1925-04-15

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House ol
Commons Debotes
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 15, 1925
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: I beg to lay on the table copy of interim report, writings, telegrams and other documents in connection with the recent investigation into the fruit combine in the west, asked for by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) on April 6. These documents represent, I believe, all that the mover of the motion desires and include all the documents that the Department of Labour feels free to table at this time.

Report of the chief whips who attended the Wembley exhibition.-Hon. Mr. Robb.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	Has the government or any minister or official thereof, received from the government of the province of British Columbia, the following resolution unanimously passed by the British Columbia legislature on the 17th day of December, 1924, or any resolution to the same effect, namely,-
Therefore be it Tesolved, that this House go on record as being utterly opposed to the further influx of Orientals into this province, and further, that this House places itself on record as being in favour of the enactment of such amendment to the " Immigration Act of Canada," as is necessary to completely prohibit Asiatic immigration into Canada.
Be it further resolved, that this House is also of the opinion that the field of industrial and commercial activities of all Orientals now in Canada, particularly British Columbia, should be restricted by legislation.
And be it further resolved, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Goyemor, praying that he cause a copy of this resolution to be transmitted to the hon. the Secretary of State or other proper official at Ottawa, for presentation to His Excellency the Governor General in Council.
Be it further resolved,-that the government of the Dominion of Canada be respectfully requested to grant adherence on the part of Canada to no treaty or binding international obligation in any form whatsoever having the effect of limiting the authority or power of provincial legislatures in respect of the
regulation of social and industrial activities within the provinces; and, further that the government of the Dominion of Canada be respectfully requested to forthwith take the action necessary to bring about the denunciation of any and all treaties in so far as the terms and provisions of the same have the effect of depriving the Dominion of Canada of the power of regulation, control and prohibition of Asiatic immigration ?
2.	By whom was the said resolution received, and what disposition was made thereof?
3.	Has the said resolution been considered by the Privy Council, and if so, when?
4.	What action has been taken by the government in regard to the said resolution?
5.	What reply has been sent to the government of British Columbia in regard thereto?
6.	What action does the government propose to take in regard to the view expressed by the said legislature that it- i? utterly opposed to the further influx of orientals into the province of British Columbia, and in particular, does the government intend to comply with the request of the said legislature for an amendment to the Immigration Act of Canada to completely prohibit Asiatic immigration into Canada?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to give effect to the request of the British Columbia legislature to grant adherence on the part of Canada to no treaty or binding international obligation in any form whatsoever having the effect of limiting the authority or power of provincial legislatures in respect to the regulation of sociail and industrial activities within the provinces, as mentioned in the said resolution ?
8.	Does the government intend to give effect to the request of the said legislature to forthwith take the action necessary to bring about the denunciation of any and all treaties in so far as the terms and provisions of the same have the effect of depriving the Dominion of Canada of the power of regulation, control and prohibition of Asiatic immigration, as set out in the said resolution?
9.	Is it true that existing treaties between Great Britain and Japan prevent the legislature of the province of British Columbia from passing legislation prohibiting the holding or leasing of land by Orientals, and otherwise curtailing the rights and privileges of Orientals in British Columbia? If so, specify such treaties and give particulars of the effect thereof in regard to the matters hereinbefore mentioned.
10.	Is the said resolution now in the custody of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization or his deputy ?
11.	Why did the Deputy Minister of Immigration and Colonization refuse to furnish the member for New Westminster with a copy of said resolution?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Secretary of State, who transmitted it to the Clerk of Privy Council, for consideration by the cabinet.
3.	Yes. Upon its receipt.
4.	Its representations are receiving due consideration.

Questions

5.	The communication was officially acknowledged by the Department of the Secretary of State.
6.	Answered by answer to No. 4.
7.	The action to be taken with respect to treaties or binding obligations of the character referred to will be determined when the same present themselves for consideration.
8.	The government's action with respect to any and all treaties will be decided in the light of all international and other material considerations.
9.	In 1911 a treaty of Commerce and Navigation was concluded between the United Kingdom and Japan. In 1913 Canada adhered to this treaty, declaring it to have the force of law in Canada, subject to the provision that "nothing in this treaty shall be deemed to repeal or affect any of the provisions of the Immigration Act." (Japanese Treaty Act, 3-4 George V, chap. 27.)
Article I on this treaty is as follows:
The subject of each of the high contracting parties shall have full liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territories of the other and conforming themselves to the laws of the country:
(1) Shall, in all that relates to travel and residence, be placed in all respects on the same footing as native subjects; (2) They shall have the right, equally with native subjects, to carry on their commerce and manufacture, and to trade in all kinds of merchandise of lawful commerce, either in person or by agents, singly or in partnerships with foreigners or native subjects; (3) They shall in all that relates to the pursuit of their industries, callings, professions, and educational studies be placed in all respects on the same footing as the subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation; (4) They shall be permitted to own or hire and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops, and premises which may be necessary for them, and to lease land for residential, commercial, industrial, and other lawful purposes, in the same manner as native subjects; (5) They shall, on condition of reciprocity, be at full liberty to acquire and possess every description of property, movable or immovable, which the laws of the country permit or shall permit the subjects or citizens of any other foreign country to acquire and possess, subject always to the conditions and limitations prescribed in such laws. They may dispose of the same by sale, exchange, gift, marriage, testament, or in any other manner, under the same conditions which are or shall be established with regard to native subjects. They shall also be permitted, on compliance with the laws of the country, freely to export the 
proceeds of the sale of their property and their goods in general without being subjected as foreigners to other or higher duties than those to which subjects of the country would be liable under similar circumstances; (6) They shall enjoy constant and complete protection and security for their persons and property; shall have free and easy access to the courts of justice and other tribunals in pursuit and defence of their claims and rights; and shall have full liberty, equally with native subjects, to choose and employ lawyers and advocates to represent them before such courts and tribunals; and generally shall have the same rights and privileges as native subjects in all that concerns the administration of justice;
(7)	They shall not be compelled to pay taxes, fees, charges, or contributions of any kind whatever, other or higher than those which are or may be paid by native subjects or the subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation;
(8)	And they shall enjew a perfect equality of treatment with native subjects in all that relates to facilities for warehousing under bond, bounties, and drawbacks.
10.	Copy of resolution is now on file in the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
11.	The Department of Immigration and Colonization does not, as a rule, give copies of official documents and, if given, it is only when such documents are the sole property of the department -which was not the case in this instance, the document having been addressed to the Honourable the Secretary of State for presentation to the Governor General in Council.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION ELEVATORS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is delivery made out of the Vancouver Harbour Commission elevators of any commodity other than by warehouse receipt?
2.	Has the Board of Vancouver Harbour Commissioners recently sold 560 tons of screenings?
3.	If so, who purchased these screenings on behalf of harbour commissioners, and at what prices?
4.	Were the said screenings sold through brokers?
5.	What was the commission or brokerage paid by the harbour commission to the said brokers?
6.	Were the said screenings handled by one firm of brokers?
7.	What was the price received by said brokers for said screenings; and what was the net price received by the harbour commissioners for the said screenings ?
8.	At the close of the last crop year, was there not a shortage of screenings in the weigh-up of the Vancouver Harbour Commission elevators?
9.	If so, how is it that the harbour commissioners are now selling screenings through brokers?
10.	Why did the harbour commissioners not sell the said screenings direct after public advertisement?
11.	Is it conducive to confidence in public administration of terminal elevators to permit a member of

Questions
the harbour commission to hold a large interest in a grain handling firm, doing business with the harbour commissioners ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	The Vancouver Harbour Commissioners have sold 700 tons of screenings.
3.	They tvere purchased by the commissioners direct at $5 per ton.
4.	Yes.
5.	Twenty-five cents per ton.
6.	Yes.
7.	(a) $10 per ton. (b) $9.75 per ton.
S. Yes.
9.	Ample screenings on hand owned by the commissioners from 1924-25 operations along with warehouse receipts which were purchased 1923-24 operations take care of 1923-24 shortage.
10.	Public notice inviting tenders placed in Merchants' Exchange of this city by commissioners' broker for two days after advertisement in paper advising commissioners intended to call for tenders and screenings sold to the highest bidder.
11.	It is contrary to the usual practice to return answers to hypothetical questions.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Hon. Air. STEVENS:: 1.	Having reference to questions answered in Hansard, March 18, page 1261, is the government aware that in addition to the launch Fispa the harbour commission have a second boat known as the Atchinson and there is being built at Erickson Brothers a third?
2.	Were tenders called for the construction of the said boat? If so, how many tenders were received, in what papers did the advertisement appear, what was the lowest tender, what is the figure of the present contract for the construction of the said vessel?
3.	Was the acquisition of the second and the construction of the third vessel approved of by the government ?
4.	Out of what appropriation is the cost of the said vessel being paid?
5.	Was the government in possession of this information when answering the previous questions on page 1316?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The Vancouver Harbour Commission has in commission a boat known as Atkinson and there is being constructed another boat for the use of the commission by Erickson Bros.
2.	Tenders were called by public advertisement in the following newspapers: Vancouver Sun; Vancouver Province; Vancouver Star; Journal of Commerce. Five tenders were received, the lowest being $6,156.30 at which figure the contract was let.
132i
3.	No.
4.	Out of revenue of commission.
5.	No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RADIO STATIONS
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What has been the capital cost of the Canadian National Railways radio stations to date?
2.	What has been the cost of up-keep to date?
3.	What has been the cost of operation to date?
4.	What has been the total expenditure and indebtedness incurred in relation to this matter by the Canadian National Railways?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	To December 31, 1924, $51,621.63.
2 and 3. To December 31, 1924, $129,670.25. 4. To December 31, 1924, $181,291.88.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FREIGHT TONNAGE
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: "What arc the respective freight tonnage moved by the Canadian National system on the line running from Yellowhead pass to Vancouver, and the line running from that pass to Prince Rupert in each of the years 1923 and 1924?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1923	1924
Tons of revenue freight received at- Prince Rupert
from points east	 33,052	26,237
Tons of revenue freight received at Vancouver.. .. 336,501 676,942


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	What properties belonging to or under control of the Department of National Defence have been sold during the years 1923 and 1924?
2.	What amount of property was sold in each case?
3.	What amount was received for each property?
4.	Were tenders invited for any properties sold?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: 1,	2 and 3.-Property-Area and Price- (1) Beamsville, Ont., drill hall site, 0.32, $400. (2) Caledonia, Ont., drill hall site, 0.37, $350. (3) St. Ann's, Ont., drill hall site, 0.14, $120.	(4) Summerside, P.E.I., rifle range
(part), 5.95, $150.	(5) Sydenham hospital
site, Kingston, (part), 4.6 ac., $10,000. (6) Oshawa, Ont., drill hall site (part), 240 sq. ft., $420.	(7) Quebec, Citadel Glacis
(part), 1,035 sq. ft., $1,500.	(8) St. John,
P.Q., barracks site (part), 2.3 ac., S375.	(9)
Cartwright Point, Kingston, 60 ac,, $750. (10) Lauzon, P.Q., mil. reserve, 0.02 ac. $80.69.	(11) Cobourg drill hall site, 0.5 ac.,
price nil. (12) McGill drill hall site, Mont-
Questions

real, 0.41 ac., price nil. (13) Barrie, Ont., drill hall site, 0.06 ac., price nil. (14) Fort Francis, Ont., drill hall site, 0.75 ae., price nil. (15) Springville, Ont., drill hall site, 0.1 ac., price nil. (16) Campbellville, Ont., drill hall site, 0.12 ac., price nil.
4. Yes.


INSPECTION OF GRADES OF WHEAT
Mr. COOTE:: What was the number of bushels of wheat of each grade inspected at each inspection office in the western division, from September 1, 1924, to February 28, 1925?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: Statement-Showing number of bushels of wheat of each grade inspected at each inspection office in the western grain inspection division from September 1, 1924, to February 28, 1925
Grades	Winnipeg	Calgary	Duluth	Moose Jaw	Saskatoon	Medicine Hi	Edmonton	Vancouverbus	bus.	bus.	bus.	bus.	bus.	bus.	bus.1 Hard	. 59,175	21,040	15 780	1 Northern	. 27,259.950	4,208,000	232,755	411,595	278,780	770,590	490,495	1,3152 Northern	. 24,579.980	4,361,855	202,510	514,165	361,625	589,120	833,710	31,5603 Northern	. 24,335,390	3,824.020	402,390	792,945	109,145	374.775	1.581,945	118,350No. 4	. 23,898,810	2,343,330	335.325	464,195	53,915	144,650	861,325	69,695, 2,830	18,410	No. 5	. 12,631,890	838,970	42,080	172,265	5,260	30,245	312,970	28,930. 2,630	6,575	No. 6	. 5,233,700	456,305	6,575	26.300	1,315	6,260	149,910	10,520Feed	. 2.068,495	123,610	1,315	77 585	3,945Smutty	. 227,495	109,145	1,315	13,150	7,890	19,725	3,945No grade	. 10,946,080	2,239,445	126,240	80,215	163,060	23,670	1,898,860	231.440Rejected	. 954,690	103,885	44,710	2,630	19,725	10,520	2,630Condemned	. 19.725	1,315	2,630	No established grade. .	. 114,405	11,835	1,315	7,890	1,315	. 3,801,665	1,315	73,640	1,315	Wheat and Wild Oats.	. 7,890	1,315	2,630	1,315	10,520	1.315	1,315	1,315	(B.C.) No. 1	2 630(B.C.) No. 2	3 945(B.C.) No. 3	1,315136,144,580	18,659,850	1.497,785	2,478.775	973,100	1.993.540	6,238,360	510,220FERRY SERVICE	AT GROSS	POINT	3.	Matter of extra trips three times a we


Mr. JONES:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works send a representative to ascertain whether or not the ferry service between Gross Point, New Brunswick, and the municipality of Mann, in the province of Quebec, met with the approval of the residents interested in this service, especially in the municipality of Mann?
2.	Is it not a fact that a request was made that this service should continue until 10.30 at least three nights a week?
3.	If so, why was it not considered before the letting or renewal of the contract?
4.	What offers were made by Robert Sinclair, Harper, Andrew and Allard, in connection with this service?
5.	What are the conditions contained in the contract now in existence between the present incumbent and the department?
6.	Is th,e present incumbent paying anything to the department for this contract?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 

VIOLATION OF NOVA SCOTIA TEMPERANCE ACT

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Is the Department of Customs and Excise aware that within a year from date there was a violation of the Nova Scotia Temperance Act on the premises at Halifax, Nova Scotia, of the Franco-Canadian Import Company, which company is permitted by the department to conduct a bonded warehouse for intoxicating liquors in the said city?
2.	If so, what steps, if any, have been taken by the department in the matter?
3.	Is the Department of Customs and Excise aware that some person interested in the above-mentioned company and its bonded warehouse at Halifax, within a year from date, has been accused of being guilty of violation of the customs and excise laws?
4.	If so, have any proceedings against such person been taken, or directions for proceedings issued, and in what stage is the matter?
5.	If no proceedings have been directed or commenced, why is the matter not proceeded with?
Hon, Mr. CARDIN:
1. Yes. The violation, however did not take place on the bonded premises of the company.
Questions

2.	Investigation was directed and all transactions with regard to bonded warehouse were found to be regular.
3.	Yes.
4.	A solicitor was appointed to represent the crown and prosecute the company if evidence available warranted. Solicitor reported that evidence not sufficient to obtain conviction against company or any agent thereof.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FREE TRANSPORTATION

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Did the railway commission recently rule that free transportation on the railways of Canada was to be granted to deputy ministers and their families?
2.	Do any civil servants and (or) their families enjoy free or reduced fares on the railways of Canada?
Hon .Mr. GRAHAM:
1.	By general order of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, No. 274, dated 20th November, 1919, the railway companies under the jurisdiction of the board were permitted to issue free transportation to certain officials of the government of Canada-amongst others, deputy ministers of the federal government and those having the rank of deputy ministers. Under date 9th March, 1925, by order No. 36140, the said general order No. 274 was amended, upon the application of the Railway Association of Canada, dated June 12, 1922, by adding at the end of clause (f) of order No. 274 the words-"and the dependent members of their families."
2.	Reduced fares on government railways formerly granted to civil servants were abolished some years ago.
The only civil servants who may now receive free transportation are those referred to in answer No. 1 and (a) officers and employees of the Department of Railways and Canals, or their families; (b) ministers' secretaries; (c) certain officials of the Departments of Customs, Immigration and the Post Office, in the discharge of their duties.



STEAMER MURRAY STEWART

Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	Is the steamer Murray Stewart still in the service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries?
2.	Was this steamer purchased from or named after the Mr. Stewart of Toronto, recently connected with the Home Bank?
3.	What was the price paid by the government for this boat?
i. What was the total cost of operating this steamer during 1921, including repairs, supplies, wages of crew, stc.?	.
5.	How many days during the season of navigation in 1924 was she in active service, and how many days
LMr. Cardin.]
was she tied up to the dock at Parry Sound or elsewhere ?
6.	Has the department found this boat suitable for the work in which she is engaged?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Purchased from James Frederick Martin. Stewart.
3.	$80,000.
4.	$27,208.38.
5.	Commissioned April 20, 1924, to September 30, 1924, and from November 25, 1924, to December 23, 1924.
6.	Yes.



FRENCH OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Why was the introduction to the Annual Report on Education in Canada, for 1923, published and distributed by the Statistical bureau, not translated into French?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to restrict, in the future, the number of French official publications ?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	The introduction to the Annual Report on Education for 1923 has been translated into French. A separate edition in French of this report is being issued.
2.	No.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


*Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	By what firms or persons were groceries and other provisions supplied to Dorchester penitentiary last year?
2.	Were tenders called for these supplies?
3.	What were the quantities and prices?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: The answer to this question is a most voluminous one. If my hon. friend insists on having it answered I have no objection. I think the purpose will be served by changing it into an order for return and I will reply immediately. The question asks for all the supplies sold to Dorchester penitentiary.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: All right.



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: Has the Minister of Railways received the Peace river transportation report? If not, does he not think it is time to call a conference, or do something else to get somewhere on the question?

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey


George Perry Graham: The last .part of
that question is unkind. I expect to have an interview with the heads of the railways tomorrow. It is not a conference as referred to by my hon. friend, or as understood by him, but I have asked the heads of the railways to meet me to-morrow to ascertain what they have to say on the matter.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Is the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) able to make any statement to the House with respect to the Australian treaty? If his answer is to be that matters are as they were when he spoke last, will he explain What relation the point in question has to the terms of the treaty itself, and whether in the meantime we might not have laid on the table the actual treaty as already signed, though not ratified. It would be of some advantage-to the House fur the purpose of study even if we are not allowed to act upon it.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I received a letter yesterday from a firm there largely interested in the export of paper, and they want to see the proposal go through- If the minister wants to see the letter I will send it to him.


George Perry Graham: We all received such a
letter.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: I have received a lot of such
letters. I have nothing further to add to the statement made a few days ago more than this. I would like to correct my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen). He knows that there is no such thing as a treaty between the two dominions. The term used is an agreement. There has been no treaty signed as my right hon. friend suggests.


Arthur Meighen: An agreement signed?


James Alexander Robb: No, nor an agreement. I have nothing to add to the statement I made a few days ago.


Arthur Meighen: Why could the agreement not be laid on the table? The minister said there was an agreement.


James Alexander Robb: No, I said there was no agreement signed.


Arthur Meighen: Then it is still in the
negotiation stage?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 14, 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.
Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (West Kootenay):: The reasons for my rising to take part in this debate are based principally upon three grounds: first, to give if possible a true account of present and past conditions in the province of British Columbia with particular reference to my own district; second, to impress upon the government some legislation in which my province and more particularly my constituency are interested, and third, to place before this House my position in regard to the present budget. I wish to base my remarks, few though they may be, on a spirit of confidence. I rise in a spirit of optimism, with the utmost confidence in my province and in this country. I have listened very attentively to practically all the speeches that have been delivered during this debate. I have been greatly impressed by many of them, and I have noticed that the majority have been characterized by a strong infusion of the spirit of pessimism. I have often said to myself in the course of the speeches made during this debate that I am indeed glad, and consider myself fortunate, to live in a district and a province in which, in my opinion, there is not such a wave of pessimism. That is my first purpose in rising to take part in this debate.
Going on further, I might say that most of the speeches that have been made during this debate have referred to either protection or free trade, and the same thing is true of speeches delivered during many of our debates, the contention being that either protection or free trade is the cure for all our troubles and ills in Canada. In fact, I think during this debate we have heard the budget speech which was delivered by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) called nearly everything a budget speech could be called. It is my intention, not to take issue with regard to those remarks, but if possible, to put on record in this House my views as to what are the paramount or first issues in this country, or in other words, what I would consider questions of the greatest importance. My position is that I do not consider the tariff question altogether the most important issue in Canada to-day. I know quite well there are in this Dominion people who have made

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
an interesting and; exhaustive study of the tariff question and who maintain that it is the most important. I maintain that the question of decreased taxation, the question of expenditure and questions pertaining to transportation are of greater importance to this country than the tariff question.
I wish to consider the affairs of Canada along the lines of a strictly big business proposition, as I would consider the affairs of a private business, and to urge a decrease, if possible, in the burden of taxation and the adoption of policies that will be in the best interest of the country. I desire to be identified with policies that will work out to the benefit of the country, that will restore public confidence and that will, if possible, overcome some of the serious tales of woe that are continually being broadcasted throughout Canada. If, in any degree, confidence can be restored by some other means than by recognizing the tariff as the paramount issue, I believe it will assist in lessening our taxation burden.
I should like, for a moment, to explain my position in this House. My primary duty has been to labour and to the farmer. I was not elected under the auspices of and I do not owe a duty to any political organization, and this, perhaps, accounts for some of the positions I may be able to take and why I may be able to look at questions from a different angle. Not having a political organization to respond to, but having a primary duty to my supporters, especially to labour and to the farmers, I might be in a different position as regards some of the statements to which I shall refer.
Keeping in mind my first reason for taking part in this debate, I should like for a moment to refer to conditions in British Columbia. Yesterday evening, we listened .to a very interesting address delivered by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie). At the conclusion of his remarks, he, being a member for British Columbia, referred to the conditions in that province. Having the honour and privilege of representing a constituency in British Columbia, I cannot subscribe to all that he stated last night, and I should like to describe conditions as I find them to-day in my province and more especially in my constituency, keeping in mind The remarks that have been made by previous speakers, particularly the Minster of Public Works (Mr. King) and the hon. member for New Westminster. My statements that I have confidence in this country and that I am filled with a spirit of optimism, are, I believe, based on existing conditions in British

Columbia. In my constituency business conditions have not been as good' for many years. There is increased activity in mining and in practically every other industry in the province. It is only necessary for anyone tt>
pick up a newspaper from British Columbia to find that these statements are, in the main, correct. This increased activity is prominent, not only in one part of British Columbia, but throughout the entire province.
I am not prepared to say just what is the reason for this period of prosperity, nor do I intend either to give credit to, or to criticize anyone in particular. I say simply that this condition now exists in British Columbia, and if the present government wishes to take any degree of credit in the circumstances I for one have no hesitation in according it. We are taking the conditions to-day as we find them in the province, and after listening to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for New Westminster last evening the House might be inclined to believe that the state of things in British Columbia was just the same as has been described by practically every hon. member to my right. That being the case, I desire in my own small way to give as briefly as possible the situation as I see it. The hon. member for New Westminster, in dealing with the questions affecting the province of British Columbia, referred to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) observing that he, like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), had tried to make conditions in that province appear rosy. I quote from the remarks of the hon. gentleman:
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. . . .
Further on he said:	j
That is all right. I quite agree with the Minister of Public Works that things in British Columbia are, in some respects, getting better. But what has the government got to do with it?
Well, as I have already said, I am not here to defend the government; but I am here to give if possible as true an account of conditions in the province and in that connection to offer probably a word of criticism. The hon. member went on to say:
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.
I am not so much concerned about these statements, nor do I wish to criticize too harshly what the hon. member has seen fit to

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
say. But as I have the privilege and honour of representing a mining district I think I am in a position to represent mining conditions fairly accurately. So far as I know, my hon. friend, living as he does in the city of New Westminster, has not very many mines in his district; nor are there very many mines within the radius of New Westminster. The district of West Kootenay, on the other hand, is practically a mining centre and its greatest asset is the mining industry. I can therefore say something on the subject, and in my opinion there are many conditions that have gone to place the industry on a better basis. There are many factors to account for the renewed activity in mining; and this being our greatest asset, there is no question in the world but that labour, the farmer, the producer and the consumer alike, must all be interested in what brings about prosperity to the mining industry in that province. And what brings about prosperity in mining in British Columbia brings about prosperity in other parts of the Dominion.
Some criticism has been offered of the action taken by this parliament last year in endorsing the move of the present government in sending representatives over to the exhibition at Wembley. I for one at the time expressed myself as being heartily in accord with the policy. Since then I have been favoured with many interviews with people who have come in contact with the representatives not only from this parliament but as well from our provincial governments, and I gather that our representation at the exhibition has been one means of bringing about a renewed activity in our mining districts. Personally I have always believed that in this country it is well for us not to be at all backward in telling others of our resources, and we should not fail to recognize that in our mining district we have a great asset. The visit of our representatives to Wembley has been responsible for thousands of pounds of foreign capital being invested, in my own district for example. As a result of the information which our representatives were able to give over in England regarding our mining resources, we have been favoured since last summer with visits from people in Great Britain, particularly from England, with authority to invest thousands of pounds of English capital in the district. This has happened within the last year and it has restored confidence among the people; it has opened up our mining resources. And in my opinion it has done much more than this [DOT] it has served, if only to a modest degree, to unite the Dominion of Canada closer with Great Britain by interesting the Mother
Country in our resources and in this way securing British capital to develop our mining industry. In that way, it seems to me, our representation at Wembley accomplished some good. The capital that has come into the district has been the means of opening up many mines that are of great value; it has opened up resources that were lying idle. Speaking of mining, I believe that in this district we have one of the largest mines in North America; as a matter of fact we have the largest smelter on the North American continent. To corroborate my statement that there has been increased business, with an accompanying wave of optimism, I would refer to a mining and smelting company in the district which is well recognized as the Consolidated Mining & Smelting Company. Only within the last two or three days the company published their annual report; and whether or not this government takes credit for the condition of affairs there, the fact remains that while the present administration has been in power certain legislation has oeen enacted in regard to mining, and1 this company is in a very sound financial position, doing a real service to the district.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: To what legislation
does the hon. gentleman refer?


Levi William Humphrey: It will be seen that the hon. member does not live in a mining district or he would not ask that question. He should know that some two years ago this parliament passed legislation providing for a copper bounty, and that is at least one factor that enters into the present situation.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is that not just continuing the bounty?


Levi William Humphrey: No. That goes again
to show that the hon. member is not well versed in the mining situation. The government up to 1921 had a very expensive tariff commission travelling the country, and a promise of a bounty on copper was made this company, but it did not materialize until this government came into office, it being granted in 1922. I do not wish in any way to criticize, but I want to place the facts before the House. If there is credit due to anyone may it be given him, and if opposition is to be expressed I am the first to express it, but I was going to state-


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. member
any information as to when the lead and zinc bounties were given, and the results?


Levi William Humphrey: Mr. Speaker, at the
moment I have not any particular information. I am quite well aware that these bounties were

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
granted by the previous government, and I am also well aware that they are not in existence to-day, that as soon as the present company and others were in a position to get along without the bounties they automatically ceased.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
not tell some of the results that came from those bounties, though?


Levi William Humphrey: I have not the facts
at hand to go into all the results. I do not know whether there are any particular results that can be shown to-day. At the time the lead and zinc bounties were in effect I am quite walling to admit that there were good results obtained.


Arthur Meighen: There are yet.


Levi William Humphrey: To some extent that
has passed. There are no lead and zinc bounties in existence in the province to-day. I am quite willing to concede that they were the means of establishing the lead and zinc industry upon a substantial and sound footing. For example, in 1924 this particular institution sold lead and zinc products to the value of nearly $15,000,000. But the point I would emphasize particularly is that conditions in the mining industry are getting better each year. If this improvement has been brought about in any way by legislation, I am quite willing to concede the fact. May I quote from the annual report of the company published some few days ago? This extract is interesting:
After taking care of current development, depreciation of plant, depletion of property, and paying interest on bank loans, the net profits were $4,341,014.30, as compared with $2,401,346.71 iin 1923, $1,467,528 in 1922, and $570,043 in 1921.
I need scarcely assure the House that this comparison makes it abundantly clear that the industry is not going out of business. I am confident that the mining industry as a whole is improving, and this perhaps contradicts some of the statements of our hon. friends to the right that our industries are going out of business. At any rate the mining industry is not going out of business in British Columbia, and practically every business is improving to some extent.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the hon. member *efer to the poultry industry?


Levi William Humphrey: I am not so much concerned about the poultry industry going out of business, I am aware that certain representations have been made to the government and to hon. members respecting this industry, based on pretty much the same grounds as

representations regarding the development of Vancouver. I do not know that I am in a position to go so far with the poultry industry as with some of the other industries. Practically every question interjected in the course of this debate hinges upon protection or free trade; when a question comes from our friends to the right it is based on protection, and therefore I am not so much concerned as I have not considered protection to be a paramount issue of the day.
Following up my remarks regarding conditions in British Columbia, -while I hesitate to go beyond my own constituency,-for I feel that the representatives of other ridings in my province are more competent to speak for conditions in their districts,-yet I crave the indulgence of any of my hon. friends in referring to one particular question, I mean the reimbursement of the Home Bank depositors. The city of Fernie suffered severely, the losses of Home Bank depositors exceeding $800,000. Notwithstanding the protracted strike among the miners, and in the face of this heavy loss, the town and district of Fernie, I am informed, is now entering upon a period of better conditions. So far as my information goes the mining industry was never in better shape than it is to-day. But I am given to understand that practically every citizen was directly affected by the Home Bank failure. As I say, there are other members who are perhaps better posted on local conditions, but living in a district adjoining Fernie, and having many close associations with the locality, I -feel that I would be shirking my duty if I did not press upon the government the urgent need of legislation to reimburse these depositors. Legislation to this end would help to restore confidence, which is so important not only to the people in the Fernie district but also to those in other districts.
Further substantiating my remarks regarding conditions in my province, particularly in my own district, I may say that 1924 proved the best year for the small-fruit growers that they have enjoyed for a long time. Better returns were obtained from the sale of their fruit, and as the fruit grower is in an improved financial position he has a feeling of renewed confidence which cannot but be helpful. The inquiry into combines with respect to the marketing of fruit, which took place last year, has had a good effect, and we can only hope that the government will follow up the investigation, benefiting, as it does, the fruit growers of British Columbia. The investigation disclosed startling conditions, and I trust the government will enforce any legis-

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
lation that is necessary in this connection even though the provinces do not consider it wise to take the initiative.
I would be failing in my duty to my constituents did I not also continue to press the government to take some action in the way of legislation respecting Asiatic immigration. I will go so far as to say that the conditions in British Columbia to-day, more particularly in my own district are better than they were four or five years ago; I have received many favourable comments regarding the legislation that was enacted by this parliament imposing restrictions upon Chinese immigration. But I would strongly urge the government to go further, to keep up the good work they have started, by tightening the regulations and by introducing further legislation with respect to Japanese immigration. If the policy already adopted can be continued with respect to the Japanese I am sure it will meet with the grateful approval of the people of British Columbia.
I need not dwell at length upon the necessity of legislation respecting old age pensions, because I notice that the government have a resolution on the order paper looking to some action in this regard. So far as I can see now, their proposals in this respect will receive my whole-hearted support.
I would like to tough for a moment upon one or two questions affecting our returned men; and as these matters also are to some extent covered by legislation of which notice appears on the order paper, it will not be necessary for me to discuss them in detail. But I would like to refer to one of the reports brought down by the special parliamentary committee appointed last year to look into these questions. I have always maintained that the conditions affecting the returned men in Canada were not as they should be, notwithstanding the legislation that has been passed in that connection. A good deal of expense could be eliminated by a reorganization of the different pension boards and medical staffs. I am aware that the report submitted to the House last year was not concurred in; nevertheless I would like to emphasize the fact that that recommendation was adopted by the special committee and reported to the House, and the government are bound at least to take some notice of it. I would like the privilege of putting on Hansard the fifth report of this committee, which was submitted to the House on Tuesday, July 15, 1924. It reads as follows:
In view of the widespread dissatisfaction amongst returned men and others, and the representations made in regard to the attitude shown by the present Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, your committee
has taken evidence and having considered the matter very carefully, has come to the following conclusions:
That the interests of the returned men will be better safeguarded, and the intent of parliament will be better carried into effect by a more sympathetic interpretation of the Pension Act, and its schedules, and that this can be best carried out by the reorganization of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada and the medical services attached thereto.
Your committee therefore recommends to parliament that the government be asked to take the necessary steps to carry this resolution into effect.
That report embodied the sentiments of the returned men generally, and if the government can find it possible to act upon it I am confident that a good deal of expense will be eliminated and much of the dissatisfaction that now prevails throughout the country among the returned men will be overcome. I have had my attention drawn to a resolution adopted by the Nelson branch of the Great War Veterans' Association, and I notice also that this resolution was included in the memorandum presented to the government this year by the Dominion Veterans' Alliance. It reads as follows!
Whereas November 11th does and always should remain in the memories and hearts of Canadians as the anniversary of a day of rejoicing and supreme thankfulness; and as it is fitting and right that this date be perpetuated for all time to keep alive in the minds of our people the supreme sacrifice made by 60,000 of our comrades who died for their country, it is resolved;
That the Nelson branch of the Great War Veterans' Association go on record as strongly opposed to the anniversary of armistice being observed on any other date than the eleventh of November, which date should be declared a legal holiday by legislation.
Action should therefore be taken to have the existing act of 1921 to read:
"The eleventh day of November, being a day in 1918 in which the Great War was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Armistice Day."
This resolution is backed up by practically every social organization in my city, and it is the demand of the representatives of the Dominion Veterans' Alliance. It is not necessary for me to go into the matter in detail; I think it is obvious that the government should take some action to recognize the 11th of November as a legal holiday. The practice of combining Armistice Day with Thanksgiving Day, as was done last year, Should not, it seems to me, be continued; there is no doubt that when it comes to determining the holiday the preference should be given to the 11th of November. I trust that the government will recognize the value and importance of the resolution.
One of the most important questions that demand our interest to-day, I think, is transportation. It is a question that has been before the public for the past few years, and

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
no doubt will be more prominently before us during the coming year. There have been many complaints and criticisms during the past few years of the high freight rates, and the argument has been used that freight rates, were high because of the high wages paid to the railway employees. Having been identified in many ways with railway operation and railway construction not only in this country but in the United States, and having' had the privilege of studying railway conditions not only in Great Britain but on the continent for the last twenty years, I feel that I can speak with some authority on this question more particularly from the point of view of the railway employee. I believe that an organized propaganda has been carried on to confuse the public mind over this question of high freight rates, and to make it appear that they were due to the wages paid to railway employees. An organized propaganda has been carried on with a view to creating that impression, and I should 'like to go into that phase of the question for just a moment in view of my position with regard to labour, and because of the fact that I am directly in touch with labour, the railway employees, and the railway question. My only object is to have the true facts placed before this House and before those who have an interest in this question. Many have approached me, with whom I have had discussions of this question, stating that they have been misled into believing that the high freight rates were the direct result of the high wages paid the railway employees. Labour is interested in railway rates only in so far as those rates will conduce to the prosperity of the railway and the prosperity of the country, and they are only asking, and so far as I know have only endeavoured to obtain, recognition of that to which they were justly entitled. I hope and trust that parliament will not in any way endeavour to bring in the wage question when it comes to consider the adjustment of our freight rates. I believe the officers of our different railway companies are quite capable of adjusting the wages of the employees over whom they have control, and in that connection I should like to quote a paragraph from a speech delivered by Sir Henry Thornton:
Trade unions are here. They cannot be gotten rid of, and it is very much better to work with them than to fight with them. I have had considerable experience with labouring men on both sides of the Atlantic, perhaps more especially in England, and I have never yet had a trade union leader or a trade union play any other way than is fair.

Further on he says:
I see no reason why there should be constantly recurring contentions between capital and labour. X Relieve that labour properly handled will invariably respond.
I believe that is practically the position that labour would take also. It is a well known fact that conditions respecting labour in this country are as good to-day as in any other country of the world, but on account of the misrepresentation, as I would call it, that has been going on, perhaps by members of this House, not directly but indirectly, in reference to wages being the cause of certain conditions, I should like to refer to that matter a little further.
In the month of September last year an application was made to the Railway Commission for a reduction of freight rates. I understand that the hearing has not yet taken place.
The application was made on the 4 p.m. 11th of September, 1924, and in arguing for a reduction in freight rates, the applicants urged that the wages of the employees should be reduced. I believe the company that made the application is a member of the Manufacturers' Association, and I would infer that this was an organized attempt to create in the public mind the impression that the wages of the railway employees were too high. The application was made by- the Tudhope Anderson Company, Limited, of Winnipeg, which has a factory in the town of Orillia, Ontario. They applied to the Board of Railway Commissioners:
-for an order declaring that all existing tariffs of freight rates established and promulgated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and by the Canadian National Railway Company and the entire rate structure embodied in and upon which the said tariffs have been promulgated and established are unfair, discriminatory, excessive, and contrary to the provisions of the Railway Act, and that the said rates as established and promulgated constitute an unjust, unfair and unreasonable exaction upon all shippers and consumers of goods throughout Canada, and unfairly exact from shippers and consumers of goods throughout Canada large sums of money which from the point of view of sound public policy and of fair dealing between shippers and consumers of goods throughout Canada on the one hand, and the said railway companies and their employees on the other, should be prohibited and brought to an end.
They further state:
That the respect in which the said tariffs and the freight rate structure embodied therein and the exactions made under and by virtue thereof are unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory and excessive is by reason of the fact that the said rates contain as a large element an allowance for the wages of the employees of the said railway companies, out of which allowance for wages the said railway companies pay to employees engaged by them in the carriage of goods

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
and ancillary services, unreasonably high, unfair, extravagant and discriminatory wages, by reason of which the said railway employees are able to maintain and do maintain a high standard of living at the expense of shippers of goods and in particular of producers of cereals, live stock and agricultural and dairy products of all kinds, whose prices for their products are materially reduced by reason of the high freight charges exacted by the said tariffs for the carriage of their products, and the said producers are as a class suffering great hardships and unable to maintain a reasonable standard of living by reason in great measure of the aforesaid unreasonable tariffs.
And Tudhope Anderson Company Limited further state that the said wages paid to the said railway employees are unreasonably high, unfair, extravagant and discriminatory in comparison with the wages of other industrial workers throughout Canada and that by reason of the tolls exacted by the said tariffs the wages of other industrial workers are forced down and lowered and their standard of living is lower than is fair and reasonable.
And Tudhope Anderson Company Limited further state that the said (railway employees are receiving grossly high and excessive rates of wages which enable them to live in a state of luxury which is wholly unjustified having regard to the nature of the services rendered by the said employees when such services are compared with the services rendered by other classes of employees throughout Canada who receive wages very much less in amount.
And Tudhope Anderson Company Limited further state that the wages of the said railway employees were advanced during the period of the war and shortly'thereafter at a time when the prices of commodities and wages were generally inflated and notwithstanding a general reduction in the rates of wages and prices of commodities, the wages of the employees of the said railway companies are still maintained by the said companies at unfairly high levels and the said railway employees are in fact enjoying real wages much greater in amount than they at any former time have enjoyed, while the real wages received by other workers and the real prices received by producers of commodities are materially lower than the wages and prices which existed at the time the wages of the said railway workers were advanced as aforesaid, which advance is commonly known as the McAdoo Award.
And Tudhope Anderson Company Limited represent that the public interest and the interest of all classes in the community, excepting railway workers, demand and require that freight rates should be reduced by cutting down and lowering the element in the said rates which represents wages paid to the said railway workers, and the said railway companies should be directed and ordered to submit tariffs in which the labour element shall be reduced to bring back the wages of the said railway employees to a parity with the wages of other industrial employees and into fair relationship with the prevailing prices of the commodities carried by the said railway companies.
And Tudhope Anderson Company Limited further state that if it should be represented or made to appear that the unfair rates of wages paid by the said railway companies as aforesaid cannot be reduced by the said companies by reason of the fact that the said railway workers have great bargaining, economic and political power, and by reason of the fact that their refusal to accept lower wages might be enforced by a general interruption of railway traffic throughout Canada, then the said companies should be directed and informed that such portion of the said wages as is found to be excessive and unjust must be borne by them by way of decrease of profits or increase of deficits as the case may be
to the end that the proprietors of the roads shall bear the burden of such excess and that they shall not be permitted to impose such excess on the shippers of goods.
I apologize for going to the extent of reading this document, but I want to emphasize the fact that there is a prevailing opinion throughout the country, caused by misrepresentation, that these wages are responsible for the high freights, and therefore I wish to reply in a small measure to these proposals, not in any way substantiating the position of the railway companies, but endeavouring to place the true facts before this House and the public, having in mind the matters that are going to come up within the next year, and if possible to overcome a very strong sentiment and public opinion which is caused by such representations as these people have made. It has always been the practice to blame everything on the railways and the employees when it comes to freight rates, and as that idea is now being used by politicians to serve certain purposes, and more especially by manufacturers as a smoke screen, I am sure that I might have the privilege of replying to some extent to these representations. Perhaps as a representative of labour in some degree, being a labour man myself, I should in a way deal only with the wage end of the question, but I believe that if we are going to enter into the wage question we should also have before us every phase of the railway situation, and find out at first if possible whether the railway employees are obtaining too high wages for their labour, and also ascertain whether the railway companies of Canada are economically and efficiently managed, and from that angle I wish to speak for a moment.
In connection with the question as to whether our railways are efficiently -managed, we must confine our comparisons to the United States railways, as the conditions in that country are similar to the conditions on our own roads. But when we take into consideration the fact that Canada has but 221 people to each mile of railway, while the United States has 450, the comparison is hardly fair to the Canadian railways, because under such conditions there is no density of traffic to reduce the average cost of hauling a ton and one might consider that under such conditions we should be satisfied if we could have rates equal to the lowest where cost conditions and wages are about equal. In any event we must compare our roads with some other roads and taking the United States roads for a comparison, I believe the railways in Canada are as efficiently managed and as economically run as those in any country.

The Budget-Mr. Humphrey
It has also been said in these representations by this company and the others interested that railway companies should reduce their expenditures every year and more especially reduce their overhead by reducing the wages of their employees, but by referring to the reports made by the presidents of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, we can see that their operating expenses have decreased each year, although their net profits perhaps are not as great. Apart from this, our railways are efficiently managed. Let us compare with the United States roads the number of tons of freight handled per mile and per employee. We find the average number of tons handled by the Canadian Pacific Railway to be 267,836, and by the Canadian National, 195,808. The average for Canada is 231,872 and for the United States 220,000 per employee. So hon. members can see that Canadian roads handle 11,872 tons more a mile for each employee than United States roads do. Going further, an editorial in the Railway Age gives the following figures, and I might state that these figures have been used in other parliaments and for the same purpose, so far as I have been able to learn. I believe they are figures that can be substantiated. The Railway Age states that the average wage paid for 1923 by the Canadian National was $1,421, by the Canadian Pacific, $1,482, and by United States roads, $1,588. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) in his report states that the average hourly rate of all employees, including the president down to the lowest employee, is 64 cents. If we take the average earnings of railway men in Canada, the United States, Italy, Germany and Switzerland, we find that Canada has the lowest labour cost per ton mile of any country in the world. The statistics are as follows:
No. of Labour employees cost per required to ton mile Average move 1 ton I
Country	wage 1 mile Cents
Canada	$648	5	3.24United States	
757	5	3.78Germany	
409	23	9.40Italy	
377	24	9.04Switzerland	
305	31	11.31
I would take it from these figures that the cost in regard to handling freight per ton mile is less in this country than in any other country in the world, if you take into consideration the average wages, the labour cost per ton mile and the number of employees.
As regards the effect of wages of railway employees on freight rates, hon. members will remember that during the war the cost of living increased very rapidly and that wages 
were increased in an effort to keep up with the increased cost of living. It is significant that living costs increased first, and this is absolute proof that increased wages were not the cause of the increase in the cost of living. Railway wages never overtook the cost of living. The peak was reached in 1920, since when the 200,000 railway employees in Canada have had their wages cut and conditions changed so as to reduce their earnings by approximately $45,000,000 annually. The wages of employees were not increased from 1913 to 1918. Nevertheless the cost of living increased each year, and in 1920-21 there was a cut of something like 15 per cent in the wages of railway employees, amounting yearly to the sum of $45,000,000. This, I think, is the largest voluntary contribution by any class of workers.
I should like to make a further quotation regarding increases that have taken place since 1913 in wages paid in other occupations, as it was stated in the representations made by the Tudhope, Anderson Company that wages paid railway employees were far in excess of those paid to other industrial workers and had increased more. These figures-were taken from the Canadian Annual Review for 1923, and using the index number of 100, the year 1913 and the year 1923, the wage increases are as
follows:
Index Index
Occupation	1913 ,. ... 100	1923 166.4
		100	174.0
		100	188.9
		100	197.8
		100	181.7
Miscellaneous factory labour 			100 	100	196.1 170.4
		100	186.2
		157.4
Cost of living, wholesale prices ... .		100	153.0
This shows that wages of railway employees increased only 57.4 per cent, which is the smallest increase for any of those industrial workers from 1913 to 1923, and the cost of living increased about 53 per cent.
Going further in regard to representations made by these different corporations that railway wages are the cause of high freight rates, we find that the different manufacturing industries that are clamouring for a reduction in freight rates and claiming that railway wages are the cause of high freight rates have certain startling figures to produce in regard to the administration of their own businesses. I should like to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Milne) in speaking to the budget a year ago. I believe he quoted certain figures showing the cost of making binders in 1913 and 1923, and the

The Budget-Mr. Harris
figures that he used were taken from figures submitted by a manufacturer to the special committee appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions. Although the figures are given in regard to binders only, no doubt they can be applied to agricultural implements as a whole. The figures are as follows:
1913	1922	Increase per centMaterials	. ...$ 45 55	$ 86 21	89Wages	. ... 25 10	56 77	126Factory expenses	. ... 5 51	26 55	382Administration 	.... 5 10	38 66	658Freights	. ... 23 91	34 69	45Distribution 	63 15	114Branch department ... .	47 31	60$163 99	$353 33	116
So that, taking the total in these nine years, the increase on binders would be 116 per cent while freight costs have increased 45 per cent and implement manufacturers' employees' wages 126 per cent. It would therefore be interesting to the people of Canada to have the manufacturers explain how they have come to have an increase of 658 per cent in administration costs. This I think is a fair example which might be applied to a good many other industries; and it shows in my opinion that the cry of high freight rates being caused by high wages is nothing but a smoke screen for them to hide behind in the conduct of their own affairs. It seems to me that the conditions governing the administration and the operation of the railways here are such as cannot be compared with the conditions that obtain on many of the roads of the United States. I would point that out before going further. We have extreme weather here and the conditions in that regard are not experienced across the line; this applies particularly to the use of equipment for the seasonal carrying of grain and other perishable products. The railway reports show that something like 84,000,000 is the expense incurred in snow service on the roads in Canada. These facts are all taken into consideration in the adjustment of wages and I believe that the entire figures will show that the wages paid railway employees on this side are lower than those that are paid in the United States, the roads being equally well operated and managed.
I come now to the last reason for discussing the budget; I must state my position on the motion now before the House, that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, as well as on the amendment that has been introduced by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). That amendment will of course first be voted on; and having declared my views on the questions affecting my own
district, and not unmindful of the associations I have held in parliament, but remembering the duty I owe my constituents as well as the country at large, I believe there is only one course open to me. It is my intention to support the budget at this particular time and in doing so I feel that I am carrying out my duty to my constituency and to the country. I do not want to have it inferred, that I am in any way governed by political influences. But I believe that it is in the best interests of the country that the budget should be supported, although I know that some of my friends with whom I associate at the present time do not agree with this view. It must be remembered, however, that conditions in the province from which I come are extremely different from those in other parts of the country; it has been recognized as a concession to myself and other members from British Columbia that we have certain conditions there that do not exist anywhere else. For this and other reasons that I have stated,


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: Confidence, lack of confidence, and restoration of confidence was the keynote of the first portion of the remarks that fell from the lips of my hon. friend from West Kootenay (Mr. Humphrey). My associations in this corner of the House lead me to say there is no one here in the Conservative party who will in any way take second place to my hon. friend so far as having confidence in the country is concerned. But surely the hon. gentleman is not going to confound confidence in the country with confidence in this government. Is this government the country? Is it fair to say that this government to-day is a fair reflection of the country? Has it a mandate from the country to-day?
We all regret the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding); we all regret that stability has disappeared from this government owing to the fact that the right hon. gentleman is not here. We think of the Fielding Liberals; where are they? And we are all wondering perhaps why the ex-Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) is not in his place to-day. Where are the Gouin Liberals, and what do they think of this administration? Have the Protectionist Liberals a right to sit in this House behind this administration? And has the administration any mandate from the province of Quebec? I question very much whether it has! If it has a mandate from the province of Quebec I should like to see the ex-Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) in his place; I should like to
The Budget-Mr. Harris

see him give his endorsation to the policy which hon. gentlemen opposite have enunciated from time to time. No; the hon. member who has just sat down, in saying that anyone who undertakes to citicize this administration is a pessimist, is very far from the mark. In my opinion the hon. member who criticizes is a great optimist. He sees that this country is not going in the right direction and so, optimist that he is, he first offers some criticism to the government and then advances something constructive by way of telling them what they ought to do to bring Canada out of the condition that she is in at the present time. I would ask my hon. friend how he or any Canadian with any degree of intelligence could be other than confident in the country itself-not in this government-when he considers the great possibilities of this Dominion. Look at the Maritime provinces and think of the possibilities that are latent there; look at Quebec with her great resources; and consider for a moment the fact that we have in this country just four per cent of the world's population. And you all know the rest of the story. You all know that Quebec has the world's supply of asbestos; Ontario has the world's supply of nickel; and in the western provinces we have the great granary of the whole empire. The hon. member spoke also about the wonderful things there are in British Columbia. Well, to hear the views of some people, one would think that there was nothing there but a few Japs, a few Chinese and a few saw logs. But the hon. member has told us about the mining industry in that province. And then think of the Okanagan valley with the fruit it produces, and consider the province of Alberta from the mineral point of view with her fifteen per cent of the world's coal supply. Think of all these things and tell us where there is room for pessimism in Canada. There is absolutely none. I do not take second place to any man in this Dominion in my optimistic outlook on the future of Canada; and when I criticize this administration I do not bow to the dictum laid down by this hon. gentleman, nor yet to that laid down by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), that' such criticism tends to embarrass the nation's credit. No, sirl I do not for a moment bow to any such opinion.
The balance sheet as brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance is not in my opinion a credit to him; it is not a credit to the great Liberal party; it would not be a credit to any business organization to tel! its shareholders-in this case the people of Canada-that it gives an auditor's certificate in verification of the accounts when in fact

that certificate is not in tihe true sense of the term a certificate at all; certainly it is not an auditor's certificate as understood by the man in the street. There is something radically wrong when the government has to put a blanket over its balance sheet in the form of a so-called auditor's certificate in order to restore to the minds of the people confidence in that balance sheet. In my opinion the results of the year's operations ought to flow from the balance sheet in a uniform way so that the average citizen can understand its contents; there should be no necessity for page after page of explanation as to how the balance is arrived at. It is almost an insult to the intelligence of Canadians when the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) attempts to show in the second paragraph of his budget speech how the national debt has been reduced. Why should it be necessary to give such explanations? Are we not fifty or sixty years old as a nation? Do not the people know how the national accounts are made up and the balance arrived at? I repeat, there must be something radically wrong when the government resorts to these methods. I like to think of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) himself reviewing his balance sheet. His budget was an honest, frank expression of inhere we stood. He did not hesitate to say that there was $31,000,000 added to the national debt, he did not hesitate to put his railway deficit in the place where it belonged. To-day in order to cover up the fact that through trade depression throughout the country we are slipping in revenues, the Acting Minister of Finance finds it necessary to take $50,000,000 in 1923-24 and loaned to the National railways on bonds guaranteed by the government and put this loan in the category of Canadian National Railway finance. As a matter of fact where does it belong? We all know it should be included in the national debt. Then in the face of that to declare that the national debt has been reduced by $35,000,000 is not, in my opinion, an honest, frank statement by the government.
But let me return to the auditor's certificate which, the Acting Minister of Finance told us, has been printed on the balance sheet on page 3 of the Public Accounts for 1923-24. I have no doubt, Sir, that you and everv other hon. member have read auditors' certificates from time to time. This certificate says:
We have examined the balance sheet of the Dominion of Canada as at March 31, 1924, and we certify that the balance sheet conforms to the balance sheets of previous years in not including in the net debt of the Dominion issues cf the Canadian

The Budget-Mr. Harris
National Railway company and companies included in its system, which cany the guarantee of the Dominion of Canada. Such guaranteed issues are shown year by year as indirect liabilities.
Well, that is not such an auditor's certificate as we find in the annual report of the Canadian National railway system which we received last night. Is any opinion expressed in the auditor's certificate as to the correctness of the national balance sheet? None at all. But appended to the accounts of the National Railways we find a certificate of the sort which we are accustomed to look for at the end of any statement of accounts, and it is in this form:
We certify that, in our opinion, the above consolidated balance sheet is properly drawn up so as to exhibit a true and correct view of the affairs of the system, as at the 31st December, 1924, and we further certify that, in our opinion, the attached income and profit and loss accounts for the year ended the 31st December, 1924, are correctly stated.
I have another form of auditor's certificate appended to the balance sheet of a large corporation, which I will give the House:
We have examined the statement and it agrees with the books of the company. After due consideration we have formed, an independent opinion as to the position of the company. With our independent opinion so formed, and according to the best of our information and the explanations given to us, we certify that in our opinion the statement sets forth fairly and truly the state of the affairs of the company, after providing for contingencies, and that all transactions of the company that have come within our notice have been within the powers of the company.
That is what the people of Canada understand by an auditor's certificate. This so-called auditor's certificate which the Acting Minister of Finance found it necessary to quote in his budget speech is not an opinion as to whether the books are kept properly or not, it is not an opinion as to whether the railway loans should be included in the national debt or should be placed among the capital charges of the Canadian National Railway; it is just a mere statement that the balance sheet is a continuation of former practice. The point I am trying to bring out is that the average man in the street is not going to stop and ask you what kind of auditor's certificate this is. By an auditor's certificate he imagines the Acting Minister of Finance is referring to the sort of certificate which accompanies the balance sheet of any corporation. I can imagine some Liberal spellbinders out on the stump shouting to the people, "Yes, this, financial statement which the Tory press is criticizing we had a couple of chartered accountants go over, and they have put their certificate of approval upon it." In my opinion it is a very poor way indeed of getting 133



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
over the difficulty the government finds itself in, due to the diminished revenues resulting from the trade depression which we are experiencing from one end of the country to the other. I repeat, it is a poor way to try to hide the fact that we are slipping more and more regarding the public debt.
Let me again say, and I shall continue to repeat it, I have the utmost confidence in Canada', and when I am criticizing the government it must be borne in mind that there is not much connection between the two, and after the bell rings next time there will be no connection at all. Cluttered up within Hansard of March 24 will be found all maimer of excuses and explanations by the Acting Minister of Finance as to why such-and-so is done. Why is it necessary to insert this in the budget statement?
The railway company from earnings are not yet able to meet the arrears of interest accumulated on our loans to the company. This government, following the policy of its predecessors, continues to relieve the company from the payment of interest. To do otherwise wouid require the increasing of our annual provisions in the estimates, thus adding to our debt on the one hand, and, after receiving back from the company the amount so provided in our estimates, crediting it to interest on investments account on the other hand, thus reducing our debt by the very amount by which we increased it.
Why, Mr. Speaker, ever since we took over this railway system has not this been the practice? Why draw a red herring across the trail and say: "This $131,000,000 is a bad debt, but we are so generous to the Canadian National Railways that we want to treat it in this way, because if we received the interest back we would only have to reverse the ledger entry and put it on the other side?" Does any man of intelligence in the Dominion ever expect that that interest is going to be paid back? Are we not clamouring every day for reduced freight rates? My friends from the Maritime provinces, my friends from the prairie provinces, my friends from Ontario and Quebec, each and every one of us, are looking for the day when reduced freight rates will come. Reduced freight rates will be ahead of this proposition which is suggested by the Acting Minister of Finance in his budget speech. It is not fair to the Canadian people to draw a red herring across the trail in respect to the country's accounts. It is time we tried to give them a frank, clear statement to show them exactly where we are, exactly in What direction we are going, exactly what we are doing. If the revenues are slipping, tell them so. They do not mind having the truth; they do not mind a clear statement of the facts.

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Harris
[Stage Direction]
Canadians are optimists; they have faith in the country. But the cluttering up of the budget with excuses and explanations of this kind will in my opinion do more to shatter the confidence of the people in the national credit that the Acting Minister of Finance speaks about, than all the fair criticism that may be levelled at this government.
I wonder where we will finish up, Mr. Speaker, if we allow the practice followed in this budget speech to continue-the practice of endorsing the bonds of the Canadian National Railways? Fifty millions in 192324; forty-six millions in 1924-25-and that is not the end of the story. It is nearly time something definite was done to put the Canadian National on a footing similar to that on which the Canadian Pacific stands, so that
we will know exactly where we are. We have the Swayn report of 1916 which gives the value of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we have the award which was made to the Grand Trunk. Why could these findings not be reviewed in connection with a proper determination of the value of the Canadian National railways? Then set that up as the capital of the company, absorb the rest in the national debt and give the people some idea of where we stand. To continue this practice is not fair either to the management of the Canadian National railways or to the people of Canada. If it was done on any equitable or reasonable basis there might be some sense to it. But read this statement which I ask to have placed on Hansard:
Statement of Loans to Railways for 1922-23, 1923-24 under Authority of	and 1924-25 made in Cash the Appropriation Acts	and Guaranteed	Bond IssueDeficit-Operating deficit, interest due public, and rentals of leased lines	
Redemption of debt-including equipment trust principal payments and sinking funds	
Capital-Investment in road and equipment including acquisition of property	1922-23 $36,722,181 25,275,902 18,214,940	1923-24 $20,356,198 11,469,309 41,830,933	1924-25 $21,343,940 7,007,533 33,765,527	Total $78,422,319 43,752,804 93,011,400Discount on Government Guaranteed Bond Issues	' $80,213,023	$73,456,500 1,093,500	$62,117,000 1,910,000	$215,780,523 3,003,500$80,213,023	$74,350,000	$64,027,000	$218,790,023These totals are made up as follows: Loans by way of cash charged to the net debt of the Dominion	
Loans by way of Government Guaranteed bond issues	$80,213,023	$24,550,000 50,000,000	$18,027,000 46,000,000	$122,790,023 96,000,000
Now let me read the footnote which appears in small type beneath this tabulation:
While the estimated loans by way of cash of $18,027,000 for 1924-25 are short of the estimated deficits for this year by $3,310,940, the statement shows that for the three years under review the government loans in cash have not only enabled the railway company to meet all deficits, including fixed charges due the public, but also left the substantial sum of $44,000,000 to be applied to capital requirements.
Three years of operation and yet there is nothing uniform in the method of treating these accounts. The Minister of Finance Mr. Fielding)-we regret he is unable to be here-found it necessary to write off certain capital charges and deficits, to a total of $80,213,023. But this government find it necessary to take a portion of the charges already written off capital and bring it back into the revenues, in an attempt to show the people a balance on the right side of the ledger. That is not giving a fair and frank statement to the people. It is not fair, it is not just; and the sooner we have a govern-
{Mr. Harris.]
ment in power that can be held to their responsibility to make a proper statement with regard to the handling of their accounts, the better it will be for Canada and all concerned.
Some very interesting deductions are drawn by the Acting Minister of Finance with regard to trade in this country. "A matter of justifiable pride," are the words the minister has been wont to use. He has a feeling of "justifiable pride," he says-
-when we realize that this year, as a result in part of our policy last year in reducing the burdens of taxation, we will receive from the people $52,837,000 less.
Then, in his summary he says it is a matter of justifiable pride-I do not know whether or not that is the exact term he uses-that our trade balance is so much in our favour. Every Canadian likes to see the trade balance in our favour; in a young country like this it is essential that that should be the case. But first let us analyse this trade balance for a

The Budget-Mr. Harris
moment or two. I pointed out last year- page 200 of Hansard-that in respect to what was designated as class 4, wood products, we were exporting raw material to the extent of 64 per cent and finished and partly finished goods to the extent of only 36 per cent; while in class 6, non-ferrous metals, we were exporting 77+ per cent of raw material and 22+ per cent of finished and partly finished goods. That is all right, but unfortunately for Canada we were importing just the converse of that. In class 4, wood products, we were importing 27 per cent of raw material and 73 per cent of finished and partly finished goods, while in class 6, non-ferrous metals, we were importing 13 per cent of raw material and 87 per cent of finished and partly finished goods. Think of the production of our copper, lead and zinc mines in terms of our imports; 87 per cent are finished or partly finished goods-commodities which could be the product by our own industries.
I shall not refer in detail to the figures I gave last year in this connection; but let me touch on some of the figures which the Acting Minister of Finance has given the House with regard to our trade balance. We find the import side decreasing, and at first blush that looks good. We are all glad to see a reduction of the imports into the country. In fact, for the ten months ending January, 1925, there has been a decrease of S93.384.852 in imports, equivalent to 13 per cent. That looks very good for a Liberal government, and it seems to speak well for the results of the reduction of 2 per cent in the customs tariff. But let us analyse this importation; let us examine the imports for home consumption during the period of ten months ending January 31, 1925, in some of the classes which have to do with the raw materials used in a large number of our industries. For the purposes of the comparison I have taken iron and its products; the following indicates the value of the imports of iron and its products, raw material and partly manufactured goods, in the period of ten months referred to by the minister:
Ten months ending Ten months ending January 31, 1924 January 31,1925
Free goods.. ..	$19,371,013	$ 12,624,694
Dutiable goods. 126,299,548	95,368,389
Total	 $145,670,561	$107,993,083
It will be seen, therefore, that for the ten-month period ending January 31, 1925, there was a reduction of 25.87 per cent in the import of the raw material which very largely goes to supply our industries. If we found a large decrease in the imports of manufactured and 13i3i
partly manufactured products, it would be reasonable to say that industry in Canada was being stabilized and that our own manufacturers were supplying the home market. But the figures show that the imports of raw materials have been reduced in the case of iron 25.87 per cent. For the same ten-month period, textile products, dutiable-manufactured and partly manufactured goods-came into this country in 1924 to the extent of $90,180,970, and in 1925 to practically the same amount, $88,369,654, or a decrease of only 2 per cent, which decrease represented the decreased buying power of the Canadian people. Non-ferrous metals, free and dutiable, for the same ten-month period, came into this country in 1924 to the amount of $35,399,822, and in 1925, to the amount of $33,592,185, a decrease of about 5 per cent in the importation of manufactured and partly manufactured goods, which is again only an index of the decreased purchasing power of the Canadian people and not an index of the trade conditions in Canada,-in other words it does not indicate that trade conditions in Canada have been so good that we have manufactured that extra 6.88 per cent.
In like manner miscellaneous products, free, came into this country in 1924 to the amount of $19,213,347, and in 1925, $19,168,949, practically the same figure, and miscellaneous products, dutiable, imported in 1924 amounted to $22,224,984, and in 1925 to $20,799,641; making total importations of manufactured and partly panufactured miscellaneous products in 1924 of $41,438,331, and in 1925, $39,968,590, or a decrease of 3.53 per cent. In other words, we find a decrease in all kinds of importations close on to 13 per cent, and in the case of iron and iron ores, which are the raw material for a large number of our manufacturing institutions, a decreased importation of close to 26 per cent. The point I bring out here is this: Instead of this decreased importation indicating that our own manufacturing institutions are supplying our demands, we find that in practically every case the decrease in importations is in raw material, and not of manufactured and partly manufactured goods. In any case where there is a decrease in the importation of manufactured and partly manufactured goods it simply emphasizes the fact of the decreased purchasing power of the Canadian people, and the decrease I gave you in the importation of raw material, amounting to 25.87 per cent in the case of iron and its products, gives you some idea, Mr. Speaker, of the stagnation of business, the slackness of trade and dulness of industry which
The Budget-Mr. Harris
[Stage Direction]
our plants and) industries dependent upon this raw material as their basis are going through at the present time.
Just to emphasize that and to show that I know what I am talking about, I will go to the trouble of putting on record figures showing our importations of iron and its products, which emphasize more and more the point I am trying to make. In 1924 we imported iron and its products, raw iron, pigs, ingots, blooms, scrap, castings, forgings, rolling mills products, tubes, pipes and wire, to the amount of $61,161,820. For the same period in 1925 we imported these products to the amount of only $39,276,023, a decrease in our importation of these basic raw materials for our
5 p.m. manufacturing industries of 35.8 per cent. That is an index of the stagnation and slackness of trade and dulness of industry that we find in our manufacturing institutions which depend upon these raw materials for manufacturing into their finished goods.
All through this debate, Mr. Speaker, I have been amazed at some of the suggestions which have come from the Liberal party with regard to the conditions we find in Canada. But we had something which took the cake, if you will excuse the expression, from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) last night He spoke of ream after ream of Tory propaganda. I was just thinking to-day of the ream after ream the Minister of Labour put on Hansard, but whether it will be interesting reading I doubt very much. I want to say a few words with regard to this remarkable result and to the "justifiable pride" which the Acting Minister of Finance finds in the statistics he gave. I think when the people of Canada grasp the true significance of these statistics and learn the actual state of the revenues and expenditures of Canada, instead of having a justifiable pride in the handling of the affairs of this country by this administration they will receive a shock, from which the people will recover, because they have unbounded confidence in the resources of this country, but from which the government themselves, when they appeal to the electorate of Canada, will not recover. The government say-I saw a headline in one of my own Toronto papers the other day that the government have reduced taxation by $52,837,000. Rather interesting, but I will tell you where this reduction came from.
Mr. BENOIT. Louder.
Joseph Henry Harris: I was just thinking that
when the Prime Minister gets here-I am sorry he is not here now-the whip will crack loud 
enough and lion, gentlemen opposite will all line up when the vote is taken. It will be loud enough for my hon. friend then. Let me preface what I am going to say about the revenues and expenditures of the country with a remark that I find in the budget speech of last year:
It wa3 hoped, however, to offset any considerable reduction in the revenue by the most rigid economy in expenditures.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have offset it by a deficit of $46,737,000. The revenues shrank by $52,837,000, but the expenditures shrank by only $5,100,000. There you have the most rigid economy which was to offset any reduction in the revenue. What is the cause, Mr. Speaker, of this decrease in revenue of $52,837,000? The Globe newspaper seems to say that the people were saved this amount. Was this reduction due to a reduction in the receipt tax? Was it due to a reduction in the cheque tax? Was it due to a reduction in the income tax? Was it due to a reduction in the sales tax? Have we got penny postage in Canada yet? Is it due to a reduction in the cost of postage? No, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you where we lost a million dollars a week last year. Owing to dull trade and slack industry the clearing house returns shrank last year by $553,000,000 in. eastern Canada. Dull trade and slack industry accounts for half a billion dollars less clearing house returns in eastern Canada last year as compared with the year before. That half billion dollars less clearing house returns is the one factor which stands as an index head and shoulders above any other in accounting for the shrinkage of one million dollars a week in the national revenue of Canada.
That, Mr. .Speaker, is the predominating factor which is accountable for this situation, and until such time as it is righted, we will not be on the right path. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) intimated that some of the back benchers who are rather timid had better be kind of careful what we are saying about revenues and expenditures of the country, or we are going to embarrass the national credit. One statement in the budget speech to my mind will do more to shatter confidence in the affairs of Canada than all the propaganda from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That statement is found. Mr. Speaker, in the reference to the taking of what in my opinion is a frozen credit of four million and some odd dollars, and adding that unpaid interest to an asset, and then bringing that into the balance sheet; that is not so bad in itself, but to bring into our statement of

The Budget-Mr. Harris
national affairs for this year the statement that the results of the past year from government services show a surplus is something which cannot be sustained. If the High Commissioner in London, England, is to be given credit for this rearrangement of four million dollars of an asset, let him have the credit, Mr. Speaker, but do not let the Acting Minister of Finance rise in his seat in this House and say that this is due to government services when we add this lour million of unpaid interest to our supposed to be on paper surplus for the year which has just closed. No, Mr. Speaker. If Roumania owed $23,969,720 and Greece in like manner owed $8,000,000 in addition to that unpaid interest of $4,000,162, of course it must be brought in on the books of the country, but do not let the minister rise and take credit for having a surplus, and do not let the Liberal press of the country give the government credit for having a surplus of five million odd, when as a matter of fact it is not a true, frank, honest and clear statement as to where the finances of the country stand at the present time.
There is another subject, Mr. Speaker, which is dear to the heart and mind of everybody who takes an interest in public life, as to which a good deal will be said when the next election takes place, and that is the question of taxation. I was just thinking, reverting to olden times, back to the days before Christ, that we might possibly find in the Good Book, if we could not find it anywhere else, some lead as to what we ought to do in regard to taxation, and what proportion or what percentage taxation should bear to the production.
In the year 1922 Canada with a population of 8.788,483 paid in taxes about $561,460,037. This staggering sum was made up as
follows:
Municipal	taxes	$178,664,291Provincial	taxes	
47,342,405Dominion	taxes	
335,453,341Total	$561,460,037
This enormous sum representing the cost of our present civilization and maintenance of law and order was equivalent to nineteen per cent of the total net production of our Canadian industry, including mining, fishing and agriculture. It was almost half the net agricultural production and exceeded the combined gross production of Canadian forests and mines. It was fifty per cent of the manufacturing production of that year, and I was going to say that consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, every family in Canada is paying a share of this amount because it enters into the cost of living.
I think the sooner we get back to the old system of taxation, ten per cent of production, and get our governmental institutions back to the ten per cent laid down by the tribe of Levi under the Levitican law the better it will be for the people all round. Time and again civilization has been censured for tithing the people over 10 per cent, but I wonder what sort of a censure we are going to receive if we continue to tithe the people, as we did in that year, by taking nineteen per cent of the value of production of the country to maintain law and order and our present civilization. We all realize and recognize that there are factors which must be grappled with. The interest on our debt, for instance, and the question of pensions are matters which we are in nonour bound to pay, and which we do not object to paying, and these will be with us for some time.
I should like to put on record how the interest on the public debt has increased in the last two decades. In 1903 it amounted to $11,068,139. In 1903 our pensions were $87,925. Ten years later in 1913, the interest on the debt was $12,605,882, and the pensions were $283,188. In 1923, interest on the debt amounted to $137,892,735, and pensions were $32,985,998.
These moneys must be paid and we must find revenue to pay them. We are in honour bound to find revenue to pay these debts in conjunction with our other liabilities. But when the present government find it necessary to enunciate a policy, which some of their supporters had in mind and which some did not have in mind, of reducing the tariff of this country, which has been reduced by some two per cent of the value of the goods imported, I call their attention to the fact that our importations run in the neighbourhood of $SO0,000,000, and that every one per cent means a loss in the revenue of $8,0001,000, as well as stagnation, uncertainty and a tendency for business interests to become unstable. If the present government had had the good sense to hold on to the position achieved in 1921, the coffers of this country would have 'been in receipt of $15,687,705 more than they have on hand to-day.
When the government made that reduction they made a move in the wrong direction, and not a move which would tend to allow us to meet the interest on our debt and to pay the obligations which we are in duty bound to pay. But the loss of $15,687,000 as a result of this reduction of about two per cent since the Liberal party came into power is not the matter of most importance.
The Budget-Mr. Harris

I was just thinking about the wrecking of industries which followed in the trail of that reduction. That thought ran through my mind when the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Doucet) rose the other day and told us that the ten ,per cent reduction in the duty on nitrates, phosphate and potash had not only curtailed the manufacture of these products in Canada and put out of business firms who were manufacturing the products but that it had resulted in an increase in the price, and he gave some figures to show it. I will give some figures to the House to make my record complete in this connection. The average wholesale prices of nitrates, phosphates and potash were as follows:
March 17, 1924:
4-8-4, $40.70; 2-8-10, $38.80; 2-10-2, $34; acid phosphate, 16 per cent, $19; sulph. of N.H. 3 (21 per cent), $68.
March 19, 1925:
$42.77, $2.07 increase-5 per cent; $41.46, $2.60 increase-6.8 per cent; $37.65, $3.65 increase-17 per cent; $25, $0 increase-31 per cent; $80, $12 increase-17.6 per cent.
These figures appear in a pamphlet issued by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) over his signature, and they show an increase of $2.07 to $12 or an increase of five per cent to 31 per cent in the cost between March 1924 amd March 1925, after the government had found it good business as they say to take the ten per cent off these goods coming into the country. The market price for nitrates and phosphates on the north American continent is made in Baltimore. The quotation for nitrates in Baltimore a year ago to-day was $3.50 per unit figured in the terms of ammonia and ten cents per unit figured in the terms of phosphate of lime. The cost to the Canadian farmer has increased by 5 per cent. The market in Baltimore to-day has receded to $3.25 per unit of ammonia found in the ton, and it has stayed at ten cents per unit of phosphate of lime in the same ton. I do not know whether hon. members get the point or not. This means that Canadian industry in this line has simply gone out of business. We are no longer manufacturing all of our consumption of nitrates and phosphates here. The manufacturers of those commodities have gone out of business, and those at headquarters south of the line, realizing this, have raised the prioe to the Canadian farmer to-day to where it is above what it was prior to this legislation being placed on the statute books of Canada.
If that were the end of the story, I would be satisfied. It is not the end of the story.
I like to think of these matters not only in 
terms of nitrates and phosphates, dollars and cents, but also of human lives. What have these material elements to do with the matter when you put into the equation the livelihood of Canadian people Think of the human element which enters into this question! If you, Sir, could have been with me on January 15 of this year in the city of Hamilton, you would have seen a plant worth $100,000 of any man's money, established there for forty-two years, during three generations, two of which I know, manufacturing nitrates and phosphates. For forty-two years that business had carried on, and if business conditions were in any way stable, the machinery would be worth $100,000. In fact, it could not be replaced for $100,000. I saw a fool bid put on the proposition of $10,000. I see somebody smiling. If you will pardon me a personal reference, I put on the bid myself for the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel. Some days later they said to me: "If you raise the bid to $12,000, you can have the whole thing." Two years ago they used to employ fifty men and to produce from five to ten thousand tons of nitrates and phosphates. That industry had in its service one generation after another, not only of the owners, but of families of workers who found their livelihood there. That industry went out of business because they were not receiving a certain amount of protection. They did receive the 10 per cent until this government found it necessary to take it off. They went out of business because the Milson Works and the Crocker Works, in Buffalo poured into the Niagara peninsula, and the Michigan Carbon Works of Detroit, into Windsor, and western Ontario, ton after ton of nitrates and phosphates at a far lower price than they could be produced at in Canada. When they got the Canadian industry out of business, according to the statement by the Department of Agriculture here, and in spite of the fact that the basic price of these commodities in the big market of Baltimore, which is the controlling market, is lower, they raised the price to the Canadian farmer. I started off to say something about the human element, but in spite of ourselves we get into dollars and cents and nitrates and phosphates. When I heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) yesterday reading something about the industries in Hamilton, about the good times that prevailed there, about the steel plant that was running and other plants, whose names I forget, I was thinking about something I read in the Hamilton Spectator and the Toronto Evening Telegram just about that time. I was thinking about a certain man who found

The Budget-Mr. Hams
his livelihood within the acre and a half of those premises which I mentioned in Hamilton just now. A certain man had been out of employment since the fall of the year, and when he heard that that place was sold, that his livelihood was gone, he went home brokenhearted. I was thinking about the news item that was in the Toronto Evening Telegram the' same week that I made that purchase, stating that this man was found dead in his home. The coroner held an inquest and this suicide lies at whose door? I leave the matter an open question.
That is not the end of the story with regard to humans, and I do not think I will take second place to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) in this recital. I am thinking of another case of an able-bodied man who had a wife and four children, who came to me on January 15 and said:	"Are you going to dismantle this
institution and take out all the machinery?" I said:	"Yes, we might." He said:	"I
would like to get a job, to do something. I have run that press over there for four or five years, and I would like to continue to run it." I said: "I am sorry, I do not know what I can do. I am over staffed with men now." 'I returned to Ottawa. First, the press was taken out, loaded on a car and sent forty-five miles from the place where it was originally picked up. This man whom I made reference to and who was a citizen of Hamilton saw the bill of lading, found out to whom and where the goods were being shipped and followed that car forty-five miles. When the car was placed on the siding at its destination, he was there before the seals were taken off and he said, " Please let me unload the machinery I ran for the last five years." Finally, he got the job; he unloaded the machinery, and he is still hanging around the doors of that institution where that hydraulic press was unloaded, waiting for them to start operating it, and praying that he be given the job of operating it forty-five miles away from his family. That will give hon. members some idea of business conditions following in the wake of a reduction in the tariff of ten per cent on only one line of industry. In Toronto there is another plant manufacturing nitrates and phosphates which has ceased manufacturing and the home plant in Indiana to-day is pumping the same goods into the Niagara peninsula, the Toronto plant lying idle. The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Black) knows of the distress another company in the town of Wingham finds itself due to the same fact. That company is practically insolvent to-day.
Coming home on the train, I discussed this question with a prominent Liberal, a member of the Ontario Club. He said: " You politicians are all wrong. What you want to do is to tear down the bars and to let the business men of Canada get in and secure a slice of the American business." That sentiment does not find a place in my heart, and to my mind it does not find a place in the heart of any true Canadian. If that sentiment was running in ,the breast of that Liberal, a member of the Ontario Club in the city of Toronto, it is no index of the sentiment that runs through the members of the Conservative party with which it has been my pleasure to associate myself. We do not want to tear down the bars and jump into the United States in order to get a slice of their business. We have an idea that Canada has a destiny, and if that destiny can be worked out, we shall continue to have faith in our country. I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not in his place, but the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) is here.


James Murdock: Go after him.


Joseph Henry Harris: Well, I would hesitate
about going after him. However, that hon. gentleman made some reference to a few remarks that fell, or that were supposed to have fallen, from the lips of the Hon. Senator Robertson as to the Prime Minister being at home in the United States before the Easter recess, and I was thinking that I had heard something myself about the same time. I was talking to a Liberal friend and I said, "Suppose we did throw down the bars and we all went in together, what would happen then?" He said in reply, "We have a bright man at the head of affairs in the Dominion to-day, and I do not see any reason \yhy if the United States and Canada were one great republic on the North American continent our kewpie doll Premier Mackenzie King could not be president of the whole country."


James Murdock: Does my hon. friend not know that the constitution of the United States will not allow a man to aspire to the presidency who was not born in that country?


Joseph Henry Harris: That may be, but I know
that if I found within the confines of the good old Conservative .party any man who had ambitions along that line I would either see that he was ostracized from the party, or I would once for all dissociate myself from it.
A proposal has been placed before the House looking to the creation of a tariff

The Budget-Mr. Harris
board. We have some Liberals in this day and generation, and I was thinking of them when I looked at this resolution which the House is to consider in due course, the object of which is to rectify all the wrongs that at present exist in relation to the tariff, and to restore on the part of our Canadian people who are interested in industry some measure of confidence in the future of the country. The bom. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Humphrey) spoke about restoring confidence in the country, but I really think that what he had in mind was restoring confidence in this government. The government proposes to bring down a resolution looking to the establishment of a tariff board, and it occurred to me that the old Liberal ship of state was sinking so fast that the crew have to grab a plank from the Tory platform and nail it over the hole to stop the vessel from going down altogether.


James Murdock: Hard luck.


Joseph Henry Harris: Before I get through you will find that it is hard luck. Now, we have heard of tariff boards before. In 1912 a resolution was introduced which afterwards was known as Bill No. 88, and it was brought forward by the Conservative party for the purpose of creating a tariff board. There were great Liberal statesmen in the House of Commons in those days, common ordinary men like ourselves, among whom we find such names as Mr. Marcil, Mr. Kyte, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Robb, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Macdonald, and Mr. Lapointe. These gentlemen have changed from statesmen to the Hon. Mr. So and So. Let me quote a few sentences from speeches made by some of them. At page 2622 of Hansard of February 1912 we find Mr. Maclean, then member for Halifax, reported as follows:
I am opposed to his bill, because I believe it is a violation of constitutional practice in all British countries: because it directly or indirectly, and perhaps unconsciously, assumes to give a tariff commission powers of legislation.
I only wish I had a vocabulary like that; perhaps I might say something just as good.
I object to it because it tends to weaken the doctrine of ministerial responsibility as it obtains in all British countries. I object to it because the duties which, under the bill, are assigned to a commission, refer to matters which in all British countries are dealt with directly by the responsible advisers of the crown. I object to the bill, because the purpose sought to be attained by it can be better attained by less expensive and less objectionable methods.
That is the tariff board they will all vote for in a few days.
I object to it further because it seeks in a manner, in a veiled manner perhaps, to validate by a statute the doctrine of protection in this country.
[Mr. Harris.l
What a catastrophe!
This is a justification of my argument that any assistance which the responsible minister of the day requires in tariff making, should come from the civil service when we can expect permanency in the appointment and from whom we can expect a longer and more valued experience in all matters in connection with the tariff of this country.
Then at page 2655 the ordinary, common Mr. Kyte of that day, now known as the official whip of	the Liberal party, is
reported in opposition to the bill; he found it necessary to oppose the proposition. I hesitate to say anything about Sir Wilfrid Laurier for I have a good deal of regard for that Liberal statesman. I have an idea that somewhere in this House over on the government benches there are men who, while perhaps on the hustings they were wont to shout "Vive Laurier!" will take an attitude on the resolution about to be introduced, altogether different from that which the late right hon. gentleman assumed. I wonder how these gentlemen	are going to	vote	in	thismatter of the tariff board. I wonder if they will read what	that	man had to	say	in
his time with regard to the proposal. Will they rise in their place and register their vote in favour of it? As I say, I reverence the name of that man, but I may be pardoned for reading a few words of his. At page 2874 of Hansard of 1912 he said:
There is such a thing as an act and an ulterior motive to that act	not to	he found	within	the	fourcorners of the act	itself.	My hon.	friend	did	not
put in his hill that the object which he had in view was to have, not the broad facts as they exist, but simply a commission to prepare for him, and for the government of which he is a member, in favour of the view upon political economy which my hon. friend and his colleagues entertain.
There is a good deal more but I will not put it all on the record; there are a few choice morsels that will serve the purpose better perhaps than the whole. Further he says:
The more we proceed with this tariff board the more it becomes apparent that we are moving in a vicious circle. ... To say that under such circumstances the commission should be simply under the jurisdiction of the minister is not in accordance with the conception of the feature of the commission which would give it its greatest usefulness, that is that it should be an independent commission. . . . Such a course is inconceivable. This is the same thing, this should be above all things a parliamentary commission, of course with power to the government to use it when they think it advisable to do so.
Further on Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
But no reason has yet been given why this second tribunal should be added to what we have already, or to show that it would be more in accordance with the public interest. Up to the present time we have had a law on the statute book declaring that under certain circumstances an investigation, if it took place, should take place before a judge. Has any reason

The Budget-Mr. Harris
been given to show that the public interest would be better served or more justice done to the people at large if such an investigation took place before this commission? Although this is a new jurisdiction, I say it is not an improvement, but rather a deterioration.
I am sorry that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) is not in his seat; I rather think he is the same ordinary Mr. Macdonald who expressed himself at that time on the subject. He is now Minister of National Defence. There is a whole page here which is not very complimentary to him if he rises in his place now and votes for the budget. I wish he were here, because I do not like to take advantage of an hon. member. The non. member for Bona venture (Mr. Marcil) is here; he voted, but he did not have very much to say. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) comes from a part of Ontario that I am very well acquainted with. I wonder how he will vote on this proposition for a tariff board. Will he vote for the budget, or will he vote against it? I do not think he will vote against it- he may vote for his judgeship! The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) intimates that that is a little harsh; if it is, I will withdraw it. The hon. member for Welland- page 3581-said:
I am not in favour of a tariff board.
Bang, right off the bat he so expressed himself-"I am not in favour of a tariff board." I wonder how he will vote. Will he vote for a tariff board? I wonder if he would like to have a pair for that occasion? He continued:
I do not think that the commission should be allowed to hear evidence under oath, or any private conversation, that is not reported to parliament. Let those gentlemen who want to make their private suggestions to the Finance Minister make them, and let the Minister of Finance keep that information secret, as has been done in the past without any statutory provision to compel it to be done. But that this parliament should authorize a commission of gentlemen to inquire into the trade conditions of the country and to take evidence and report on that evidence to the Minister of Finance without making that evidence public, I think it wrong in principle, and will be detrimental to the interest of the country.
I am afraid be will have some qualms of conscience when he rises in his seat. We find the same hon. gentleman saying further on:
The objection to my mind is just this, and the fear is just this-that this commission is to be appointed with a view to increasing the protective tariff.
He objects so much to the protective tariff. I do not think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) will have much objection to voting for that tariff board, because if I heard him aright yesterday he said that the government had some tariff for revenue principles
in mind, so I suppose " tariff for revenue '* might be stretched this time to cover something in line with what the hon. member for Welland is objecting to-a protective tariff. Then again at page 5885 the pame hon. gentleman (Mr. German) says:
The ministers can shield themselves behind the report of the tariff board who, they can plead, have gone throughout the country and made a full investigation.
Well, that is rather a good idea. It might be a good plea for some of the predicaments that the administration find themselves in. Then again I find the following from the same hon. gentleman:
I am afraid this is what they will do; and there is a very strong feeling in the country that this is what they will do.
I should like to point out that a motion was put to give this matter the six months' hoist. We find in favour of the motion, or practically voting against a tariff board, 52 yeas, among them being Marcil, Kyte, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Lovell, Murphy, Power, Robb, Pardee, Maclean, Macdonald, Lapointe, Clark (Red Deer), and His Honour the present Speaker; these were enrolled among those opposed to this tariff board. I expect to hear the Liberal statesmen of former days rise in their places and explain why they find themselves able at this time to vote for a tariff board when in 1912 they voted against a similar proposition which was promoted by the party of which I am a member, and which was eventually killed by the Liberal party. And that is not quite all either. The bill was finally killed, and the Liberal chieftain gloried in the fact that it was killed, for at page 6821 we find him saying:
I have something to say in conclusion to my hon. friend-I do not know whether the Senate will agree to the suggestion or not-but if as a consequence of the motion which is now before the House and which I suppose-and it is not a very violent supposition- will' be passed by the majority sitting behind the Minister of Finance; if the result of this motion is that the bill is to be killed, I say to my hon. friend that it would not be an unmixed misfortune; on the contrary in my judgment, it would be an unmixed blessing.
I venture the opinion that when the government brought down tihis proposition they were perhaps hoping against hope that ia like manner as a similar proposition wa3 killed in 1912 it might be again killed, as every bit of legislation that has been brought down by this administration has been killed. For instance, the Great Lakes inquiry, the present ocean freight rates inquiry, the wheat pool-all these infants born to the administration, some prematurely and some carried
The Budget-Mr. Harris

a little too long, hare been strangled at birth. No doubt they expect that this child in like manner will be strangled. Then they can go to the country and say, "Well, we are on both sides of the fence." The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) can satisfy his conscience by voting for this tariff board, knowing that the proposition is going to be thrown out. The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) -they can probably square their conscience and go back to their constituents to tell them what great things have been done for the people of Canada by the Liberal party.
Mr. MURfDOCK:	Do I understand my
hon. friend to suggest that his party, then in power with a sufficient majority, were willing to let this bill be killed, that they did not have sufficient courage to go through with it?


Arthur Meighen: We went through with
it.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was just trying to tell
my hon. friend that the bill was killed in the Senate by a Liberal majority.


James Murdock: I do not think my
hon. friend made that clear.


Joseph Henry Harris: I thank my hon. friend for correcting me in that connection. I notice the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier was very careful not to mention that the bill was killed by the Liberal Senate. I overlooked noting that fact. It only shows that he was a very astute politician.
I find, in the budget address another matter of vital importance to the Dominion, particularly to Ontario. It may not be of very great magnitude at present, but it will be as it develops. I refer to the duty on the exportation of electric power. Is it good business to export that great asset that we have, particularly power generated in Ontario and in (Quebec? The people of Ontario have great confidence in the public ownership enterprise known as the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission. We have taught our people the many uses of electricity. Everywhere you turn in a home you find a use for it, and its consumption is growing by leaps and bounds. The thought occurs to me that if we allow the tax on the exportation of electrical power, which the government proposes in order to increase the revenue by $400,000, we must consider who in the end is going to pay this tax next year and the year after. It will be paid not by those consumers who have long-term contracts at the present time, but by those in Canada who buy that power from day to day.

And, of the people who are buying it from day to day in Ontario, one hundred thousand are my constituents. They are the people who will have to pay, in my opinion-I shall be glad to have light on the subject if that is not the case. But apart from that, if any move in this direction is to be made, let us stabilize industries in this country and retain that power for their use. If we could only instil into the heart and mind of this government some of the tariff stability which the Minister of Finance stood for in 1922-23, we should be able to get somewhere. Stabilize industry and you will not need any export of power; you will rather have to put an embargo on it to keep it here. I do not like to see my constituents taxed for a portion of this $400,000; I object to it very strenuously! Not only that; it will have the effect of damping their enthusiasm for public ownership enterprise. I have great confidence in the public ownership of the Hydro-Electric Commission; I regard it as one of the greatest achievements of the last two or three decades. How some laughed at Sir Adam Beck when he told the people they would be washing their clothes with machines which would get their power from the white coal of Niagara! How some laughed when he said we would be heating our houses, making toast and doing all the other things we do in this day with the power made available from this source! It is only a matter of one or two decades ago that some thought there was nothing in the proposition. But what have we to-day? Tremendous industries have been built up in connection with the manufacture of all sorts of utensils using power. The possibility of the development of electrical energy in all parts of Canada is such that its magnitude can hardly be conceived, I feel, therefore, that the government is very ill-advised in putting on the statute book such a regulation as this.
I said a little while ago, Mr. Speaker, that not only were we losing our people by allowing tariff to slip a little, but we were also sacrificing some $15,637,000 of revenue. But that is not ail; we are about the only nation in the world of any size that has not increased tariff duties within the last four or five years. Even the Irish Free State, in July, 1924, placed duties on boots and shoes, glass bottles and jars, soap and candles, all of which had previously been duty free. The duties on sugar, confectionery and cocoa preparations were also increased.
You know what has happened in Australia, a new tariff was introduced in that country in March, 1920, providing for substantial increases in the rates of duty on practically

The Budget-Mr. Harris
every item. The imposition of dumping duties on many lines of merchandise has resulted in a further increase in the rates of duty on such goods. In addition Australia can appraise imports at prices corresponding to the prices of similar Australian products, and where such protection is deemed necessary she gives it.
Have any hon. gentlemen here had experience in shipping goods to Australia? Well, it is an interesting experience. By the time you have filled out the many forms of a protective nature which are required before you can have your goods landed in Australia customs free, you have almost enough documents and paper scrap to equal the value of your goods, that is, if the goods are not over-valued. The Australian Department of Labour imposes restrictions with regard to the labour found in the goods, whether union or otherwise, and so on. The Australian Department of Agriculture imposes regulations with a view to preventing disease from being carried in the packing of the goods, and so on. This is ail done not so much to ensure that the goods shall be of the right kind as to give Australia protection against the influx of foreign goods. Let me give a little further information with regard to what has been done in other countries in the matter of tariffs.
British India-In March, 1921, a new tariff was introduced providing for increased rates of duty. In 1922 the rates of duty on many classes of goods were increased from 11 per cent to 15 par cent and the rates of duty on " luxury " goods were increased from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. In 1924 increased rates of duty on most iron and steel products were put into force.
Newfoundland-An increase in the rates of duty on imports into Newfoundland was effected in May, 1921, by the imposition of an import tax of 5 per cent on most classes of imported goods.
South Africa-About which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) spoke so eloquently last night:	From time
to time the tariff in South Africa has been amended providing for increased duties on various classes of goods. Increases were made in 1919, in 1921, in 1922, and again in 1923- the last increase affecting confectionery, wheat, motor spirit, wrapping paper, boots and shoes and glass bottles.
In like manner British Guiana, British Honduras, Montserrat, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Trinidad, East Africa, Malta, Mesopotamia and Ceylon have ail adopted new tariffs or increased the general rate and the ad valorem rate. As to Jamaica, in March, 1922, a new tariff was introduced providing flor substantial increases in the rates of duty. The
general ad valorem rate was increased from 16f per cent to 20 per cent with proportionate increases throughout the remainder of the tariff.
You can readily see that Great Britain and all her overseas dominions and colonies, with the exception of Canada, have found the necessity of increasing the tariff as a ready and certain means of increasing their revenues as well as their existence.
All of the major nations of the world have, in a like manner, adopted from time to time an increased tariff schedule in order to maintain their population, and to stabilize themselves again in worfd affairs. Nations with depreciated currencies, such as Germany, Austria, and Roumania, are insisting that all customs duties be payable in gold. For instance, Germany: On July 1, 1921, all commercial conventions between Germany and other countries lapsed and from that date all imports were dutiable under the general tariff. This constituted a considerable increase, as Germany by a law passed in July, 1920, extended to imports from any country the benefits of any conventional treatments applicable to imports. Since that date there have been a number of increases in the rates of duty on numerous classes of goods. Some months ago it was reported that a general revision of the German customs tariff was under consideration. In addition to the increases in the rates, there h'as been a general all-round increase due to the fact that Germany requires that customs duties be payable in gold.
I will also give the House the situation with regard to the tariff in other countries:
Austria-There have been various revisions of the Austrian tariff providing for increased duties. A new tariff is now under consideration which is understood to be highly protective. Austria requires that all customs duties be payable in gold and this has resulted in a very substantial increase in the duties.
France-In July, 1919, France adopted a system of co-efficients of increase-by this system the duty leviable is the ordinary duty multiplied by the co-efficient applicable to the particular item. The maximum coefficient was originally 3. but has been increased from time to time and is now 10. Also in March, 1921, the import duties under the general tariff were increased from a 100 per cent advance over the minimum tariff to a 300 per cent advance. A new tariff bill, providing for a reorganization of French customs duties, has recently been prepared. It is reported that the bill will provide for
The Budget-Mr. Harris

material increases in the duties on many lines of manufactured goods.
Belgium and Luxembourg-In June, 1920, the Belgian tariff rates were materially increased by a system of co-efficients of increase applied to specific duties. A further increase became effective in October, 1920, by the adoption of a new method for valuing goods subject to ad valorem rates. In March, 1921, the rates of the co-efficients were increased and at the same time new and increased rates of duties were established for various items. In 1924 the customs tariff was revised with an upward trend and retaining the system of co-efficients of increase. The revised tariff became effective in November, 1924. The customs law of Belgium provides that the value for duty shall not be less than the normal wholesale price of similar goods on the Belgian market at the time of importation, less the amount of duties under the lowest tariff which such products would pay on import.
Russia-The provincial government at Archangel issued a decree on June 13, 1919, providing for a duty on goods imported into the northern territory. The rates of duty on all but some 30 items of the Russian tariff were increased. The increase in some items was 100 per cent, on others 250 per cent, 500 per cent, 1,000 per cent, and one item 1,500 per cent. On about 19 items entirely new and increased rates of duty were prescribed.
Turkey-The import duties on certain farinaceous preparations have been increased and increased duties on wheat and flour became effective in September, 1924.
In like manner the mid-European countries and the southern European countries such as Bulgaria, Czecho-Slovakia, Roumania, have provided for increased protection and for the payment of customs duty in gold. Italy, Holland, Poland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland have during the last five years created commissions, who are now at work preparing new schedules, all of which are higher than those at present in effect. The same situation applies in the far East.
Japan-In June, 1921, changes were made in the Japanese tariff with increases varying from a slight increase to as much as between three and four times the former rates. In March, 1922, there were further increases and in July, 1924, the so-called "luxury" tariff of 100 per cent was placed on a large number of articles embracing some 125 items of the Japanese tariff.

China-A new tariff became effective in August, 1919, with duties based on average values of imported merchandise during the five years, 1912-16. In so far as prices had advanced during the five-year period, the new tariff represented an increase. The tariff was again revised in 1922 on the basis of prices for the six-month period from October, 1921, to March, 1922, with a resulting increase in the duties.
Egypt-In March, 1921, duties were increased on various articles and in July, 1921, an additional duty was placed on a large list of articles.
Persia-A new import tariff was made effective in April, 1920, with increased rates of duty, but, owing to the substitution of ad valorem rates in many cases where the rate had previously been specific, it is impossible to estimate what the average allround increase amounts to.
Coming back to the western hemisphere, it is not necessary for me to remind the House that Argentina, Brazil, Chili, Peru, Mexico and San Salvador have in like manner all provided for increases in their protective tariffs. One which affects Canada very considerably is Cuba. Hardly a month goes by but someone in Canada finds it difficult to get his goods into Cuba. A special tariff committee of the Cuban House of Representatives is preparing a new customs tariff to be submitted shortly to the House of Representatives. It is understood that the revision is being made along the lines of protection for existing and prospective Cuban industries, and following this principle it is proposed to increase the present import duties on cement, brick, iron and steel castings, screws, nuts, bolts, etc., ink, soap, fertilizers, writing paper, boots and shoes, matches, and so forth. In the riding from which I come I have a concrete example of difficulty in connection with this from a manufacturer of oils, who previous to 1921 found no difficulty in shipping several tank-cars a month to Cuba, but on account of the new customs regulations is unable to reach this market.
It is unnecessary to remind the House of the amount of protection which the United States government find it advisable to give their different lines of industries. Briefly the situation is as follows:
United States-The Emergency tariff of May, 1921, greatly increased the rates of duty on agricultural products. At the same time a stringent "dumping" law became effective. In 1922 the Fordney tariff became effective and provided for much higher rates of duty than those previously in effect. In 1920, the last

The Budget-Mr. Hams
year of the Democratic tariff, the average rate of ad valorem duty on dutiable imports was 16.4 per cent while in 1923, the first year of the Fordney tariff, the average rate of ad valorem duty on dutiable imports was 35.1 per cent. The 1922 revenue act of the United States, in addition to providing for "dumping" duties, authorizes the assessment of duty on imported articles on the American selling price of similar competitive articles manufactured or produced in the United States, and this basis of assessment has been made use of where the protection of United States industries required it.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 16, 1925