1925-04-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) presented the first report of the select standing committee on Railways and Shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, as follow's:
Your committee recommend that their minutes of proceedings and evidence be printed from day to day for the use of the members of the committee, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said:	I move that the report be concurred in.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: The motion is only to
print the proceedings?


Mr. EULER:: That is all.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a request of
the committee for permission to sit while the House is in session?


William Daum Euler: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.-Mr. Cahill.
_ BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
M,r. VIEN presented the second report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce, as follows:
Votre comitS a 6tudi6 le bill n° 35, loi concemant la Compagnie d'Assurance Mutuelle du Canada sur la Vie, et il a 6te convenu d'en faire rapport sans modification.
Mr. HOCKEN:: Mr. Speaker, I did not
understand the report. Will the clerk translate it?
The report was read in English, as follows:
Your committee have considered Bill No. 35, respecting the Mutual Life Insurance Company of Canada, and have agreed to report the same without amendment.



QUESTIONS

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

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 
HARRIS WHARF, VICTORIA COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What work was done on new Harris wharf, Victoria County, Nova Scotia, during the calendar year 1923-21?
2.	Was the work done by contract or day labour?
3.	If by contract, who was the contractor, what was the contract price and were tenders called for?
4.	What were the names of each tenderer and the amount of each tender?
5.	If the work was done by day labour, how many persons were employed, what were their names, what was the rate of wages paid, the number of days each person worked and the number of horses employed?
6.	What amount was paid for the different classes of material, to whom and at what price?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	A crib work block and span wharf 136 feet in length with an approach 100 feet in length, and a warehouse 12 by 16 feet was
Questions

constructed at New Harris, Victoria County, N.S., during the years 1924-25.
2.	Done by contract.
3.	(a) D. A. Cameron.
(b) Contract price based on unit price at approximately $6,820.03. Amount of final estimate $5,834.11.
(c) Yes.
4. D. A. Cameron	$6,820.03
Thomas D. Morrison	 7,259.51
Kenneth D. McKay	 7,547.32
Musgrave & Sons Limited.. 8,350.00 5. Answered by No. 2.
6>. (a) Material supplied by department and taken over by contractor at cost price:
D. G. Kirk & Son. Ltd.
1343 lin. ft. creosoted logs at 75c	$1,007.25
850 "	"	"	" at 85c	722.50
6,567 Ft. B.M. " timber at $95. M. 623.86 St. John Iron Works.
3,922 lbs. iron and wire spikes.. .. $196.10 (b) Material supplied by contractor,-no information.
CANADA-AUSTRALIA TRADE RELATIONS Mr. MacLAREN:
During the present time, while negotiations with Australia for better trade arrangements are proceeding, why is the Canadian Trade Commissioner to that country being retained in Ottawa?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: As Mr. D. H. Ross, the Australian Trade Commissioner was on leave in Canada, on the regular leave granted all Trade Commissioners, he was sent on the special trade inquiry to the West Indies. Not only was he the only trade commissioner available at that time for this special service, but he was particularly experienced and well qualified to handle negotiations of this kind. Mr. Ross is remaining in Ottawa at present completing arrangements for the conference which will be held here in June. The office in Australia in the meantime is being very efficiently handled by Mr. Ross's assistant, who has been in the employ of the department for several years, and whom Mr. Ross himself endorses as being competent to handle the Australian end of any questions which may arise during his absence. Mr. Ross will return to Australia as soon as the arrangements for the West Indian conference have been completed.


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY
Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	How many years has the Pelagic Sealing Treaty, signed at Washington July 7, 1911, yet to run?
2.	Under what conditions can it be terminated?
3.	What territory does the treaty cover?
4.	Has there been any marked increase in the seal herds since the treaty went into effect?
5.	If so, what are the figures?
6.	How much revenue has been derived from this source by the government of Canada since the treaty was signed ?
7.	For what purpose has this revenue been used?
8.	Is it the intention of the government to ask for the termination of this treaty?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Term is indefinite.
2.	By twelve months' written notice given by one or more of the parties thereto to all of the others at any time after December 15, 1925.
3.	The portion of the North Pacific Ocean north of the 30th parallel of north latitude, Behring sea, Kamchatka sea, Okhotsk sea and Japan sea.
4.	Yes.
5.	On the United States Seal islands-the Pribilof islands-the seal census of 1912 showed that there were 215,738 seals there. In 1924 the number was 697,158. Similar data is not available for the Russian and Japanese islands.
6.	$694,548.16.
7.	$60,663.75 thereof was used to pay amounts awarded to claimants found to be damnified by the treaty. The balance went into consolidated revenue.
8.	The matter has for some time been engaging the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


CUSTOMS REVENUE FOR 1925
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	What was the total revenue of Canada for the j'ear ending March 31, 1925, from all sources under the control of the Customs department?
2.	Does this include every source of cash contributions ?
3.	If not, what are the other sources of cash contributions ?
4.	How much of this revenue is contributed by each of the nine provinces, giving each source of revenue separately?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN (for the Minister of Customs):: 1.	$305,945,251.35.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 2.

4.

Questions
Province	Import Duty	Excise Taxes	Excise Duties	Sundry Collections	Income War Tax	Business Profits War Tax	Total$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts	S cts.	S cts.	$ cts.Nova Scotia....	2,646,110 74	1,425,189 13	34,350 02	29,790 09	\ 847,525 14	28,334 55	5,271,047 70P. E. Island	136,526 17	83,297 51	39,158 93	765 42	New' Brunswick.	4,349,091 95	1,259,616 44	220,357 69	27,743 87	754,373 89	24,516 71	6,635,700 55Quebec	32,760,989 41	30,207,311 32	28,147,605 27	288,996 18	19,445,059 74	690,377 07	111,540,338 99Ontario	56,168,585 99	41,107,142 42	8,398,022 07	277,240 00	25,765,482 06	1,513,661 31	133,230,133 85Manitoba	6,854,637 41	4,126,180 53	869,537 43	41,183 25	3,477,069 32	153.817 53	15,522,425 47Saskatchewan...	1,239,606 05	913,898 99	49,702 1-1	16,908 34	872,028 03	51,239 03	3,143,382 58Alberta	2,594,436 37	1,949,513 25	591,438 26	10,690 38	1,163,911 16	48,368 00	6,358,355 42British Colum-	bia	13,387,030 58	5,179,585 07	632,607 77	60,800 31	3,855,447 21	192,969 48	23,308,440 4294,557 74	24,421 83	2,311 65	66,596 36	187,887 58Preventive Ser-	422,553 01	422,553 013,741 93	3,741 93Department of	Customs and	311,357 45	1,184 15	312,541 60British P.O. Par-	6,798 38	1,903 87	8,702 25
Total		120,238,370 79	86,589,417 81	38,982,779 58	1,183,908 58	56,247,492 91	2,703,281 68	305,945,251 35


ASSINIBOIA-TELEGRAPH OFFICE
Mr. HOPKINS:: L Does this government operate a telegraph office in the town of Assiniboia in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what is the yearly expenditure, and what are the yearly receipts?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Fiscal year 1923-1924: (a) $1,644; (b) $41.58.


YUKQN BUFFALO HERD
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Is it a fact that the government, on the request and recommendation of Mr. Robert Lowe of Yukon, is about to transport to Yukon and establish there a herd of buffalo or bison; and when will such action be taken?
2.	If so, how many of such animals are to be sent to Yukon?
3.	In what part of the territory will such herd be established?
4.	Are they to be kept in corrals or allowed to roam
at large ?
5.	Will keepers be employed to take care of them, if so, how many?
0.	Has this undertaking the approval of the gentleman said by the government to be now engaged in framing policy for administration along lines that will protect natives and conserve wild life?
7.	What is the object of such proposed undertaking?
8.	What is the estimated approximate cost of such undertaking?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1. No.
2 to 8. Answered by No. 1.


MR. L. M. FORTIER
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Was Mr. L. M. Fortier representing the government when taking over Fort Anne park as per terms of minutes?
2.	Was he authorized by the government to close the road around the ramparts, built by the citizens for one-way vehicular traffic?
3.	If so, on what date was this ruling made, and what is the ruling?
4.	Was any investigation promised by Mr. Harkin?
5.	If so, on what date was it held and who were present?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Mr. Fortier was appointed Honorary Superintendent of the park in April, 1917 The park was established by order in council, dated the 24th January, 1917. Mr. Fortier was not acting as a representative of the Department of the Interior at the time of the establishment of the park.
2.	The road around the ramparts has not been closed to one-way horse drawn vehicles. It has not been thrown open under the park? regulations for motor traffic. The parks regulations in regard to the use of motor vehicles provide as follows:
A motor vehicle shall be permitted to enter any park only via such roads and to be driven on such roads and streets throughout a park as the minister shall have designated or shall from time to time designate.
Mr. Fortier, as departmental representative, is responsible for seeing that the parks regulations are enforced in the park. No specific instructions were issued in connection with prohibiting the use of this road by motor vehicles.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	When a protest was received against not allowing this road to be used by motor vehicles, the informant- was advised that the matter was being thoroughly looked into by the department.
5.	The department has been gathering information and if it is considered necessary to have an official of head office investigate on

Questions as Orders for Returns
the ground, such investigation will be ordered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What is the total amount spent by the present government since coming into office for public printing, aside from that done by the Printing Bureau?
2.	What are the names of the firms or individuals awarded this printing, what amount of work was done by each, and at what price each year since the coming into power of the present government?



GOVERNMENT WHARF AT LOCKEPORT

Mr. JONES:: L Did the government acquire by purchase or otherwise since 1921, a wharf property at Lockeport, Nova Scotia ?
2.	When was it acquired and from whom?
3.	What was the price of the property?
4.	Have any repairs or additions been made to the property since it was acquired ?
5.	If so, when were the same made, and what was the cost thereof?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I notice that under "Notices of Motion for Production of Papers" this same information is being asked for in the form of an order for return. I would ask that the question be dropped:


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. member (Mr. Jones) is here. Do I understand the minister to say that this information is being asked for in an order for return?
Mr.	KING	(Kootenay):	Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Why not make this an
order for return and combine the two?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Passed as an order for
return?
Mr.	KING	(Kootenay):	Yes.Mr.	JONES	moved:
For a copy of all reports, estimates, statements, specifications, offers, accounts, vouchers, correspondence and other papers relating to the government wharf at Lockeport, Nova Scotia, and repairs and additions thereto since the year 1921.


Arthur Meighen: This is the motion, I
presume, to Which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) referred. I can see no reason for not answering the question.
Mr.	KING	(Kootenay):	I think all the
information will be contained in the return.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but it should be on Hansard, as the hon. member (Mr. Jones) asks for it, unless it is too long.


John Warwick King: It is not too long, but why have two returns?


Arthur Meighen: What I mean is this:
Unless the answer is too long there is no reason why the question should not be answered. It does not appear that it would be too long. I presume the hon. member wants it on Hansard. He has never spoken to me about it.


John Warwick King: It is the same
information that is being asked for in both cases. I do not see why there should be two requests for the same information. If the hon. member wants the information in an order for a return, that is all right, if he wishes an answer to the question, all right; but why bring down two answers covering the same thing?


Arthur Meighen: The production of papers does not answer the question.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. MANION (for Hon. M|r. Stevens)
For a copy of all correspondence and documents passing between the governments of Roumania and Greece and the government of Canada, or the High Commissioner, or any other person representing Canada, regarding the adjustment of outstanding debts between said governments and the Dominion of Canada.
Hon. Mr. ROBB:: My hon. friend who has moved this resolution is not in his seat. I would suggest that this might stand until his return. It seems to me that, as it is worded, it is not exactly What he intended. This government is not in a position to bring down correspondence between the governments of Roumania and Greece.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the intention.


James Alexander Robb: I think the motion might
stand until my hon. friend returns.


Arthur Meighen: I think I may take the responsibility of saying that is not the intention. It means between the governments of Roumania and Greece on the one hand, and the government of Canada and the High Commissioner on the other.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps it might be allowed
to stand.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is up
in one of the committees of the House. There is no reason why we should not pass the motion with that understanding.

The Budget-Mr. Marler


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It will take a little time
to get the return because the High Commissioner has to be communicated with. However, there is no reason why the motion should not pass as amended.
Motion as amended agreed to.



INSPECTOR OF PENITENTIARIES

Mr. DOUCET (for Mr. Black, Halifax):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, documents, telegrams, or memoranda, passing between the Department of Justice and any other departments of the government, or ministers, or any other parties whatsoever, within the past six months, relating to the appointment of Inspector of Penitentiaries, and especially relating to the refusal to accept for such appointment Colonel Eric W. MacDonald of Halifax.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simoce):: I should like to call the attention of the government and the Department of National Defence to despatches that appeared in the Toronto Telegram, one being dated Ottawa, April 20, and the other Kingston, April 20, as follows:
The question of removing the air force from Camp Borden to Mohawk Camps at Deseronto has been under consideration by the Defence department, but it was stated there to-day that the scheme is only tentative and in "embryo." The present quarters at Borden are considered to be too much off route, while the buildings, originally erected by the Royal Air Force, are out of repair.
The despatch from Kingston of the same date reads as follows:
Charles Hanna, M.P., Belleville, is planning so that Camp Borden will be removed to Mohawk Camp, said to be a much more desirable location. According to many interested in Camp Borden, there are drawbacks for aviation work contemplated by the government. Camp Mohawk is said to be ideal for the work. Camp Mohawk also provides for the development of hydroplanes, which is said to be one of the reasons for moving Camp Borden.
I should like to ask the government whether or not the matter has been under consideration, and if any decision has been reached in that regard what is the nature of that decision. I should like an answer to the question from the government or from the Minister of National Defence.
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD, Pictou (Minister of National Defence):	In the Votes
and Proceedings my hon. friend will find a question covering the matter of which he has spoken.


Arthur Meighen: A question?
Mr. MACDONALD (Picton). This question will appear 'in the orders of the day tomorrow. The matter has been under the consideration of the department but no decision has been reached.



VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. A. B. COPP (.Secretary of State):: Yesterday my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Stansell) drew the attention of the government to a return which he had moved for last session but which he said had not been brought down. I may say to my hon. friend that on looking over the Votes and Proceedings of last year I find that the return he was inquiring about was laid on the table on May 19, 1924.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 21, 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. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, while there are
very many matters which arise in this House from day to day upon which it is very difficult indeed, almost impossible, to agree, it does seem to me that there is one upon which we should be on common ground, and that is the explanations which we as members of the House of Commons give to this House and consequently to the public in relation to the financial statement submitted by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. Those explanations, Mr. Speaker, should be of such a nature as to enable the public to fully grasp the contents of that financial statement-the entries, its purport and its effect. Of course I am very well aware that criticism of a justifiable nature is advantageous, that kind of criticism cannot be denied; but criticism which is founded on inaccuracy or which i3 brought forward purely for partisan reasons has two results: First, the public mind is very much confused; and in the second place, it casts suspicion upon the acts of those officers of the crown who are responsible for the preparation and the presentation of the statement in question. Now you will agree, Sir, and I think all hon. members will agree, that to have any suspicion cast on the officers

The Budget-Mr. Marker
of the crown as regards the preparation and the presentation of the statement in question cannot be advantageous either to the public or to this Dominion as a whole.
In the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, certain assertions have been made which are most unfortunate in their inaccuracies. In other cases the facts have been distorted purely for partisan reasons. As a result the public mind is confused. To-day, to the extent of my ability it will be my effort to remove certain of these inaccuracies, to give a fair explanation as regards this financial statement, and what it means and what it purports to be, and also, to the extent of my ability, likewise to give some explanation of the conditions of the finances of this country.
I will first take up the statement which has been submitted by the Acting Minister of Finance. I will review it, and examine it also, with a certain degree of care. I will attempt to give to the entries which therein appear their proper application; and I will also attempt to show the relations, the reflection and effect, which our railway indebtedness have on the financial statements which have been submitted from time to time to this House and consequently to this country. Now, this is the statement vdiich the Acting Minister of Finance submits as the financial statement for the year ending March 31, 1925, and he states that the revenue for the year amounts to $344,000,000. Then he deals with the expenditure and divides the expenditure under two separate headiigs; the first dealing with the ordinary business of the country, and the second dealing with the business of the country -which is not considered to be ordinary business, namely, the railway advances. Likewise the first part of the statement ;s subdivided under three headings: Ordinary expenditure, capital expenditure and special expenditure. As I have stated the revenue for the year is $344,000,000. Part one deals with the expenditure of the ordinary business of
the Dominion:
Ordinary expenditure	 $ 319,700,000
Balance over ordinary	expenditure	 24,300,000
Capital expenditure	 18,077,000
Balance over	 6,223,000
Special expenditure	 4,400,000
Balance over (after providing for the ordinary business	of	the	country).. ..	1,823,000
Which balances out with the revenue of $344,000,000. Part 2. We then come to that part of the business of the country which is 
not ordinary business, and in that category the Acting Minister of Finance states that he has made railway and other advances- almost entirely railway advances as a matter of fact-to the extent of $19,527,000. As against that he applies the balance over, after dealing with the ordinary affairs of the country, of $1,823,000, and an increase in value of certain assets of $4,000,162, making a total amount to apply as against the railway advances of $5,823,102, and he brings down as an increase in the consolidated debt during the year the sum of $13,703,838. I would like to make clear what that statement purports to be. It purports to be a statement relating to the consolidated debt and the consolidated revenue of the country, and brings down as a result the net increase of the consolidated debt alone. It has not, nor is it intended to have, any connection with the railway indebtedness of the country. That is an entirely separate and distinct matter and has to be taken into consideration separately, althougn it is true it reflects to some extent upon the consolidated fund of the country because the two are to some extent related. But this statement is clearly a statement as regards the consolidated fund of the country alone. That being the case, certain criticisms which have been made in this House with regard to this statement seem to me to be most uncalled for. I intend as a matter of fact to read certain of those criticisms and put them on Hansard, because I will take them up for what they are worth as I proceed with my remarks, and I will show that this statement which has been submitted by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Eobb)-and I will treat with that later on in the course of my remarks-is prepared and is submitted and in precisely and exactly the same way as previous statements have been prepared and submitted to this House from year to year. The first statement which I desire to comment upon is that of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), and I am extremely sorry that the hon. member is not in his seat this afternoon. I sent him notice that I proposed to quote his remarks to-day. I will read to the House the criticisms to which I take exception, because they are very germane to the remarks I propose to make. At page 1653 of Hansard of March 30, my hon. friend used these words, referring to this statement:
As a matter of fact, it was a presentation that was hopeless in its confusion and baffling in its inaccuracies.

The Budget-Mr. Marler
This budget I cannot conceive as being other than deliberately designed to deceive the people as to the correct condition of affairs. It is a subtle expedient designed to shield a guilty and moribund government from the just indignation of an awakening public opinion.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend says "hear, hear," and hon. members behind him cheer. Are my hon. friends proud of a statement like that coming from a former minister of the crown casting aspersions on the manner in which statements of this nature are prepared? Will my hon. friend say "hear, hear"? Is he proud of that statement?


Arthur Meighen: I am proud of its accuracy.


Herbert Meredith Marler: So that my hon. friend
says that that statement is accurate, and that the statement submitted by the Acting Minister of Finance is inaccurate.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: And that it is not based
on statements previous!}' made. Will my hon. friend say that?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend had better make his speech. I say the language of the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is absolutely true. I suggest that the hon. member quote the leader of the Progressive party to the same effect.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not quoting him
at all.


Mr. FORKE:: As a matter of correction,
I think if the right bon. leader of the opposition takes the trouble to re-read my speech, he will find it entirely coincides with the remarks made by the hon. member who has just spoken.


Arthur Meighen: I will quote some of it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) agrees word for word, letter for letter and dot for dot with the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce dn what he says, the sentiments he expressed, and everything contained in the particular criticism which he presents to this House and places before the country, when he says that the Acting Minister of Finance submits a confused statement, and that the officers of the crown bring forward statements that are not correct-a splendid statement to be proud of and to put forward, when the government applies for the next internal loan. It is something to be proud of, especially coming from an ex-minister of the crown. It is not an ordinary member of parliament, mark you, Mr. Speaker, but an
ex-minister of the crown who makes the statement that it is baffling dn its inaccuracies and intended to deceive the public. My right hon. friend says that he subscribes word for word, and letter for letter to that statement.
We will now proceed to another criticism offered by another ex-minister of the crown, the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), whom it is always a delight to hear speak in this House, and who expressed himself in no uncertain terms with regard to the statement in the budget and the subsequent explanations which were given of the budget, and we may put them both together in order to be fair. It is a great delight to hear my hon. friend speak, but on this occasion he must have thought he was speaking in some place where he would not be heard and where his voice would not go all over Canada, where any aspersions cast on a minister of the crown would not be cast on the government officials of the country, because these are the words he used:
Or are we to have a conspiracy of silence, or perhaps what is worse, a tissue of half truths, in dealing with the financial condition of our country ? I am reminded of a remark made by Napoleon when he was referring to a German diplomat: he said. That man lies too much. It is necessary to lie sometimes, but not all the time."
Well, Sir, if these hon. gentlemen, exministers of the crown, take any glory out of a statement of this description, I certainly do not. If hon. members opposite take delight in making statements of that kind and sending them across the country they are welcome to whatever pleasure they derive from such a proceeding but if they think they are rendering their party or the country any service they are, in my opinion, very much mistaken. Aspersions of that nature cast on officers of the crown and members of the government concerning financial statements- not as regards questions of policy, not as regards what has taken place or what is put into such financial statements, but ascribing to their authors the deliberate intention to baffle and deceive-are highly improper and no member of the House is justified in resorting to such criticism unless he is sure that his statements are accurate. As a matter of fact the statements which have been made are not accurate in any particular. I do not wish hon. members to take my word in regard to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement I make in the House to-day.
Before dealing at greater length with these criticisms which ex-ministers of the crown have made in the House and in the country, I will remind hon. gentlemen that in the last six years we have had four different finance
The Budget-Mr. Marler


Arthur Meighen: I beg pardon; I was not listening to the hon. member, I was reading a letter.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I regret my right hon.
friend is not interested in this matter; he should be.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot do two things
at once.


Herbert Meredith Marler: He is standing up for
assertions made on that side which are false.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me. I said that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) had made statements to the same effect as those made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I have since turned up the reference, and if the hon. gentleman will permit me I will read the exact words of the hon. member for Brandon and let them speak for themselves. At page 1579 of Hansard of the present year the hon. member for Brandon is reported as follows:
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the financial statement given to the House does not reflect exactly and faithfully the conditions of the country at the
The Budget-Mr. Marler

present time, nor our financial standing either. First, I wish to say a few words in regard to the different methods of book-keeping that are practised by successive governments. Let me explain that in discussing this matter I speak as a pflain man who has no knowledge of accounting; but it does seem to me that there should be no difficulty in the government making up the accounts in such a way that at the end of the year, the ordinary man, the man in the street, who after all represents the great majority of the people of this country, should be able to form some idea, a correct idea, as to the national finances.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Quite so. The hon. member for Brandon was quite right, that he had not the actual knowledge of accounts which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre possesses; that hon. member is an accountant, and he had no business making the statement he made. What my right hon. friend says is not apropos. But I was not referring to the hon. member for Brandon but to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


Robert Forke: It would be only fair for
the leader of the opposition to read the next paragraph as well.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to reading any paragraph, but it is not divided into paragraphs.


Robert Forke: Continue the quotation.


Arthur Meighen: Let the hon. gentleman read it himself.


Robert Forke: I do not know but what the House might benefit by re-reading that speech.


Mr. GOOD:: 
Herbert Meredith Marler: The advances for the railways have always been treated in a separate account. Before the year 1920 the hon. member will not find any railway advances in the public accounts; the first year we find them so treated is 1920. Right along the hon. member will find the accounts segregated under ordinary account, capital account and special account; and there was a further division made later on of railway advances. In Sir Thomas White's time the railway advances were treated as an active asset and did not appear at all; but later on the hon. member for West York wrote the assets down. It is true that when he did so he was careful not to take into consideration the $55,000,000 expended in the year 1920; he wrote down the $284,000,000, not taking into consideration that $55,000,000 was represented in that year's expenditure.
To come back to the question of the segregation of accounts, what I say is that

it would be better to have the railway accounts an entirely separate matter, so that on one side of the sheet one could see the ordinary business of the country, and on the other side the figures in connection with our railway business. I will explain that point later on if the hon. gentleman will excuse my not dwelling on it just at present.


William Charles Good: This $19,000,000 item should be included in the railway account proper.
Mr. MAiRLER: My hon. friend is a little confused in that respect. He must realize that money is expended on the railways in two ways: first, out of the consolidated fund. And whatever has been expended out of the consolidated fund has been invariably charged to the net debt since the year 1920. Before that, Sir Thomas White had not charged them to the consolidated debt; they were held as an active asset and so were not taken into consideration in the computation of the net debt. But my hon. friend must also bear in mind that money is raised for the railways by way of bond issues guaranteed by the Dominion. The railway account to which I refer should contain not only the amount paid out of the consolidated fund, made by way of a cross entry into that account, but also the net amount by which the indebtedness to the public is increased by reason of the bond issues. That is the form in which the railway account should be set out, and if the hon. member will wait a few moments I shall explain it later and shall be glad to answer then any questions he may ask.
I have discussed one speech of Sir Thomas White and two of those delivered by the hon. member for West York; and those speeches, so far as financial statistics are concerned, are in form practically identical with the budget speech submitted at the present time. And if hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to consult the speeches made later by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in the years 1922 and 1923 they will find there also identically the same form made use of; they will find the Minister of Finance saying, "Now let us turn to the railway advances of the country and deal with them." In other words, he deals first with the ordinary business of the country and then he takes up the railway business, although I admit that his speeches are more ample and give more information than previous speeches. Let me ask hon. members across the floor, do they think that these statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River as reported in Hansard are fair? Does the

The Budget-Mr. Marler
hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River persist in saying that there has been a conspiracy of silence?


Mr. MANION:: May I answer the hon.
member?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I wish the hon. member
would; I am waiting for an answer.


Robert James Manion: I did not discuss the
speeches of other ministers of finance at all but merely referred to the fact that there was no surplus whereas the present acting minister had claimed one. As a matter of fact, I may tell the hon. gentleman that I have never read a whole lot of the financial speeches to which he has referred to-day; what I discussed was altogether the question whether there was a surplus at all and I claimed, as I still claim, that the Acting Minister of Finance should have disclosed a deficit instead of claiming as he did that there was a surplus.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend was not
speaking of a surplus. If the hon. gentleman has not read the speeches to which I have referred he has no business to say that there is now a conspiracy of silence; if he applies those words to the present budget, and if the hon. member for Vancouver Centre speaks of it in the way he has done, these hon. gentlemen must apply the same terms to the speeches I have discussed as delivered by Sir Thomas 'White and the hon. member for West York.


Robert James Manion: I was speaking of a conspiracy of silence in regard to the actual deficit that should have been disclosed.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend is hedging.


Robert James Manion: Not at all.


Herbert Meredith Marler: As a matter of fact the
Acting Minister of Finance did not claim a surplus over all expenditures, as the hon. member will see if he has read the present budget speech.


Robert James Manion: He claimed a surplus of


Herbert Meredith Marler: He claimed a surplus of
$1,823,000 on ordinary expenditure. Now let me take any one of these speeches at random; let us see what surpluses hon. gentlemen opposite have claimed. This is from the budget speech of the hon. member for West York in 1920:
We had a surplus of approximately $39,000,000 over ordinary expenditure.
Hoes my hon. friend say that the ex-Minister of Finance was telling lies when he said that?


Robert James Manion: I was not discussing the
member for West York; I was discussing the present Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb).


Herbert Meredith Marler: I intend to clear this
matter up on the floor of the House now. If my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River-and I may include also my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre-used those terms of the Acting Minister of Finance, those same terms are directly applicable to the hon. member for West York and to Sir Thomas White. Now, let my hon. friend apply those words to the two ex-ministers of finance, or withdraw them against the present Acting Minister of Finance.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend had better apply the words to whomever he wishes. I applied them to the man I chose to apply them to.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend is now
losing his temper; he finds himself in a hole. He was talking of things he knew absolutely nothing about. He did not take the trouble to read the previous budget speeches, he admits that from the floor of this House.


Robert James Manion: I listened to them.


Herbert Meredith Marler: And yet he say? that the present budget speech is "baffling," not knowing what the speech of a minister of finance should be like at all.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend would
permit me? He is becoming a little extravagant in his language. I have been in this House for eight years listening to budget speeches, and I ought to know something about them.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend just admitted that he knows nothing about them at all.


Robert James Manion: Nothing of the sort.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend is a college man, he studied logic, and he ought to understand that if one speech is deceitful, another speech in the same form must be deceitful also. It is a mere matter of reasoning. My hon. friend was speaking of the surplus and he said of the Acting Minister of Finance, applying it indirectly to him:
I am reminded of a remark made by Napoleon when he was referring to a German diplomat: He said, That man lies too much. It is necessary to lie sometimes, but no* all the time."
The Budget-Mr. Marler

Fine words from my hon. friend! Yet on it he hinges his argument as to the surplus of $1,823,000. There was an excess of revenue over ordinary expenditure to that extent, but the Acting Minister of Finance did not claim a surplus over all expenditure. He did claim a surplus made up precisely and in exactly the same manner as Sir Thomas White and the member for West York made up their surpluses in their three budget speeches.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we will examine this subject a little further. We will pass these random speeches that my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River has not read, and that I believe the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has not read either, although he made up some extraordinary figures which later on I will speak about. We will take the second part of the speech, that relating to the railway advances, I will ask hon. members opposite, if they have any interest in this subject to get out the speech of this year of the Acting Minister of Finance and read the statement which is made there and compare it with the statements made in the two speeches of Mr. Fielding. They will find that the railway loans are all particularly mentioned in all those speeches, not the 4 p.m. application. Do not misunderstand me. I am speaking of the deceit which my hon. friend spoke of, this baffling speech which does not place before the country all the facts regarding the national finances. My claim is that the speeches as they are contain a full disclosure of all matters relating to the consolidated debt and of all bond issues which were made, whether guaranteed or not in so far as the railway advances were concerned.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, does not the
hon. gentleman think it was a little difficult to find what the railway deficits would be from a perusal of the speech of the Acting Minister of Finance? I could not find it until I got the annual report of the Canadian National Railways; then I could see where the railway deficit came in.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend is perfectly right in saying that it is one of the mo3t difficult things in the world to find out the reflected influence by way of bonds and refunding and the manner in which that reflects on the consolidated debt. There is no doubt about that at all. I admit the difficulty in that respect. But let me point this out to my hon. friend from Brandon, that the statement in the budget speech is not a railway statement at all, it does not deal with the railway accounts. It simply says that these 
are the obligations which the Dominion of Canada has undertaken during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925; and owing to the fact that certain indirect obligations were issued that year on account of the railways, it details them there at that time. But.to find out what application and what reflection they have with regard to the railway accounts, one has to look to the railway accounts themselves. But let me repeat to my hon. friend from Brandon, that the budget speech is not a railway speech at all, it is simply a speech relating to the consolidated debt and to the obligations of the country particularly of the then current year.	[DOT]


Mr. GRAHAM:: And therefore for different years.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Entirely. I will explain
that later, I think to the satisfaction of my hon. friend. I observe what the Acting Minister of Finance says as regards our railway advances and indirect Obligations. In his speech he made the situation perfectly clear. He stated that the cash advances to the railways amounted to $18,027,000, but in addition to that he says that we have issued during the year certain guaranteed and certain unguaranteed securities, of which securities so issued we have used a certain amount for refunding purposes, that is, to pay off obligations, not increasing the railway debt, and the balance we have emitted to the public with our guarantee. Now, I am not taking up at the present moment the application of the money which was used in so far as these guarantees or the proceeds of these loans are concerned; I will come to that later on; I am taking up this fact, and this fact only-and I want to impress this on hon. members-whether there was a full disclosure made of all the obligations of the Dominion in that budget speech, which is denied by my hon. friends of Fort William and Rainy River and Vancouver Centre. I say that disclosure was made there.


William Alves Boys: Will my hon. friend tell us,
after his profound study of the situation, what the true status is, taking under review the surplus of revenue over expenditure and with it the deficit on the National railways? In other words, if he has no objection I should like to get that information very much in a nutshell what is the true position of Canada, taking into consideration those two features, and, doing so, what is the deficit?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly, I will be only
too glad to tell that to my hon. friend later, if he will pardon my going on with the continuity of my remarks.

The Budget-Mr. Marler


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend has asked some questions here of two members of this party who unfortunately at the present time are engaged in the performance of other and important work in the Ocean Rates committee.
I feel quite confident that if they were here they would ask him to be courteous enough, even at the risk of interfering with the continuity of his speech, just to give us in dollars and cents-something I have no doubt he can do in a moment or two-what is the deficit, taking into consideration the surplus of $1,800,000 referred to and the deficits in connection with the National railways?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am extremely sorry to
appear to be discourteous to my hon. friend, but I do not wish to break into the continuity of this story which I am attempting to tell in a perfectly clear way. Let my hon. friend have patience.


William Alves Boys: I am full of it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am first of all dealing
with the question of disclosure.


William Alves Boys: If my hon. friend will permit me thi3 once I will not trouble him any more. I think I have asked him an important question, and that is what he has been dealing with. If he will give me an answer now I shall be very glad to have it; if not, I must content myself without the information.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am extremely sorry, but my hon. friend's anticipation will be so delightful for the next ten or fifteen minutes that he really will not be sorry that I am not able to oblige him at once.


William Alves Boys: I have a committee to go to.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am extremely sorry, but
if the hon. member will wait-


William Alves Boys: Kindly give it now.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I intend to tell this story
in my own words and in my own time. I intend to take these matters up as I go along, and I intend to the extent of my ability to give a fair, honest and decent presentation, not the sort of presentation and criticism which came from the opposite side of the House.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Nail them to the
barn door.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I was speaking, when the
interruption came, on the point of disclosures in these various budget speeches. I had stated that the present Acting Minister of Finance as well as Mr. Fielding had disclosed in their respective budget speeches a full statement of the railway bond issues which took place 149
year by year, whether those issues had been guaranteed or not -by the Dominion. Now I want to ask hon. gentlemen opposite this, in view particularly of the following statement which also comes from my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre later on in. his address- Hansard, page 1663.
It does not disclose the full extent of the nation's obligations and commitments; nor does it correctly interpret the revenue accounts of the country.
Another accusation! Now let us look again to the budget speeches of my hon. friend from West York, and ask ourselves, did he disclose one of these railway guarantees in his speeches? Did he come forward and say, as my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance has said that in the year 1925 we emitted to the public three-year 4 per cent guaranteed notes to the extent of $20,000,000 and thirty-year 44 per cent guaranteed notes to the extent of $26,000,000? Did the hon. member for West York ever show that? He said not one single solitary word about any loans, guaranteed or not, which were made by the railways in either of his budget speeches. But you will say: None were issued at that time, consequently there was no necessity of mentioning them. You will be surprised to hear that in the year 1920 there were issues to the extent of $42,109,026; you will also be surprised to hear that in the year 1921 there were issues of $77,000,000; but not one word appears about those particular issues in either of the budget speeches of the hon. member for West York.
Let us keep out of our minds for the time being the application of this particular indebtedness. I am speaking of the disclosures, of this alleged illusory statement which my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance has put forward, and which has been received with such severe recriminatory remarks by hon. gentlemen opposite. I repeat again, the statement of the Acting Minister of Finance is a full disclosure of what took place regarding the consolidated fund and the railway bond issues for the year.


Mr. LADNER:: I happen to have checked some of these figures myself.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am glad to hear someone has checked them.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman is full of fire and brimstone at the moment. There are two sides to the question.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am simply talking common sense.

The Budget-Mr. Marler


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the hon. member not agree on the question of 'disclosure that the real point of difference is this? In 1925, $10,000,000 was advanced in cash by the government to the railway, and not $17,000,000 as the Acting Minister of Finance has said, because $7,000,000 of that $17,000,000 was interest, as you will find by checking the figures. Ten million dollars was advanced then. In 1924, $23,000,000 was advanced in cash, making a corresponding less amount of guarantees. In 1923 the advance was $77,000,000. So the real point of that is this, that the government changed its practice. Whereas formerly they advanced cash to the railway they owned, now they advance practically no cash but pursue the policy of indirect guarantees, thereby enabling them to present a statement which appears to show a fine balance sheet, but which as a matter of fact obligates us in exactly the same way as if we had advanced the cash.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I understand what my hon. friend is trying to get at. I am not discussing the question of method, but the question of disclosure.


Hewitt Bostock: I wish to remind hon. members on both sides of the House that while a question may be put with the permission of the member who has the floor, a question which becomes a speech in itself cannot be allowed. There is a rule of debate in this House that an hon. member may speak only once, and if his question or interruption lasts too long he may be prevented from addressing the House when he comes to speak for himself.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I quite understand the point my hon. friend is trying to bring out. That also will be taken up fully in the course of my remarks. My hon. friend need not be disappointed, I am not trying to sidestep this question at all as to the effect of the railway bond issues on the debt of the country. My hon. friend will find me speaking quite openly when I come to that question.


Mr. STANSELL:: I understood the hon.
gentleman to say that for the past seven years practically the same course had been pursued in the delivery of the budget statements. Was the same plan followed last year? Is not my memory correct when I say that the hon. member disagreed very strongly with the budget of last year?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not talking of questions of policy at all. I am talking of what the budget speech discloses. My hon. friend taunts me, and perhaps correctly so, with what

I . stated last year. Then I approached the matter in a decent and a gentlemanly way, unlike the manner in which hon. gentlemen opposite have approached it this year. I did not make any sudh statements of castigation as they have made in this debate, but I gave my opinion, and if I may refer to the Prime Minister I think he said that I gave what my opinion was in an honest and a fair way; I think those were his words. But it is not a question of policy I am discussing now. I am discussing now the ordinary general form of the budget speech, and I say that this budget speech is in substantially the same form, except indeed that the Acting Minister of Finance and Mr. Fielding were more ample in their disclosures than the previous administration,.
Hon. gentlemen will remember that I stated that after taking into consideration part 1 and part 2 accounts, there was a net increase in the consolidated debt during the year of $13,703,838. Here again I must take issue with my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre. I regret extremely he is not in his seat today in order to hear what I have to say in this regard because it is a matter of considerable importance. He discussed1 the condition of the debt on page 1655 of Hansard, and he discussed it in very extraordinary and very-positive terms. He begged the House, he begged every hon. gentleman in the House to listen to his words detailing, as he did-I have (he quotation before me-the debt on a certain date, March 31, 1922, which was substantially the date when the previous administration went out and that on the 31st of March, 1925, it was another amount, showing an increase in the debt of virtually $9,000,000. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre went on to say: Your figures are all wrong; there is something wrong here; $300,000,000 has disappeared; what have you done with it? Show it up. It is quite true, he said of the Acting Minister of Finance, you have an honest face and an honest appearance but your accounts are dishonest. He says to the Deputy Minister of Finance "We know that you are not a thief but your accounts are most extraordinary; there is $300,000,000 gone somewhere and we cannot find it". He says to the officials of the Department of Finance "We know you are not tricksters but your accounts show by my figures that there is $300,000,000 lost. Where is that $300,000,000? Where has it gone?"
I can say to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre that if he makes up his accounts in the same way that he made up that computation, he is in danger of losing not only 300

The Budget-Mr. Marler
millions but 300 billions of dollars because the calculations which he has made are absolutely wrong. They are founded on wrong premises; they do not even show knowledge of the facts as he states them. What does my hon. friend do? He takes the net debt on the 31st March, 1922, and the net debt on the 31st March, 1925, and he says there is an increase in the debt of $9,000,000. But he says, and hon. gentlemen will mark this well, that those on this side of the House have stated in the various budget speeches that on 23rd May,	1922, there was	a	surplus	of$33,000,000, on	May 11, 1923,	a	surplus	of$61,000,000, on	April 10, 1924,	a	surplus	of$67,000,000, and	on March 24, 1925, a surplus
of $24,000,000, that you add all these together and there is $187,000,000 that has to be accounted for. But more than that the Imperial government paid to this government an amount of $122,000,000, so there is $309,000 000 which should be deducted. In other words the debt shows an increase of $9,000,000. 'Deduct the $9,000,000 from the $309,000,000, and you have a net deficit not accounted for of $300,000,000. That is my hon. friend's way of reasoning, Mr. Speaker, and it is reasoned out very carefully. It is not a question of simply casting up these figures of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre; he has it all down here in black and white. He has sent the statement all over the country with respect to this side of the House *"Just what have you done with that $300,000.000?" He says to the tax paying public in *Canada "There is something wrong here. There is $300,000,000 that should be applied to the national debt and your taxes reduced." That is his reasoning. Well, it is an extremely simple thing to show where this reasoning is wrong and I cannot understand how my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre fell into the difficulties and the errors in calculation *which he did. In the first place he talks about the surplus of May, 1922, of $33,000,000. That is not applicable to the three years he has under review at all. That is applicable to the previous three-year period; it did not fall into 1922 at all. Take his other three surpluses. He has forgotten to deduct the capital expenditure and the special expenditure. That does not account, it is quite true, for the $122,000,000, but he forgot that that was an active investment and never had been taken into consideration in the calculation of the net consolidated debt at all. In other words it was merely a cross-entry in the books. In order to correct my hon. friend the member for Vancouver Centre and put 149i
this record on Hansard, let me give these figures:
Surplus	in	1923	over	ordinary	expenditure. . $ 62,321,168Surplus	in	1924	over	ordinary	expenditure..	72,024,493Surplus	in	1923	over	ordinary	expenditure.. 24,300,000Total	3158,645,661Less capital special and cash advances in the years 1923, 1924 and 1925 of	$171,092,403Resulting debit	$ 12,446,742Less net increase in assets	
3,095,432Making net increase in debt	$ 9,351,310Which balances in all respects, dollar for dollar, letter for letter, with the public accounts as submitted. Recalling the statement of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River and looking at this statement of a $300,000,000 loss I was wondering, can we not apply his words "what kind of gold brick financing, what kind of political shell game is the Acting Minister of Finance trying to put over the country"	to his friend who sfts
to his left when he submits a statement that there is a $300,000,000 deficiency. My hon. friend is silent.


Robert James Manion: I might say to my hon.
friend that we are not holding court here. One might think he was defending a criminal from the way he is acting.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not defending a
criminal, that is precisely the point. I am saying that my hon. friend accuses people of being criminals and they are not criminals.


Robert James Manion: I was drawing the conclusion from my hon. friend's attitude that they were.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is the peculiar attitude of my hon. friends over there. I do not know the reason for it but it is probably disappointment.


Robert James Manion: Might it be that hope has made my hon. friend change his attitude?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think my hon. friends
over there will some day reach the age when disappointment gives place to humour and anger to tolerance. Now taking up the question of the increase in the consolidated debt, I might give these figures to hon. gentlemen opposite-and perhaps they are very unpalatable indeed-but I want to show the increase in the net consolidated debt with the increase in the railway indebtedness owing to the emission of bonds. Then bringing the two together I wish to compare the three-year period of 1920, 1921 and 1922 with
The Budget-Mr. Marler

the three-year period of 1923, 1924 and 1925. That is what I want to arrive at; that is what I want to put frankly and clearly before the House. I am not trying to hide anything, not trying to deceive anybody. I intend going into a comparison of the guaranteed and of the unguaranteed railway issues and making a comparison of the three years. I think that is the question that my hon. friend from Brandon wants answered. As a step to enable me to do that I first of all have to arrive at what is the increase in the net consolidated debt over a certain period. I want to be abundantly fair to my hon. friends opposite in making this comparison. I want to arrive at the point so that they cannot say that I have made this comparison not gi/ing them credit for demobilization expenditures, not giving them credit for assets which have been written down although they were advances made in cash in the past. I want to give them credit for all that and I want to arrive at the result for the second three-year period by means of expenditure other than demobilization, other than the writing down of these decreases. That is the point I want to arrive at, and I want to be absolutely fair to everybody in that respect. Now these are the
figures:
Net consolidated debt March 31, 1919.. $1,574,531,032 Net consolidated debt March 31, 1922.. 2,422,135,801
Increase in three years	$ 847,004,769
Increase due to demobilization	$ 343,249,099
Due to transfer of assets from active to
non-active list	 228,115,555
Due to expenditures other than demobilization	 256,240,115
Total	$ 847,604,769
That is the figure I would like hon. gentlemen to bear in mind-the figure regarding expenditure of 256,000,000 odd dollars.
Now take the comparison for the next three year period, that is to say the period for the years 1923, 1924 and 1925:
Net consolidated debt, April 1, 1922.. .. $2,422,135,801 Net consolidated debt, March 31, 1925.. . 2,431,487,113
Total	$	9,351,312
Increase in three year period, which increase is due to:
Demobilization to extent of	$	5,385,842
Transfer of assets from active list	 904,730
Expenditures other than demobilization.. 3,060,740
Total	$	9,351,312
I would like my hon. friends to bear in mind these figures, so that the reflection of the railway indebtedness can be joined up and tied up with this.
[Mr. Marler.l
The amount of increase owing to expenditure then of the first year period was $256,240.115 and the increase due to expenditure outside of demobilization during the second period was $3,060,740.
Now I will continue, so that this question as regards the railways may be brought properly into consideration. I think it is only right, before discussing this question, to take into consideration the fact that this debate has centred to great extent around the question as to whether the railway bond issues, less refunding, should figure in the net con-soliated debt. There is something to be said for that, and there is a great deal to be said against it. In the first place, our railway business is an entirely separate business. It, is operated by a board of directors quite distinct and quite independent. That board of directors report to the president. He reports to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and the Minister of Railways is the connecting link between the railways and the people of this country. As we all know the railways have been an extremely expensive matter to finance each year. They come year after year to parliament for a certain amount. These amounts have been advanced either in the way of cash advances, in which case they have appeared in the net consolidated debt, or in the way of loans, mostly guaranteed, but sometimes not guaranteed by the Dominion, in which case they have not appeared in the net consolidated debt. Hon. gentlemen opposite have taken this stand-and there is something in the stand which they take-that the amount of money which is indirectly guaranteed should appear in the debt of the country. I do not think it should appear in the net consolidated debt, but I think it should be in a separate account. In other words we should have on one side of the sheet our ordinary business and on the other side of the . sheet our railway business; so that adding the two together we would know each year exactly what the additions to the consolidated debt and to the railway debt of the country . are, the two together making our combined debt. Once that is started it is not a difficult thing to do, because we have the entries relating to our ordinary account, which are quite simple, and we can ascertain from the railway report of last year the amount of the bond1 issue outstanding to the public. All one has to do is to add to the bond issues the amount issued each year and deduct the refunding. The result in total will show what the increase in the railway debt is for that year. As against that railway debt we have

The Budget-Mr. Marler
the railways, of course, for what they are worth. That is something we cannot tell, but we will know by the accounting system what our combined debt will be, and we will have our railway debt on the one side and our consolidated debt on the other side. That would be an extremely simple way of placing the matter before the public. That would show exactly by dividing them as they should be divided,-and I think as they are correctly divided-our railway business entirely separate and apart from, our ordinary business of government, which is an entirely different thing.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Just on that point, would my hon. friend show the extent to which cash should be advanced to the railways each year, so that the comparison with respect to cash and guarantee could be made from year to year, or would he have all railway financing by guarantee?


Herbert Meredith Marler: It does not make any difference in the least whether cash is advanced out of the consolidated fund or borrowed. In one case it is borrowed on our direct promise to pay, and in the other case it is borrowed on the promise of the railways to pay and that promise made marketable by reason of our guarantee. There is no difference whether it appears in the consolidated debt or the railway debt. One thing is the same as the other. But if my hon. friend wants more direct answer, I would say that I would very much prefer to see our railways finance themselves and borrow money for their requirements, with the possible exception of paying deficits out of the consolidated revenue, and1 let them borrow for any other requirements on their own account, with our guarantee Of course. That would segregate them and keep them separate, and we would know where we stood each year.	it!


Mr. LEWIS:: The hon. member will admit that it is still the public debt of the Dominion?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not denying it. There is not the slightest question that the railway indebtedness, whether guaranteed or not, is our debt. I do not think there is any way of getting away from it. We have the assets of the railways behind us. The point my hon. friend is suggesting is as to whether or not unguaranteed securities should be considered. I think guaranteed and unguaranteed securities are in the same category. They are all our debts, because we have standing after the securities a large amount of money, about $800,000,000, before which ranks our guaranteed securities and also other prior lien securities.


Arthur John Lewis: Would you add the deficit
of the Canadian National Railways to the ordinary expenses of the country-not the guaranteed loans but the operating deficit and so on?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I want to make this
mlatter clear in the minds of hon. members. Now let us in the meantime forget all about railway accounts. It is not the operating deficits necessarily; it is cash paid out, and it may be paid out for anything at all. It may be operating deficit or refunding, or a number of things, but I think the idea I have suggested is to keep the account for the ordinary service of the country entirely separate, and any cash paid out of that account for the railways would be put on the other side of the account.
I wish to take up another matter. Around this debate has been centred a great deal the question as to whether these guarantees should be included in the net consolidated debt and that debt correspondingly increased each year, and a great many statements have been made-some extremely extravagant statements-as to the increase each year of the railway indebtedness. I am sorry my hon. friend from West York is not in his seat because I am sure he would discuss the matter with me in his usual courteous and kindly way. The hon. member said the railway indebtedness of the year had increased to the extent of $118,000,000. I do not want to accuse him of saying what he did not intend to say, but I have read his speech with a good deal of care, and I have tried to convince onyself that he did not mean what appears in the report of his speech, because it seemed to me from reading his speech that he meant to say that during the fiscal year the railway indebtedness increased by $118,000,000, and he threw back at the Acting Minister of Finance the statement that he had said it had only increased by the bond issues by about $80,000,000. He asked* where is the discrepancy and what is accountable for it?


William Daum Euler: He took that all back this
morning in committee.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Did he? In any event,
I think the best thing to do is to put the correction on Hansard, and I do so in the most courteous way, because I think the hon. member for West York simply fell there into an unintentional error. This all arose out of a question which he asked on the 16th March last. He asked:
"What additions were made to the funded and unfunded debt of the Canadian National Railways and affiliated companies. . . . during the calendar year 1924?
The answer given by the Minister of Railways and Canals was as follows:
The Budget-Mr. Marler

Mr. Graham:
To the debt to the public	 $ 90,814,026 00
To the debt to the government (including interest)	 28,085,159 35
Total	$118,899,186 35
That answer, as given by the Minister of Railways and Canals, is correct in all respects. The error into which the hon. member for West York fell was this:	He asked for the
calendar year and not the fiscal year. The calendar year is the railway year. The fiscal year starts, as everybody knows, on the first April and terminates on the 31st March. Consequently, to get the increase in the railway fiscal year, you have to deduct entries prior to the first April and to add entries after the 31st December. That will give the increase in the railway debt. I have all these figures written out and if I may have permission, I will jfiace them on Hansard so as to avoid reading a number of figures to hon. gentlemen. If we take the figures furnished by the Department of Railways and Canals, deduct the last bond issue of $50,000,000 which was emitted on the 1st February, 1924, not in the fiscal year 1925, and add the bonds issued after the 31st December, 1924, we shall arrive at precisely the same figure which the Acting Minister of Finance gives in his address. There is not one dollar of difference. It aM balances exactly and correctly. With your permission, Sir, I will place this statement on Hansard so that the actual figures will be there in order to controvert this statement of the hon. member.
The entries to which I refer are as follows:
Total indebtedness as above
quoted was	 $118,899,186
Deduct debt to government in which is included part of the $18,027,000 charged in Financial statement for fiscal year 1925-the balance being interest charged but
not paid	 28,085,159
#

 35,000,000
Total	 90,375,000
Less refundings during fiscal year 1925..	24,007,533
Leaving net increase in railway indebtedness to the public for fiscal year 1925 of	 66,367,467


George Perry Graham: Does the great difficulty
not arise in attempting to take the figures of one year and apply them to the situation in another? It raises confusion, and in discussing railway accounting it is absolutely impossible to apply it to our fiscal year without misleading somebody.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I thank the Minister of
Railways and Canals for the information. He is absolutely correct in what he says. So difficult, indeed', is it to apply railway finances to our fiscal year without an enormous amount of study, I was almost intending to suggest that the fiscal year and the railway year be made exactly the same so that we would know where we stood. It is a great mistake, with a tremendous business expending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars per annum, not to know where the money is going without having to sit down for many a long night, week after week studying these matters in order to put them before the House intelligently. If the government would consider changing the railway year to correspond with the fiscal year, hon. members would be saved a great deal of time.


George Perry Graham: We have to keep the
calendar year.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The Minister of Railways
and Canals makes a suggestion which I hesitated to make, but which is a very good one. We have all our taxation periods ending on the 31st December now. Our income tax and sales tax comes up as of the 31st December. Practically all companies throughout the country are making their year the calendar year. To compare our statistics with company statistics, or to make any comparisons at all, is almost an impossibility.

The Budget-Mr. Marler
If we had them all in the calendar year- railway year, fiscal year, company year, taxation year, that would save trouble to everybody and be far clearer.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Would that not also
make it possible for us to have the Auditor General's report more up to date than it is at the present time?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I would be very glad to
answer that question, but I cannot. I have not very much more to say and I come now to that part of my remarks which, perhaps, is surrounded with more difficulty than anything else. That is the allocation and reflection of the railway bond issues emitted every year on the net consolidated debt of this country. I have spoken about what the various budget speeches disclosed and did not disclose, and it is not necessary to labour that point any more at the present time. I have made it clear, I think, to all hon. members that as regards the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) and the present Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), whatever bonds were emitted were at least set out :n the budget statement year after year. That is not the point in question. The point in question is this, as to how much of those bonds emitted year after year, have to be	added,	using that	argument,
to the net consolidated debt or, if you put it in another way, to the combined debt of the country. In other words, hon. gentlemen have complained that in a certain year we paid out a great deal of money in cash on account of the railways and we charged that in the net consolidated account. Consequently, the deficit was very large. Now, they say, you come along and say to us: We do not intend to pay out cash, but we intend to finance by way of bonds. Consequently your net deficit is very much less or you may have a surplus as the case may be. There is a good deal in that argument and it has to be fairly faced. The question of policy is one which does not make any difference one way or the other in the financial arrangements. Whether the railways are financed by way of cash or by way of bonds, it matters not, all the obligations of the railways are our debts and have to be taken into consideration in some way or another. If $20,000,000 is issued, guaranteed or unguaranteed, in any particular year, that is reflected in the debt of the country, perhaps not for bookkeeping purposes in the consolidated debt, but in the combined debt of the country. We owe that money and we have to pay it. Of course, as against it, we have the assets, if any, purchased by the funds or
proceeds of those particular bonds. Therefore, in the last analysis it does not make any difference whether we pay cash or issue bonds, for practical purposes we have to take into consideration the net result which is obtained.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would it not be fair to the public of Canada if the budget had disclosed that very phase of the question to which the hon. member refers That is the point I raised a moment ago, about the $10,000,000 cash advance last year and $97,000,000 in 1922. The public cannot understand it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend does not
get the point at all. It does not make the slightest bit of difference how the thing is financed. The budget speech could not disclose this aspect in any possible way. The budget year is entirely different from the railway year, and it is utterly impossible for the Minister of Finance to put in his budget speech the railway speech. They are two entirely different things. My hon. friend does not grasp the significance of the situation.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman likes
to carry a superior demeanour in this House.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not at all.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not propose to accept it even though I am a back-bencher. What I wish to ask the hon. gentleman is this: Would it be too much trouble for the Acting Minister of Finance, in a word or two, to have noted the fact that the cash advance this year is small compared with those of other years, so that the public would know that, although the obligation was still there, it was in a different form? It is not very much, but it is important.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not think it would
have caused the Acting Minister of Finance the slightest pain to say that. As a matter of fact he said it in so many words; he said, "I have advanced the railways $18,077,000 and I have issued 'bonds to such and such an extent of which $17,000,000 has been used for refunding purposes." It is all there. But what information does that give to the public, my hon. friend asks. The public will not sit down and study the public accounts; they cannot be expected to. That is the point I make with the government to-day, and I say that if we have a statement such as I have described we shall know exactly where we stand. But the government is not trying in the slightest degree to conceal what has been done from year to year; it says frankly, "This year $18,000,000 has been spent in cash and there has been so much
The Budget-Mr. Marler

in bonds, and last year there was so much in cash and we issued so many bonds." That is all perfectly clear to my hon. friend, I hope.


William Daum Euler: I hesitate to interrupt, but
it is on a point on which there seems to be considerable confusion and difference of opinion as well. I grant at once that when the government guarantees bonds or makes advances in cash to the National railways the debt is increased; there can be no doubt about that. But if that guarantee of bonds or advance in cash to the extent of twenty, thirty or fifty millions is used for capital expenditures, for which there is an asset in the railways, will the hon. member say, as hon. gentlemen opposite contend, that this has a direct influence on the deficit? It adds to the debt, but does it increase the deficit? I say not.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It is not an easy question to answer. I say that it does increase the deficit. The sum of $28,000,000, let us say, is advanced in cash and $25,000,000 in assets acquired, and my hon. friend says that whereas on one side of the ledger you have a debit and on the other side a credit, the one offsets the other and there is a washout and consequently no increase. That would be quite correct if that asset were active. But it is not an active asset.


William Daum Euler: Why is it not?


Herbert Meredith Marler: How can my hon. friend
say that $50,000,000 which we have advanced this year is good, and $50,000,000 which was advanced so many years back is bad? We have $800,000,000 advanced to the railways and that $800,000,000 is good or it is bad. But my hon. friend cannot say that because $25,000,000, which is advanced this year is used for a particular extension, he will therefore chop that off and consider it as good and say consequently that there is a corresponding credit entry.


William Daum Euler: When an ordinary business, such as a manufacturing concern, makes an increase in its plant and equipment, will the hon. gentleman say that the management regard that increase as a loss? Because a deficit is a loss in the strict interpretation of the word. If you increase your assets you do not incur a loss; you increase your liabilities, it is true, but you have a corresponding asset. If you build a branch line you incur a debt but you have an asset against that debt.


Herbert Meredith Marler: You have nothing at all except an inactive asset. If a business concern adds to its assets it does so only in the hope that the addition will earn money.


William Daum Euler: And that is what the railways are doing.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I know that my hon. friend, who favours public ownership, is extremely hard to convince.


William Daum Euler: That is the difficulty with you; you are opposed to it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not opposed to it at all, but I want to see the expenditures of the country lessened and I want to face the situation quite honestly.


William Daum Euler: So do I.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am sure my hon. friend wants to do that.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member permit me?


Herbert Meredith Marler: In a moment. W'hat I say is that the assets of the railways must be considered as non-active assets in our combined debt until it is shown just what they are worth. The assets are there and we do not know what their value is, and we must treat them in the consolidated debt as inactive.


William Daum Euler: If the hon. member says that the $800,000,000 consists of inactive assets, he will see that some of that may be a loss; perhaps the whole of it might be a loss. But why segregate any portion of it? On the basis of that argument you might destroy the whole investment of the railways.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not segregating anything, but the hon. member is; he is segregating a particular expenditure. The hon. mem ber says that if you build a branch line for $25,000,000 that particular branch line is an asset. I say, let us take the whole thing together.


William Daum Euler: What is the purpose of building a branch line if it is not an asset?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. member wants me to say, as I am ready to say if it will be any solace to him, that the building of a branch line will add something to the dead asset behind it. But I say that we should treat the whole of the railways as a dead asset until it becomes a paying concern. There is no doubt about that.

The Budget-Mr. Marler


Arthur Meighen: Is it not a fact thait in
all budget presentations f.or some years back the deficit, as finally disclosed, has meant a deficit over capital as well as over ordinary expenditure, and therefore an increase in the debt?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Is my right hon. friend
speaking about deficits in the consolidated fund?


Arthur Meighen: No. But is it not a
fact that, as finally disclosed in all budget presentations for some years back, for at least seven years, the deficit has always represented the deficit over capital as well as over ordinary expenditure, and therefore has been a real increase in the debt? The hon. member will find that this was the case in 1923, in 1922, in 1921 and 1920.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right hon. friend is
mistaken. There is no deficit whatsoever declared in either Sir Thomas White's budget speech or the two budget speeches of the hon. member for West York.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend misunderstood me.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Will my right hon. friend be patient a moment? The accounts were not finally completed at all, and the fault which my right hon. friend and those around him find is that in 1923 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) showed a" deficit of $31,000,000, whereas, they say, in the present budget speech the same method is not followed. But I am pointing out now that neither in Sir Thomas White's budget speech nor in those of the hon. member for West York was the method adopted in any way different from the present method.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member misunderstands me, as I know he will see in a moment. This year the acting minister has a claimed surplus of $1,800,000.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: I used the word "claimed," and I should be as indignant as the hon. member if that adjective were not used in connection with the present surplus. He will see that in the budget speech that surplus is claimed.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right hon. friend has
been reading a book while I have been speaking, and that is why he does not understand the point.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I can read a little and still catch up. A surplus of $1,800,000
is claimed over capital as well as over ordinary expenditure. Is it not also a fact, I ask, that the $35,000,000 of a surplus claimed last year was over capital as well as over ordinary expenditure? And it is equally true that the $31,000,000 of an admitted deficit of the year before took into account capital as well as ordinary expenditures over the revenue. It is true of all three years; in fact, this feature is common to all budget speeches for seven years back.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
admit that it is true of the last three?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, I will not admit that.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is
wrong.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am . not wrong, I am
taking the budget speech as it is written.


Arthur Meighen: Let the hon. member
ask the Minister of Finance and he will see.


Herbert Meredith Marler: This year no surplus is
claimed over all expenditures; it is on ordinary account only. And in precisely the same way as was the surplus claimed in the two speeches of the hon. member for West York and in Sir Thomas White's speech; there is no difference. I -thought I explained this to the right hon. gentleman an hour and a half ago.


Arthur Meighen: Let the hon. gentleman
ask the Minister of Railways and he will find that I am right.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I will not ask the Minister of Railways anything.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the hon.
member not try to be right? He is wrong.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I beg your pardon, I am not wrong. The surplus of $1,800,000 this year is figured out in precisely the same way as was the so-called surplus in the speeches of Sir Thomas White and the hon. member for West York. There is no difference at all.


Robert James Manion: May I ask the hon. member a question? What does he think of the $4,000,000 of arrears of interest added as an extra surplus? He has not dealt with that yet.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly, I did not intend to speak on that because there is a precedent-exactly the same thing was done under the regime of my right hon. friend. The question of amount is neither here nor there. In 1920 an asset called the Southern Alberta Land Company was written down as non-
The Budget-Mr. Marler

active, in the following year it was written up as active.


Arthur Meighen: But-


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let my right hon. friend
be patient. I have the floor at the present time. It may be extremely unpleasant for him to hear these things, but I cannot help that. I repeat, it is not a question of amount at all. It is precisely on all fours with what the member for West York did in 1920. I am not discussing whether the $4,000,000 is there or not; that is a question for the Department of Finance to concern itself with. As in any business, we have to take a valuation based on what the officers of t.he department say. If they value the asset at so much, and say the value is there, I for one would take their word. But I am talking of the principle involved. I did not mention it before because I did' not want to hurt the feelings of my right hon. friend. I repeat, precisely the same thing was done in the case of the Southern Alberta Land Company, and if he looks at the accounts for 1920 he wall find that the member for West York wrote that asset down and the next year he wrote the same asset up. The company is now insolvent or next door to it.


Robert James Manion: Does the Acting Minister
of Finance in this statement not distinctly say that the $4,000,000 is available for meeting these other cash payments that he made?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not at all.


Robert James Manion: He does. I can quote
his words.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The Acting Minister of
Finance does nothing of the kind.


Robert James Manion: I can quote his words.


Herbert Meredith Marler: How can he do anything
of the kind? He brings down a surplus of $1,823,000. and he says that we have advanced t'he railways $19000,000. He is applying the amount of the increased asset against that. He simply deducts the $4,000,000 odd from the net debt, he does not speak of it as cash at all. It is a perfectly proper bookkeeping entry in all respects. It 'has been done before, every year you will find the active assets written up. I will give my hon. friend a few examples. In 1921 there was written up $315,655, in 1922, $138,847, and in 1923, a small amount. These sums I admit are not as large but the principle is the same. But Mr. Speaker, I have almost forgotten what I was going to speak of next. And nearly everybody else has forgotten, I expect.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend said that
the Acting Minister of Finance did not claim that the $4,000,000 was available. Would he mind my reading the words of the Acting Minister of Finance?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, if he will read the
whole of the account.


Robert James Manion: I will read the paragraph. I may possibly be wrong, but I think not. The Acting Minister of Finance said:
To this must be added the sum of $4,000,162 previously referred to, making a total of $5,823,162 as a reduction in dealing with our net debt, on account of government services proper.
This is the part I direct particular attention to:
This amount is available to be applied on account of our loans to the Canadian National Railways of $18,027,000-
And so on. How is it available?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Go ahead, read further.


Robert James Manion: All right.
-to Canadian Government Merchant Marine of $900,000; and to the Quebec Harbour Commission of $600,000, all of which, while being assets, but for the present considered as non-active, are to be added, thereby making an increase of debt during the year of about $13,703,838.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly.


Robert James Manion: He says (he amount is
"available." Where is the $4,000,000 arrears of interest available? "Available" in Greece and Roumania perhaps.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The Acting Minister of
Finance never suggested directly or indirectly that he had $4,000,000 cash paid in.


Robert James Manion: How could it be available otherwise?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Does not my hon. friend
understand book-keeping entries? There was a similar instance in connection with the Southern Alberta Land Company.


Arthur Meighen: It was not added to the surp/us.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It was deducted from the deficit.


Arthur Meighen: It was taken into the debt account but not into the surplus account.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right hon. friend is
quite mistaken. It was taken into the debt account in 1920 and written up in 1921. There is no question whatsoever about it.


Arthur Meighen: That is different from
the surplus.

The Budget-Mr. Marler


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right, hon. friend will
not see the point; of course it is very unfortunate and a very unpleasant point for him to see.


William Daum Euler: I apologize for interrupting
my hon. friend, but may I put to him one more question? I think I understood him to say that because of the fact that the railways at the present time are losing money, moneys on capital expenditure, or 5 p.m. guarantees for that purpose, must be considered as part of the deficit If I am correct in my understanding,
I should like to ask him this question: If the railways should suddenly become profitable, would he then do the reverse thing and take all these cumulative capital expenditures, which might run into $100,000,000, and credit that one year with a surplus of that amount?


Herbert Meredith Marler: By all means; that is
the very point in question.


William Daum Euler: It is quite absurd.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not at all, it is an
ordinary business transaction. If you have an asset dead you call it dead; but if it starts to earn money you write it up.


William Daum Euler: Would you say that if you
have a manufacturing business, for example, worth $100,000, and it does not pay one year, that it is worth nothing, and if the next year it begins to pay that then you have $100,000 surplus? It is the same thing exactly.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend takes an
extreme point when he gets on this particular question.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid it is mutual.


George Perry Graham: Governments do not take
stock of their assets; private concerns do.
Mr. MiARLER:	Mr. Speaker, the question I was discussing a few moments ago was this; as to whether the bond issues emitted on account of the railways should be added to the net consolidated debt each year or not. I debated that point at some little length. I showed that the disclosures had been made in the various speeches of the Acting Minister of Finance and his predecessors in office. Now, the whole question is this:	They were not mentioned in previous
speeches, they were not mentioned in the speeches of the member for West York at all, but my right hon. friend who leads the apposition takes this stand-and I admit there is a great deal in it-that you do not need to add these bonds so emitted to your debt at all, providing they are all
for refunding, or if only part is for refunding and the balance not so used for refunding is paid out of the consolidated fund, then again you do not need to add it to the national debt. Let me give the House a concrete example of that, because it is a somewhat complicated calculation. The position taken by my right hon. friend is this:
If in any given year we have guaranteed bonds, say $20,000,000, issued on account of the railways, if that $20,000,000 is all used for refunding, then there is no increase in the national debt, it is simply a cross entry.
If $10,000,000 is used for refunding, the other $10,000,000 need not be added to the national debt, provided it is taken out of the consolidated fund and cash advances used for refunding purposes. That is all quite clear. But following out his argument, it would be this: If all that $20,000,000 was not used for refunding, or if there Was an insufficient amount to make up the difference between the two, then that would have to be charged to the national debt. I think I have made that position perfectly clear as I understand my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I think so.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Now we have to get down to a final analysis of this matter. We have to see how these bond issues are reflected in the combined debt, as I call it, of the country in any given year, or in the consolidated net debt. In other words, how in any given year has the debt increased? Before doing that I Want to say that the principle enunciated by my right hon. friend has never been carried out. It was not carried out by his government, absolutely not.


Arthur Meighen: I think it was.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am sorry to contradict
my right hon. friend. I have taken the figures with great care, I have had them compared by the Railway department, and they went to the Finance department and were there checked, and the amount in bond issues that my right hon. friend put out, less the refunding balance, was never added to the net consolidated debt.


Arthur Meighen: There was no balance.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right hon. friend is
quite wrong. I am giving him the figures absolutely.


Arthur Meighen: I got them from the Railway department too.


Herbert Meredith Marler: More than that, if mv hon. friend so desires, after this sitting is over I will send him the schedules of account.
The Budget-Mr. Marler

In other words, I want to be perfectly open with my hon. friend, because in accordance with his argument, in the year 1920 bonds were issued for railway purposes to the extent of $42,109,026.


Arthur Meighen: Subdivide it. There was $50,000,000, $25,000,000, $25,000,000 and another $11,000,000.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Does my hon. friend want them subdivided?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I will subdivide them for my hon. friend if he desires that, but I do not see any particular reason for doing sort will only cloud the issue. I think we had better leave it at the whole amount, as it will be easier for hon. members to understand; I will subdivide it if my hon. friend desires that. But that was the actual amount issued in the year 1920, $42,109,026.


Arthur Meighen: I think there was more than that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not taking into consideration the Grand Trunk acquisition bonds because they were paid really for acquisition purposes. I am taking the emission of bonds as they are ordinarily issued at the present time, so as to make a perfectly fair comparison.


Arthur Meighen: I think there was more than that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not think so. I
think that was the full amount. It balances out, and the figures have been checked by the two departments, and they have found them correct. Therefore, according to my right hon. friend's reasoning, if that is not to be included in the public debt it would have to be used for refunding, or the part of it not used for refunding would have to be paid out of consolidated fund in cash.


Arthur Meighen: This is what I contended before and would again, not exactly as the hon. member says: That any excess of guarantee over the total amount of reduction of funded debt, whether the funded debt was reduced out of the proceeds of the guarantee or otherwise, as long as there was any excess guarantee over the amount of reduction of funded debt, however attained, that is the real addition to the national debt.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I take issue with my right hon. friend in his use of the word guarantee. Time and again he has used the words " all 
bonds issued ". I am taking into consideration every bond issued for railway purposes whether guaranteed or not.


Arthur Meighen: I did not.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend has done so time and again.


Arthur Meighen: But not for the purpose of


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am doing it for this very purpose, in order to be absolutely fair to my hon. friend and to this side of the House also. I am taking all the bonds in. Why not?


Arthur Meighen: It is a different comparison.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It is not different at all
What is the objection to doing so? They are all our debts.


Arthur Meighen: In a sense, yes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Whether guaranteed or not guaranteed, they are all our debts, so why not take all the bonds into consideration, then deduct refunding and see what the balance is, and whether that balance has been paid out of consolidated fund or not.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman-


Herbert Meredith Marler: Perhaps I should continue my argument.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
should not invite questions and then get cross with me if I put them.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not cross. I have
never been in a better temper in my life. The only thing about my hon. friend is that he always attributes his own demeanour to everybody else.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman invites interruptions, but he does not take them well.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I have had nothing but interruptions, and the afternoon will be gone in a few moments if we do not hurry up.
In 1920 bonds were issued for railway purposes to the amount of $42,109,026, and from the proceeds there was used for refunding, $17,109,026, leaving a balance not used for refunding of $25,000,000. Now in accordance with the argument of my right hon. friend that $25,000,000 should have been paid out of the cash charged into the consolidated debt and used for refunding purposes. As a matter of fact, not $25,000,000 was taken from consolidated fund for refunding, but $6,114,237, leaving a balance from the bond issues not used

The Budget-Mr. Marler
for refunding of $18,885,763, which in accordance with the reasoning of my right hon. friend should have been added to the deficit of that year, but it was not added.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has missed my point.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not see how it is possible to have missed it. My right hon. friend has missed my point; I think he has deliberately missed it.


Arthur Meighen: I see your point exactly,
but if you will not let me explain, go ahead.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend can reply
to this when he speaks in the debate. The whole debate from that side of the House has centred around this very point. I have spoken to this point, and my right hon. friend can make an explanation in his speech on the budget if he thinks it worth while. In the meantime, if he so desires, I will furnish him with my figures so that he can study them out for himself. I am satisfied that my figures are right, and that the assertion that has been frequently made from that side of the House that we should add all our guarantees to the consolidated debt is a practice that was not followed in past years. The assertion has been made, not once but time and again, that everything not used for refunding had been added to the national debt. That is not the case at all. It has never taken place. It has never been done in any budget statement at all in this country.
If we take the year 1921, precisely the same thing happened. Bonds were issued that year to the extent of $77,000,000. There was used for refunding $48,943,961, leaving a balance not used for refunding of $28,056,039. Again that amount of $28,056,039 should have been paid out of the cash charged into the consolidated debt for refunding purposes, according to the reasoning of hon. gentlemen apposite. But there was no $28,000,000 paid out that year, but only $7,438,664, leaving $20,617,375 which, according to my hon. friend's reasoning, should have been added to the deficit of that year; but it was not added. Now the point I want to make is this and I come back to the point 1 have made before, that the financial statement as submitted by the Acting Minister of Finance is made up in exactly and precisely the same form as previous statements, not only in form but also in substance, and the guaranteed bond issues-do not misunderstand me; I am not saying they should not be added to the debt, but they never have been added so far in estimating the surplus or the deficit. That is the position. I think what
we want to get down to in the last analysis, in reply to my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke), and it is a question that has taken a considerable amount of consideration to figure out perfectly correctly, is this: What is the amount by which we have increased our combined debt, that is our net consolidated and our railway debt, during certain periods by way of expenditure? I think that is the point my hon. friend wants to get at. To get at that you have to take the consolidated debt expenditure, and you have to take the railway bond issues, less refunding from proceeds of bonds, and less refunding from cash on consolidated account. Now this is the situation, and I am comparing it with such three-year periods taken exactly along the same lines. I am charging against each period all the bonds issued, guaranteed, or unguaranteed, giving credit for all the refundings taken from bonds or taken from cash, and this is the result for the two three-year periods:
1st period-fiscal years ending 31st March, 1920, 1921 and 1922
Increase in net consolidated debt owing to expenditures other than demobilization and after allowing for increase by reason of transfer of active assets to nonactive list	
Increase in railway indebtedness to the public during same period after allowing for all refunding operations.
Total increase net consolidated and railway	 $ 307,124,600
That, is taking and using exactly, specifically, word for word the argument which was used on the other side of the House as regards this railway expenditure. Then I take the next period which I have made up in exactly the same w(ay without deviating a single hair's breadth from the manner in which the previous statement was made up. That is to say for the three-year period ending 31st March, 1925-and I may say incidentally that I have looked at this matter from an accountant's standpoint, from the viewpoint of the man interested in public affairs so as to place the truth before this country and this House-comparing the expenditure which has taken place in the last three years with the actual expenditure in the three previous years this is what I find:
Increase in net consolidated debt owing to
expenditure other than demobilization.. .$ 3,060,740 Increase in railway indebtedness for the
same period	 102,122,196
Increase, net consolidated and railway.. .. 105,182,936

The Budget-Mr. Marler

Or $201,931,664 less than the previous three-year period. Now there is a fair and honest statement which can go before the country, a statement showing every question taken up, a statement showing all the ordinary expenditure, all the railway expenditure, made up on exactly and precisely the same lines as hon. gentlemen opposite themselves have made it without the slightest deviation; and it shows identically and absolutely an excess in expenditure for the three years under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite of $201,000,000 over our expenditure for a like three-year period.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be speaking at such length-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Herbert Meredith Marler: While I am on the question of the railway may I say one word regarding it. I also have a table here giving the increase in the combined debt of the country which with the permission of the House I will place on Hansard so that hon. gentlemen may read it. The statement is as follows:
First period, fiscal years ending 31 March, 1920, 1921 and 1922
Increase as follows- in net consolidated debt
Demobilization expenditure..	$ 363,249,099	
Transfer of assets from active to non-active list (nearly entirely advances to railways previously made in cash and before 1920 treated as active investments).. ..	228,115,555	
Expenditures other than demobilization		256,240,115	
Total increase in net consolidated		847,604,769	
Increase in railway indebtedness to the public over same period		50,884,485	
Total increase in period in "combined debt"		898,489,254	$ 898,489,254
Second period fiscal years	ending 31 March, 1923,	
1924, and	1925.	
Increases as follows in net consolidated debt Demobilization expenditure..	5,385,842	
Transfer of assets from active to non-active list..	904,730	
Expenditure other than de-		
mobilization		3,060,740	
Total increase in net consili-dated		9,351,312	
Increase in railway indebtedness to public		102,132,196	
Total increase in period in "combined debt"		111,473,508	111,473,508
Total increase in six year period in "combined debt".		$1,009,962,762
As regards the railways I am sorry in any way to hurt the feelings of my hon. friend from Waterloo (Mr. Euler)-


William Daum Euler: Have no fear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: -and others who support
public ownership. I hope that my hon. friend from Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) will approve of what I am going to say.


Mr. LANCTOT:: I am quite satisfied.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I want hon. gentlemen
here, and I want the country, to understand if I can the enormous amount of new money placed each year in the railways. It -is not a fair proposition when we reach the railway accounts or reach the budget accounts that we should take two accounts and say that adding these two together there has been a vast sum of money spent because the refundings have not been taken into consideration. The actual effect of refundings is an extremely difficult thing to get at, so difficult that very few will -even venture upon the computation. The figures which I am giving represent ithe new money, taking into consideration everything, but not the interest due to the government, spent upon the railways for the six years in question:
Expenditure
Year	in new money
1920		$106,823,987
1921		 144,237,643
1922		 105,658,469
1923		 59,683,705
1924		 85,050,703
1925		 84,394,467
Total	$585,848,974
I do not know what hon. gentlemen think of expenditures to that extent. I do not know how long they think the country can keep up an expenditure on our railways of something averaging almost $100 000,000 per year. It seems to me that we cannot stand that pace very long.


William Daum Euler: Will the hon. gentleman
permit me-


Herbert Meredith Marler: Just one moment if you
please. It seems to me we cannot stand that pace very long. What I want to make quite clear to hon. gentlemen in this House is this-and I speak not for all but for s certain part of the city of Montreal-ithai city does not want new expenditures made there on railways. No matter how uncomfortable they are at present, they would much rather put up with the discomfort than have vast amounts of money spent in terminals or anything else in that city. I want to make that perfectly clear to the government, if I

The Budget-Mr. Marler
can do so in that respect, with all due consideration. My hon. friend from North Waterloo wanted to ask a question.


William Daum Euler: My question was this: Does
the hon. member not consider it fair to take into consideration the fact that when the roads were taken over by the government they were in a deplorable condition; they had not sufficient rollingrstock, they were not properly equipped to do business as a railway system. But now they are so equipped you may expect in the future not to have any of the great capital expenditures that you have had in the last four or five years?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The public ownership of
railways is evidently received with great favour in this House. If we spend $100,000,000 a year for the National railways we are going to find ourselves railroaded out of existence. In 1920 we spent $105,000,000, in 1921, $144,000,000, and in 1922, $105,000,000. Would not my hon. friend from North Waterloo imagine that after all these expenditures the National railways ought to be in proper shape, if they are ever going to get into that condition at all?


William Daum Euler: Will the hon. member answer my question?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. gentleman asked me if it is likely these expenditures will go on. They have gone on; I have given proof of them. In 1924 we spent $85,000,000 and in 1925 we spent $84,000,000.


William Daum Euler: We have heard that before.


Herbert Meredith Marler: We really cannot go on
spending money like water on our railways.


Robert Forke: May I ask a question?


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Would the hon.
gentleman allow me-


Roch Lanctôt: One at a time please.


Robert Forke: I wonder if those people in
Montreal, would be of opinion that not another dollar should be spent on railway building if they lived twenty miles from a railroad?


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend is quite
mistaken with respect to our attitude as regards railway expenditure. We are not complaining of the expenditure made to help people out in the west.


Robert Forke: I thought you meant all
capital expenditure.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, that is not the idea
at all. What we complain of is the palatial trains, the number of trains running between Montreal and Toronto, between Montreal and Ottawa, and between Montreal and Quebec. We complain of the installation of radio systems at Ottawa, Moncton, and Victoria-all such expenditures as that. Unless we economize in the expenditure on our railways, and on everything else, we cannot reduce the taxation.


Robert Forke: I agree.


Herbert Meredith Marler: We realize that the west
must have railway accommodation.


Mr. CANNON:: Would my hon. friend
cut out the Canadian National trains or the Canadian Pacific trains?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The Montreal people want to cut out trains equally on both lines.


Lucien Cannon: And leave the Canadian
Pacific in possession of the field.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not at all. Let me tell
my hon. friend that if we had the Shaughnessy plan the country would be better off to-day.


Lucien Cannon: Not at all.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, much better.


William Findlay Maclean: May I ask a
question now. I read in a local paper that Sir Henry Thornton, in reply to a question, declared that the suggestion that the deficit on the National railways was due to public ownership was nonsense. My hon. friend (Mr. Marler) who made a very good statement here this afternoon is trying to blame the condition of affairs on public ownership and not on the real conditions.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not desire to-day to weary the House any longer by entering into a controversy about the railways. I intend to discuss the railway situation when we come to the consideration \oi railway estimates. I merely took the opportunity of pointing out to this House and placing on Hansard a statement of the amount of money which we have spent, which is directly connected with the financial affairs of this country and comes under the scope of the remarks I have made to-day. That is, the amount of new money we have placed in railways year by year, and if my hon. friend from South York and my hon. friend from North Waterloo can get any comfort out of it, they are welcome to all the comfort imaginable, because I can get none.
The Budget-Mr. Marler


William Findlay Maclean: And we are taking it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend can take all the comfort he likes out of it. I do not get any comfort out of it, because the 30th April is coming along and my income tax will go into the railway deficit.
Even taking into consideration railway expenditure, we have to take into account to some extent other expenditure also and we have to try if we can,-and I think we canto practise the virtue indicated1 by that hated word " economy ",-hated by every politician from one end of the country to the other- and if possible to do without luxuries, so that taxation can be reduced, because that is after all the only way we can reduce it.
In my remarks to-day I have attempted to give a clear exposition of the financial position in reference to the statement submitted by the Acting Minister of Finance, and to controvert statements from another quarter of the House by members who have been ministers of the crown, and which I think they should not have made.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: I am sure
that hon, members of this House and the ordinary people of the country will be delighted with the clear exposition of the financial statement as set forth in the budget. If I were to describe this, I would say that we have to-day listened to a second budget speech. That has not been unusual since this government has come into power. We have had on nearly every occasion two or three budget speeches. The hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Marler) started out this afternoon to make the situation perfectly clear, and he ended up with as much criticism of the statement of the Acting Minister of Finance as ever came from this side of the House. Now, Sir, if we ordinary people have been delighted this afternoon with the differences of opinion as expressed by these giants of finance, principally on the other side of the House, I am in greater confusion that I ever was as to the situation. Two simple questions were submitted to the hon. member to-day, neither one of which he answered. But we had all the assurances in the world that these questions would be answered. One was a simple question, what is the actual deficit to-day-the actual deficit or surplus whichever you like to call it? That question has not been answered. It may be that my poor mental capacity has not been able to grasp it, but I would be very much surprised if any hon. gentleman in this House

has been able to say from the speech of the hon. member for St. La/wrence-St. George what it really is.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I gave that deficit for the three-year period.


Arthur Edward Ross: What was the
answer?


William Alves Boys: What was the answer? I was
not here and would like to get it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think my hon. friend
had better proceed with his speech. The answer is in Hansard.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am willing to
have it answered now.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I gave my hon. friend
the figures for the three-year period. The increase in the debt for the three-year period was a hundred and five million some odd thousand.


William Alves Boys: That is not the question.


Arthur Edward Ross: Permit me to say
that each time the hon. member speaks he makes confusion worse confounded. We ask him for the deficit of this year, a very simple question. Now he is giving it to us in three-year periods. In other words any hon. member who wishes to know the financial position of the country must take the budget back for years. Why should he stop at three years, four years or five? Why not go back to ten? This is the position in which we ordinary members are placed to-day. We cannot get the deficit for this year. Unfortunately my hon. friend has left the chamber, and I will ask him on some other occasion what the deficit or surplus, whatever he calls it really is, and I will reserve further remarks on this particular point until he is in the chamber.
The budget debate, despised as it is in the press and in the country, brings to us a flood of valuable information from different parts of Canada which we appreciate and which we derive not so much from listening to the speeches as from reading in Hansard the opinions of the different members of the House. It has a peculiar influence on some members. In the case of some members it produces a spirit of prophecy. This mantle was thrown over the shoulders of the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Thurston) the other night. Under the influence of this debate he predicted the absolute dissolution of the party in this section of the House known as the Conservative party. According to his prediction in twenty-five years this party was to

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
be absolutely dissolved. I do not know his reason for such a prediction, but it looks to me more like the whistling of a boy going through the woods, or some dark place, to keep up his courage, or perhaps a funeral had just passed by a short time before and he had to make a noise to divert his thoughts. The hon. member for Victoria had heard of a funeral which had passed some time before. That funeral was the passing of a party to which he claims allegiance in Ontario, known as the Farmers' party. The funeral was a big surprise and occurred in spite of predictions which had been made in regard to the party concerned. In 1920 that party in the Ontario legislature numbered some 45 members, and the Conservative party numbered 25. Predictions were very plentiful in the legislature,-[DOT] and I heard them at the time, being a member of the legislature,-that the old .political parties had now come to the point where they were going to be dissolved and disappear. But unfortunately for those predictions, when the local election of 1923 came about, the party making those predictions was reduced to a baker's dozen, whereas the Conservative party now numbers some seventy-seven members. The hon. gentleman was likely whistling to keep up his courage, because he had, I suppose, looked up the figures in regard to his constituency. For the legislature that constituency is divided into north and south ridings and I would like to show the dissolution which took place after the election of 1923. In 1920 in North Victoria the Rev. Edgar Watson, Progressive member, received 3,348 votes; Robert Mercer Mason, Conservative, 2,430 votes, a majority for the former of 918. In 1923 the Rev. Edgar Watson received 2,353 votes and James Raglan Mark, Conservative, 2,711 votes, or a majority changed over in these two elections in favour of the Conservatives of some 1,270 votes. If we look at the southern part of his constituency, we find that in 1920 Fred George Sandy received 2,542 votes. John W. Wood, Conservative, received 1,103 votes, or a Progressive majority of 1,349. In 1923 Robert J. Patterson, Conservative polled 3,880 votes, Frederick G. Sandy, 3,354 votes and L. V. O'Connor, Liberal, 1,865 votes, leaving a Conservative majority of 526. This was the way in which the Conservative party dissolved, died, disappeared, following predictions such as we have heard here by local members in the legislature. The Conservative party will enjoy a dissolution of that kind, and if the predictions and prophecies continue and produce the 150
same results, we have no complaint with regard to the future.
The budget debate in addition produces some gymnasts. In the last three years we have been amused at the speed with which some members of this House can jump from one part of the House to the other according as the budget pleases them. It has also produced courage in some members. The leader of t'he party to the left (Mr. Forke) has become very courageous thir year. In fact, he says that he has now nailed his colours to the mast. Unfortunately, we who have watched the different budget debates are amused by this great display of courage. One has only to read the statements made by the hon. gentleman in the past, and there are a number to which I would like to draw the attention of hon. members and ask where these colours will be hoisted. It looks to me as though he was sailing in a vessel in which he could change the colours quite' often. In fact, it is very often a vessel with a camouflaged colour, so that one does not know what kind of a vessel it really is. He said:
As regards reduction of taxation we are ready to say amen to it. We will not in any way quarrel with the carrying out of such reductions. Now we are patiently waiting to see what they have done to cut down the expenses of carrying on the business of the country.
Having nailed his colours there, he immediately proceeded to support the government which put upon the people of this country an increase of 100 per cent in the sales tax. Again, speaking of the growing cost of government, he said:
The country demands economy, but I do hope that the economy effected will be a wise economy.
Having hoisted the colours again, he immediately proceeded to support the government in an increase in the cost of civil government of $265,000, an increase in the Immigration department of this country of $680,000, an increase in the Public Works capital expenditure of $1,100,000. Again he nailed his colours to the mast in saying:
We expected the estimates would be cut down very considerably.
And again:
I think it is a mistake that so many supplementary estimates Should be brought down in the dying days of the session.
On each of those occasions the hon. member voted for the government on the very policy for which he condemned them. Therefore, this year when he announces that he has nailed his colours to the mast, we are patiently waiting to see how soon this colour

2346	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
will be taken down and transferred to some other part.
Coming to the financial report as submitted by the minister, like many members of this House, I have for weeks and weeks studied this report in order to get some idea where we stand. I do not wish to go any further than to get an idea of our actual condition year by year. It is not a matter of importance to me what they did ten, twenty, or even six years ago. It is of great importance if we can understand what we, as members, are doing in this House from year to year. It is important if we can grasp just the ordinary figures as given,' to us. While we are not greatly interested whether we have a great or a small surplus, every hon. member is anxious to know whether ordinary expenditure from year to year does at any time equal or surpass ordinary-revenue. As an ordinary member of this House I took the figures as given by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). He gives us the statement that we have derived revenue amounting to $244,000,000; that we have expended $342,177,000, leaving what he calls his actual surplus of $1,823,000.
This is the point where we enter into discussion and we try to ask questions as to whether or not we have this surplus. We have listened to the hon. member who has just concluded and I must say that even now he has not made clear to me whether there is a surplus or whether there is a deficit of some $16,000,000. And why do I say $16,000,000? I give that figure for this reason: having adopted their new policy of giving cash out of the fund, the government gave to the National Railways some $18,000,000, and if that is a cash grant out of our revenues, what other conclusion can we come to than that we have a deficit of $16,000,000? If it is not regarded in that way, then, according to the acting minister, it should go into our debt. But if it is derived from the revenues and taken out of the fund, the minister should explain what the actual cash is; and we as ordinary members cannot figure it in any other way than to apply that to the expenditure of $342,000,000, which would leave a deficit of $16,204,000. The hon. member has laboured all afternoon and has not made that one point clear; and the bone of contention is as to how we shall account for that $18,000,000 given to the railways. If it i3 taken out of the fund it should surely go as ordinary expenditure and so make a deficit of $16,000,000. The next point in the statement refers to the public debt.

At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 23, 1925