seem to be any feeling amongst the Boers in South Africa against Canadians. They do not seem to resent the fact that our
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

Zealand is a very prosperous country. No orientals allowed in there. New Zealand can get along without them; why cannot Canada?
We continued our journey to Suva; and I may say that on this ship, as on others wireless publications are issued every day. Some news from Canada, sent out from the Victoria Times, was received, but there was practically no Canadian news. The only items I can remember during that whole trip were two- one regarding a snowstorm in Montreal, and another with regard to the accidental drowning of a man in one of the lakes in Ontario. This was on a ship subsidized by the Canadian government, and I wondered why we did not have Canadian news. I spoke to the captain, and he told me it was a matter for the Marconi company. I spoke to the wireless operator, and he told me the reason they did not give out Canadian news of any consequence was because it was not sent to them: that they would be glad to publish Canadian news if it was given to them. He told me also that Premier Massey on his last trip from Vancouver to New Zealand had found the same condition with regard to New Zealand news, and that on his return he had made arrangements for the New Zealand station to send out wireless news free, and now a good deal of New Zealand news is given out on the ships. The same should be done with regard to Canada. We are establishing a big wireless station at the coast, and that station should send out Canadian news of interest- attractive news, because there is a possibility of attracting people to Canada on a journey of that kind who otherwise would be diverted at Honolulu and go to San Francisco. There is a great opportunity to encourage and increase tourist trade between Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Something over 250,000 people go from those countries every year to the Old Country, so that you can see what could be done. If we could induce a small percentage of these to come by way of Canada, think what benefit it would be to us.
We arrived at Suva on November 28 and spent- the day there. We were met by the Colonial Treasurer, Hon. H. H. Rushton, and were shown the sights. We were also entertained at luncheon by the Acting Governor of Fiji, Hon. T, E. Fell, who is also Colonial Secretary of Fiji. Fiji is going ahead and the people there are anxious to do more business with Canada. There is great opportunity for a larger trade between Canada and Fiji, and I think something should be done to encourage that desirable aim. We sailed for Honolulu and arrived there December 5. In Honolulu I saw the other side of the oriental

question. I found so many Japanese in Honolulu, just outside of Honolulu particularly, that one would almost imagine he was in Japan. Honolulu and the Hawaiian islands are overrun by Japanese. The experience in Honolulu and the Hawaiian islands demonstrates what may happen in the case of Canada some day unless effective measures are taken to keep these people out. We were entertained at Honolulu by Mr. Waldron, head of a large shipping firm, and had a delightful day there. We arrived at Vancouver on December 12. We had completed a trip round the world, and had only touched at two points that were not British territory. We had not seen, of course, the whole of the British Empire; but the journey made me realize the magnitude, the strength, the solidarity, the extent, of the British Empire, and I returned from the trip prouder than ever of the fact that I am a British subject.
I should like to call the attention of hon. members to the Empire Parliamentary Association, to which I think we should all belong. I think it is only right and proper that we should join up with an association of this kind which is doing such an important work, and which tends so greatly to cement the bonds that unite us to the Mother Country and to the other sister nations composing the great British Empire.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have taken up a great deal of time in describing this trip. However, I offer no apologies for the time so occupied because I think it only fitting that appreciation should be expressed for the spirit that prompted the South African government to invite us to that Dominion and also of the many courtesies and the considerate treatment we received when we were in that country, as well as in Australia and New Zealand.
In regard to the matters which have been discussed during this debate I should like to refer particularly to the remarks of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay). He, like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), tried to make conditions in British Columbia appear to be rosy. He dealt with that province in the same manner as the Minister of Labour did with the whole of Canada. The Minister of Public Works told us that things were very prosperous, that conditions were good in British Columbia; and he referred particularly to the timber industry, to the fisheries, to the mines, and pointed to the vast amount of business which is being done in these different lines. That is all right. I quite agree with the Minister of Public Works that things in British Columbia are.

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
in some respects, getting better. But what has the government got to do with it? The improvement in question has taken place not because of anything that the government has done but in spite of the government. British Columbia has resources and those resources are being developed; that is all there is to it. Those resources are bound to be developed and that development can only be retarded by a government to a certain extent. Now, the minister says, "We are responsible for those conditions."-At least I suppose he would say that. The Minister of Labour tried to contend that the government was responsible for the rosy conditions which he outlined, and I suppose the Minister of Public Works would do the same thing. I should like, however, to discuss for a moment the conditions in the timber industry. What has the government to do with the prosperity in that industry? Nothing whatever. Prosperity in the timber industry is due entirely to the export trade and not to the domestic trade at all. The government is certainly not entitled1 to any credit for the export trade; absolutely none. It may be responsible for an improvement in the domestic trade, but at present there is no domestic trade of any consequence. The government might claim credit for many things but I do not suppose it will claim credit for the construction of the Panama canal. Neither do I suppose the government will claim credit for the big stand of timber that we have in British Columbia, nor would it admit responsibility for the Japanese earthquake. All these things are elements, together with other things, which have created a demand for our lumber. It is our export trade, which consists largely of lumber, which has brought about the improvement in question and the government is not entitled to any credit for it. Is the government entitled to any credit in connection with the fisheries? I suppose the Minister of Public Works would say that the government should take credit for the unusally large run of salmon that we had in the northern Pacific waters last year. That is what has swollen the figures in the fisheries column, that is why the growth in connection with the fisheries was so marked last year; but the government had nothing whatever to do with it. Then we have our mines in British Columbia. What has the government done for the mines? The fact is that the mines are being developed. Mining is reviving again not only in Canada but in other countries, but our mines are being developed without any assistance from the government. In other countries they are doing things to assist in mining development. For example in South Africa the government is granting aid for the prospecting of minerals, it is subsidizing prospectors; but the Canadian government is not doing anything. The government is not assisting the mining industry; it is not even building a smelter on the Pacific coast which is so badly required; in fact the government is not doing anything at all to assist the mining industry. I say that any prosperity that may have come to the mining industry is not due to anything this government has done. In other lines the conditions in British Columbia are bad. In that connection, before I go any further, I would say there is one thing the government might have done to assist our industries in British Columbia, and that is remove the discrimination which exists in regard to our freight rates. What has the government done in connection with that issue? Nothing but side-track it, and as far as I can see it is not going to do anything else. There are thousands of our farmers engaged in the poultry industry. What is the government doing for them? Doing nothing. People are complaining about it. I have letters and telegrams from various organizations out west. Meetings are being held. Just recently a meeting was held at which representatives of some 15,000 poultry producers were present. What were they meeting for? Because the poultry industry is being ruined and is threatened with disaster because of the tariff which is maintained by this government, and because of the inaction of this government in the matter of remedying these conditions. What are the conditions and what are the facts? We find that the duty on eggs going into the United States is eight cents; on eggs coming into Canada the duty is three cents. Is there any fairness or equity in that? How can we expect our poultry raisers in this country to compete with the producers on the other side of the line, when the Americans can come into our markets with their surplus, paying three cents per dozen, and when we want to go into their market with our surplus we must pay eight cents? I say the tariff should be equalized and there is no reason in the world why it should not be done. The government is allowing American eggs and Chinese eggs to flood our markets.
Speaking of the tariff this same inequality exists in other lines. We have an unequal tariff on wheat, hay, fruit, potatoes, butter, cheese, eggs, cattle, woollens, silk fabrics, silks and many other things. The tariff is very much in favour of the United States in all cases, the United States duty being much
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

higher than the Canadian duty. When we compare the two countries and compare the progress made in the United States with the progress made in Canada, we 'look for reasons, and I say the reason is that we have not a proper tariff in this country. I might discuss many things in this line, but I am not going to do it. I could refer to other industries which are being handicapped because of the present tariff, which are crying out for some redress, but which are receiving absolutely no consideration from this government. The tariff has to be revised, but I do not believe this government is capable under present conditions of revising it satisfactorily, particularly in view of the fact that they are dependent upon the support of the Progressives to keep in power. We have been told time after time by the Prime Minister that his hands are tied, not only in regard to the tariff but as regards other matters, because he has such a small majority. I say that the Prime Minister should not have attempted to carry on a government without a proper majority. After the last election, when he found that he did not have a working majority he should have gone to the country immediately and either obtained a satisfactory majority or allowed some other party to obtain a majority. This feature of being dependent on another party for support is certainly not in the interests of any country, and it is most unfortunate, particularly in the case of Canada, under present conditions. I hope there will be an election soon. Out there in British Columbia the supporters of the government are in despair. They are finding great difficulty in obtaining candidates in the various constituencies for the Liberal party. They are so hard up that they are fighting to get the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) to run as their candidate in different constituencies. They think that the Minister of Public Works, besides being a wonderful statesman and all that kind of thing, is the Minister of Public Works, and if they can get him to run they think they can elect their candidate perhaps, because the people may think they are going to get something in the way of public works. Otherwise they have no hope. The hon. minister shakes his head. It has got so bad out west that the Liberal organizer for British Columbia had to come down to Ottawa, and shortly afterwards we saw it announced in the press that the Minister of Public Works had decided to run in Vancouver Centre-mark you in Vancouver Centre and not in his own constituency. I think his own constituency is one place where they apparently do not want him. I do not know why, but evidently they do not seem 
to want him. The minister has finally decided to run in Vancouver Centre. All I can say to him is that if he decides to commit political suicide, there is the place for him to run. Notwithstanding his portfolio and all that kind of thing, when the votes are counted after the election I am afraid he wiil find he is away down in the list. Another feature is that the people of British Columbia do not think this government is going to come back. They think the people of Canada are sick and tired of a government so inactive, so helpless and useless as this government has proved itself to be-a government which has not been able to carry out any of its pledges, which has not been able to do anything, which is dependent entirely upon the say-so of another group in the House. When they go to the country-and I hope they will do it soon-the good old Conservative party will come back to power. In England they are talking of holding the next Imperial conference in Canada. They want to do something, I suppose, to bring Canada into line; but in any event they are friendly to Canada, they want to help us, they want to co-operate with us, to confer with us and all that kind of thing, and therefore the next Imperial conference may be held in Canada in 1927. May we hope that when that event happens there will be a Conservative government in power so that something may be accomplished.


Mr. JULES EDOUARD PREVOST (Terrebonne) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,
nowhere, have I better understood than here this very old maxim:	silence is golden. That
is true in more than one respect, but this truth is especially exact in the strict meaning of the words since, according to the dictum which is dear to Americans, a practical nation; Time is money. I, therefore, intend to be brief in the few remarks which I propose to make with reference to the budget submitted to us.
All who inhabit this country acknowledge the fact that we are faced with serious problems which complicate our national existence. If these problems are self evidenced to all citizens, even though they may not fully understand our economic situation, even though they may be ignorant of the intricate ways of our finances, the more evident must they be to the well informed observer.
These problems are of two orders: first economic, secondly national.
I shall not linger over theories on political economy. I shall go straight to the point and admit that the financial situation of Canada is critical.
I do not wish to be placed among the pessimists for I still have faith in our future.

The Budget-Mr. Prevost
I recall that the United States, after the war of secession, found their debt which was only $64,000,000, in 1860, increased to $2,773,000,000, in 1866. Nevertheless, in twenty years, the United States paid off half of this debt. Canada, with its natural resources, its laborious and healthy population, its ever increasing industries and trade will face with as much fortitude as the United States did, the task which has fallen to her lot. It is nevertheless a fact that, at present, our debt is very burdensome. It has increased by $2,000,000,000 within the last ten years; our yearly interest has jumped from $14,000,000 to $140,000,000. It is stupendous for a country which has only 9,000,000 of a population. Therefore, it is not astonishing that the country's great financier is unable to announce some relief in our liabilities and another decrease in the taxation necessary to balance the budget.
What astonishes the country, is to hear the Tories make a crime of this state of affairs for which they are responsible. The leader of the opposition of whom it is justly said that he was a good debater but a poor loser, tried to disavow this charge and efface such an impression by visiting the province of Quebec, proclaiming everywhere that he bore no ill-feeling and could not stoop to reprisals. Nevertheless, the speeches which he delivers in the House are pregnant with them and nothing is forgotten jin these bitter criticisms, these most unfair attacks not even the most perfidious innuendoes. Like the prophet whose heart-rending laments were chanted in our temples last week, the Tory ex-Prime Minister, driven from power and seated in the cold shades of the opposition, whines, sighs and moans to break one's heart. "Stranger compare your anguish to mine, for the people have been ungrateful to me and my party. Will you not have compassion on us, we that are so honest, so good, so thrifty, we, whose thoughts are filled with the welfare of Canadians! Cast your eyes around to see if you can find a worse government than the Liberal one!"
As a sequel to these laments, the leader of the opposition and his friends become denunciators, they call the members of the government to the bar, they demand an accounting: "What have you done with the finances of the state?" The ex-Minister of Finance usually so full of smiles, frowns, raises his voice and tells us, with a tragic countenance: "Under your government the debt is enormous and taxation overwhelming."
Taxation, Mr. Speaker, must not be reproached to those who levy them, but to those who made them necessary. Are the
responsibilities of the pre-war, during w'ar and post-war Tory government already so far in the past and so soon forgotten?
The business depression in Canada, did not begin with the war, it already was taking place long before that date. What happened, following the fifteen years of great prosperity which Canada experienced under the Laurier government? From 1.911 to 1913, when the Borden government was at the helm of the affairs of this country, we were in the throes of a general crisis.
The Conservatives had fought the treaty of reciprocity with the United States in 1911, by having recourse to certain popular prejudices and by crying out that the Liberals wished to annex Canada to the United States. This battle-cry was then: "No truck nor trade with the Yankees." Now, in 1911, under the Laurier administration, our purchases from the United States amounted to $284,934,739, and our sales to them amounted to $104,115,823. In 1913. after two years of government by the good Tories who had such a fear of the United States our purchases amounted to $441,142,593, and our sales only amounted to $139,000,000!
For the first time since 1897 we heard of unemployment in Canada. Firms that had been prosperous up to 1911, now reduced the number of their employees and their working hours; others closed their doors. In Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver the u; employed numbered not less than 100.000.
The Conservative government of 1912 and 1913 ended in a crisis which attained its climax in 1914 previous to the war. This low ebb in business was felt everywhere, in the revenue of the state as well as in the returns of private enterprises. Although the balance of trade was adverse to us, we saw our customs return decrease by one million dollars per month during the six months which preceded the declaration of war. The railway returns showed a decrease of $13,000,000 in 1914. The demand for homesteads was continuously falling.
Yet, the government spent extravagantly. The Liberals, in the course of their fifteen years administration had increased the controllable expenditure by $43,000,000. The increase of the same expenditure in the course of the three first years of the Borden government, notwithstanding the decrease in the revenues, amounted exactly to $80,483,595. During a period of fifteen years, the Liberals gave $25,000,000 to the railways; in three years time, the Borden government granted them $29,163,250. The Public Works depart-

The Budget-Mr. Prevost

merit's estimates which amounted to $8,000,000 in 1891, came to $19,000,000 in 1914, and so forth. I shall go no further, for what I have just stated is sufficient to show or rather to remind us that the war expenditures were not the only cause nor the beginning of our deplorable financial situation. The Borden government in 1912 and 1913, witnessed a serious crisis, following a series of fifteen years of prosperity.
The Conservative government of that date admitted this crisis themselves, since in the Speech from the Throne, at the opening of the session, in January, 1914, they made the Governor General say:
Canada has been favoured by a long series of properous years. (This was a compliment to the preceding Laurier government, which had been at the helm of the country's affairs during a number of years.)
At the present moment business is slightly restricted by the financial stringency.
As a consequence of this crisis, the farming class complained then, and not without cause, of the dearness of farm labour and the lack of markets for agricultural products.
Everybody was complaining at that time of the high cost of living which had increased 50 per cent in Canada. And still the government made no move to meet such a crisis. That is why Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then leader of the Liberal opposition, moved to have the following words added to the Speech from the Throne of January, 1914:
We regret to have to represent to your Royal Highness that in the gracious speech with which you have met Parliament, whilst it is admitted that business is in a depressed condition, yet there is no indication of any intention on the part of your advisers to take an3r steps towards relieving such a situation.
Such was the unfit and wasteful government which had the administration of public affairs during the war.
At that critical period, the Tory government's financial policy might have been summed up in the following words: " a continuous resort to loans a dangerous policy, because it incited to an everlasting wastefulness-a very short-sighted policy, because the continuous recurring loans have largely contributed to place us in the critical situation in *which we are struggling, and are closely linked-even in peace time-with the constant increase of the cost of living. Furthermore, the Tory government had to resort to taxation, in addition to the loans, that makes up the whole of their financial scheme; it is simple and ruinous.
Let me, Sir, dwell a few moments on the war expenditure.
The Liberals are sometimes told: You are
[Mr Prevost.]
as guilty as the Tories and you equally share with them the responsibility of our financial mess since, in the House, you approved of all the war expenditure without a protest.
Such are not the facts. Certainly, the Liberals were not opposed to Canada taking part in the war. Our country could not remain neutral in the great struggle without losing its self-respect; the Liberals only performed their duty when voting the money necessary under the circumstances. However, they always stipulated that our participation in the wTar should be voluntary and reasonable. Among these war expenditures, some are legitimate and reasonable of which the Liberals, without fear, shoulder their share of responsibility. But they ceaselessly protested against the wastefulness of the Tory government. Look up Hansard for 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918, and you will find therein the protests and criticisms of the Liberal opposition in regard to the scandalous war contracts, such as the contracts for remounts, boots, uniforms, equipment, drugs, shells, rifles, etc.; contracts that enriched the partisans of the Tory government from the sacred funds voted for the war. Two Conservative members were even forced to resign following the Liberal charges. The latter never ceased denouncing the reckless way the Tory government threw us into the war heedless of all bounds of sense of proportion, without any consideration for our interests or our needs.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier consistent with himself and true to his policy of wise and reasonable participation in the world war, stated in the House, July 24, 1917:
But the question is how many men we can take from the life of the nation at the present time without imperilling the public services which are essential to this country, and essential to carry on our share of the war. This is a subject which, in my humble opinion has not been sufficiently considered by the government. They went into this war without taking any previous calculation whatever, without taking any census of our resources in men and in other respects.
A few days later, in a letteT which Sir Wilfrid Laurier wrote, August 21, 1917, to Mr. Frank Wise, Secretary to the League "Win. the War" at Toronto the Canadian statesman expressed himself as follows:
In the new Parliament I hold that it must be the duty of the majority leader, whoever he may be: to confer immediately with Great Britain and her Allies, with a view to ascertaining how, and to what extent, the participation can be utilized to the greatest advantage in the prosecution of the war, regard being had, on the one hand, to the necessities of the Allies for men, and, on the other hand, to our population, resources, industries, geographical and other considerations.

The Budget-Mr. Prevost
We notice that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, although favourable to our voluntary participation in the war, did not lose sight of Canada's interests. His idea was to gauge our efforts in proportion to our resources rather than engage ourselves thoughtlessly in the war and to give up our last man and last dollar, as the Tories wished, first including the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). The Liberals were opposed to conscription and to sensele^ recruiting. I, myself, at that time, wrote a number of newspaper articles, criticizing the government in this connection. I stated that useless recruiting was being carried on, which was unnecessary for the needs of our expeditionary army; that this excess in recruiting and the poor equipment of our troops would cost enormous sums to the country, without bringing any advantage to the Allies. The Liberal's contentions are, to-day, fully justified. On September 11th, 1924, at the Windsor hotel, in Montreal, at a dinner given by the Citizen. Research Institute of Canada, Sir Arthur Currie, at present Principal of McGill University, and e.x-Com-mander in Chief of the Canadian Army during the Great war, stated:
1.	That during the said war, the Canadian government enrolled and sent overseas at least 100,000 men who were of no help to the army; that the total cost of this useless expenditure amounted to at least $150,000,000, exclusive of the yearly disbursements which these men still cost and will in the future cost us in pensions and hospital expenses and that the opinion of medical experts has in many of these cases been ignored.
2.	That in the opinion of experts the Ross rifle was worthless and that notwithstanding said advice, successive contingents were armed with said rifle.
3.	That, in the opinion of experts, part of our equipment was worthless, nevertheless contingent after contingent were sent overseas with said equipment.
4.	That, in the opinion of experts, the Oliver equipment was not what was required, nevertheless contingent after contingent were sent overseas with said Oliver equipment.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget these things when we closely look over the country's sad financial plight and when we are trying to find out the parties responsible for the taxes which burden the Canadian people.
Yet, we are told, you approved of all the funds. asked by the government for the prosecution of the war. No doubt, we could not do otherwise then, without endangering the success of our participation in. the war. It was impossible at the time to separate the tares from the wheat. We had a two-fiold duty to perform: that of condemning the waste that we could discover, we did so ; and that of voting the appropriations required for the Canadian army; this we also did, from a patriotic standpoint. It is almost 130i
a crime, in war time, to cut off the government's supplies.
Mr. Henri Bourassa, although strongly opposed to our exaggerated participation in the war, himself wrote:
It is not the time for controversies, bitter recriminations, settling of petty quarrels, still less for
party intrigues.... One may disapprove, on the
whole or in part of the government's actions, deny the opportunity, the way or the reasons for its intervention in the European conflict, lay aside for the future all the principles involved, but we have no right, at present, to launch out into a bitter debate on this measure.
The hour to judge and condemn came later. The people in irons, in 1917, spoke freely in 1921.
One of the worst transactions carried out by the Tories and which the Liberals fought strongly against, was the purchase of the railways, which threw on the shoulders of the Canadian people the heaviest part of the burden that overwhelms them. Our opponents tell us that there was no other solution to the problem than to buy the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk which were bankrupt. Nonsense! The great majority of business men, without distinction of party, have condemned this purchase for which Canada paid many million dollars for shares which had not cost a cent to the holders, a transaction which has made the country responsible for a debt of many hundred million dollars and which has hurt our finances more than all the legitimate expenditures of the war. Has one forgotten the protests of the Chambres de Commerce and the Boards of Trade, especially those of Montreal, protests signed by prominent Conservatives, such as the Bkers, the Chaputs? And the merchant marine, established by the Tory government by lavishing millions, are they not also for the greater part, responsible for the financial mess in which we find ourselves? The Conservatives who are in the habit of trying to-make us share the responsibility of their failures, tell us that we approved of ,this merchant marine scheme. Even if that be true, they alone, would not be less responsible for this act of poor administration since they were then in power.
However, such is not the case, and it is untrue to say that the Liberals approved of the establishment of a large merchant marine. They agreed to the construction of a few merchant ships during the war; however, they always condemned! the government for having launched out into the costly venture of a merchant marine, without calculating and foreseeing what. It would cost the country already crushed under by the burden of the state ownership of railways. In 1918, the government owned four ships and
The Budget-Mr. Prevost

when the Conservatives fell from power, the number had increased to sixty-three.
The Liberals never ceased condemning the merchant marine which will go down in history under the name of the "Ballantyne Marine." Not without cause have they reproached this ex-Minister of Marine for having given out without public tenders fifty-six contracts for the construction of merchant ships at a total cost of $43,704,962,
This merchant marine finally cost us $70,000,-D00! Therefore, this brief review of the facts, *although incomplete, brings to light this undeniable truth: our deplorable financial situation, previous, during and after the war, is [DOT]due to the Tory government; an unskilful and extravagant administration from 1912 and 1913; war contracts which have squandered many millions of the public funds; exaggerated and useless recruiting which-the fact 'being even admitted by 'Sir Arthur Currie-brought on a loss of $150,000,000 to the country; purchase of bankrupt railways which have overburdened our budget and show, each year, deficits amounting to 60 and 70 million dollars; the establishment of a merchant marine which has cost us 70 million dollars and entails a yearly loss of many million dollars.
Indeed, the heritage that the Tory government left to the Liberal government was pitiful. Nevertheless, the present government administers the public affairs in the best possible way; the management of the state railways, until we can find a purchaser or carry out a merger which will not throw the country into confusion, has been placed in the hands of a most competent man; the annual increase of our debt which, even two years after the war, amounted to almost $100,000 000 under the preceding government, has been substantially decreased; taxation has been diminished and the expenditures checked. The present government adminsters the affairs of the country at a cost less than in 1914, so far as controllable expenditures are concerned. The Liberal government's task is heavy and difficult and is certainly not at an end. The leader of the opposition and his followers who have left us in the lurch, not only reproach us for being there, but have no suggestions worth while to make toward improving the country's finances.
The Tories have but one remedy for all the ills they have caused and from which we suffer: it is protection! By mounting this old lanky horse, the leader of the Tory party remains what he was in 1921. He has not changed. There is, therefore, no earthly reason why the public should change their opinion of him. The Conservative party
(Mr Prevost.]
wants a high tariff rather than a broad one; the Liberal party favours a broad tariff rather than a high one, a protective tariff which benefits everybody.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Translation):: Hear, hear!


Jules-Édouard Prévost: They favour the masses instead of classes. It was Laurier's policy. The Tories are using the same weapons against the Liberal government of to-day, as they used in their attacks against the Laurier government. Our opponents are endeavouring to create a panic among the capitalists and the working classes by saying that the Liberals will ruin the Canadian industries. The same old tune. It is not of yesterday... Laurier responded to it by giving Canada an unheard of period of prosperity. The present government responds to it, in its turn, by helping the consumers without prejudicing the manufacturers.
It is amusing to read over the calamities which were prophesied last year by a number of Conservatives, because the government had dared to lower the duties on certain instruments of production.
The words of the member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) still linger in my memory, his magnificent voice with its great range, trills and variations have made him the first tenor of the group who chime in with the leader of the opposition, I still hear the hon. member exclaim in this House, on April 28, 1924:
Someone has described this budget as national suicide. I should like to describe it as national homicide.
The hon. member denounced the government for wanting to crush the eastern industries; he stated that the 1924 budget would no doubt ruin a number of legitimate industries.	.
The member for Fort William and Rainy River, might tell us, this year, with the same certainty, what are the legitimate industries that have been ruined by the 1924 budget?
Other speakers contended1 that the manufacture of farm implements, in particular, would be ruined; now, the facts as well as statements emanating from the manufacturers themselves prove the contrary. Indeed, Sir, if we compared the stature of the men of the Tory group to their criticisms, there are no giants among them.
Although the financial outlook of our policy bears a great importance, it is not the only one to hold our attention. The national spirit by which our policy must be inspired and guided is still more intimately linked with our life and future than the wealth or poverty

The Budget-Mr. Prevost
of our finances. Money lost can be replaced, with regard to our tariff, it strikes me, that in a country like ours, the various interests will guide the more and more, and for the better our tariff policy towards a happy medium.
I do not deny that all these problems of an economic order are important, however, none of them are a question of life and death for Canada. While the failure of the true Canadian spirit would cause the disintegration of our national life. If the Canadians do not live up to their high ideals, they will disappear as a nation. That is why we should, above all things, be Canadian citizens. I feel, Sir, that it is an easy task for me to express in the same breath, this notion of Canadiansliip together with the Mackenzie King government, for both go hand in hand. The Canadian Premier, in his statements and, still more in his attitude, has expressed a national ideal in unequivocal terms, openly opposed to the disastrous influences of British Imperialism or to all other policy foreign to true Canadian interests. At the time of the Anglo-Turk difficulty, when English politicians... and Canadians wished to foolishly drag us again in a new war, the King government's stand was what it should be. The same thing happened, at the last Imperial conference, also when the question of the Lauzanne treaty came up, and the Geneva conference, the Liberal government's attitude has been entirely autonomous and sincerely Canadian. You will bear witness, Sir, that the Premier will be highly censured for it! Already, in certain Tory and Imperialist circles, a price is put on his head, as the. Tories of 1837 and 1838, the ancestors of those of this day, put a price on the head of his grandfather, Lyon Mackenzie, the leader of the patriots of Upper-Canada, who fought the oligarchy and struggled to obtain responsible government.
The essentially national policy of the Liberal Premier has the support of all true Canadians. It is the policy of the future: a broad-minded and generous policy, considerate of all citizens, loyal to the empire, yes, but especially loyal to Canada itself, a great and rich country in partnership with England, and not a colony reduced to slavery.
Canada, is our great fatherland, it is our only fatherland. No doubt, I have like many others a special attachment for Quebec. What patriot, in any country, has not a preferred corner in his fatherland? Quebec is the corner of French Canadians and that is easily understood: that province is our cradle, and, that native soil will also be our tomb. The
tender and emotional love with which it inspires us does oertainly not exclude the expansive, deep and great love which we feel for the whole of Canada. Through the medium of Quebec, it is Canada that we love and wish to serve. In this parliament, where Canadians from everywhere meet, we feel that there must reign over political parties, races, various religious beliefs and private interests, a dominating thought : the Canadian spirit. As an the Forum of ancient Rome, where men of various races and social standing met, brushed against one another and1 were on an equal footing by the fact they could say:	"Civis romanus
sum"; in our Confederation, Canadian citizenship must make us all equal, united, proud and strong. The policy of those who govern and guide us must be inspired by such an ideal: To create this Canadian spirit where it does not exist and to watch its development and expansion where it exists, so that it may guide us in the right path, this broad and generous Canadian citizenship which is no more nor less than real love of our country.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Victoria, Alberta):: Mr. Speaker, if the long-winded speeches that we have listened to during this session of parliament were a solution for many of our difficulties in Canada, I can assure you that I would have no fear in regard to the Canada of the future. At the outset of my remarks, I want to say that anything I have to offer will be, not in any spirit of antagonism, but rather in a tone of encouragement, in an endeavour to encourage the government that has now the management of this country in its charge to carry out the policies on which it was elected. The situation is too serious at the present time for any true Canadian to try to make political capital out of it. It ill behooves either of the twe old parties to endeavour to make political capital out of the situation in which we find ourselves to-day, because they are both responsible for it. If we could cut out a great deal of politics from this House' and get down to business in a businesslike way, we might be able to make some progress.
Coming for a moment to the financial statement which we had presented to us by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his budget address, I would like to suggest that we adopt a system of bookkeeping that the average man in the street might be able to understand. On the one hand, we have the Acting Minister of Finance stating that we have a surplus at this time, while on the other we have the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) denying that we have a surplus and asserting that, on the contrary, we have a very large deficit. Every hon. member will agree
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

that these are two hon. members of very high standing in this House, and if they cannot agree on this question, what is the man in the country' going to do? This question should be settled once and for all, because I can picture what is going to happen in the country if an election takes place shortly, what statements are going to be made on the stump, one side holding up the splendid surplus that they advocate and the other side just as strenuously stating that there is no surplus but a huge deficit. The result will be confusion amongst the electorate in Canada.
As regards the Greek and Roumanian loans, it is Greek to many of us. I should like to commend the government for having placed those loans on a better financial basis, but further than that I do not see that they can take any credit at the present time. If, for instance, we should have a war in Europe in the near future-and such a thing is not unlikely under existing conditions overe there -^what would be the chance of collecting anything on that loan? The government would be well-advised to leave that amount out of their surplus until they have made a collection, and that would be the proper time to apply it to reducing the debt of this country.
As regards the budget, I am badly disappointed with the government at this time in not carrying out their pledges to the people at the last election. The people of this country' have placed in power a government, believing that they were truly standing for the pledges which they made to the people at that time. But we find that after taking a few' side-steps they finally came to the position of stand-patters. I read, with some interest, on the morning after the budget was delivered this editorial in the Ottawa Citizen. It is headed "A Standpat Budget" and it goes on to say':
Nobody expected the government to bring in any substantial changes in the method of raising revenue this session. None has been made. Although the great majority of members are committed to a fiscal policy of freer trade, they seem to have less power in the country than the small groups of special interests who oppose tariff reductions.
Party leaders are allowed to talk about the national policy, but the economic policy of Canada is determined by interests outside of parliament. That becomes yearly more apparent: it will probably continue so until the people of Canada, thinking as consumers, really know what they want to get from the building up of Canadian industry.
At the present time, the small groups of protected, bonused and subsidized interests know what they want. So far, they have succeeded in getting about everything they want from parliament.
It seems to me that that is the situation we have in Canada to-day, that while we have had governments in Canada ever since con-

federation going to the people and advocating certain policies, there has always been, I would almost feel like saying, another government behind the scenes pulling the strings. When we look back over the debates in this House since	confederation, we find that the
great	arguments have	been on	the
question, of protection versus free trade. Politicians have laboured and have filled pages of Hansard on this question, and yet we find ourselves to-day in the same position, debating the same old question. Taking the figures supplied by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) the other day, I find that the average tariff on all imported goods coming to Canada has been as follows: In 1878 the average was 13.1; from 1883 to 1896 it was 19.1; in 1898 17.5; in 1911 16.2; in 1922, 16.2; in 1923, 16.7; and in 1924, 15.1. Outside of the period from 1883 to 1896 when we had an average of 19.1 the tariff has not varied practically more than 1 per cent. I think there is something very striking in this for every member of this House as well as for every man in the country. It shows that we have had practically the same policy in this country during all these years, and I would ask any hon. gentleman in this House whether he would be prepared to stand up and express his satisfaction at the progress that Canada has made in the last half-century. Looking at our figures in the matter of .population in that time we find that in 1871 we had in Canada 3,689,257 people. Our total immigration into Canada in the past fifty years has been 5,099,692 while our natural increase has amounted to 3,931,125, or a total of 12,720,074. Yet in 1921 at the last census we had a population of only S,788,483. As I have said, we have had during the last fifty years practically the same policy, and we find that we have lost in that time 3,931,591 of our population. We have spent in our Immigration department over $30,000,000 and the results, as I have shown, are anything but satisfactory. Would any business concern put up with such a state of affairs? It seems to me that any business that had followed a certain policy for fifty years, practically without change, without making any greater progress than we have made under the policy that we have pursued would fire the whole management and adopt something new. Our Conservative friends say that we should have higher protection. Well, they have been in power a number of years during which this policy has been in effect, and yet we can see no very great change as a result of its operation. But suppose we did increase the tariff two or three per cent, what difference would that make?

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
Then our Liberal friends suggest that we might have the tariff a little lower. But if they reduced it by two or three per cent, would such a reduction show any appreciable difference? We have had practically the same policy all along, and in the case of either a reduction on this small scale or an increase there would be no great difference. I have come to the conclusion therefore that the time has arrived for some radical change in policy if we are to make any progress in the future.
This is a country of wonderful opportunities; we enjoy very many blessings. It is very seldom indeed that any hon. gentleman rises in this House who does not boast of our wonderful natural resources. So that when we think of these resources and reflect that this is a new country, it is disconcerting to realize what little progress we have made; we cannot help thinking that there is something wrong with the policy that we have followed. I want to ask the government to tell us why they have faltered in carrying out the policy upon which they were elected. Last year they made a fair attempt to implement it and several reductions were made. And our Conservative friends have not failed to seize every opportunity to inform the House that this partial adoption of the policy upon which the government was elected has been the ruin of industry in this country; they have told us how many industries have gone out of business. On the other hand, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) have declared that these industries that were affected last year by the tariff are showing splendid progress; they say that the implement firms, one of them particularly, paid very substantial dividends during the past year. And on top of this, according to the government's own figures, a surplus is shown in the budget this year. Well, if that is the case, and if the reduction in the tariff last year did not hurt these industries, what excuse have the government for not applying the same policy to every other industry? The government were elected on this platform of freer trade. Last year out of six by-elections they won five, and this to my mind would seem to have been an endorsement of the policy which they adopted at that time.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


William Thomas Lucas: The Minister of Justice says "hear, hear." I think the people who elected these candidates last year, if they had to pass upon them again, might vote differently.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are better satisfied than ever.


William Thomas Lucas: I am glad to hear that. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, we have had practically the same policy, except for a variance of about one per cent, during a number of years and we have made no great progress. I invite hon. members therefore to consider the question whether the time has not come for the adoption of some radical change. If we could not make greater prosperity in the past fifty years than we have made, in a new country, with low taxation and the lure of free lands, in the name of heaven what is the hope for the next fifty years with things as they are to-day? To my mind, protection as we have had it during the last fifty years has proved a failure, and I for one should like to see the government take its courage in its hands and get behind the free trade policy on which it was elected, and put it into effect. If the government would do that and would come out boldly and stand by that policy, making a fairly substantial cut of three per cent a year for five years, our industries would know what they might expect and would be able to adjust themselves to these conditions. And any industry that refused to place its cards on the table and reveal the condition it was in would simply have to take the consequences. On the other hand, as regards the industries that are indigenous, if any could honestly show us that they were unable to carry on, I	would	be	quite	agreeable to	somesystem of foondsing them for at least a	period	of	years	to see what	they
were costing the country and whether it was worth while to maintain them. In my opinion that which Canada most needs to-day is population. We have provided facilities in this country for a population of at least twenty-five or thirty millions, perhaps more; and nine millions of people are endeavouring to carry that load. We all know the condition our railroad systems are in today, and unless we can get more population in this country to produce more tonnage for our railroads, it seems to me it will be only a matter of a few years before they are facing a very serious situation.
Everybody admits we need population, but where are we going to put new immigrants? Can our cities absorb any more to-day? I think not. We have our bread lines, or at all events there is a great deal of unemployment at the present time. The only place where you can put these new immigrants is on the vast open spaces of this country. In my opinion we have had a policy which I might call a cart-before-the-horse policy. We have been trying to build up an industrial system
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

when what we needed was a policy that would develop those vast open spaces. You cannot put a settler on the land to-day and tell him that he has got to stay there. Unless he can make a fair return on his labour he is not going to stay on the land, and the result is that our cities are to-day overcrowded, and instead of our manufacturers building up a home market we find they have come to the point where they are now standing still and are waiting for more immigrants to come in to fill up the open spaces and build up a home market for them. Under those conditions I think the policy of this country should be directed right in line with the policy brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance last year. I believe that was a truly national policy, providing, as it did, for the development of our four basic industries- agriculture, mining, lumbering and fishing. I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that if we develop those industries and make them prosperous, we shall not need to worry about our manufactures. If our agriculturists on the great plains in the west, and in fact throughout Canada, had the purchasing power to supply their needs to-day, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, our manufacturers, even working night and day, could not supply their needs. Yet we find our politicians scrapping away over the same old policy that we have tried out for fifty years and found wanting. There is no business concern in this or any other country which after having tried out the policy for half the time we have tried it out in this country, and with no better success than we have, had, but would scrap it,-and scrap the men who were following such a policy if they did not make up their minds to change it. The United States have come to recognize that while their industries are important after all no one part of the country can prosper alone but all must move together. President Coolidge speaking at Chicago some time ago is reported as follows:
Real and permanent prosperity for the United States depends on putting agriculture on its feet, President Coolidge declared in a message to the farmer-manufacturing convention which opened here to-day.
"It is perfectly apparent to all of us that we shall not have real and permanent prosperity for the whole country, nor for the greater part of it, so long as any large and vitally important section of its productive industry is unable to prosper," Mr. Coolidge said in part.
"The plight of the farmers in recent years has been and will continue to be a menace to the prosperity of every other element in the community until we find means of relieving agriculture."
I would like to take this opportunity of bringing home to the Acting Minister of Finance the fact that we are looking very anxiously to him to bring down this session
[Mr Lucas.]
legislation upon the question of rural credits. I am pleased to see that Dr. Tory has brought in his final report, and I sincerely trust that the government will hasten to bring down legislation bringing his recommendations irntc effect. The financing of the farmer must be approached from no ordinary angle. What would be the position of all the successful manufacturing plants, factories and corporations of eastern Canada, if they had to pay eight or ten per cent for money, and if the capital in their business was subject to call every three or four years? They could not function, of course; they do not do business that way. Their capital is raised by the sale of long term stocks, bonds or debentures in the open markets, in the ordinary way that modern, scientific investment machinery demands. What we are asking for is that the business of agriculture be placed in the same position, that the farmer be allowed to mobilize his security and go into the markets on an equal basis with all other corporations. It can be successfully shown that the security based on agriculture is second to none.
A survey of the national wealth of Canada as of 1921 put the capital invested in farms and live stock at 86,587,000,000. In 1923 the total agricultural output amounted to over $1,300,000,000. Over fifty per cent of Canada's population is rural and makes its living off the land. That the prosperity of the farmer is the basis for national prosperity is well known. The western farmer is the mainstay and backbone of eastern Canadian industry. Assuming that these statements are true, and they cannot be disputed, we find an industry with assets worth nearly $700,000000. and an annual turnover of $1,500,000,000, with no modem method of handling their credit problems. The farmer is handicapped in having to function under a financial system that does not meet his requirements, is not only inadequate, but actually harmful economically, socially and politically.
The future of Canada does not depend upon the cities, and in saying that I am not disparaging our cities. It depends upon the farmer. Business is good when farmers have money to buy; but, going deeper, history has proven again and again that the strength of any nation lies in the number and prosperity of its small freehold farmers. It may not be generally known that Canada is the only important agricultural country in the world to-day that has not adopted a sound system for properly financing the business of agriculture. On the other hand, the western farmer must sell his products in the markets of the world in competition with countries

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
that enjoy the benefits derived from a scientific system of long-term loans, with a low rate of interest. In the United States, the Land Bank system has now functioned for seven years, including a period of great inflation, followed by one of drastic 'liquidation, and no serious weakness has appeared either in its theory or in its practical operation. It is universally agreed that the business of agriculture is entitled to capital on equal terms and at as good a rate of interest as any other manufacturer or corporation, providing the security is as good.
I should like to say to the Acting Minister of Finance that there will be great disappointment in western Canada if the government do not at this session bring down legislation providing for some system of rural credits to meet the situation in the west.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Will the hon. member tell us why the Alberta government does not bring into force the rural credit scheme that is already on the statute books of that province? They have a rural credit scheme there, and so far as I know, it has never been put into force.


William Thomas Lucas: I think the answer is quite
obvious. The provincial governments are not able to secure the money that is necessary for a scheme of this kind.


William Richard Motherwell: The province of Saskatchewan has put out nine or ten million dollars.


William Thomas Lucas: I think it is generally understood that the Dominion government can provide money much cheaper than any provincial government. The securing of money at a low rate of interest is one of the chief considerations in this matter. Unless we can secure the money at a reasonable rate there is no use in adopting the system, because we would be practically no better off than we are at present.


Mr. WARNER:: Is it not a fact that the Alberta government, before taking any further steps in the matter, were waiting to see what the Dominion government was going to do?


William Thomas Lucas: Yes, I think that is correct.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
surely does not mean to say that the province of Alberta cannot borrow money as cheaply under a Progressive government as the province of Saskatchewan can under a Liberal government?


William Thomas Lucas: What rati: of interest are the government of Saskatchewan paying for their money?


William Richard Motherwell: They are paying five per cent and charging slightly over six. That is my recollection.


William Thomas Lucas: I would like to say to the minister-


Mr. JELLIFF:: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether it is not a fact that the Saskatchewan government have ceased to make further loans to the farmers because they could not get money enough to do it?


William Thomas Lucas: I heard that statement made. I would like to say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that I understand the Saskatchewan government are very anxious to come in under the federal scheme.


William Richard Motherwell: The reason they are not lending more, if my hon. friend wishes to know, is because there are no investors to put their money into the scheme, and, further, that the money is not coming back as quickly as they would like.


William Thomas Lucas: They are evidently short of money, then. There is another question I would like to deal with, one that I think is of vital importance to Canada, namely, the handling of our grain through our own Canadian channels. I would like to refer hon. gentlemen to the report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Turgeon. If they will turn to pages 203 and 204 they will find some information that is worth noting in this connection. I quote:-
The report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce shows that in the crop year 1921-22 the exports of Canada wheat
Bushels
From New York, Baltimore, Boston and
Portland were	 100,009,466
From Montreal and Quebec	 28.030,051
From St. John, N.B	 6.604,898
Total	 134,744,415
So that the comparison between United States and Canadian seaports, in the export of Canadian wheat in that year was 74 per cent and 26 per cent.
In addition to this, several million bushels were shipped by Vancouver and went to Japan and China, or through the Panama canal, to Europe.
In the crop year, 1922-23 (1st September, 1922 to 31st August, 1923) the exports of Canadian wheat
were-
Bushels
To United States	 12,936,048
Via United States ports to United Kingdom and elsewhere	 129,871,095
Exported from Montreal and Quebec.. ..	57,030,848
Exported from St. John, N.B	 12,014,152
Exported from Vancouver	 17,829,671
which makes the comparison between United States and Canadian Atlantic seaports 65 per cent and 35 per cent as regards exports overseas.
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

The figures are also now available with regard to the export of Canadian wheat for the crop year ending 31st August, 1924. They
are as follows:
Bushels
To United States for consumption	 21,320,242
To United States seaports for export	 141,079,337
Exported from	Montreal and	Quebec	
63,568,444Exported from	St. John	
9,412,533Exported from	Vancouver	
53,809,505Total	
289,190,061
These figures show that the eastern coast exports continue as before, 66 per cent via United States seaports and 34 per cent via Montreal, Quebec and St. John. This is a very vital question, and these facts are in themselves a strong argument for the equalization of our freight rates through the mountains to Vancouver. In view of the percentage of grain that is going through American ports at present, to my mind there is no reason why we should not make every effort to encourage the shipment of that grain through our own Canadian ports. So far as the reduction of the mountain freight rate is concerned, I would point out that there are no mountains so far as grade is concerned from Edmonton to Vancouver, because we have as low a grade between those two points as prevails between Edmonton and Fort William.
According to the report of the grain commission the distance over which this great volume of business is being carried across the Atlantic are as follows:
Via New York-
Miles
Winnipeg to Fort William, rail	 420
Fort William to Buffalo, water	 860
Buffalo to New York, rail	 400
New York to Liverpool, ocean steamer.. 3,100
Total	 4,780
Whereas if sent all rail to Quebec or Montreal, the figures would be:
Via St. Lawrence-
Miles
Winnipeg to Quebec, rail (1,372 to Montreal). 1,350
Quebec to Liverpool, ocean steamer	 2,633
Total	 3,983
So that, as this report states, western province grain exported via New York has to be carried 800 miles further than if it were shipped at Quebec, or about 660 miles further than if sent all rail to Montreal. I quote further from the report of the commission:
It is true that the grain sent by New York has a shorter rail haul than that sent all rail to the St. Lawrence, but on the other hand, it is subject to two double transhipments, one at Fort William and one at Buffalo, which are not encountered on the other route. These additional elevator charges, combined with the lake freight and marine insurance from Fort 
William to Buffalo, not incurred on the all rail Canadian route, should more than compensate for the greater rail haul. For instance, the cost of handling wheat from Fort William to New York, in October, 1923, was:
cents
per
bushel
Elevator charge,	Fort	William	 1.25
Lake freight, Fort William to Buffalo.. ..	5.20
Marine insurance	 0.30
Elevator, Buffalo	 1.00
Bailroad freight,	Buffalo	to	New York.. ..	9.10
Elevator, New York	  1.00
Total cents per bushel	 17.85
The total by the Georgian bay route was 16.65 cents a bushel and by the all water route, 15.45. So that even if our grain went east through all-Canadian ports we find that it is a cheaper rate than going by New York. We find further from this report that in 1916 a rate of six cents a bushel from Winnipeg to Quebec was in effect on the National Transcontinental Railways, and Dr. Reid then Minister of Railways stated at that time that it was a profitable rate. A great deal of grain flowed that way under the six-cent rate. But later that rate was raised to 20j cents a bushel, and the result has been that the shipments have dried up. It seems to me that the government might well look into these questions and see whether a rate could not be provided that would keep more of our grain in Canadian channels. If we had a rate from Armstrong to Quebec in line with the Crows-nest rates from the west to Fort William, we would have a rate of 11 cents a bushel instead of 20J cents from Armstrong to Quebec. It seems to me that it would be good business to divert that traffic to our own Canadian railways rather than let it go through American ports. Moreover, the 'handling of this grain when it goes through our ports will provide a great deal of work for our own people.
Another matter that affects us vitally in the West is discrimination as between domestic and export rates. We find that in shipping grain through Vancouver the domestic rate is 4H cents per hundred pounds, while the export rate is 22J cents, a difference of 19 cents. Now when we come to ship that same grain, say to Montreal we find that the domestic rate is 63-J cents per hundredweight and the export rate 60^ cents or a difference of only 3 cents as compared to 19 cents at Vancouver. It certainly seems rather hard to understand why we should be penalized on the western route to that extent. I may say that our trade with the Orient is developing very largely so that rates on the western route are a matter of great importance.

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
I should like to revert for a few moments to the tariff question and to say that our manufacturing friends will have to adjust their business similarly to the adjustment the farmers have had to make in view of the conditions with which they have been faced, We have heard a great deal about the farmers adopting a system of mixed farming and they have been warned not to put all their eggs into one basket. Now, just to quote a few statistics from t'he province of Alberta, we find that while the total value of dairy products in 1905 amounted to only $1,000,000, in 1924 the, value had grown to $22,928,750; and that whereas in 1905 the product of 13 creameries reached a total of 813,000 pounds in 1924 there was an output of 21,500,000 pounds from 89 creameries. Of cheese 13 factories in 1915 produced 381,832 pounds, and in 1924 the output of the same number of factories had increased to 1,675,000 pounds. Our export of butter in 1922 amounted to 1,000,000 pounds, while in 1924 it had increased to 4,100,000 pounds. Therefore it cannot be said that the farmers in the west are not adapting themselves to the changed condition which has arisen. On the other hand we find that our manufacturing friends, instead of trying to meet those changed conditions, are coming whining to parliament year after year and asking for more protection. We find that while the manufacturers believe in protection on what they have to sell they are really free traders themselves when it comes to what they have to buy. Last year I met several gentlemen representing manufacturing concerns engaged in the steel business. They were complaining about conditions in their industry and in conversation with them I found they were buying most of their steel in the United States. I asked them why they were doing this and they said because they could buy cheaper there. I said "I presume it is good business to buy wherever you can buy the cheapest?" and they answered "Certainly". Then I said "If it is good business for you to do that why is it not equally good business for the farmer?" We find, as I say, that while these gentlemen are protectionists where the other fellow is concerned they are looking for advantages of all kinds for themselves. I placed a question on the order paper a few days ago and I find from the answer to it that while these gentlemen advocate protection for their own industries they receive in drawbacks practically one-tenth of the whole amount of duty collected by this country. I was always under the impression that this drawback was only paid on goods manufactured
in Canada for export, I was surprised to find that there is a very large amount of drawback paid on raw materials imported into this country and manufactured here for home consumption.
At this late hour I do not wish to delay the House any longer except to say this:	I
think that if we are ever going to have prosperity in Canada greater attention will have to be paid to the basic industries of this country. Personally I will be willing at all times to give my support to any government that will carry out a policy of that kind.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	I should like to speak in French,
in my own language, on rising to make my maiden speech, but I shall defer doing so until another occasion because I have certain views to express in the interests of my own constituency and wish to be clearly understood by every hon. member. I have 'been represented in certain quarters as an independent Liberal. Both words are synonymous and this is a case where the less is included in the greater. Ever since my boyhood I have been an ardent admirer of Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, in his immortal lecture on Liberalism in Quebec, declared that Liberalism was derived from two words- *liberty and liberality. I shall always remember what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said and shall act accordingly. He was one of the greatest men in the Liberal party in Canada, and, for many years, one of the greatest statesmen in the British Empire. I am glad to pay this compliment to the right hon. the Prime Minister:	He was faithful and true to Sir
Wilfrid Laurier when, on an occasion which everybody remembers, others who had proclaimed themselves his friends had deserted him. As a newly elected member I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the government, to every hon. member of this House-including hon. gentlemen opposite- for their courtesy to me; and I think that my colleagues whio were introduced with me at the beginning of the session share my views on this point. I wish not only to thank my fellow members but also the officers and employees of every department of the House for helping us in our work.
My county is a very large one, the population being about 50,000. It is one of the largest rural constituencies of the province of Quebec, and as my election took place only two months before the opening of the session I should like to put on Hansard an important resolution which was adopted at a meeting of the county council of my constituency:
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

should know each other and they should also know our country. The people of Quebec are not at all sectional as they are represented to be by some Ontario papers. They are practical people. They have lived for generations on the soil of their province. They are happy to live there. They love their country and they understand quite well that their country is Canada. They are not narrow-minded, they would be ready to defend Canada at any time; but they do not understand how money can be spent for any war outside of the boundaries of Canada. I am sorry that only one member of the Unionist party is in the House at present, but I shall be glad to invite him to come down next summer into my constituency and to introduce him to the farmers of lower Quebec. I am sure he will appreciate them, realize that they are good and reliable people, and give the news to some of his colleagues sitting next to him so that no mistake should be made in the future.
The Canadian stock is the best stock we have in this country. Two years ago there were in my constituency terrible forest fires which caused damages to the extent of at least $3,000,000. Some parishes were completely ruined and those people who were Canadian-born and who had lived generation after generation on our soil, instead of migrating to the United States, remained where they used to live. Their houses, their buildings were burned; nothing was left besides their wonderful courage. They said: "We have had trouble, but we will start again here." So they did. This is the kind of people that we should help, that we should keep with us. Instead of spending money for immigration to bring people to this country at a high cost, we should use that money in keeping our people at home and helping them to live happily on Canadian soil.
The government is continuing to grant a subsidy to the provinces for the upkeep of the roads. There are three kinds of public roads: there are the local roads, for the local use of the municipalities; there are the provincial state roads and there should be the federal state roads which should be at least in part in the care of the federal government. In my opinion the government should grant the subsidy to the municipalities instead of giving it to the provinces. Under the law of the province of Quebec the municipality may obtain from the local government a sum equal to what it spends, paying a low rate of interest. If the municipalities could get some direct help from the federal government they might be enabled to improve all their roads,

and at the same time communications would be improved between various parts of the country.
A ferry is needed between Riviere du Loup and Tadoussac. Some years ago a small wooden boat gave a regular service in winter as well as during the summer between Tadoussac and Riviere du Loup, taking advantage of one of the currents that would take it from Tadoussac to Riviere du Loup on one day, and the following day from Riviere du Loup to Tadoussac. Thus there was constant communication the year round. As one is fully aw&re, the north channel east of Tadoussac along the north coast is never closed up by ice fields as the south channel is, with the exception already mentioned between Riviere du Loup and Tadoussac. I hope therefore that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) will grant the request of the people of that district and of the city of Riviere du Loup and provide the ferry which is asked for. It is most important as it is the only connecting link in winter between that vicinity and that part of the north shore east of the Saguenay river. While speaking about highways I desire to say a few words about our railways. In my constituency at Riviere du Loup we have fine shops, good workingmen, and the equipment is up to date. The people there should be given an opportunity to secure employment. The Canadian National Railways line from Ste. Rosalie to Mont-Joli is a paying branch, but it is very hard to understand why the cars and engines used on that branch line are repaired in Moncton and Amherst. Such a transportation is very costly, and some cheaper and better work could be done at cost price at the Riviere du Loup shops of the Canadian National Railways. Cars marked O.K. at Moncton, supposed to have been well repaired have had to be sent back to Riviere du Loup to be put into proper condition. Another thing which it is difficult to understand is the fact that sometimes the Canadian National Railways send their own cars for repairs to foreign shops not belonging to the National system. It seems to me that we should give work to our own Canadian people and employees of the Canadian National Railways should have the preference. The work could be done by them at cost price, and this would be in keeping with the policy of economy preached by officials of the National Railways. My hon. friend from Victoria, Alberta (Mr. Lucas), has insisted on the ship' ping of grain through Canadian ports. I felt it my duty to join the delegation from the Maritime provinces, when it came here, in the request that Canadian grain should be shipped

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
via ports in this country. The Grand Trunk Railway now belongs to the country and is under the management of the Canadian National Railways. The branch from Montreal to Portland is a very paying line. Such result does not help the shipping of grain via Canadian ports. The trouble with the Canadian National Railways, as my hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Prevost) has said, started with the purchase of the Canadian Northern at the enormous price of $700,000,000. We now have to pay a big interest on that huge amount. Let us remember that it is not the present government that made that mistake; the responsibility must rest with the Unionist government and especially on the shoulders of Sir Thomas White who was the attorney of Mackenzie and Mann. I have a great respect for the officers of the Grand Trunk Railway as well as for the officers and the employees of the Intercolonial. The officers of the Grand Trunk were handicapped by the fact that their directors were living in England; and the Intercolonial had always shown a surplus before the amalgamation of the railways. But the only value of the whole Canadian Northern system was the tunnel at Montreal

a hole. Apart from that the equipment was not worth anything although it -was figured at $700,000,000. That was a piece of real crookedness. I cannot see how that railway could ever have been purchased at that tremendous price when it was worth nothing. It seems to me that the trouble with the Canadian National Railways is, first, that the property is over-estimated and secondly that it provides soft jobs. I was speaking a moment ago of the Canadian Northern. I understand that Mr. Hanna, while president of the Canadian National Railways, appointed as chief detective an ordinary detective who before had received a salary of approximately $1,200 a year, and he gave him a salary of $12,000 a year besides the use of a special car.
There are also heaps of officers in the dining and sleeping car department, of which Mr. Pratt is general manager. He is not a Cana-dian-bom man, and he is rather an immigration agent. He has brought many of his friends from the Old Country here to give them jobs as inspectors in his department. It is funny to see nearly every conductor and porter followed by a guardian angel in the shape of an inspector on the Canadian National Railways. All these soft jobs could be done away with, and it would mean that much less money for the country to pay.
Another handicap of the Canadian National Railways has been the higher grades ordered by the people who wanted to destroy Laurier's
work. Sir Wilfrid Laurier planned the Transcontinental to be a connecting link between all provinces and to develop new parts of this country, but when the Tories replaced him in poiver they did not like the glory he had won as Prime Minister, and they wanted to destroy his work, as the Germans have destroyed the northern part of France. That is why they changed the plans of the Transcontinental railway and made the grades higher, so that the traffic would be much less. They used that trick to give themselves a chance to criticize the Laurier administration, and the country has to suffer in consequence.
No one can be surprised that the Canadian National Railways sometimes come to the government for help. The Canadian Pacific Railway, which is now a paying concern, has repeatedly come to the government for grants of lands and grants of millions of dollars. The Canadian Pacific has been very well administered, and it is now one of the most important companies in the world. Quite a number of people give credit to Sir Henry Thornton for the reorganization of the Canadian National Railways. He certainly deserves some, but he is being helped' by very' capable men from the Grand Trunk and from the Intercolonial. He is at present chairman and president of the Canadian National Railways. I belive the duties of those two positions are too much, and I would suggest that the position of chairman should be occupied by the hon. Minister of Railways, in order that he might survey the way the railway is administered by the board of directors. Moreover, there should be no mystery made of the details of the administration of the road when questions are asked by members of the House. Sometimes we are called on to vote subsidies, and it is only justice and fair play that we should know why we have to pay them.
Another thing I must insist upon is fair treatment for the employees of the Canadian National Railways. I ask that the system of promotions should be adopted all along the line, all the time. It encourages employees to work well and do their best in the interests of the railway. Then I also ask that the correspondence of the employees with the officials should be carried on in both languages, that the correspondence should be in French when the employee is French and writes in French. The officials of the Canadian National Railways should also have a little touch of kindness and they will be rewarded by the gratefulness of the employees. It is not impossible to make a railroad pay. even one which is in a bad position. I read
The Budget-Mr. Povliot



END OF VOLUME II. REVISED EDITION