1925-03-30

PAPER PRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
Copy of order in council dated March 24, 1925, relating to pay and allowance regulations in the navy, submitted under the provisions of section 47, chapter 43, Edward VII.-Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

[Stage Direction]
On Motions.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: On Friday the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) read an extract from the Mail and Empire concerning which I said I would make inquiry and give a further statement to-day. The item was as follows:
Canadian government has rented pretentious offices in the Quai Woodrow Wilson, where Dr. W. A. Riddell, permanent envoy, expects to entertain Canadians all summer.
Is this entertaining part of the policy of economy, or is it a correspondent's picturesque touch?
As a matter of fact, no premises have been rented in the Quai Woodrow Wilson. Premises have been rented in the Quai de Mont Blanc, not pretentious at all, at a rental of $500 a year. This will be reduced by sub-letting to $340 a year, or less than $30 a month. These rooms will be used for office purposes only, and are not intended in any way for entertaining.
Questions



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On motions.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: In the presentation of the budget I gave notice of a certain resolution to amend the dumping clauses. Since that time I have had further consultation with the officers of the department and have reached the conclusion that the dumping clauses as now incorporated in our act are considered sufficient to properly determine the value for duty purposes. Consequently I take this opportunity of advising hon. members that when we reach the committee stage I shall withdraw that resolution.



QUESTIONS

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

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Wliat amount of insurance is carried on property
in Vancouver: (a) In the name of the Dominion government; (b) In the name of Vancouver Harbour Commissioners;	(c) In the name of the Board of
Grain Commissioners?
2.	What was the total premium paid on said insurance for each of the years during 1922, 1923, 1924?
3.	To whom was the said insurance given and who were the agents of the companies with whom said insurance was placed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Stand.


Mr. STEVENS:: May I direct the attention of the Prime Minister once again to the fact that the material for the answer to this question was published in the papers two weeks ago, and I see no reason why it Should not be answered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer I gave my hon. friend the other day was that the department had not officially received any word from the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, and I assume that is still the case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was an official advertisement over the signature of the secretary of the Vancouver Harbour Board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will direct
the attention of the minister to it.


APPOINTMENTS-D.S.C.R. AND SOLDIER SETTLEMENT
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Is it a fact that the appointments to the two large services, " Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment " and " Soldier Settlement Board," are exempt from the Civil Service Law and subject to political patronage? If so, why?

2.	Was there an order in council passed in June, 1922, exempting 12,000 positions from the Civil Service Act, including all skilled and unskilled labour?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the Soldier Settlement Board were established in the year 1919, at which time, I gather, they were under the Civil Service Commission, bujt whether they were subject to patronage or not I do not know They are not now, because these departments are being reduced year by year, and no appointments of any consequence are being made.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EXPRESS
Mr. WARD:: 1.	Are the officials in the various departments of the government instructed to send all packages by Canadian National Express, wherever possible?
2.	If not, why?
3.	Are the above officials also instructed to send all telegrams by the government line wherever possible?
4.	If not, why?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Instructions have been
given to the different departments of the government that preference be given if at all possible to the Canadian National Telegraph Company and the Canadian National Express Company by the different departments


MILITARY DISTRICT No. 10-COAL INQUIRY
Mr. CHARTERS:: 1.	Did the Solicitor General give, or cause to be given, to the Winnipeg Tribune, in November, 1924, a copy of the report of David Campbell, K.C. ?
2.	If so, why was such report handed to a newspaper before being submitted to parliament ?


Hon. Mr. McMURRAY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. COOTE:: 1.	To whom was the contract awarded for the supply of coal to the Tuxedo Military Barracks, Winnipeg, for the period of July 1st, 1920 to June 1st, 1921?
2.	Was any particular coal named in the contract?
3.	If so, what was the name of the coal specified?
4.	What was the number of tons specified?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Halliday Brothers, 10 tons smith's coal, 120 tons "Lethbridge" stove; Winnipeg Supply & Fuel, 450 tons "Western Gem" stove size; Canadian Coal Sales Ltd., 6,500 tons "Blair-more" bituminous run of mine.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


POSTAL CLERKS AND LETTER CARRIERS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Is the government aware that the letter carriers and postal clerks of the United States have recently ieceived an increase of $300 per year in salary, which places their minimum and maximum at $1,700 and $2,100 per annum?

Questions
2.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation at this session whereby the postal clerks and letter carriers of Canada will receive a similar amount of $300 on their present salaries, which are now much below the poverty line?
3.	If not, why not?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: This question contravenes rule 37 in that it contains an assertion of fact. If my hon. friend will have the question amended, it will be answered immediately.


JAPAN-ALIEN LAND OWNERSHIP
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the government noticed the Associated Press report of the passage by the Lower House of the Diet of Japan, of a bill entitled " Alien Land Ownership " Bill?
2.	Has the government examined the terms of the said measure, in relation to the Commerce Treaty of 19137
3.	Is the said bill in conflict with the rights of Cana-dion nationals in Japan, and if so, has any representation been made to protect the said rights?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is the government thoroughly alive to the need of a rail outlet from the Peace River district to the Pacific coast?
2.	Was an announcement made by the government last autumn that the question of a suitable route for such outlet should be submitted to the heads of the two great railway systems?
3.	During the past two months, has the government endeavoured to secure the report or reply to the said question?
4.	If so, what is the estimated cost of the said railway?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the construction of the said railway this year?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to provide such outlet for the produce of the Peace River country, in order to prevent the depopulation of that district ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The Canadian National Railways have had a party investigating the Peace River district for the last two years.
2.	Not so far as I am aware; but in January last a conference was held in the office of the Minister of Railways at which, among others, were present the headfe of the railways with their engineers, and at that conference the heads of the Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway were asked to consult with each other, and if possible bring in a joint report as to what would be the wiser way to develop the Peace River district.
3.	Yes.
4.	The report has not yet been received.
5 and 6 under consideration.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. LOVETT:: 1.	What has been the total cost to Canada of the Civil Service Commission for each year since its inception, including 1924, giving an itemized statement of said expenditure ?
2.	What were the number of employees of the commission, their salaries and all attendant expenses?
3.	How many positions in each province have been filled by said commission since its inception down to and including the year 1924?
4.	How many positions in each province, in what is known as the outside service, have been filled by the Civil Service Commission since its inception to and including the year 1924, and what has been the total cost to Canada of same?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	The total cost to Canada of the Civil Service Commission for each year since its inception including 1924, giving an itemized statement of said expenditure.
1908-09 Civil government salaries	 $ 7,947 47
Contingencies:
Examiners and assistants..	. $	398	20Travelling expenses	
239	15Printing and stationery..	..	3,586	87Miscellaneous	
359	78
4.584 00

1909-10 Civil government salaries	
Contingencies:
Examiners and rent of halls. $ 5,969 23
Traveling expenses	
721	55Printing and stationery.. ..	3,400	52Temporary assistance	
868	29Incidentals	
324	80
1910-11 Civil government salaries.
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 8,595 34
Rent of halls	
796	30Travelling expenses	
646	60Printing and stationery.. ..	2,650	58Temporary assistance	
243	24Incidentals	
563	26
1911-12 Civil government salaries.
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 8,535 20
Rent of halls	
842	25Travelling expenses	
1,282	90Printing and stationery.. ..	2,838	21Temporary assistance	
283	56Incidentals	
441	58

% 36,286 48

Questions

1912-13 Civil government salaries	 $ 22,964 93
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 8,041 68
Rent of halls	
541	33Travelling expenses	
606	01Printing and stationery.. ..	2,796	53Temporary assistance	
256	02Incidentals	
327	08
12,568 65

1913-14 Civil government salaries	 $ 24,225 CO
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 8,002 00
Rent of halls	
676	40Travelling expenses	
42	80Printing and stationery.. ..	4,701	09Temporary assistance	
761	14Incidentals	
429	89
14,613 32

1918-19 Civil government salaries	 $ 42,002 84
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 12,731 13
Travelling expenses	
1,152	08Printing and stationery..	.	21,079	62Temporary assistance.... 20,196	73Temporary assistance	(O.B.).	7,479	64Incidentals	
3,894	06
66,473 26

War bonus	 $3,579	55
1919-20 Civil government salaries	 $ 72,074 52
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 15,242 04
Rent of halls	
1,680	43Travelling expenses	
692	4-1Printing and stationery.. ..	32,865	30Temporary assistance	
67,878	88Incidentals	
3,883	42
122,242 48

1914-15 Civil government salaries	 $ 26,362 50
Contingencies:
Examiners		
Rent of halls		. 759 60
Travelling expenses		. 2,074 00
Printing and stationery..	.. 4,153 54
Temporary assistance.. ..	.. 306 40
Incidentals		.. 557 28
15,359 07
Cost of living bonus	 $22,624	35
1920-21 Civil government salaries	 $107,140 87
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 14,246 12
Rent of halls	
2,627	32Travelling expenses	
2,951	77Printing and stationery.. ..	40,537	37Temporary assistance	
105,006	59Incidentals	
12,075	34
177,444 51

1915-16 Civil government salaries	 $ 26,646 40
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 8,337 80
Rent of halls	
666	65Travelling expenses	
950	35Printing and stationery.. ..	3,997	78Temporary assistance	
870	76Incidentals	
500	31
15,323 65

1916-17 Civil government salaries	 $ 26,447 20
Contingencies:
Examiners	$
Rent of halls	
Traveiling expenses	
Printing and stationery..	..
Temporary assistance	
Incidentals	

 12,974 31

Cost of living bonus	 $39,307	96
1921-22 Civil government salaries	 $178,264 61
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 8,219 56
Rent of halls	
1,532	27Travelling expenses	
4,373	37Printing and stationery.. ..	26,750	71Temporary assistance	
77,319	21Incidentals	
5,461	97
123,657 09

Cost of living bonus... $35,553	08
1922-23 Civil government salaries	 $200,379 34
Contingencies:
Examiners	$ 5,957 99
Rent of halls	
1,037	96Travelling expenses.. ..	..	.	1,766	73Printing and stationery..	..	15,268	83Temporary assistance.... 44,158	29Incidentals	
3,649	68
71,839 48
7,417 90 740 30 272 85 3,905 41 219 90 417 95

1917-18 Civil government salaries	 $ 30,372 65
Contingencies:
Examiners		
Rent of halls		. 652 55
Travelling expenses		. 319 25
Printing and stationery..	.. 5,473 69
Temporary assistance.. ..	.. 907 70
Incidentals		
13,552 79 $ 43,925 44

Cost of living bonus		$16,144 48	
1923-24 Civil government salaries. Contingencies:		$202,119 83
Examiners		$ 5,275 59	
Rent of halls		1,129 55	
Travelling expenses		2,350 43	
Printing and stationery.. ..	17,077 67	
Temporary employees		37,392 03	
Incidentals		3,489 01	66,714 28 $268,834 11
fMr, Copp.j
Cost of living bonus.

Questions
1924-25 Civil government salaries	 $155,915 21
Contingencies:
(April 1 to December 31, 1924.)
Examiners	$ 3,971 66
Rent of halls	
636	60Travelling expenses	
1,609	03Printing and stationery.. ..	8,843	69Temporary assistance	
13,796	54Incidentals	
3,413	12
32,270 64


POSTMASTERS
[Stage Direction]
1.	Aug.
2.	Dec.
3.	Dec.
4.	Dec.
5.	Dec.
6.	Dec.
7.	Dec.
Year ending
31, 1918 (6ms)..	..
31, 1919 (15ms)..	..
31, 1920	
31, 1921	
31, 1922	
31, 1923	
31, 1924	
	C5		
Alberta	British Columb	*a 1 §	New Brunsw;117	51	46	45142	101	76	51271	208	124	111249	195	122	10039	50	30	1838	37	19	730	25	18	10906	667	435	342Nova Scotia	Ontario	T 8 0'S 1 £33	Quebec47	148	4	115101	230	11	163174	345	15	268137	389	14	31629	151	3	5711	99	7	9216	86	5	63515 1,448	59 1,074d CS £ a>	9	TJ oM «9 [DOT]M	CtJ d H O kJ	® o3 [DOT]0 "d | d	mo3 m	£ z	oo	Z108	183	i	307	i	288	4	62	6	46	1	46	1,040	13
105*
Questions
[Stage Direction]
4.	Ob) The total cost of the commission is given in answer to No. 1. The making of appointments to the outside service is only one of many important functions administered by the commission and there is no way of apportioning the expenditure to the several branches of the commission's activities.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What are the amounts of outstanding claims for capital expenditure for the current fiscal year received by February'- 28, 1925, and yet unpaid?
2.	What is the total amount of commitments in respect of capital expenditure for the current fiscal year, and as yet unpaid?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Department of Public Works-
1.	Esquimalt New Dry Dock Due to the Peter Lyall & Sons Construction Co., Limited, for work done to 31st January,
1925	 $ 11,040
Due to Hodgson King & Marble for work done to 31st January,
1925	 7,270
2. Estimated commitments additional to those reported in connection with Question No. 1 Public Buildings (Capital)....	$320,000
Harbours	"	....	284,000

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FREIGHT Sir HENRY DRAYTON:
What was the percentage of the movement of grain, ive stock, forest products, coal and ore to the total reight traffic in each of the years 1923 and 1924, in the different regions of the Canadian National Railways and affiliated companies in Canadian territory?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Per cent of Movement Commodity	1924	1923Grain	
60.25	59.37Other commodities ..	39.75	40.63Total	
100.00	100.00
Except as to grain carried in the western region, the Canadian National management state it is impossible ito supply percentage of movements of separate commodities, either as to regions or provinces.
The Transportation branch of the Bureau of Statistics, Department of Trade and Commerce, is, similarly, unable to supply it.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1,	Have all moneys accruing to the farmers of Canada from the sale of wheat, under the Canadian Wheat Board, been distributed?

2.	If not, what amount is still owing to the farmers of each province, respectively?
3.	When does the government intend to distribute the balance?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	No.
2.	The order in council of February 7, 1925, authorized the Minister of Finance to distribute $560,000 to the provinces in the following proportions, as set forth in the said order:-
Per cent
Saskatchewan	 50.75
Manitoba	 23.00
Alberta	 20.00
Ontario	 4.75
Quebec	 1.15
British Columbia	 0.35
So far the Department of Finance has not distributed any portion of this amount.
In addition to the above, there were, on March 4, 1925, between 18,000 and 19,000 participation certificates outstanding, representing a value in round figures of $197,000.
The amounts still owing to the farmers of each province, in so far as participation certificates are concerned, cannot be indicated by provinces.
3.	The participation certificates will be paid on presentation. In so far as the distribution of the moneys authorized by order in council of February 7, 1925, is concerned, this distribution will be made in due course.


COLONEL J. L. RALSTON
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: What is the total amount paid to Colonel J. L. Ralston, individually, and his law firm Maclean, Bur-chelll, Ralston and Paton, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for legal services since 1921?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Nothing.


EGG IMPORTATIONS
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	Is the government aware that large shipments of American and Chinese eggs have recently arrived in Canada and have appreciably decreased the price of eggs in Canada, as reported in the Vancouver Province of March 8, 1925?
2. Have any representations been received by the government, as to the unfair competition confronting Canadian poultrymen by reason of the fact that the duty on eggs entering the United States from Canada is 8 cents, and the duty on eggs entering Canada from the United States is only 3 cents per dozen?
3.	If so, from whom have such representations been received ?
4.	Does the government contemplate any, and what action, to effectively meet the situation complained of?
5. Have any representations been received by the government, as to the necessity for a proper system of egg marking to distinguish Canadian from American and Chinese eggs, when same are placed on the Canadian market?

Questions
6.	If so, from whom have such representations been received ?
7.	Does the government contemplate any, and what action, to effectively meet the situation complained of?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes, but such imports are decreasing as is evidenced by the figures given below:
Fiscal year United States Chinese
1923	.. 8,256,168	dozen	.. nil1924	.. 6,454,313	dozen	.. nil*1925	..	2,429,655	dozen	. ,t75,000
doz.
* April 1, 1924, March 23, 1925.
t Two other cars (30,000 dozens) of Chinese eggs arrived but failed to pass inspection and were refused entry.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Surrey Farmers' Institute, Cloverdale, B.C., and the Record of Performance Poultry Breeders' Association of Ontario.
4.	The question of meeting this situation from a tariff standpoint has not been discussed. Regulations are at present in force respecting the marking and grading of eggs under the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, and Clauses 5, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, of these regulations cover foreign eggs imported into Canada.
5.	Yes.
6.	The Surrey Farmers' Institute Clover-dale, B.C.
7.	Identification of foreign eggs entering Canada is provided for in Clauses 27 and 29 of the regulations referred to in Answer No. 4. Action, other than the policy embodied in these two sections has not been contemplated.


VITAL STATISTICS
Mr. FORRESTER:: What was the total number of deaths in the Dominion of Canada during the year 1924?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: The total number of deaths in the registration area of Canada, which includes all provinces excepting Quebec, for the eleven months of 1924 ended November 30, was 57,288. For the whole year they will approximate 69,000. In the year ended June 30, 1924, there were 35,149 deaths reported for Quebec.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	What is the distance between Edmonton, Alberta, and Port Mann, via the Canadian National railway?
2.	What is the distance between Edmonton, Alberta, and Prince Rupert, via the Canadian National railway?
3.	Has the government let a contract for the construction of a grain elevator at Prince Rupert? If so, what is the amount of said contract and what does it cover ?
4.	Were tenders called for, and what was the amount of the lowest tender?
5.	What is the amount of the engineer's estimate of the cost of said elevator?
6.	What will be the capacity of the said elevator when completed ?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to equip said elevator with automatic car dumps or standard power shovels for unloading of cars of grain?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	755 miles.
2	. 957 miles.
3.	No. A contract has been let for the
foundations only.
4.	Tenders for the grain elevator have not yet -been called for, apart from the foundations.
5.	No estimate can be made until the plans are completed.
6.	The capacity, as at present proposed, is approximately 1,350,000 bushels.
7.	Yes.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-NEW RADIO STATION
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	Is it true that the Canadian National Railways is establishing a new radio station on Lulu island in the constituency of New Westminster, which will be one of the most powerful and modern plants on the Pacific Coast?
2.	Is it the intention to broadcast from the said station, Canadian news to steamers plying on the Pacific?
3.	Is the government aware that passenger steamers plying between Canadian ports on the Pacific, and Australia and other countries, publish in their daily wireless news, practically no Canadian news?
4.	Is the government aware that the wireless operators on such passenger steamers would willingly accept and publish all important items of Canadian news when sent out free from such stations as the one referred to in the first question?
5.	Is the government aware that the government of New Zealand has made arrangements for the New Zealand stations to broadcast New Zealand news to the steamers plying on the Pacific, and as a result thereof, New Zealand news appears conspicuously in the w'ireless publications issued on such steamers?
6.	Why could not a similar arrangement be made so far as Canada is concerned?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The broadcasting of news items to ships at sea is one of the features at present under consideration by the Canadian National Railway management in connection with the new radio station.
3.	No information.
4.	No information.
5.	No information.
6.	See answer to question No. 2.


MILITARY DISTRICT No. 2
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who is the present head of No. 2 Military District, when was he appointed, and where did he reside previous to appointment?
Questions

2.	Who was the last head of Military District No. 2, and where did he reside when appointed?
3.	How many non-residents of Toronto have been appointed to positions in the Militia department in Toronto during the past five years, what are their names and where did they reside when appointed?
4.	Why are suitable returned men, fully qualified, residing in Toronto, passed over for such positions?
Hon, Mr. MACDONALD:
1.	Colonel (Temp. Colonel Commandant) (Hon. Brig. Genl.) A. H.'Bell, C.M.G., D.S.O., date of appointment, 1st March, 1925, formerly District Officer Comm'd M.D. 13, Calgary, Alta.
2.	Colonel (Temp. Col. Commondant) A. H. Borden, D.S.O., formerly General Staff Officer, Military District No. 10, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
3.	Eight: Major General H. A. Panet, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., formerly commanding Military District No. 1, London; Col. (Temp. Col. Commdt.) A. H. Borden, D.S.O., formerly General Staff Officer, Military District No. 10, Winnipeg, Man.; Col. (Temp. Col Commdt.) (Hon. Br. Genii.) A. H. Bell, C.M.G., D.S.O., formerly commanding Military District No. 13, Calgary, Alberta; Major (Bvt. and Temp. Lt. Col.) H. E. Boak, D.S.O., formerly serving with Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, Kingston; Capt. and Bvt. Colonel J. L. R. Parsons, C.M.G., D.S.O., formerly General Staff Officer, Military District No. 12, Regina, Sask.; Major and Bvt. Lt. Col. C. B. Russell, D.S.O., formerly District Engineer Officer, Mil. Dist. No. 11, Victoria, B.C.; Major and Bvt. Lt. Col. W. R. Robinson, O.B.E., formerly District Supply and Transport Officer, M.D. No. 1, London; Lt. Col N. A. McCrimmon, formerly District Cadet Officer, Military District No. 1, London.
4.	Officers of the permanent force are changed from one station to another according to requirements of the service and promotions are made on officers' qualifications without regard to their places of residence.


POPULATION OF ONTARIO CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. CHURCH:: What is the estimated population of each of the constituencies of Ontario, under the Redistribution Act 1924, by constituencies, as estimated by the special committee of the House that dealt with this question in the last session of parliament?


Thomas Andrew Low: The estimated population of the electoral districts of Ontario, under the Redistribution Act 1924, as supplied to the special committee on Redistribution, is as follows:

Ontario
Algoma East	 37,553
Algoma West	 35,297
Brant	 20,085
Brantford City	 33,292
Bruce North	 20,872
Bruce South	 23,413
Carleton	 32,673
Dufferin-Simcoe	 40,225
Durham	 24,629
Elgin	 35,413
Essex East	 25,283
Essex South	 29,375
Essex West	 49,418
Fort William	 27,969
Frontenac-Addington	 30,696
Glengarry	 20,518
Grenville-Dundas	 33,953
Grey North	 30,667
Grey Southeast	 28,384
Haldimand	 21,287
Hal ton	 24,899
Hamilton. East	 54,428
Hamilton West	 52,250
Hastings-Peterborough	 30,406
Hastings South	 36,165
Huron North	 23,540
Huron South	 23,548
Kenora-Rainy River	 27,580
Kent	 50,638
Kingston City	 24,104
Lambton East	 28,271
Lambton West	 30,418
Lanark	 32,993
Leeds	 34,909
Lincoln	 48,625
London	 53,838
Middlesex East	 27,994
Middlesex West	 25,033
Muskoka-Ontario	 34,859
Nipissing	 49,997
Norfolk	 35,937
Northumberland	 30,512
Ontario	 31,074
Ottawa	 93,740
Oxford North	 24,527
Oxford South	 22,235
Parikdale	 61,428
Parry Sound	 27,022
Peel	 23,896
Perth North	 32,461
Perth South	 18,382
Peterborough W	 33,986
Port Arthur-Thunder Bay.. ..	28,297
Prescott	 26,478
Prince Edward-Lennox	 25,494
Renfrew North	 26,950
Renfrew South	 27,061
Russell	 43,413

Questions
Ontario-Concluded
Simoce East	 37,122
Simoce North	 22,100
Stormont	 25,134
Timiskaming North	 25,935
Timiskaming South	 31,766
Toronto East	 63,860
Toronto East Centre	 69,694
Toronto-High Park	 49,752
Toronto North East	 58,319
Toronto North West	 61,494
Toronto-Scarborough	 48,624
Toronto South	 48,525
Toronto West Centre	 59,197
Victoria	 33,995
Waterloo North	 41,698
Waterloo South	 33,568
Welland	 66,668
Wellington North	 19,833
Wellington South	 34,327
W entworth	 46,889
York North	 36,222
York South	  29,394
York West	 60,156


MOTT'S WHARF, QUEEN'S COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. JONES:: 1.	What was the total cost of the repairs to Mott's wharf, parish of Cambridge, Queens county, New Brunswick ?
2.	Were tenders called for repairs to said wharf?
3.	If so, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?
5.	If work was done by day labour, who was superintendent, how much time did he work, and what rate of pay did he receive?
6.	How many labourers were engaged on the work, what are their names, and what amount did each receive ?
7.	What material was used, who supplied same, and at what cost?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	82,512.73.
2.	No. Work done by day labour.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	(a) Prank L. Harris.
(b) 38 days at $5 per day.
6.	(a) 12 labourers, 3 carpenters and 1 team.
(b) Robert Mott	 8 76 25
Gordon Holder	
50	00George Pugsley	
25	00Fred Pugsley	
53	75Jack Burgess	
65	00Seely MacLean	
15	00George Carney	
35	00Walter Pugsley	
37	50Sidney Wilkins	
36	25William Rees	
32	50Hazen Holder	
8	75Ronald MacLean	
5	00
Team
George Pugsley	 27	50
Carpenter
K. J. Kelly	
129	50Marshall Rees	
88	00Hosia Fan joy	
42	007.	Messrs. Gandy & Allison, Ltd., St. John N.B.
730 bags Canada cement 182| bbls.
at 84.15	 8757 38
Freight	 73	00
40 bars j" reinforcing steel, each 15'
long, 1,150 lbs. at S4.85	
55	78Freight	
2	30

To be deducted 730 cement bags returned at
.15	!	$109 50
Less freight	 1 40 10S 10
Total	$780	36
Wm. Lewis & Sons, St. John, N.B.
1 pile driver hammer	
$43	00Hook shackle and bolt	
3	2030 bolts 5/8" x 6" at .06	
1	8020 bolts 3/8 x 6" at .04	
80Pressed washers 4 lbs. at .09.. ..	3624 screw bolts 1" x 12" at .30....	7 2048 pressed washers 8 lbs. at .10..	80Sales tax	
2	86Freight	
1	50
J. Splane & Co. St. John, N.B.
30 fath. 3" best Manila rope 43
lbs. at .21	 9 03
2-8" single patent galvd. 151.
blocks at $2.15	 4 30
Freight	 25

Murray & Gregory, Limited, St. John, NJL 40 s. ft. 1) x 5 7/8 No. 1 Birch
IMS $70.00	 $ 2 80
Tax	 14
Freight	 40

W. H. Thorne & Company, St. John, N.B.
100 lbs. wire No. 15	 $ 5 05
Freight .40	 40

C. H. Haves, Head of Midstream, N.B. 1.000 ft. boards at $22.00	 $22 00
355 ft. scantling and deals at $24.00	8 52

Questions

Reid Bros.-Gagetown, N.B.
1,072 Sp. ft. 8 x 8 spr. at $33.. .. $35 37 895 Sp.	ft.	1" hemlock at $28 ..	25	06203 Sp.	ft.	2 x 4 spr. at	$30.. ..	6	09239 Sp.	ft.	2 x 3 spr. at	$30....	7	17To towing same, delivery	charge..	8	00
To 700 Sp. ft. 1" refuse at $23
delivered	 16 10
305 Sp. ft. 2 x 4 refuse at $23 delivered	 7 01

Robertson, Foster & Smith, Ltd., St. John, N.B.
75 ft. i" E. W. Chain 444 lbs.
$10.35	 $45 95
Freight	 1 00

Gordon L. Holder, Cambridge, N.B.
31 pieces of piling at $1.80	 $55 80
H. H. Mott, Central Cambridge, N.B.
2	lengths scantling 2 x 6 x 23 ft.-
46 ft. at $35	 1	61
3	lengths 2 x 6 x 16 ft. long-48
ft. at $30	
1	443	joints 6" stove pipe	at	35 cents. 1	052	elbows at 35 cents	
702	piling 16 ft. long	$1.50	
3	00Repairing drill	
3	00
Parker Courier, Fredericton, N.B.
46 bags cement at 98 cents per bag. 45 08 Slocum & Hands, Young's Cove Road, N.B.
120 lbs. nails and spikes	 $ 7 55
1 file and 1 D.B. axe $2.25	 2 41
1 axe handle, 25, 1 pair hinges, 65.	90
1 padlock, .55. 65 lbs. tar paper
$3.25	;	 3 80
12 lbs. rope $3.24, 1 pair hinges, .35	83
} gal. motor oil, .58, 1 can cup
grease, .25	 83
3	tar pails $1.20, 1 gal. motor oil,
$1.30	 2	50
3	peaveys, $3.30 and freight, 35
-$10.25,	1	rule, .80	 11	05
1 square, $2.00, 1 cross cut saw,
$6,25	  8	25
Saw handles, .60, 3 peavey sticks,
$2.70	   3	30
1 bbl. gasoline, $10.97, freight,
$1.00	
11	971 gal. motor	oil	
1	30
Gas returned 18 gals., 251c...	4 59

Parker Courier, Fredericton, N.B.-Concluded.
600 ft. hemlock deals	 14 40
Cartage	 2 00

Alfred West, Cole's Island, NJ3.
373 ft. hemlock 10 x 10 at $25.00. $ 9 33
Freight	 1 49
200 ft. boards at $24.00	 4 80
Freight	 80

Myles Webster, Shannon, NJB.
150 c. yds. gravel and sand, 12c.
per yard	 $18 00
Hiram Humphrey, Cambridge, N.B.
1 gal. paint oil for forms	 $ 1 40
10 lbs. 6" spikes, 6c	 60

John Gunter, Mill Cove, N.B.
8 steel plates 18" x 4J" clamps
for post	>
$ 4 00
16 bolts 7/8 15" long	 1 00

Re. cranking auger	 50

Burton G. Carpenter,-Shannon, N.B.
For transportation of 150 c. yds., gravel and sand from Belyea's Cove to Mott's wharf at $1.50
per yard	$225	00
For transportation of 1,200 feet
lumber and	fenders	
5	00For transportation of 65 bags cement	
5	00

Steamer "Premier".
For transportation from Scotch-town to Jemseg-
36 bags cement	 $ 3 60
1 mixer	 8 00

Geo. Pugsley.-Central Cambridge, N.B.
To 8 days work team at $5.00 per day	 $40 00
Fred Pugsley.-Central Cambridge, N.B. To 5 days single team, $4.00 per day


Questions
John Holder.

Cambridge, N.B. Scow hired ten days at SI.00 per
day	 $10 00
Towing scow from Lower Cambridge to Mott's Wharf	 5 00

Alfred Ashburne.-Gagetown, N.B.
Ferry from Gagetown to Jemseg, NJ3. Loading and unloading 1,000 ft.,
sawed lumber	 $ 4 00
3	lengths of boom chain, weight 150 lbs	 75


$ 4 75 INSURANCE ON GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What amount of insurance is carried on the Dominion government elevators, (a) at Fort William,
(b)	Moose Jaw, (c) at Calgary?
2.	What was the total premium paid in each case?
3.	What was rate charged in each case?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	None.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADA GRAIN ACT-MR. JUSTICE MACLEAN'S JUDGMENT
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Was judgment delivered by Mr. Justice A. K. Maclean in the Exchequer court, on June 25, last, declaring that subsection 7, section 95 of the Grain Act, was ultra vires of the federal parliament?
2.	Has any appeal been made from the said decision?
3.	What is the effect of the said judgment in regard to (a) the right of public terminal elevators to retain any overages that may be shown at the annual weigh-up, (b) the right of the shipper of grain to an accounting for the value of grain saved from the dockage made under official inspection?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) The effect of the judgment is that elevators may retain overages as against the Board of Grain Commissioners or His Majesty.
(b) This question was not in issue.


GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN VANCOUVER
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Has the government received an offer or offers to purchase or lease the government's property situated on the southwest comer of Granville and Pender streets, Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	If so, from whom have such offers been received and what are the offers?
3.	Will the government before disposing of such property give public notice of its intention to dispose of same and call for tenders from the public?
4.	Is the Government negotiating for the disposal of such property?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to dispose of said property and if so, in what manner?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. A number of inquiries have been received regarding disposal of the government property situated on the southwest corner of Granville and Pender streets, Vancouver, known as the old post office. As a result, it is the intention to shortly call for tenders by public advertisement.


ALLEGED POTATO COMBINE
Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: 1.	Has an investigation been commenced under the Combines Investigation Act, into an alleged combine in connection with the marketing of the New Brunswick potato crop ?
2.	If so, is it still being carried on, or has it collapsed as stated in the press?
3.	Is it true as reported in the press that this investigation w'ill cost the country fifty or one hundred thousand dollars?
4.	If not, what will the estimated cost be?
5.	Who have been appointed to- carry on the investigation and at what remuneration?
6.	When will a report be made to the minister, and will such report be published?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inquiry is still being carried on.
3.	See answer to question 4.
4.	It is not possible to estimate the cost of the inquiry at this time, but it is thought that it will not exceed, $6,000.00.
5.	No one has been especially appointed to conduct the investigation, which is being carried out by the Registrar of the Combines Investigation Act, who is a permanent civil servant and who receives no additional remuneration on account of this inquiry. Mr. P. J. Hughes, K.C., of Fredericton, N.B., has been instructed by the Department of Justice to act as counsel when desired, his remuneration being at the rate of fifty dollars per diem for the time his services are utilized.
6.	A report will be made to the minister,
in accordance with section 21 of the act, at the conclusion of the investigation. Publication of the report will be in accordance with section 22 of the act which states:	"Within
fifteen days after its receipt by the minister the report,. .shall be made public unless the commissioner is of the opinion that the public interest would be best served by withholding publication and so states in the report itself, in which case the minister may exercise his discretion as to the publicity to be given to the report in whole or in part."
Questions


ALBERTA COAL MINE ROYALTIES
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the total amount of royalties collected from the coal mines of the province of Alberta in each of the past five years, by the Federal government?
2.	What was the total amount of above royalties due in each of these years?
3.	What is the total amount now outstanding.


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.
Amount collected
Year	for royalties
1920	$ 190,545 80
1921	
185,436	881922	
171,723	831923	
210,389	531924	
148,933	30
2.
Total amount due for
Year	royalties
1920		$ 35,010 64
1921	
63,640	841922....	
31,658	601923	
36,716	891924	
34,820	673.	The total amount now outstanding is- $34,829.67.


ELEVATOR MEN-CAPS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	How many uniform caps were purchased for the elevator service men of the government buildings in 1923 and 1924?
2.	From whom were these purchased?
3.	Were tenders called for, and if so, was the lowest tender accepted?
4.	What was the price paid?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	96.
2.	William Scully, Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes.
4.	80 at $2.26 each, delivered at Ottawa; 16 at $2.25 each, delivered at Montreal.


FARM IMMIGRANTS
Mr. IRVINE:: (1)	How many persons classified as farmers, or farm labourers, were admitted to Canada during 1924?
(2) Of the number so admitted, how many actually engaged in agricultural pursuits for a period of:
(a)	three months; (b) six months; (c) nine months?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	During the calendar year 1924, immigrants classified as farmers and farm labourers, numbered 38,215 adult males, 6,060 adult females, and 6,660 children under fourteen years of age.
2.	It' is impossible to supply information on this point as to do so would mean the

following up of each immigrant regardless [DOT] of destination in Canada at the end of three, six and nine months.


FOREST PROTECTION
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Was the sum of $3,000,000 spent by the Dominion government of Canada in forest protection, as stated by th>
Minister of Interior to the Forestry Conservation Association in Montreal on the 24th instant?
2.	If so. out of what appropriation was the said $3,000,000 exptnded?
3.	How was the said $3,000,000 distributed and to what services?
4.	What amount was spent in each of the provinces of Canada out of the said $3,000,000?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	The Minister of the Interior made no speech in Montreal on Tuesday, March 24th.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


PAYMENTS TO W. T. R. PRESTON
Hon. Mr. MANION:: Since January 1, 1922, what is the total amount of payments made to or on behalf of W. T. R. Preston for expenses, allowances or otherwise, in addition to the moneys paid to him as answered to my question in Hansard, number thirty-five?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Department of Labour
Expenses
1922, April 21 to June 17.-Chairman
of Board of Conciliation in dispute
of Algoma Eastern Railway and its
employees	$159.80
July 21 to September 15.-Chairman of Board cf Conciliation in dispute of Pere Marquette Railway Company
and its shop	employees	 245.06
August 10 to Sept. 14.-Chairman of Board of Conciliation in dispute of Pere Marquette Railway Company and its steamship clerks, freight handlers, etc	 202.16

Department of Trade and Commerce
Travel and Living
Hotel	Allow-	Sun-Exp.	ance	dries	Total
Inquiry re lake grain
rates	$1,139 43 $1,905 00 $32 71 $3,077 14
Inquiry re ocean
freight rates .. ..	864 85	2,390 00 310 23	3,565 08
Total., .	.. .. $2,004 28 $4,295 00 $342 94 $6,642 22

Questions


HOMESTEAD INSPECTORS
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	How many homestead inspectors are there in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
2.	What are their names and addresses?
3.	What are their respective salaries?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: I.	Manitoba, 5; Saskatchewan, 9; Alberta,
10.
2 and1 3.
Manitoba:-
William Lagimodiere, Lorette, $1,800; F. J. Bigg, Winnipeg, S1.S00; J. F. Drew, Winnipeg, $1,800; G. L. Speers, Rob'lin, $1,800; W. J. Mayberry, Ste. Rose, $1,740. Saskatchewan:-
J.	Furnis, Swift Current, $1,800; J. C. de-Balinhard, Yorkton, $1,800; J. A. McDonald, Shaunavon, $1,800; C. E. Barr, Assinifooia, $1,800; A. Smythe, Saskatoon, $1,800; A. E. Mosses, Dodteland, $1,800; S. Taylor, Prince Albert, 81,800; E. H. E. Webb-Bowen, Prince Albert, $1,740; W. Whelan, Prince Albert, $1,740.
Alberta:-
William Tempany, Cochrane, $1,800; R. A. Rembry, Calgary, $1,800; T. J. Cunningham, Edmonton, $1,800; I. S. Doze, Pakan, $1,800; A. McConnachie, Edmonton, $1,800; T. M. Newton, Grand Prairie, $1,800; L. T. Smith, Grand Prairie, $1,620; D. E. Wiloox, Lethbridge, $1,800; H. S. McCowan, Medicine Hat, $1,740; J. E. McMullen, Peace River, $1,800.
_ Timber Inspectors:-
Manitoba, 2; Saskatchewan, 2; Alberta, 5.
Manitoba:-
J. H. Thompson, Winnipeg, $1,800; W. S. Gordon, Dauphin, $1,800.
Saskatchewan:-
II. Brownie, Melfort, $1,800; F. McKenzie, Prince Albert, $1,800.
Alberta:-
J. S. Coombs, Calgary, $1,800; R. S. Wyllie, Edmonton, $1,800; J. A. Merrigan, Edmonton, $1,800; F. W. Neilson, Westlook, $1,800; D. H. Msnchin, Edmonton, $1,800.
Grazing Inspectors:-
Manitoba, 0; Saskatchewan, 1; Alberta, 3. Saskatchewan :-
G. H. Lyddard, Moose Jaw, $1,800.
Alberta:-
Geo. H. Oloakey (Sr. Inspr.), Calgary, $2,280; H. L. Bowyer, Medicine Hat, $1,800;
S.	Grim wood, High Prairie, $1,680.
All inspectors above mentioned are required to make inspections in connection with homestead', timber or 'grazing matters, should the oocasion arise, where such an arrangement would effect economy, but they are classed as above to indicate the work which forms the bulk of their duties.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
GRADING OF BUTTER AND CHEESE Mr. STEWART (Leeds):
1. When did Federal grading of butter and cheese for export come into effect?
2.	What are the names and salaries of the Dominion graders of butter and cheese?
3.	What are the standard grades for butter and what determines each grade?
4.	What is the recognized difference in price of the several grades?
5.	From the time Federal grading went into effect, v.'hat quantity of (a) pasteurized, (b) unpasteurized butter was exported each year to the end of 1924?
6.	Was the grade stamped on all packages of butter exported and what quantity of each grade was exported in each year?
7.	What are the. standard grades for cheese and what
is the recognized difference in price of the several giades?	.
8.	Has any cheese been exported to Great Britain since Federal grading went into effect without the grade being clearly indicated, and if so, when and what quantity?
9.	What quantities of (a) graded and (b) ungraded cheese have been exported from Canada to Great Britain in each of the calendar years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?
10.	What quantities of each grade were exported to Great Britain in 1923 and 1924
11.	Must the producer of the cheese abide by the decision of the Federal graders as to the grade of his cheese or is there any person or board to whom he can appeal against their classification?

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What was the total cost of the Civil Service for the yeai ending March 31st, 1924, in each of the following departments,-Agriculture, Public Archives, Auditor General, Civil Service Commission, Customs and Excise, External Affairs, Finance, Governor General's, Indian Affairs, Insurance, Interior, Justice, Labour, Marine and Fisheries. National Defence (Naval, Militia and Air), Mines, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Post Office, Privy Council, Public Works, Printing and Stationery, Railways and Canals, Secretary of State, Trade and Commerce, Immigration and Colonization, Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Patents and Copyright, Soldier Settlement Board, and Health?


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	What is the annual cost of the Soldier Settlement Board since its inception?
(a)	How much was spent on rent of offices, and where are the offices located?
(b)	W'hat amount was spent on salaries?
(c)	How much did the head office in each province
cost?
(d)	How much was expended in other ways, as overhead?
2.	How many farms have been purchased under the Soldier Settlement Board: (a) by provinces; (b) what

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
amount was paid per farm; (c) what is the area of each farm in acres?
3.	How many farms are occupied under the Board, by provinces?
4.	What is the total amount loaned to settlers?
(a)	What amount of such loans was expended in permanent improvements ?
(b)	What amount of such loans was expended in
purchasing live stock?	.
(c)	What amounts were loaned by provinces?
(d)	What rate of interest was charged?
(e)	What was the nature of the securities on which loans were made?
(f)	Who issued the currency on these loans?
(g)	Who holds the mortgages?
5.	What number of farms, by provinces, have been retained, and what is the present economic condition of these farms?
6.	What number of farms, by provinces, have been vacated ?
(a)	What was done with such farms?
(b)	What happened to the loans made on such farms?
7.	Were all such settlers required to carry all overhead of both purchase and equipment loans?
8.	If not, what percentage were they supposed to carry, and who carried the rest?
9.	Who determined what advance should be made to settlers under the board?


TORONTO CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many non-residents of Toronto have been appointed to positions in the employ of the government in Toronto during each of the past three years in the various government departments?
2.	By whom were these appointments made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to direct the attention of your Honour to this question. The government has not any objection to getting this information, but it would involve correspondence with all the departments of the government and considerable research in all the departments before the questions asked could be answered. For -that reason I am going to ask that the question pass as an order for return. What I should like to direct the attention of the House to is the expense that will be involved in getting a very small amount of information for the hon. member (Mr. Church), I hope he will find it possible to state more specifically just what information he does want.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Passed as an
order for return.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CHARTERS:: For a copy of the report made to the government, or any minister or officer thereof, by Lieutenant-Colonel Biggar, respecting the report of David Campbell, K.C., on charges recently investigated at Winnipeg.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I am sorry I cannot agree with this motion being accepted by the House. Lieut.-Col. Biggar, apart from being chief electoral

officer is also government counsel. Any report which he may have made in the matter referred to in this motion would be in the nature of a legal opinion and there is litigation now before the court pending in this matter. It is not the practice of the Department of Justice to give legal opinions, especially when a case is pending in court, and it would not be fair for the government to be asked to do so in this case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit that the motion might stand.


Ernest Lapointe: We cannot accept it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Motion dropped. Hon. Mr. STEVENS:
For a copy of correspondence passing between the Department of National Defence or the Department of Justice and the Canadian Coal Sales Company, Limited, in the years 1924 and 1925, and also, for a copy of all charges made, in relation to the sale of coal or otherwise, affecting Militia officers at Winnipeg in the said years with the name of the party making such charges, and also, for a copy of the reports of General Ketchen, with respect to said charges.


BIG BEACH POST OFFICE
Mr. JONES:: For a copy of all correspondence and other papers relating to the change of the post office at Big Beach, Cape Breton County, Nova Scotia.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION-CONTRA ACCOUNTS
Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return showing, in detail, " Contra accounts against the Dominion government for services rendered " by the Quebec Board of Harbour Commissioners, and referred to in answer to questions on page 1317 of Hansard.


CAPE BRETON MINE WORKERS
Hon. EDMUND BRISTOL (for Mr. Arthurs):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, papers and other documents between the Government of Canada and the mine workers of Cape Breton, or received by the government on their behalf, and between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia, respecting the condition of the mine workers, and between the Government of Canada and any towns or municipalities in Cape Breton, respecting the conditions of the mine workers and the necessity for relief owing to the labour troubles in that district.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to the motion if the hon. member will specify the time for which this correspondence is desired. Last session a return was brought down of correspondence up to the end, I think, of that time. Unless the present motion is limited in the matter of time it will involve an enormous return

Seven-Power Treaty
because the correspondence in regard to this matter goes back two or three years.


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: I will take
the responsibility of saying that, provided what has been asked for has already been brought down to the end of last session or to whatever time the return covers, the present motion may be considered as a request for a continuation of that correspondence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is satisfactory.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the
pleasure of the House that the motion as amended be carried?


Arthur Meighen: There is no need for an amendment. The motion can be passed in accordance with the understanding arrived at.


George Newcombe Gordon: That will cover everything since the last return?


Arthur Meighen: Provided the last return
covers all that is asked for up to that time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: I should like to read a telegram I received this morning and to base a question upon it:
A mass meeting of the ratepayers of the rural municipalities of Bear Lake and Grande Prairie and town of Grande Prairie, Village of Clairmont held here to-day resolved as follows: Whereas a feeling of distrust pervades the Peace River county that forces are at work to delay immediate coast connection. This meeting accepts in good faith the promises of coast outlet made by Premier King on his western tour and in the Speech from the Throne also by Hon. George P. Graham that if the railway heads failed the government would come to our rescue. We therefore call upon the government of Canada to introduce legislation at the present session of parliament to fulfil these promises.
D. W. Patterson. Chairman.
Has the Minister of Railways and Canals < Mr. Graham) any comment to make in regard to this matter?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	As far as I am concerned, I have no comment to make.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Joseph Garland: On the 25th of this month I put the following question to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb):
When may the House expect legislation regarding the land settlement question-revaluation of soldiers' lands?
The answer I received at that time was:
I shall look into the question of my hon. friend. As the Prime Minister announced the other day, we shall be proceeding with the budget from day to day. We hope to have this legislation, if any, down in ample time for consideration of the House.
May I ask the Acting Minister of Finance if the government has yet decided to introduce such legislation.


James Alexander Robb: I have nothing to add to the
answer just quoted by my hon. friend.


SEVEN-POWER TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Has Canada as a member of the
League of Nations entered any protest against the Seven-Power treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has not
seen the treaty to which my hon. friend has referred, and therefore has not taken any action.


FISHING LICENSES TO FOREIGNERS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: On the 25th March last I put six
questions to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) regarding fishing licenses to foreigners. The hon. minister gave answers to only three of these questions and nothing was said about the other three, and I had no information as to whether the other three were going to be answered later on or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) endeavoured to give the hon. member the information he was seeking, and if the last three Questions are not answered by the first three, I shall ask my hon. colleague to furnish the hon. member with the desired information.


CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Medicine Hat):: Will the minister tell us whether the
amendments to the Canada Grain Act are completed, and when may we expect to have them presented to the House?


Thomas Andrew Low: A rough draft of the amendments has been prepared, and it is the intention of the government to lay a copy of these amendments on the table. It is not the
Alleged Fruit Combine

intention of the government to proceed with these amendments this year, in order that all members of the House may have ample opportunity to study the bill and also to study the report of the Royal Grain Commission.


ALLEGED FRUIT COMBINE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Will the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) or the Solicitor General (Mr. McMur-ray) inform the House if the government is contemplating any action in relation to the fruit combine referred to in the report from the commission or whether action will be left to the provinces?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: There does not at the moment appear to be any further action that this government could take. The federal government, as provided in section 25 of the Combines In-restigation Act, submitted the interim report that was laid on the table of the House to the attorneys general of the four western provinces and we assume that they will take such action as appears to be desirable and necessary. As provided in the act, if within three months action is not taken and further representations are then made to us, consideration will be given by the government to such further action if any as should be taken.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I want to find out from
the minister if any of the provinces intimated the course of action which they intended to take with respect to the fruit combine, following upon this report.


James Murdock: The Attorney General
of British Columbia by correspondence indicated that he has taken a marked interest in the matter, and I presume he is proceeding in the proper way.


RURAL CREDITS-REPORT OF DR. TORY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: Will the
government inform the House if they have taken any action with regard to the Tory report? Is it the intention of the government to bring in independent legislation bearing on that report?


James Alexander Robb: I thought my hon. friend was referring to another class of Tories. I have not yet received that report, although it may be in the office. Dr. Tory told me on Saturday that he hoped to file it with me to-day.


APPOINTMENTS-D.S.C.R. AND SOLDIER SETTLEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
desire to refer to answers given to question No. 7 by the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp). My hon. friend answered t'he first question but did not give an answer to the second.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Oh yes, he
did.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Was it an oversight, or
does he intend to reply at a later date?
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) My hon. friend says I did not answer No. 2. There was no order in council passed in June, 1922, exempting twelve thousand positions from the Civil Service Act.


OCEAN SHIPPING RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):	Would
the Prime Minister intimate to the House when he will make the motion notice of which was given last Wednesday for the appointment of a committee to inquire into ocean rates?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I expect to make it tomorrow.


MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Anderson Black: A short
time ago I referred to the situation of the miners and steel workers in Cape Breton, and I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he has had any communication at all from the Premier of Nova Scotia in reference to the matter; and if not, in view of the continuance of distress in that region, would he not reconsider his decision and grant a measure of relief to the suffering families, women and children, in that district?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The
hon. member has a right to ask a question, but not to make a statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not received any
communication from the Premier of Nova Scotia, and the position of the government with respect to relief remains the same as I stated to the House the last time I referred to the subject.

The Budget-Mr. Stevens


FEDERAL ELECTION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I have a rather interesting despatch in my hand sent by the Canadian Press to a local newspaper, and dated in Winnipeg. It states that a federal election is anticipated some time during the present year; in a letter to the Manitoba Liberal Association, written by E. J. McMurray, Solicitor General, it is suggested that the proper time for an election would be after the prorogation of the present session. Has the government any further information to give the House on that point?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has just
told them to keep their powder dry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government have not decided upon the date of an election, and, so far as I am aware, the matter has not been considered.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 27, 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.
Henry Herbert Stevens: The other afternoon the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) in his address in connection with this debate gave expression to these words:
That the financial statement given to the House does not reflect exactly and faithfully the conditions of the country at the present time, nor our financial standing.
With these words I entirely agree, in so far as they reflect my view in connection with this budget. In making this statement the hon. member intimated that perhaps his failure to interpret and understand properly the financial statement as presented by the Acting Finance minister (Mr. Robb) was attributable to his lack of expert knowledge of accountancy. Let me assure my hon. friend that such is not the case. I am prepared to assert, with a good deal of positiveness, that the more expert the accountant is who will examine into this statement as presented to the House, the more convinced he will be that it does not accurately reflect the condition of the country or correctly present the
existing state of public finances. As a matter of fact, it was a presentation that was hopeless in its confusion and baffling in its inaccuracies. This budget I icannot 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.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) may burlesque these things when he has an opportunity, but I refuse to allow him to do so now. The public is demanding a showdown in connection with the financial affairs of this country. The government, through the lips of the Prime Minister, as chief spokesman, who has been passing through this country during the last year or two, has been promising an approximation of free trade to one section and has oeen assuring another section that this government is anxious to protect and care for industry. In despair, the government, realizing that these chickens are coming home to roost, realizing that in these two different sections where there is a conflict of opinion as to what the fiscal policy of this country should be, the people are demanding delivery of these promises, the carrying out of these pledges-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Two or three times my hon. friend has made these statements about different representations having been made in different parts of the country. Each time I have asked him to place on record the different representations. Until he is able to do that, I wish he would not repeat a statement which he knows not to be correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On the contrary, there is nothing in the way of public utterances that I am more certain of than the accuracy of the statement made, and that is, that in all of the Prime Minister's trips through western Canada, the key-note of all his addresses was that there was no difference between his policy and the policy of my hon. friends to my left, the policy of the Progressive party. That has been his assurance. He pleaded with them: let us join together; we are in the same boat. Will he for a moment suggest that, in his speech in York recently, he did not assure the people of the east that there was to be no more progress towards free trade?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let my hon. friend bring down the statement of which he complains.
The Budget-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: Had I thought my right hon. friend would question my statement, I would have brought plenty of evidence in support of it. I have none under my hand at the moment, but I have no doubt of the accuracy of what I have stated. What are the impressions sought to be conveyed by this budget? The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) first assured the House that these accounts had been verified by two outside eminent chartered accountants. It is true he limited that verification of fact to certain things, but the impression that went forth to the public was that these accounts of the Dominion had been submitted to and approved by two outside, eminent chartered accountants. The next impression conveyed was that there was a surplus of $24,000,000, and some of my hon. friend's supporters are already claiming that such was the surplus. The third was that taxation had been reduced by $52,000,000, and the chief Liberal organ m the country the Globe, across the front page of its paper, the next day assured the taxpayers that there had been placed in their pockets by the government the enormous sum of $52,000,000. As regards the railways, there is an ominous silence, and I pause here to ask: Why, three months after the close of the railway fiscal year, we could not have had some accurate, definite, clear statement of the condition of our great railway investment. The next impression conveyed by the minister was that there was a favourable trade balance. Briefly, these statements summarize the impressions sought to be conveyed by the minister in his speech, and I purpose examining them at some length, step by step.
In the first place, let me examine the certificate of character which the minister presented to the House from the two eminent chartered accountants. I ask hon. members to listen to this certificate and to judge of its value. Personally, I assert before I read it that it is a perfectly meaningless and useless certificate. Will hon. members follow me for a moment while I read it? I shall not read what the minister said preceding it unless someone challenges me. I have the statement from the public accounts so that there will be no mistake about it. It is attached to the balance sheet of the Dominion of Canada for the last fiscal year ended March 31, 1924. This is what the accountants said:
We have examined the balance sheet of the Dominion of Canada as at March 31, 1924, and we certify that the balance sheet conforms to the balance sheets of previous years in not including in the net debt of the Dominion, issues of the Canadian National Railway company and companies included in its system, which carry the guarantee of the

Dominion of Canada. Such guaranteed issues are shown year by year as indirect liabilities.
Geo. Edwards,
Of the firm of Edwards, Morgan & Co.
W. Garth Thomson,
Of the firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Ottawa, Canada, 27th January, 1925.
An absolutely meaningless, useless certificate -perfectly true!


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend says now that
it is perfectly true. I am glad to have that admission from a leader of the Tory party, because the only exception taken to our statement of last year was that it did not conform.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Budget-Mr. Stevens


Mr. CALDWELL:: Before the hon. gentleman leaves the railway situation would he give us the direct loans in cash and the indirect loans on guarantee of bonds by years?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has put
to me a perfectly proper question, and he will find the details set out in the voluminous schedules to the public accounts. I should rather not, however, pause now for it would take probably half an hour to read these very long, complicated and technical schedules, and they would only confuse the issue. The government's claim of $52,000,000 reduction in taxation went out as the main feature of the budget. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that I think a great many people are overtaking that hoax, for if ever there was a hoax perpetrated upon a long-suffering public it is that claim. It is absolutely false. What it amounts to is that the employee, the man who is fortunate enough to have a job to-day, is being called upon to pay taxes, and the man who is unemployed and unable to purchase is not thereby contributing any share of the burden.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Has the hon. member any confidence in chartered accountants?
106i


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know whether
my hon. friend was in his seat when I opened my remarks. If he was not, and he will do me the honour of reading Hansard to-morrow, he will find I fully explained that point.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Thank you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have great confidence
in chartered accountants, and I have such confidence in the two chartered accountants referred to that I am certain they would never give a certificate of approval to the accounts of this government as presented to the House. Now, what a mockery it is to say to an unemployed man with five children, "It is true, my friend, you cannot buy nourishing food for your children; it is true you cannot buy boots to put on your children's feet or clothing for their backs, but we have reduced taxation; we have put into your pocket $52,-
000.000. Why, we are a friend of yours. We have actually added to your resources as taxpayers $52,000,000." I say, Mr. Speaker, the thing is a mockery. What does this $52,000,000 consist of? What is the interpretation of it? In the first place I ask, have taxes been reduced? Is there one item of reduction in taxation? Has the sales tax been reduced? Has this onerous tax upon business, not upon individual incomes, but upon business in Canada, been reduced? Has the stamp tax, or the receipt tax, or any other tax been reduced? Not a nickel, not one cent. Not only have they not been reduced, but as a matter of fact business is being strangled, thousands are out of work, and 2,200 factories, large and small, in the last three years, with a magnitude of liabilities of $100,000,000, have gone to the wall. That is the condition.
Now let me examine this tax question for a moment. I have under my hand figures from the Customs and Excise department, and I find this; that in excise taxes, that is chiefly the sales tax, with a little from the stamp tax, but it does not include the taxes on liquor, which are kept separate-we will keep our mind on the sales tax, because this excise tax is chiefly made up of that-in 1923-1924 there was a collection of $115,000,000 of sales tax. This year there was a collection of $78,000,000, or a reduction of $37,000,000 and by the way that is in eleven months only. The minister made an estimate for the year, but I have given the actual figures for the eleven months ending with February and they show a. reduction of $37,000,000. If this is interpreted in the form of purchases, it means that there has been a falling off in purchases in Canada of $700,000,000. That is what it means. It simply means that business is not
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

being done. It does not matter what the government says to the public; it does not matter one iota how much they rebuke us for constantly calling attention to the condition of business; the stubborn fact is that there must have been a falling off in purchasing of $700,000,000. That is the interpretation of this saving of $52,000,000.
Now let me pass on to the income tax, of which I have particulars before me. I am not going to spend much time on it, but I want to show how we by our form and method of income taxation are militating against Canadian business men as compared with those against whom they are competing. I drew the attention of the House to this subject in the debate on the Address from the Throne, and I now have figures which I will give briefly because they are very illuminating. I will take the income tax of an individual doing business in Vancouver as against a man doing business in Seattle, and these figures are for personal income, not business income. On an income of $5,000 th<' Canadian would pay to the Dominion $126, and to British Columbia $95, or a total of $221. The man in Seattle would pay a tax of $50, or less than one-quarter of what his competitor in Vancouver has to pay. I bring it down to these intimate details so that we may appreciate more directly the onerous nature of this tax. I could go on down the list and give the income tax on incomes of $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $9,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 and $25,000, but I shall take only a few to illustrate my point. The man in Vancouver or Canada with a salary of $7,000 pays in income tax a total of $493; the man in Seattle pays $100, or less than one-quarter, almost one-fifth. The man in Vancouver with an income of $10,000 pays $1,084; the man in Seattle pays $220. The point I want to make is this: We m Canada cannot expect to go on prospering and expanding in our business operations with the handicap of a tax of this kind. It is the application of this tax which I am asking the government to consider.
A moment ago I pointed out that a large number of firms had failed in business in Canada. On Friday last my hon. friend from Dufi'erin (Mr. Woods) made a statement in the House to which I wish to refer. I do not know whether he is in his seat; I think not, but he made this statement-Hansard page 1632:
I want to refer to a manufacturing concern in my own county. It is a woollen manufacturing industry and the only one we have in the county of Dufferin. That company to-day is running night and day shifts.
Mr. Caldwell:	I thought the woollen mills were
all shut down last year.

Mr. Woods:	There were rumours to that effect.
However the one in the county of Dufferin did not shut down but is running night and day shifts at the present time.
I thought that was strange, and I sought immediate and definite information. I have in my hand copies of wires received from Dods and Company, the firm referred to, in regard to this statement, and I shall read them, not because I want to embarrass the hon. member for Dufferin, but because I think it is well for us t.o face the facts. This ie from the secretary of the association:
Dods Knitting authorize me to inform you plant has not been operating night and day; that they are being forced to go on part time immediately. He is wiring explaining more fully.
Then I have this from Dods Knitting Company themselves:
Dods Knitting Company are not working day and night and are arranging to close to part time.


Mr. HALBERT:: Where did the hon. member say that was located?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In Orangeville, and the
telegram is dated from there. I am not reading these telegrams merely to contradict, but what I do want to impress upon the House is this, that this falling off in the sales tax ought to be a warning to the House that business in Canada is not as it ought to be. To say that this reduction is a lowering of the burden of taxation upon the taxpayer is but a mockery to the taxpayer. The point we have to keep in mind is this, that when a man is out of work and on the streets he cannot buy goods, he cannot pay taxes, and he does not pay taxes. If he does not buy goods he pays no sales tax, and a reduction in sales tax, and such like, of $37,000,000 simply spells a falling off in business of some $700,000,000.


Robert Forke: Could the hon. member give any explanation why the income tax collected has been a little over $2,000,000 more than the preceding year, under the existing state of business?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite simple of
explanation, and I will tell my hon. friend exactly why it is. It is a very apt question he has asked. When we come to the end of a year and this applies with peculiar significance to the last session preceding an election-and I offer that merely as an indication of what we may look for in the future- it is the habit of any government to bring in all the resources it can, and show the highest realization on those resources, and at the same time to reduce their outstanding liabili-

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
ties all they can in order to make the best showing possible. In other words, towards the close of a year, a business firm will seek to collect in its debts, and put on a little pressure in collecting them, and probably take an inventory and reduce its stock as much as possible in order to make a good showing in its animal statement, for the year. Now what is the government doing this year? Business men all over the country know this, and they are reflecting upon it, that this government has during the past six months put on onerous pressure for the collection of income tax, a pressure that an many oases is embarrassing the person who is called upon to pay. We all have to pay, yes; but here is a situation that always arises in connection with the income tax, and nobody knows it better than my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). Very often the income tax is not assessed:-and this as the iniquity of the thing-for a year after it is incurred. Often tire assessment is delayed, not by the government, but by the machinery of government, and then suddenly the man is faced, at an inopportune moment with a tax of $5,000 or $10,000, or in the case of a large business it may run up into the hundreds of thousands, and he has not the money in hand or in the bank to immediately pay the tax. The government have been putting on pressure recently in collecting the income tax in order to make a Showing, in order to offset what they knew as far back as last October would be a fearfully alarming financial situation.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend think that putting the screws to a man in order to make him pay his account would render him favourable to the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not, but I want to say this to the minister: There is a wave of indignation going over this country now that will be reflected in a very short time upon the heads of the government. This was a desperate effort on the part of desperate men to overcome a mighty awkward position.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Have other governments done that before going to the country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will not say that, but I will repeat what I said a moment ago, that it is customary before a government goes to the country to make the best showing possible.


Robert James Manion: Very like what the Ontario Farmer government did.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: What I want to know is whether all previous governments have done
the same, or is the practice confined to this government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As it happens we are
looking the present government in the eye just now.


Henry Elvins Spencer: May I ask the hon. member if he can inform the House whether this government has taken any note in lieu of
taxes?	v


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not catch my hon.
fiiend's question.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I should like to ask my hon. friend if he knows whether this government has taken any note in lieu of taxes?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad my hon. friend mentions that; it will answer the question of my hon fiiend to the left (Mr. Beaubien). What we did prior to 1921 was this: Here was a firm known to be in an embarrassed condition, with charges amounting to $500,000 against them in the way of income tax and business profits tax. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) then Minister of Finance, or his predecessor, accepted a note. Why? For this reason: He could have pushed that business to the wall, shut it up and sold oui, its assets and collected what was due, because he had a prior charge. He said "No, we will allow them time to pay." That is somewhat different to what is going on at the present time. We were charged by no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself, and members of the present government, with having deliberately sought to defraud the people. That may not have been the Prime Minister's actual words, but that was the inference given to the country, and I believe it contributed very largely to the defeat of the then government. We were charged with having sought to defraud the taxpayer of his just due by accepting notes in lieu cf payment. What has the present government done? I want to know how long it took them to collect that note that they told us should have been paid and the payment of which they said should have been forced? I venture to say it was not paid for two years, and I do not know whether it has been paid yet or not. Why did they not on going into office at once collect that money? -because it was a demand note it was not a time note. Why did they not collect it? Because the judgment of the Prime Minister, the judgment of the Minister of Railways, the judgment of the Acting Minister of Finance, and the judgment of the Minister of Justice was that it would be unwise to force that company to the wall in order to collect that tax,
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

and therefore by their action they put the stamp of approval on the policy of their predecessors. That is an answer to my hon. friend's (Mr. Beaubien) question as to the policy and the action of the previous government.
Now 1 turn to the subject of Trade and Commerce and come to the claim of the Acting Minister of Finance that the exports showed a favourable balance over imports of
8263,000,000. First, I want to ask the Acting Minister of Finance why he did not bring down particulars of the Australian treaty in his budget? 1 am going to venture a guess as to why he did not and it will be interesting, I think, to my hon. friends to my left. If that Australian treaty had been brought down and had showed some increases in the tariff-which we asked for and which we were anxious to see in it; we approve of it-it might have antagonized hon. members to my left. So the government said "No. Let us separate these matters. Let us confuse the Progressives. We will deal with the dumping clause in the budget and the Progressives will not be unduly alarmed. And we will bring down the Australian treaty separately. Although the Progressives may oppose it the Conservatives will support it, and so we will escape the vote of the combined opposition." But the budget ought to have contained the provisions of the Australian treaty, which treaty was concluded seme months ago.
Now let me turn to an examination of the trade situation. The Acting Minister of Finance claims that there is a favourable balance of trade of $263,000,000. This sounds very well but I want to study the claim for a moment. I contend that we ought to look at our national business just as strictly as a private firm will scrutinize its business. What are the facts? In the first place I ask, is this favourable balance an actual balance, and what does it mean to Canada? I intend to examine it at some length in order to get a proper appreciation of the value of this supposed excess of exports over imports. We must remember that Canada is a very heavy borrowing country. We have borrowed from the United States upwards of two billion and a half dollars; we have borrowed from Great Britain upwards of two billion and a half dollars. The best authorities in the world fix the borrowings in each case at a higher sum than two and a half billion dollars. In addition we have borrowed from France and from one or two other countries as well, but I am leaving the smaller borrowings out and wish to focus attention for the moment on the large borrowings. Now when a nation borrows what

is the import of it to that country? How is interest on the borrowing paid? It is paid in two ways: First it is paid by exports; secondly if the amount is not covered by exports then it is added to the debt of the country. Now here are some figures that are somewhat interesting. Our accounts with the United States and with Great Britain show about as follows: The Acting Minister of Finance told the House that we had $263,000,000 to the good, and hon. members all around him thumped their desks in ecstasy. But what is the actual situation? Here are the figures which strikingly illustrate it: The interest to the United States on investments in Canada, amounting to $2,500,000,000, at the rate of 6 per cent is $150,000,000 a year. A great many of these investments carry a much higher rate of interest. There are industrials paying 10 or 12 per cent; some of them pay very much higher than six and very few of them less than six; some of them pay 5i per cent. I think our Dominion loans amount to only about $700,000,000, carrying about 5 per cent, so that I am well within the mark in my interest calculations. We owe' the United States at the end of each year $150,000,000 of interest and we owed her last year on our trade transactions $159,000,000 or a total of $309,000,000 that we were to the bad in our transactions with the United States for last year. How was that paid? It was paid by simply increasing the mortgage hold of the United States on Canada. Whether it was by industrials or by financial concerns it does not matter; it means that the people of the United States have that much more hold upon Canada. In other words it reflects exactly what has happened in the last ten years-I think I should say more correctly twelve or fourteen years-our borrowings from the United States, or our indebtedness to that country, have increased from less than 1,000,000,000 to $2,500,000,000. So we went behind in our dealings with the United States last year to the extent of $309,000,000. Our account with Great Britain stands as follows: Great Britain owed us on trade $242,900,000 but we owed her $150,000,000 interest. If we deduct the interest that leaves $92,000,000. If we deduct the $92,000,000 from the $309,000,000 it shows that as a nation, as a business entity, as a corporate body we were $216,000,000 to the bad last year in our external business. And I want to point out that our dealings *with other countries do not any more than offset our interest debt to them, and one will cancel the other. Now, if this is the state of affairs we ought to ask ourselves the question "Is the fiscal policy of this country of a char-

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
acter that is leading Canada into prosperity, or are we piling up and adding to our obligations to a point where there may be danger? Let me illustrate the case a little differently. Last year the balance of trade with the United States against us was the smallest it has been,
I think, for perhaps fifteen years or more. If we take the average for sixteen years it will give us a better idea. The average adverse balance of trade with the United States for the last sixteen years is $223,000,000 per annum. Add that to the sum of $150,000,000 for interest and we find that we are going behind with the United States to the extent of $375,000,000 per annum, and the ratio is increasing because each year our interest debt is increasing. This is a serious situation and we have to face it.
Where are we drifting in this fiscal policy? Where are we drifting in our transactions with the other countries of the world? How long can we stand it? I gave a simple illustration not long ago, and I will repeat it now. A man has a farm or a small business. He has something he owns out of which he is getting a living, perhaps a very decent living. He wants to expand a little. He borrows five hundred dollars and gives a mortgage on his farm. The next year he wants an automobile and borrows one or two thousand dollars and adds that to the mortgage on his farm. It is true the five hundred and the thousand dollars, or the two thousand whatever it is, does not bother him much because his farm is worth it, but if he goes on year after year adding to the mortgage, the time will come when there will be a foreclosure, and those who have been lending him the money will say:	"We
want to cash in on this deal". The question is how long can Canada continue increasing its indebtedness abroad without embarrassing the economic life of the country. That is the question facing Canada. Whither are we drifting? It is true Great Britain and Greece, for fifty years or more have had an excess of imports over exports, and these cases have been cited as an'answer to the argument I am presenting. But it must be borne in mind that Great Britain had an invisible revenue before the war, and still has a revenue now of perhaps four hundred million pounds per annum in shipping revenue. She goes out into the markets of the world, carries other people's goods, and obtains a large revenue from it. That is part of the excess of the imports. It is debts being paid to her. We owe her a hundred and fifty million dollars a year. How do we pay it? We send over grain or manufactured goods or whatever we can sell to her. For the last half century or century
or perhaps two centuries Britain has been collecting revenue from all corners of the world, and it comes in in the form of imports; consequently she can stand an excess of imports over exports. But we cannot because we are not a loaning country. We are a borrowing country. The same thing applies to Greece as to Great Britain. The chief revenue of Greece is in the form of tourist traffic, and this traffic leaves considerable money in the country. We have no such sources of revenue. We have some tourists coming into the country, and I am glad to see that the number is increasing, and I think the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) should keep his eye on the tourist traffic, in order to help the country pay its debts; but the revenue derived from that traffic will not be sufficient to meet the three hundred and seventy five million a year. That is the point we have to keep in mind.
The time will come in the history of all debts and all mortgages when the stage of foreclosure is reached. I am not saying that the point of foreclosure is reached in Canada. I say, speaking perhaps now for myself-and every hon. gentleman can take it as he likes- I would consider myself a little less than a madman if I waited until the point of foreclosure came before raising my voice in opposition to this policy of drifting which is in vogue in the country now. I would consider we were traitors to the country if we understood the problem, appreciated the danger and allowed the drifting to go on until we approximately reached the point of foreclosure. I do not think that point has been reached, but I say the evidence of increasing obligations abroad is such that every sensible man and woman in the country is called upon to face the problem. Whatever the remedy may be, let everyone face the situation and acknowledge its difficulties.
I desire to say a few words in regard to some of the resolutions. I have something to say in regard to the dumping clause, but I notice that the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), recognizing that discretion is the better part of valour, decided to retreat hastily from the position assumed on the introduction of the budget in regard to the dumping clause. It reminds us of a budget introduced three years ago. If I recollect correctly, there were three distinct budgets- two absolutely distinct budget speeches in the one year. I wonder if we are to expect any further injection of new matter into the budget before a vote is taken. I think the minister, or whoever was responsible for devising these items, should have known be-
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

fore they introduced the resolution what they know now, and I think did know it. But the minister thought he could throw this sop out to some people other than my hon. friends to my left, and win a little support from them; but when he was greeted with the evident anger and indignation of my hon. friends to my left he thought perhaps he would not gain as much as he would lose. I think that is the secret of the whole story.
Regarding the export of power, I am not going to deal with the question in any detail. I shall reserve that till the resolution is in committee. But this resolution vertually establishes the principle of the export of power, and this is the point I want to bring to the attention of the House. This method of dealing with power and this public enunciation of the intention to increase revenue out of the export of power virtually establishes the principle or policy of the export of power, and further it will develop a vested right that will be mightily embarrassing in a few years to come. Then we have the fact that we have been exporting pulpwood. We have business men on the other side of the line going to the United States congress and government and demanding that the government of the United States shall put a heavy hand on the government of Canada to prevent us taking any action we wish to take. Why? Because they say that they have established mills depending on this resource, and have established a vested right which they say should be respected. I am not going to debate that question, but if this resolution carries as it stands now, it will be tantamount to a declaration to the public that we are going into the business of exporting power and will open the way to the establishment of a vested right that will be international in character.
That is not all. I desire to bring this to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low), under whose department this matter falls, although he is not in his seat just now. Power is not a product. It is a tool. You might just as well take the machinery out of some of your factories and ship it to the other side, as to export your power to the United States. I want to emphasize if I can the point that power is not a product but a tool. It is a tool with which we can accomplish things in the way of industrial development in this country. It is not a product in itself, and it should not be viewed as a product or as a commodity to export. It should be carefully guarded as a useful implement for Canadians. I am not saying that we should immediately cut off the per-

mission to sell export power, but if any of it is to be exported, it should be done on the basis that if we have any excess that we are not using, we will lend this power or this tool or this implement, under license for a year, to the people on the other side, but we should not part with the control or the vested right in that resource. If this resolution passes it will fix a definite limitation to the extension of Canadian industry. I pause to emphasize that point and I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of your colleagues from Quebec, to the fact that it will affect that province more than it will affect any other section of Canada. And it will affect my own province. And why? In Quebec, and I take it in all the provinces outside of Ontario, power is in private hands. Once the principle is adopted and the vested interest is established, private interests will so develop for their own selfish ends the export of this power that the time will come when others in Canada desiring to use it will find that the point of limitation has been reached. I repeat to my hon. friend-and it is the duty of every hon. member to recognize and realize this-that it will fix the limitation of expansion of industry in Canada, and it is nothing more nor less than placing a noose around the neck of Canadian industry with United States capitalists on the free end of the rope, so that at any moment suitable to them the noose can be tightened and Canadian industry strangled. This may seem like strong language, but sometimes it takes strong language to offset the persistent intention and determination of a government to dissipate our heritage.


George Perry Graham: How does my hon. friend argue that an export duty on pulpwood would decrease th*e quantity of export and at the same time argue that an export duty on power would increase the quantity of export? How do the two arguments coincide?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have tried to make this clear to my hon. friend. I may have been a little obtuse in my reasoning, and if my hon. friend has not understood it, that is my fault. If this resolution passes, it virtually means that Canada publicly admits that she is to follow a policy of the sale of power as a product. I point out to the House that power should not be looked upon as a product for sale at all ; that power is a tool, or a weapon, or an implement, if you like, in the hands of manufacturers for purposes of production. It is not in itself a product. If we establish a system of export upon a revenue basis, that

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
is upon the principle of producing revenue to the country, we shall establish vested rights on the other side of the line. Indeed, those rights are there now; they are raising their heads to-day, even though we have been exporting power only under license. There is a vast difference between the two-establishing the sale of power as a product, and merely lending it, as I said a moment ago, under a yearly license. My other criticisms have have been criticisms of the proposed policy cf the government. I say this to the government, not in criticism, their present policy *.'light to be surveyed; we ought to look carefully into our license system of the present day and determine whether or not we should make it more clear than we have that any power we part with is simply as an act of grace for the time being. As a matter of fact, this is what this House should say: That we do not purpose permitting the continuance of the export of power. I do not say that we should cut off the export of power at a moment's notice.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I do not wish to criticize in the least. It is only for information I am asking this question. There has been a great deal of dispute amongst scientific men and deep thinkers about the export of power because we cannot cancel contracts that we make with the United States. If we are permitted to impose an export duty of $1.95 per horse power per annum, is there anything to hinder this parliament from making it $20 per horse power?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nothing in the world. I think I understand what my hon. friend has in mind. Recognizing that certain contracts have been entered into and appreciating, as we must, the moral value or ethics of good faith, let us cany out those contracts or permit the carrying out of them, but let us make clear to the public that it is not a policy we are adopting. Let the United States know that they are not going to build up industries over there under Canadian hydroelectric power. That is my contention.
I may be asked what suggestions I have to make, because I appreciate that if I spend nearly an hour, as I have, in offering criticisms, somewhat sharp, of the government, it is up to me to offer some constructive suggestions, and I shall do so. If I had anything to do with the matter. I would make these suggestions:
1.	To switch some of our purchases from the United States to other sources and change an adverse balance of trade of some $223,000,000 per annum to a favourable one sufficient
to meet our annual interest indebtedness to that country. There are two ways by which this adverse balance of trade can be changed. One is for the United States to increase her purchases from us and the other is for us to decrease our purchases from them. As I have stated on other occasions, the United States will understand the language of "dollars and cents" more quickly than anything else, and if we want our friends south of the line to appreciate the customer they have north of the line, the best way is to withdraw sonjje business from them.
2.	To encourage the investment of Canadian capital in industry by removing irritating and overburdensome types of taxation; by adjusting the tariff so as to direct our vast reserves of raw materials to use in Canadian factories, and by tax or embargo to discourage the reckless export of raw materials and make abundantly clear that Canadian power is to remain under control for Canadian industry.
3.	Recognizing that Great Britain has for decades been our best customer, to adopt such an attitude towards the Motherland and sister dominions as will lead to closer cooperation within the empire in trade matters, and to avoid scrupulously all appearances of discord in relation to foreign affairs.
In conclusion, this budget is a delusion and a snare. 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; nor does it show either the real value of costliness of our $2,000,000,000 railway investment. It gives us no syllable of information on that, nor does ii give any adequate idea of the condition of our internal trade, as I think I have well shown. But, on the contrary, it deceives the public as to the public debt. It mocks the taxpayer as to his taxes. It seeks to bury all of this under a meaningless certificate from two eminent outside accountants. The minister offers in answer to this: "Remember our great heritage." I have his full statement, but he calls on us to remember our great heritage. Where do this government stand? Do they favour free trade? Then, let them say so. Do they intend to protect Canadian industry? If so, let them stop pussy-footing and cease tolling the "death knell of protection." I understand the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) may do me the honour of following me. If he does, I am going to listen very carefully for that "death knell of protection."


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member will hear about it.
The Budget-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: He says I shall hear it.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend quote me correctly? I said that he would hear about it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Probably we shall hear
an apology for or a withdrawal of the death knell.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my
hon. friend wait until the hon. member has an opportunity of speaking and then he will hjjve an opportunity of hearing?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad I am getting
the minister cross, because he always makes a better speech when he is cross.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
cross.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I ask this question: Do
the government favour making Canada an economic adjunct of the United States? If so, then let them come out into the open and declare themselves frankly. Let them say that Canadian power, jCanadian resources, Canadian copper, Canadian pulpwood, Canadian nickel, Canadian asbestos are to be produced for the purpose of feeding the manufactories of the United States.
If it is not their policy let them face the fact that this condition exists and let them attempt to put an end to this drift which is undoubtedly making of this country a mere economic adjunct to the United States. If the government is concerned about this tendency'' and are anxious to arrest it let them face squarely the $309,000,000 of a deficit in our dealings with the United States and let them tell us what they intend to do to rectify that condition of things. The economic and social conditions in Canada to-day demand definite action. The people are sick and tired of the policy of drift and are anxious to see this country economically sound. Everyone knows that Canada has a great heritage and there was no necessity whatever for the minister to mote that fact in his budget. speech. But what is required is a proper administration of that heritage; what is required is effective management by the government of the heritage that has been placed in their hands as a trust. That heritage the Canadian people desire to see developed in the interests of this country and not in exploitation and spoliation by aliens. This government stands charged before the .people of the country with crass indifference to its own pledges; with ruthless dissipation of our resources; with duplicity in policy and with utter disregard of governmental responsibility. And it stands 
charged further with administrative practices which will end in delivering Canada economically bound and shackled to the United States.


Mr. W. B. SNOWBALL (Northumberland, N. B.):: I regret the evident disappointment of the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) at not being followed by a minister of the crown. In this instance, however, the government has chosen a back bencher to reply to the hon. member and I am pleased to have this opportunity of following so able a gentleman as my hon. friend who was an administrator in the government of which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) was head.
I wish at the outset to congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on. the agreeable surprise he sprang on his Liberal followers by being able to show an actual credit balance for the year ending March 31, 1925, of $1,823,000. We need not for the moment take into consideration the
34,000,162, which might be subject to some criticism. The achievement is a creditable one without this item. I also wish to congratulate ham on the bomb he thus throws into the Conservative comer. It was amusing.. Mr. Speaker, to see the falling countenances that followed this declaration, as they were in anticipation of the opportunity of enjoying a substantial deficit.
In view of the trade conditions that prevailed in the early .part of 1924 that warranted a revival of trade in "free trade England" and alike in "high protection United States," it was certainly a great disappointment to all business men to find that better conditions did not materialize but that in both countries, exemplifying the two opposing trade policies, similar conditions prevailed, that trade languished and unemployment was intensified.
It was therefore, Mr. Speaker, all the more to the credit of the acting minister and the Liberal administration, that they were able after having freed the Canadian people of a substantial burden of taxation by the reduced tariff last session, to accomplish what many large business concerns were unable to do- show a balance.
The hon. member (Mr. Stevens) implied that there were apparently no reductions this year of any account, or at any rate no reductions that would lead to any saving to the Canadian people. But the hon. gentleman overlooks a large number of items in connection with which the tariff has been reduced. For instance, the list includes mowing machines, cultivators and farm imple-

The Budget-Mr. Snowball
merits of different kinds as well as farm wagons; while reductions have been made on fertilizers. There are also reductions in the case of spraying machines, incubators for hatching eggs, brooders for young fowls, milking machines, and so on; and rock drills, saw mills, logging machinery and logging wagons are reduced. We find too that the sales tax is reduced on rubber boots from 6 per cent to 2i per cent and it is proposed to remove the sales tax on cereals, while there is a reduction from 6 per cent to 2| per cent on canned vegetables, canned fruits, jams and things of that kind. Ail along the line reductions have been made, thus removing a considerable burden from the shoulders of the people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, reverting to the Roumanian and Greece interest payment, I consider the acting minister deserves the commendation of this House for his efforts in more fully providing, not only protection for the original debts, contracted by our Conservative friends when in power, but for the inclusion in this, security of the arrear interest. Would any business man tell the House where he would put the four million dollars interest item, except as placed by the financial statement? The interest paid on this money borrowed for this loan has been a debit item each year, and included in interest payment, and when a payment is made in cash, or security, it surely would go to credit of interest account. True, it is not actually paid in cash, but it stands a secured payment on interest to debit of Roumania, Greece and a credit to interest account-and not a capital sum. The security now is bonds with coupons attached. I believe, and members on the other side of the House have admitted, that it will now be paid.
In general business we would treat an adequately secured account in that way especially when they were paying interest regularly and would be justified in so doing. Now my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) refers to the Home Bank case, and almost by implication wishes to leave the impression that the hon. the Acting Minister of Finance may eventually do time. But, Mr. Speaker, the circumstances are different, and I hope the acting minister is not losing any sleep. The Home Bank accounts on which interest was charged and credited to show favourable balances were hopeless, admittedly so, by even the bank officials, and proven so by actual results-no interest paid for years -but in this case the hon. member for West York says, " I am inclined to think they are going to come through ". And he has every
reason to be pleased that such a reckless expenditure by his government has been so favourably placed through the vigilance of the Liberal administration. Quite a frank admission the above, and practically justifying as far as he could the action of the acting minister. In fact since 1922, or since this government has been in power, the interest has been regularly paid.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us touch for a moment on the railway situation; and at the outset I wish to state that I am fully in sympathy with the suggestion made by the hon. leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke), that the railways be re-valued and written down to actual valuation. But again there are difficulties, and after you have done so, then what? Have you changed the situation any as far as Canada is concerned? Can we repudiate the difference between actual value and the amount at which it now stands about -$1,200,000,000-one billion dollars for about
22,000	miles of railway. From data available the Canadian Pacific Railway owns and operates 13,350 miles of railway, with a capital liability of $650,500,000. I simply give these figures for comparison and thought. Suppose we re-value the Canadian National Railway system:	Canada still has to assume the
liability, but in one instance it is a direct liability, and the other an indirect, with an increasing physical value as our trade under Liberal regime improves. At present, with a direct liability of $2,417,000,000, is it wise to make any change?
Now let us analyze this public debt for a few minutes and see if we can trace its source. The 'hon. the Acting Minister of Finance stated that $5S2,000,000, belonged to the railway; that would leave $1,835,000,000, as the ordinary debt of Canada as compared with a debt of $474,941,487, in 1911 when the Liberals went out of power, or $544,391,369, in 1914 when the Great war began; an increase of $1,291,000,000, largely attributable to the war the expenditure of which .amount I do not propose to criticize, as it has already been under review.
Now, how about the $582,000,000, chargeable to railways? Where did that come from and who is responsible for that amount? And we will start with the amount mentioned in the hon. minister's speech-as classified1 "nonactive" by no less an authority than the hon. member for West York, which is $272,624,931 for 1919-20; and we add $109,662,654, for 1920-21; $97,950,645, for 1921-22; or $480,238,230, in three years. We therefore find that $480,238,230, was added to this account during the regime of the former government, and
1B66
The Budget-Mr. Snowball

mackerel and salmon, and 1 cent on all other frozen fish, except smelts, which latter escaped by. some error. We are hard hit in our provinces by this tariff which also includes our potatoes. Mackerel and salmon fishing is an important industry with us, and one large shipper advises me that there is no doubt about who pays the duty, as when quoted a price f o.b. New Brunswick, the price is less the duty and freight invariably.
I wish now for the edification of the official opposition to read further from the speech of the hon. member for Dufferin. The extract is not very long, but shows what did take place within that party:
That was in 1910. The Conservative policy then was, "We must get down to a lower tariff". They were going to appeal to the people and wanted to get hold of the people on that low tariff policy. But what happened? The Liberals outwitted them, went over to the United States and stole the Conservative platform. We know that the Conservative policy back in the eighties and nineties was that as soon as the United States was willing to put the natural products of the country on the free list Canada would do the same, and that we would have reciprocity in the natural products of the country. But the United States refused to accede to that request until 1911, when the Liberals went over there and made an arrangement with them in regard to it. The Conservatives then felt that they were up against it, that the Liberals had taken tlie ground under their feet, and some scheme had to be launched. What were they to do? They wanted to get into power. At that particular time I knew a little of the workings of that historic party to my right, and I got into the caucus. I have not time to tell my hon. friends about it to-night, because I have to catch the train.
I am extremely sorry, Mr. Speaker, he had to catch a train, because I would like him to have unfolded to us all the doings of that caucus, which launched the flag-waving scheme of 1911. He goes on:	.
They said, "There is one hope of getting into power, and that is the loyalty cry". They raised the Union Jack to the top of the mast. I do not know what they did in other localities, but I know that in my locality they fought the contest on that particular line and nothing else, and they succeeded in winning.
We can see by these statements, Mr. Speaker, which are made by one who was in close touch with the party at that time, that the Conservatives were not sincere in their attitude towards reciprocity, but were willing at any time to sacrifice the interests of Canada in order to secure power and get on the treasury benches of Canada.
We in the Maritime provinces are against high tariffs. We would ask the government to seriously consider further reductions. I realize that we cannot make any radical changes, but I would ask the government to give notice to the manufacturers that we cannot afford always to have them as cripples on crutches, and that they should try and

take, a few steps without artificial support until they nan eventually throw their crutches away. We do not want to be inhuman and ruthlessly kick them from underneath them, but we would advise them to take warning, improve their methods, if necessary, cut down their property values, and prepare for what may come in the very near future.
Trade is improving in this country, and to-day we are in a more sound and healthy condition than the country to the south. Every bank president in the country has sounded a hopeful note in his presidential address before the annual meeting, but at the same time every one of them has advised caution and economy, and we realize that is good advice, and the practice of both by government and people alike will the more quickly bring about a sound financial basis for this country.
Now I wish to read to the House some clippings I have recently taken from the Daily Telegraph-Journal, St. John, N.B.,-a paper that has done much to interest the rest of Canada in the Maritimes-another dated February 19, from the Citizen, and a third from a Conservative paper published in Fredericton, the Daily Gleaner, under date March 27. The clipping from the Daily Telegraph-Journal says:
Cotton Mills on Full Time Again
Cornwall and York now working six days a week
"Back again to full time" was the cheering news that about 400 employees of the Cornwall and York cotton mills received early this week after 18 months of curtailed operations. The change is effective at once so that instead of closing down yesterday as usual for the rest of the week the mills will operate until Saturday noon as they do under normal conditions.
Market is Better
An improvement in the cotton market and the securing of some additional contracts by the local mills, it was learned on good authority yesterday, have brought about the resumption of full time. While it is not definitely known for how long a period this will continue efforts will be made to keep the mills on full time during the next few months.
The congestion of the market more than a year and a half ago hit all the cotton mills throughout the country hard and in many cases they shut down altogether for a time. The local mills have been operating on part time during this period of depression. Lately both the Cornwall and York mills have been running four days a week.
Improves Conditions
Employees of the mills and their families greeted the return to full time, with the corresponding increase in the size of their pay envelopes, with relief. Struggling along as best they could with only part time at the mills and with the high cost of necessities it has been a time of hardship for many. Landlords, store keepers etc. in the vicinity of the mills will also benefit by the return to normal conditions. In fact the effect of the increased work will make itself felt more or less throughout the city, a citizen pointed out yesterday, and will help greatly in restoring better times around St. John.

The Budget-Mr. Snowball
The clipping from the Citizen reads: Hardware Trade on Sound Footing President of Sheet Metal Company Prophesies Bright Business Future
Toronto, Feb. 19.-Business has reached a sound footing, which will enable advance purchases and bring about business stability. T. A. Enslow, president of a sheet metal plant of Hamilton, told the Retail Hardware Merchants' Association here yesterday.
Canada was facing a steadily brightening outlook, he said, and retailers could look ahead for several months at prevailing prices.
Speaking in a broader sense, Mr. Enslow declared that Canada should go slow in the matter of immigration, for with the steady increase of "good times" there not only would be a return of the thousands of Canadians, who had crossed the border to the United States, but these would bring with them many Americans to become Canadians.
I find the following in the Gleaner with respect to loans:
Loans well met in the Maritimes Plenty of money available and interest rates to be lower.
St. John, N. B., March 27.-George H. Smith, of Toronto, General Manager of the Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation and the Canada Permanent Trust Company, while here to-day, suggested that the local Boards of Trade invite members of the Toronto, Montreal and western boards of trade to come to the Maritimes and study conditions at first hand.
Mr. Smith said that all over Canada there was the dawn of better times and there was much more hopeful feeling among the business men. He predicted cheaper money for industry and a plentiful supply. All that was needed now for real prosperity was population and an additional half million people would make the wheels of industry hum.
Mr. Smith said his company had over $3,000,000 invested in mortgage loans in the Maritime provinces and they were extremely gratified at the way payments [DOT] had been met on both principal and interest. In no part of the Dominion had payments been better.
In the western provinces conditions were on the mend.
As to the whole situation, he said a person would be a great deal of a pessimist who could not see the prospect of real improvement.
Mr. Smith will sail to-day on the Montcalm to spend a couple of months in England, where he will make arrangements for a supply of English capital for Canada.
He could assure the Maritime province industries that plenty of money would be available on mortgage loans and that the interest rates were bound to be lower.
Let us give up our pessimistic whining attitude, throw back our shoulders, and go forward hopefully into the future. We in this parliament can injure Canada by our unwise utterances in this House, or we can help smooth the path towards prosperity. Which attitude are we going to take?
I was going to make some reference to the dumping clause, but I find the Acting Minister of Finance has made a change in the clause of which I am a little doubtful as to whether it was really in the interest of Canada or not. I want, however, to refer to the fact that there was a saving to Canada under the duties that
we have had. I referred to that earlier in my remarks in reply to certain hon. members from the west. I showed the changes that had been made and pointed out that there was an actual saving to the people of Canada both in customs duties and in sales tax. There may have been some shrinkage of business but it does not represent a very large amount. The actual figures are obtainable and will show that notwithstanding this shrinkage there was a very large saving to the people through the reduction made in taxes. It may not have been as large as was anticipated at the time owing to the fact that we had a reduced trade this year which was not expected when the estimate was made to parliament of what the return would likely be. Still the saving is large and the people have benefited beyond all doubt from the policy pursued by the government. I am sure because of the government's record the people wdll have confidence in it just as they had in 1921; and wdienever the present government decides to go to the country the public confidence in it will be shown by the substantial vote that will be recorded for the Liberal party all over Canada.
In conclusion I come to the consideration of a matter that was discussed more than any other during my recent campaign by my opponents who thought they enjoyed a monopoly of it and rang the changes on it just as they did in the case of the flag-waving cry of 1911. I refer to what has been wrongly termed "Maritime rights". I am in no sympathy with any such name being applied to our problems. We have no rights as such. We are part of a great Dominion and we have problems to overcome. But every province has problems, and our problems like the others are such as each of us can help the other to solve. We looked for great results to come from the Intercolonial railway. The space between Upper and Lower Canada was to be bridged, and it was expected that a flow of merchandise -our fish, our lumber, our produce-would go west and the manufactures of the west would come east. In one particular the expectation was fulfilled. The manufactures came east, but our goods had to go in the same old way to the markets of Europe and the United States. However the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) went fully into this and I need not discuss it.
Then railway and express rates were increased, and as an example of discrimination I want to put on Hansard lumber rates from Chatham to Toronto, January 1st, 1916, to the present, showing a jump from 21 cents to 31| cents, or 60 per cent, and rates from
The Budget-Mr. Snowball

British Columbia to Toronto, August 5th, 1915, showing 67 cents per hundred pounds at that time as compared with 88i cents at present, or an increase of 32 per cent.
Freight rates on lumber, in carloads, from Chatham,
N.B. to Toronto, Qnt., at various dates as indicated below.
January 1st,	1913	to	December 31st, 1916	
21January 1st,	1917	to	March 14th, 1918	
21March 15th,	1918	to	August 11th. 1918	
24August 12th,	1918	to	September 12th, 1920	
27
September 13th, 1920 to December 31st, 1920.. .. 38
January 1st. 1921 to November 30th, 1921	 36$
December 1st, 1921 to July 31st, 1922	 34
August 1st, 1922 to date	 31$
Rates are in cents per 100 lbs.
Freight rates on lumber, in carloads, from British Columbia Coast points to Toronto, Ont., at various
dates as indicated below.
August 5th, 1915 to September 15th, 1920.. ..	67
September	16t.h,	1920	to	September 19th, 1920.	1.05$September	20th,	1920	to	December 31st, 1920..	1.05January 1st, 1921 to April 20th. 1921	
1.03$April 21st, 1921 to December 26th, 1921	
90December 27th, 1921 to date	
88$
Rates are in cents per 100 lbs.
Let me also compare the rates on another product of our province, fresh fish, which must go by express. Here are the figures:
Express Rates on Fish
Express rates on fish, fresh, any quantity, from Chatham, N.B. to Winnipeg, Man., 1,773 miles January 26th, 1914 to August 31st, 1919. $4.50 per 100 lbs. September 1st, 1919 to February 8th,.
1921	6.15	per	100	lbs.February	9th,	1921	to	date	
7.70	per	100	lbs.
Express rates on canned fish, any quantity, from Chatham, N.B. to Winnipeg, Man.
January 26th, 1914 to August 31st, 1919. $6.25 per 100 lbs. September 1st, 1919 to February 8th,
1921	
8.20	per	100	lbs.February	9th,	1921	to	date	11.05	per	100	lbs.
Express rates on fresh fish, in carloads, from Vancouver to Winnipeg, 1,465 miles September 1st, 1914 to August 31st,
1919	$2.50	per	100	lbs.
September 1st, 1919 to March 10th,
1921	
2.85	per	100	lbs.March 11th, 1921 to	date	
3.59	per	100	lbs.
Express rates on fresh fish, in less than carloads, from Vancouver to Winnipeg, 1,465 miles September 1st, 1914 to February 14th,
1922	$3.60	per	100	lbs.February	15th,	1922	to	date	
4.30	per	100	lbs.
The above rates are based on Classification weight, viz., net weight plus 25 per cent, so that the rate charged would really be 25 per cent in excess of the figures above quoted.
Our great industries are certainly discriminated against. Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that we have just cause for complaint and that the other provinces should insist on such an unjust handicap being removed. We must have lower freight rates and passenger rates if we are going to make this country of ours grow. We cannot under the conditions as they exist at the present time 
develop industries or develop trade within Canada unless a very substantial reduction is made in our freight rates, and I trust such legislation will be brought in at the present session of parliament as will make it possible to bring about the equitable rates so necessary to develop trade not only in the Maritime provinces but in the western provinces as well. We are looking for such legislation and I hope it will be available at the present session of parliament. We have our winter ports, St. John and Halifax, and rve were pleased to find that the action of the government in limiting the British preference to goods passing through Canadian ports had [DOT] resulted in only a fraction of one per cent coming in otherwise, but we feel that every Canadian National employee should be a booster for Canada and Canadian ports, and should use his influence to have these Maritime ports used in the winter. Spend money on our harbour facilities, spend money on making the entrance to them safe, spend money on breakwaters or anything that will increase trade. Do not economize on matters of this kind as it would be false economy and would tend to retard the growth of our country. With reference to immigration, we have been very much neglected in this particular, the railways desiring the long haul. I would ask the government to be very careful in regard to the selection. Do not bring industrial workers to the industrial centres until industrial workers who are there now have been absorbed by the increase in industry which is sure to take place in the coming year. We can use the right kind of farmers in New7 Brunswick. We have many vacant farms which became vacant during the period between 1878 and 1896. We have farm lands that are available for these settlers, adjacent to the cities, towns and villages. We would ask the government, in considering their immigration policy, not to pass by the Maritime provinces, but to bring the immigrants into New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We have to import too much farm produce in our province. We have good land and good opportunity, and we invite the government so to frame their immigration policy that they will bring to the Maritime provinces the number of people necessary for the upbuilding of eastern Canada. We need them as much as they do in the west. As Canada is built up m population, as we increase the number of people in the country, by the better class of people of our own

The Budget-Mr. Snowball
nationality, people from the British Isles as far as we can, we will be doing one of the best things we can do for the country. If five hundred or a thousand people are brought into these provinces you will find a difference in the trade and in the outlook. We are a responsible people down there, and we will be able to show these newcomers that we have a country equally as good as Ontario or Quebec or the great northwest. These people will realize that the Maritime provinces will give them homes and encourage others to come. The difficulty is that people have never come our way. The great northwest has loomed up big and many people have gone in that direction. I ask the government to take notice of this and have the Immigration department look into the matter. Some effort should be made to bring into this country the people we need to fill up our farms and our country to make our Maritime provinces what we consider they should be.
Men have been brought from the north of Scotland trained in the fishing industry and they were taken out into the western country where they will not see a halibut or a salmon.
Mjr hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) spoke of the fish on the Great Lakes, and in the vicinity of Manitoba. If those men were brought to New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and went into the counties on the sea shore, they would find a condition similar to what they had left, employment they were accustomed to, and they would have the bracing sea air that they will miss in the west.
Finally we have another railway problem in New Brunswick which I would like to bring to the attention of the government. Branch lines were taken over in New Brunswick in 1904, 1906, 1917, 1920 and 1922, and are a paying part of the Canadian National system. I say a paying part, because I have it on the best authority that some of the branch lines I know about are a creditable asset to the Canadian National Railways, and are producing a revenue better than that produced by many of the other parts of the railway in Canada.
I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) to this matter, and I would like him to take into consideration that the government of New Brunswick gave bonds to the promoters. While in other provinces they guaranteed the bonds and the guarantee bonds are now assumed by the Dominion and New Brunswick contributes its share. The amount 107
so given by New Brunswick amounted to $1,834,000 as below.
Canada Eastern Railway Fredericton to
Loggieville	 $404,000
Petitcodiac-Elgin-Havelock Railway.. ..	106,000
St. Martin and Upham Railway	 131,000
Albert County Railway	 496,000
N.B. and P.E.I. Railway	 105,000
Caraquet and Gulf Shore Railway	 222,000
Moncton and Buctouche Railway	 95,000
International Railway	 275,000

These railways are a paying part of the Canadian National Railways. I think the New Brunswick government should be recouped, the bonds in connection with these railways should be taken off their hands and they should be placed in exactly the same position as the other provinces in connection with the transfer of railways. I think that is a fair proposition, and should appeal to every hon. member in this chamber, whether Liberal, Conservative or Progressive. All that we ask is that we be dealt with fairly, in the same way as the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta were dealt with, and that the money advanced to the railways should be taken off the shoulders of the New Brunswick government and become a part and parcel of the indebtedness of the great National railway system. We have assumed our part and portion of these other guaranteed bonds. We are a part of Canada. Assuming that, I think we have every right to ask the government of this country to treat the Maritime provinces exactly as the other provinces have been treated, and we feel that our province should be relieved, as other provinces were relieved, of this responsibility.
Then we have the Valley railway, operated as a part of the Canadian National and under lease, having cost the province $7,111,977 for about 180 miles, or about $40,000 per mile. This line was built on the same standard as the National Transcontinental. It is now leased to the Canadian National, and I say this line should be taken over by the Canadian National Railways, and that the Canadian National should assume the liability of the province of New Brunswick. There is nothing unreasonable in this request. I know that this is a large order. I know that the government of the province of New Brunswick is not responsible for the condition as it exists at the present time, but that railway 'is hampering the growth and freedom of the people of the Maritime provinces, because they have not sufficient means within the province or available with which to raise revenue and pay interest on an investment of that nature. The government, having taken over

The Budget-Mr. Snowball
COMMONS [DOT]
the other branch lines, I think could very well afford to take over this line, even with the large investment in railways, which was stated by one hon. member to be $1,800,000,000 It would enable the province to invest money which would then be available to them, for other works in the province. We have been considering the question of the water powers in the province of New Brunswick, and if these railways were taken off our hands it would make it possible for our people to develop the water-powers, having been relieved of these interest rates in connection with this railway enterprise.
I bring this to the attention of the government and I hope they will consider the matter. I think hon. members coming from the Maritime provinces, and members from the other provinces will agree that in all fairness the province of New Brunswick should be assisted in this way, and it would only be carrying out the understanding which was arrived at when the province came into confederation. Now is the time when the government can hold out the olive branch and say, "We are prepared to relieve you of your obligations in connection with the railways, as we did with the other provinces, and we know that the province will then prosper".
The Kingsclear branch bill was thrown out by the Senate last year. We hope that it will again pass the House and be favourably considered in the Senate. We need this branch. It will shorten the haul from northern New Brunswick to Boston points, some 350 miles. It will be the connecting link that will make the Valley railway a paying piece of road and it will encourage the establishment of industry along the Canadian National.
Another line of railway that we hope the government will seriously consider-and it has been brought before Sir Henry Thornton who looks upon it with favour-is the extension of what is known as the Caraquet and Gulf Shore road from Tracadie along towards Newcastle, a distance of about sixty miles through prosperous country and good farms, and would develop not only the fishing and lumbering industries, but would encourage the construction of pulp and paper mills, and assist one of the Fraser Companies pulp mills now on that side of the Miramichi river, without rail connection.
We are handicapped by the fact that there are no railways running on that shore. If the railway was constructed there it would tend to the development of the country, and farming would be carried on more extensively. I think that part of the country is more closely inhabited than any part of Canada. Many

Acadians are in there and doing wonderful work in farming. They are developing the country, and if encouragement is extended, many more will come in, take up land, and make New Bunswdck a desirable province from the farming standpoint.
There is a great opportunity for the extension of the pulp industry in that section, as power will be brought from Grand	Falls in large quantities,	and
great developments will be made possible. We would have another pulp mill and possibly paper mills, as well as hardwood mills, in that section that would contribute very largely to the paying possibilities of that railroad. There is along the line that railway would cover, a pulp mill built by the Fraser Companies Limited one of the most energetic and progressive concerns that we have in New Brunswick, and one which has done a great deal for 'the industrial advancement of our province. This pulp mill is situated on the opposite side of the Miramichi river from Chatham, away from railway facilities. They would be wonderfully assisted and their industry would possibly be increased to a great extent if they were able to bring in their coal and ship out their manufactured product by a railway passing by their door. I would draw the attention of the government to this, because I think it is worthy of their consideration. I hope, in bringing in their branch line legislation for this year, they will not forget to put in a substantial item to make at least a beginning of the extension of that line of railway from Tracadie along towards Newcastle, to be finished and carried forward as an extension and loop of the Canadian National Railways.
We have our grievances and our burdens as hon. members can see. We are Canadians and shall remain Canadians, but let it not be forgotten that we are an important part of this great Dominion-the eastern door. As we enter this building, we see engraven on stone that it may ever be kept in mind:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
We are that eastern gate. Canada needs both her gates and Canada will develop and be great as she passes the products of this country through her gates to distant lands.
Let us get together and solve our difficulties, harmoniously working together east and west and intervening parts, and let us make this Canada of ours what the Great Creator really intended when He placed us here and gave us such wonderful natural advantages-the greatest country in the world

The Budget-Mr. Bancroft


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selfcuk):: Mr. Speaker, the budget has been presented much earlier this session than is the general custom. It may be that this accounts for the fact that some long overdue legislation has not yet been presented to the House.
The need for re-valuation of lands taken up under the Soidier Settlement Act wa3 clearly demonstrated to the government in the committee which investigated this question last session. The Soldier Settlement Board began its operations in the province of Manitoba,- and naturally the abuses, which crept into the locating of soldier settlers, were, perhaps, more pronounced in that province. I desire to bring to the attention of this House the government's obligation in this matter. When the returned soldier applied to the Soldier Settlement Board for a farm, he was shown a list of farms with descriptions and prices. These farms had been inspected by supposedly expert valuators, employed by the board for that purpose. If the valuator did not approve the price asked for the farm, he would naturally not allow it to be listed in the office of the board. The inclusion of a farm in the list shown to the applicant was in the nature of a guarantee that the list price represented the actual value of the land. Under this plan many returned men were settled on lands totally unfit for farming, and the board finally realized the situation which had developed and made a thorough house-cleaning after about two years operation. If there was nothing wrong with the valuation, there would have been no necessity for the clean-up which took place at that time. By their action the board admitted that there was something wrong with the valuation that had been carried on in certain districts in Manitoba.
The board is to be commended for its action, but it did not go far enough. What about the soldier settler who was the victim in these cases? Except for the amendments of 1922 which gave him more time in which to meet his payments, nothing has been done to lighten his burden of debt, which in many cases was improperly placed upon him. The board prevented a recurrence. of the trouble, but it made no restitution for the wrongs already done. These facts must be considered together with the serious depression which the policy of deflation brought upon agriculture, and a re-valuation of lands, particularly in districts most affected by the early administration of the act, is imperative at this time, the alternative being more abandoned and untaxa-ble lands and more men moving to the cities to increase the unemployment prob-107i
lem. I trust that the government being in possession of all the facts, will bring down the legislation necessary to meet this situation.
A somewhat similar situation has arisen among certain settlers in various parts of western Canada. In the constituency of Selkirk, which I have the honour to represent, quite a number of Scandinavians and Ruthen-ians were settled some years ago on land which should never have been thrown open for homestead entry. These lands consist of stony ridiges, stony scrub land with a very shallow loam on a gravelly subsoil.. The settlers on these lands have eked out an existence as long as there was cordiwood available. Wood is getting scarce now, and the crop failure this year, which left them without even potatoes for their own use, has resulted in great hardship and destitution. The present condition of some of these people is serious, and I would suggest that, where they are settled on manifestly unsuitable land, they be granted the right to homestead again in a better district,


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it not true that they now have that right, that they can release their soldier settlement holdings and subsequently take up homesteads?


Leland Payson Bancroft: Yes, but my hon. friend has misunderstood me. In the latter part of my remarks perhaps I did not make it clear, but I was referring to actual homesteaders, not to soldier settlers.
Turning to the arguments advanced in this discussion, the protectionists in this House have become greatly concerned over the working-man, and no doubt the full dinner pail will be their election .cry. I do not think that the workers of Canada can be deceived m that way. They cannot be taxed into prosperity. Any system which places greater burdens of taxation upon a man with a family than upon a bachelor will never appeal seriously to the Canadian workman. Protection increases the cost of living, and therefore decreases the purchasing power of the consumer, lessens the worker's demand for his own product and at the same time places him under a handicap when competing with workmen in other countries. One might well ask of those vho claim that protection protects labor: Why not exclude all who would compete against them in the labour market? But, very properly, these advocates of protection are in favor of an aggressive immigration policy. The value of their professions of concern for the interests of Canadian labour may be better judged by their actions. I would like to point out that those who stand for the protection of Canadian workmen embrace every oppor-
The Budget-Mr. Bancroft

tunity to employ workmen of other nationalities when such employment means increased profits.
Has protection protected Canadian labour in the case of the canneries on the Pacific coast? If my memory serves me right, drastic regulations have had to be invoked1 to force the canners of British Columbia to employ even a small percentage of Canadian labour. The largest Canadian steamship companies operate under British instead of Canadian registry. They register in Great Britain to enable them to employ British seamen to compete with Canadian seamen. Canadian steamship companies operating between Vancouver and the Orient mam their boats with coolies hired in China. The British Empire Steel Company operating boats between Montreal, Sydney, Halifax and St. John, and enjoying the fullest possible protection under the Canadian coastal navigation laws, brought in 105 Chinese coolies to replace Canadian seamen on their boats. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, there can be no security for Canadian workmen until the purchasing power of this country is restored and until our industries 'are established ion a natural rather than an artificial basis.
In discussing the budget last year I pointed out that the reduction of the sales tax offered less relief for the taxpayers than would an equal reduction of revenue from the customs tariff. If the $20,000,000 taken off the sales tax had been taken off the tariff a very much larger amount would have been saved to the consumers, since the hidden bonuses paid to the protected industries would have been proportionately lessened. A very large increase of purchasing power would have resulted and much of the existing depression in eastern industries might have been avoided.
In the same discussion, the government will recollect, we on this side of the House asked that there should be something in the nature of an appeal provided which would enable any importer who felt that the administration of the dumping clause was unjust to obtain a decision of the facts in the particular case by an impartial tribunal. My recollection is that the government expressed itself sympathetically to the proposal, but nothing has been done.


George Perry Graham: If I remember rightly, there is under the present act an appeal to a tribunal known as the Customs Board.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I remember there was a discussion of the subject last year, when the government was 'asked to make some provision

for an appeal. I am glad to hear that this has been done.


George Perry Graham: I think there is such an appeal.


Robert Forke: The trouble is that the Customs Board is the greatest protectionist board in the Dominion of Canada.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I knew there was something wrong about it. This session we have had a proposal to widen the scope and application of the dumping clause. This proposal has now been withdrawn, but its withdrawal does not remove the original objection urged in this section of the House to the existence of the anti-dumping clause nor the suspicion that it is utilized to the injury of Canadian consumers. We welcome the change in the government's proposals, remarkable at it may be that so important a feature of the budget to which the government may be assumed to have given serious consideration before bringing the budget down should be destroyed by its sponsors so soon after its introduction. The history of the anti-dumping clause is illuminating as showing the necessity for unremitting vigilance to prevent encroachments by the protected interests. Clause 6 of the Customs Act of 1907 permitted the special duty to 'be levied when the actual selling price to an importer was less than the fair market value in the country of origin. This was amended in 1914 to allow a differential of five per cent between these two prices before the dumping duty was applied. Last year this differential was abolished by order in council but as the result of strong protest was again restored. This year's amendment would again have abolished the differential and would have given the Minister of Customs and his officials power to say what the value of any commodity imported would be for customs entry. The only definition we have of value for customs entry is that given by the minister in the amendment of 1922 relating to imports of natural products. The minister said it might be the price of the goods on the Canadian market. The old law placed a limit beyond which the minister could not go; that was, the fair market value in the country of origin. Had the amendment proposed in this budget carried the Minister of Customs would have had the power to increase protection to where it would become a practical embargo against the importation of goods, irrespective of the tariff schedule passed by this House. It is noteworthy also that goods which are listed in the tariff schedule as being free of customs duty, such as binder twine, cream

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
separators and barbed wire, would have come under the scope of this clause.
When the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King) toured western Canada last fall he made an appeal for the low tariff forces to get together. I wonder if he had this proposal in mind at the time. I want to say to the right hon. gentleman that the low tariff forces in this country will get together, that every attempt to increase protection drives them together and assists very materially in bringing about a clear cut division between the low tariff advocates and the protectionists. And when this takes place the low tariff forces must choose between the budget proposals of the government and the principles outlined in the sub-amendment submitted by my leader the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke).
Andrew Fletcher said:
Let me write a country's songs and I care not who makes its laws.
The Canadian manufacturers might well change this to read: "Let us draft the antidumping clause, we care not who makes the tariff schedule."
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, with hon. members who have preceded me, I desire to express my regret that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is unable to be in his place. I hoped he would have recovered long ere this.
I congratulate the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the splendid showing he has been able to make under rather adverse circumstances. There can be no doubt that not Canada alone has passed through a rather serious depression dtiring 1924, but also our neighbours to the south, in fact the whole world. It is a favourite pastime of my hon. friends opposite to dilate on the fact that Canada is suffering from a condition which they would have us believe is not also present in the United States. True, they admit that in Great Britain and on the continent difficulties have been encountered by the governments of the day, that unemployment is rampant, but they never state that a similar condition of affairs exists across the line. Of course, their panacea for all our troubles is an increase of tariff.
Before dealing with that matter I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) on his address delivered
this afternoon. Naturally it represents his standpoint. I must take issue with him for neglecting to ascertain that exactly the same system of accounting which is in existence today, and which he criticized so severely, has obtained for a number of years. I have taken the trouble to interview the Deputy Minister of) Finance with) respect to this system, for I confess that I shared with some other members the feeling that perhaps the country's accounts could be presented to the House in a somewhat more intelligible form. I am bound to say in fairness to him and to the officials of his department that I believe they are making a fair presentation of the facts respecting the country's accounts just as they stand in the books. Furthermore, that gentleman informs me that no Minister of Finance under whom he has acted has ever interfered with him in the slightest in the manner of making up these accounts, which he compiles in the same way every year, giving a true record of the receipts and expenditures for the fiscal year. Our public debt at the end of the last fiscal year was $2,417,734,274.88; the ordinary revenues-estimated for the current year-and apparently we have no dispute about this-will amount to $344,000,000; our consolidated fund expenses will amount to $319,700,000; our capital charges on public works-marine, railways and canals -will be $18,077,000; the special account mentioned by the Acting Minister of Finance is $4,400,000; leaving a favourable balance on the year's operations of $1,823,000. Now, if we entirely separate our railway accounting from the general accounting of the government, we have no difficulty in arriving at the result. I think we are agreed that there can be no difference of opinion about the accounts so far, but apparently there is a very considerable divergence of view when we come to our railway accounting and its application. I am not going to find any particular fault with the system adopted by our predecessors in office, but simply1 offer am explanation which I think will help to clarify the situation to some extent.
Treating our ra'Hvay accounting entirely apart from the general accounting of the country, we find that up to 1920 bonds were issued to and notes taken from the railway companies to the extent of $272,000,000. Upon that occasion the then Minister of Finance, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) adopted a different system-I presume because the railway companies were unable to pay the interest charges on those advances-and while he charged the loans to the public debt, and
1676	COMMON'S
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
increased it accordingly, he treated them as non-active. His policy has been pursued ever since.
In 1921 that was the policy pursued. In 1922 that was the policy pursued except with this difference; in that year, as explained in the speech of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), the sum of $56,000,000 odd was received from loans made to the Imperial authorities for war purposes, and not being in a position to liquidate the bonds that were maturing, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), instead of placing that sum- in a trust account to reduce the public debt, decided in view of the fact that he had to provide for the railways that year the sum of $80,000,000 odd that it would be better for him to advance the cash received from these loans to the Imperial government than to float new loans and to turn over the proceeds to the railways, as had been done in previous years. Therein lies the difference.
Again, in 1923, because of the peculiar provisions of the act, which permitted the government to loan by way of cash or by guaranteeing bonds, the government again floated a loan, partly guaranteed securities, and partly cash to carry the railways that year, and $24,000,000 was carried in that way from the cash account of the country.
In 1924 we provided $18,000,000 odd of cash in loans to the railway. Had it not been for the fact that in 1922 the whole of the railway obligation was taken care of by cash, and by receipts from loans which had been gathered not from the taxpayers of this country, but from the Imperial government, no difficulty would have been experienced in understanding the situation thoroughly. The difficulty comes about in having obligations, partly cash, and partly guaranteed loans.
Bear in mind also one other class of security that perhaps makes it somewhat confusing, That is the securities issued for the purchase of equipment. In that case the government does not guarantee. The security is taken upon the equipment itself, and there again you have another more or less special account. So you have three systems in vogue in the railway accounting: one of guaranteeing bonds by the government, another the issuing of cash, and the third the issuing of bonds by the railways for the purchase of equipment, the bonds not being always guaranteed, the security usually being taken upon the equipment.
All told we had accumulated in this way up to the end of last year in loans to the railways the sum of $582,000,000. That is the amount that has gone into the railways, and

upon that we have delayed interest of $131,000,000. The total amount required annually for the payment of government loans and loans to the public, overhead and fixed charges, is $62,000,000 odd. Nearly $30,000,000 of these fixed charges is due the government, and of course not paid. Unfortunately, the railway company is not able out of its earnings to take care of even the fixed charges that are due to the public.


Arthur Meighen: In view of that, will the minister say there is any real difference between the responsibility of the country in the case of a direct loan of the country for the purpose of the railway, and a guaranteed loan?


Charles A. Stewart: I am nol making the claim that there is any difference whatever.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not make that claim. What I say is that in order to pay the total indebtedness of the railways, we require to raise annually $62,000,000 odd of interest. That must be raised either by the railways or by the country. Until we decide whether or not we are going to change the system of accounting, whether or not we are going to deduct from the railways, as has been suggested on many occasions by hon. gentlemen in this House and outside, what might be considered over and above what ought to be charged against the railways for overhead, it appears to me this system of accounting must continue. But what I do wish to point out is that there has been no change in the system. It is identically the same system, and the two sides of the ledger show very clearly what the railway indebtedness is, and what the government is responsible for. Indeed, the government is responsible for the whole obligations, because the country owns the whole railway so far as that is concerned. But there has been a difference in the accounting inasmuch as the loans from the government, both by way of cash and guarantees, are in a segregated account, and are charged to the public debt of the country.


Robert James Manion: Instead of claiming a surplus, would it not be fairer to the country generally to charge all the railway debts, if they cannot be paid, to the country generally?


Charles A. Stewart: That is just the difference between my hon. friend and myself. If that policy were adopted, we

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
should have to undertake to raise, in addition to the consolidated revenue fund, a sufficient amount to pay all the interest charges of the railways that they were unable to pay out of their earnings.


Arthur Meighen: Or borrow the money.


Charles A. Stewart: They do
borrow.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend not
take this into consideration? Last year, 1924, was the first year we had a consolidated balance sheet from the railways. Previous to that, the returns were divided up among the different railways. There is no excuse now for not presenting to parliament a complete statement of the consolidated railway balance sheet.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend has followed the statement of the Acting Minister of Finance, and I take it that he has-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have studied it carefully.


Charles A. Stewart: -there
should be no difficulty in arriving at the real indebtedness of the railways. Why should there be? On one side of the ledger you have a statement of the indebtedness of the railways to the public, and on the other a statement of the indebtedness of the railways to the government-two accounts, it is true, but they are perfectly clear and understandable. We know what the indebtedness of the railways is to the government of Canada, and what their indebtedness is to the public of Canada and elsewhere who have purchased their bonds. There is no difficulty in understanding that statement. I fail to understand how it could be more clearly shown.


Arthur Meighen: In the face of what the
minister has admitted, which is frank and honest, in view of the fact that the guaranteed liability is just the same precisely as the direct liability, how does he justify the claim last year of $35,000,000 surplus, and the making of that the basis for a reduction of taxation?


Charles A. Stewart: Let me take my hon. friend back to the provisions of the statute with reference to railway financing.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point at all.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, I
think I am right; I think I am perfectly right. If I take my right hon. friend back to the provisions of the statute it will be
seen you can either borrow the amount by way of loan or by way of cash-


Arthur Meighen: Exactly.


Charles A. Stewart: -and loan it to the railway-in other words loan it to yourself, because, in effect, that is what this transaction is to-day. So there can be no difficulty about it and the statement of last year was a perfectly clear statement. I want to say to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens)-


Arthur Meighen: It is not clearness I am objecting to.


Charles A. Stewart: May I get
this from my right hon. friend:	If it is not
clearness that my right hon. friend is objecting to-


Arthur Meighen: It is dishonesty.


Charles A. Stewart: -is he
objecting because we are taking moneys from the revenue of the country and placing them in a special account which is called "nonactive?" There can be no difference of opinion about that surely?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Charles A. Stewart: Well then,
the statement is very clear.


Arthur Meighen: I am not complaining
about clearness.


Charles A. Stewart: Would my right hon. friend not ask as the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) did, at least, I imagine that is what he was desirous of doing:	Why do you not
take from the consolidated revenue all the requirements to pay the interest on the fixed charges of the railways over and above the net earnings?


Robert James Manion: No, I was merely pointing out that a 'liability of the National Railways is as much a liability of the country as any other liability-for example money expended on harbour improvements, and expenditures of that class; and that that money should be charged up against the country generally just as much as these other expenditures are.


Charles A. Stewart: That is in
effect what my right hon. friend is arguing. So long as we know clearly wthat the borrowings or loans of the country are, either by way of cash or a guarantee of bonds, then we know absolutely what the full indebtedness of the railways is to the publie and to the government; there can be no question
1678	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
about it. However, I do not want to get into a controversy about this. What I am trying to present to the House, in a clarified manner, if I can, is the exact situation but not to mix the railway accounting and the public accounting. I gave the details of the public accounting in the first instance where the government of the country had taken care of the capital charges as well as -the general expenditure from the consolidated revenue, there being over $1,800,000 of a balance; and the loans to the National Railways whether - by advances from the consolidated revenue or by way of borrowings are kept in a separate account and the exaet standing of that account is shown absolutely. Until we adopt a different principle-the principle suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Manion)-of taxing the public to pay for the overhead in its entirety I do not see how any radical change can be made in the accounting method.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has missed the main point. The hon. member (Mr. Manion) did not suggest taxing the public. It is all a question of whether the advance takes the form of a direct loan- or a guarantee upon the government's responsibility. My hon friend admits that in effect one is exactly the same as the other, as everybody knows. Now the point is this: When the money is borrowed by direct loan it becomes part of the national indebtedness, part of the year's expenditure but not necessarily part of the year's taxation.


George Perry Graham: You never knew that before.


Arthur Meighen: We have always known
it.


George Perry Graham: You did not practise it.


Arthur Meighen: That is another question. If the minister will give me permission, and hon. gentlemen opposite are as good at listening to an argument as they are at laughing, I will take the privilege right now of showing the difference. I want to make clear the question I put to the minister. It was this: Inasmuch as the responsibility is the same for the capital indebtedness, whether it is by way of borrowing direct or by way of guaranteeing, what is the necessity of claiming a surplus because with a guarantee there would be as much of a deficit as if it was a direct debt.


Charles A. Stewart: I fail to follow my right hon. friend's reasoning. He argues in a rather roundabout way inasmuch as he seeks to set up a difference between a direct loan and a guarantee.


Arthur Meighen: I say there is no difference. You say so too.


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly.


Arthur Meighen: Then why are you claiming a surplus?


Charles A. Stewart: I have
already said to my right hon. friend and I say to him again that until the moment arrives when we are prepared to take care of the difference between the earnings of the railways and the amount necessary to pay the overhead -until that time arrives when we are -prepared to take it all out absolutely in cash and charge it to the taxpayers of the country the system of accounting and the system of making the charges are identically the same as they were before.
Mr. MEIGHEN That is not the point at all. It is not a matter of system, it is a matter of reality.


Charles A. Stewart: Then I shall have to leave the matter to my right hon. friend. No doubt he will speak in this debate and I shall follow him with a great deal of interest. I have gone into this matter very clearly-


Arthur Meighen: Yes it is very clear


Charles A. Stewart: -and I will leave it to my right hon. friend to deal with it when the time comes.
There is one other item which the Acting Minister of Finance has added to his surplus, namely, the item in connection with the Roumanian and Greek loans-I think it is an item of $4,162,000. I am only going to deal with the items that are in dispute. I am not going to attempt in any way to cover a great deal of ground, I shall simply deal with these items just as they arise. I think the Acting Minister of Finance gave a very clear statement with respect to the origin of this amount which he has applied to the reduction of debt. Hon. gentlemen apposite know that loans were made to the governments of Roumania and Greece. I cannot say what the securities were but I think I am correct in stating-and if I am not correct the ex-Minister of Finance will correct me-that they were never considered in the category of non-active assets. Apparently there are three items that do appear as non-active assets, namely, the loans to the railway companies, the loans to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and the loans to the Quebec Harbour Board. Those are all set out, but so far as I am able to ascertain the loans to Roumania and Greece

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
were never considered non-active assets although there was some doubt as to the security. Beyond that I think these have 'been always regarded as assets upon which we should realize some day or another. When Mr. Larkin went to London as High Commissioner he took the matter up with the governments of Roumania and Greece. The loans to Rou-mania were in the neighbourhood of twenty-three 'millions; those to Greece, I have forgotten the exact sum, were not anything like the same amount. The high commissioner was able to arrange for the payment of those loans, getting security upon the excise duties, I believe in the case of Roumania and upon a fund just as secure in the case of Greece. If there was doubt about the form of security in the past there can be no doubt as to the character of security now. Interest to the extent of $4,162,000-I think I am correct in the amount-had accrued in the meantime.


Robert Forke: No, $4,000,162.


Charles A. Stewart: What the
commissioner did was this: He went back to the governments concerned and said, "We think we are entitled to have this interest or have it secured" and security was given for the interest. The interest was added to the principal so that the overdue interest now occupies identically the same position as the principal due by the governments of Roumania and Greece in the first instance. There can be no doubt that we will receive the same interest upon this amount as we are drawing upon the loan itself. We have absolute security and believe that this asset is worth every dollar it purports to be. The interest referred to has been added to the principal making the total loan, if I remember correctly some thirty-one millions, upon that we shall draw interest annually until the loans are repaid. Is there anything wrong in the Finance Minister taking credit for a security of that sort? I do not see anything wrong about it.


Robert James Manion: Not as far as he has gone, but go ahead.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not an asset to the country? Surely as it is going to draw interest it can be credited as a liquid asset. There can be no doubt about it, and the Acting Finance Minister (Mr. Robb) is quite in order in placing it in the list of active assets to credit against capital charge.


Robert James Manion: I doubt the statement as
far as it goes, but is the minister quite honest in crediting it to surplus, adding it to the two million and making a sum of six million?


Charles A. Stewart: Where would he put it?


Arthur Meighen: It is not a receipt at all.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend speaks of honesty. I do not think the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will say it is dishonest. I am certain he will not.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I would say it is very misleading.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
misleading now to the hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: It is misleading to the
public.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: We have a perfect right to credit our liquid assets in this way, and so has every firm. I venture to say if my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) will ask Mr. Waugh, one of the auditors for whom he has such a high regard, whether the charge is not a proper one, he will be informed that it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have had experience of my own based on similar matters.


Charles A. Stewart: I quoted
the statement of the hon. gentleman this afternoon, and he said he had no doubt of the honesty of the certificate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The auditors did not
certify this account.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
say they did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, you bet they did not.


Charles A. Stewart: But that
happens to be in this year's accounting. My hon. friend passed some very severe strictures upon the government and upon the officials who had charge of the accounting and upon the gentlemen who audited the accounts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, my hon. friend is
wrong.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have a right to make
an explanation. I never reflected upon the gentlemen who audited the accounts. I said they never audited the accounts, and the certificate does not say they did. All they say is that they compared this year's balance
1680	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
sheet with the previous one, and its form is the same. It is a meaningless certificate.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend said all that this afternoon and something more. There has 'been no change in the system of accounting, as I pointed out clearly.


Arthur Meighen: A change in the effect
of it.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: A change in the application of the money.


Charles A. Stewart: Not at all.


Ernest Lapointe: A meaningless criticism.


Charles A. Stewart: Another
matter which my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre dealt with this afternoon was the sales tax reduction, pointing out that it occurred because of the deflated condition of business in the country. He did not mention that last year there was a reduction in the sales tax estimated at almost twenty-four million dollars. We anticipated that in the beginning of the year. I am willing to admit a certain reduction, but I want to point out clearly that that did not come about because of the reduction in the tariff, nor because we happened to have a moderate tariff in Canada, as against the highly protective tariff in the United States which my hon. friends are always holding up as an example to be emulated by the Canadian people. The lessened taxation accounts in a very large measure for the reduction. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) both regret the fact of there being no reduction in taxation. Their amendtaents state that specifically. I want to point out to those hon. gentlemen that we have made a very material reduction in taxation all along the line, and that to-day we are collecting less revenue than was collected in 1920.
I wish to deal with this matter for a moment or two. The uncontrollable and the controllable expenditure of the country was as follows:
Uncontrollable Controllable
1911	
$31,234,857	$ 90,422,9771914	
51,690,661	133,172,958
I will just give the round figures, and I am not going to quote any war years, because I virtually said in this House that I never raised my voice in criticism of the administration during the war years. I have heard it severely criticized, but I was not here and know nothing about it, and I am not going to refer to it.

The expenditure for the following years was as follows:
Uncontrollable Controllable
1921	
$256,145,252	$162,475,2921922	
222,618,240	143,083,5501923	
223,189,751	127,418,7951924	
215,000,796	129,020,991
When hon. members complain that there has been no reduction in the cost of running the country they must remember that $215,000,000 must be raised from the taxpayers of this country, over which this government have no more control than hon. members opposite. I think that is a fair statement to make.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister mention the items making up the $215,000,000?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I have not got them but I think my hon. friend will not dispute the items.


Arthur Meighen: In the United States they have managed to control a great many of those items.


Charles A. Stewart: We are reducing just as fast as we can. These are mostly war expenditures-not all of them, but a very large proportion-and it may be a just and equitable criticism for my hon. friend to say that we are spending too much money as a result of the aftermath of the war and that we are not curtailing quickly enough in our expenditure. I am not going to say as to that. Perhaps the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment (Mr. Beland) could answer that question very much better than I could, but I say that this sum is made up of what is uncontrollable expenditure, and it is made up by the same gentleman who makes up the public accounts of the country and who has been making them up for the past seven or eight years to the knowledge of hon. gentlemen in this House. They are exactly the same items that are contained in the expenditures of 1914 or 1911 that I have quoted for the information of the House. The charge that we have not reduced taxation and that we are not running the country economically is surely answered in its entirety when I say that we are running the country more cheaply, as far as controllable expenditure is concerned, than the government did in 1914, the year previous to the war. No sensible or sane man will argue that the country has not grown and that the public service of the country does not require more money to run it. That statement cannot be successfully controverted and I hope the controllable expenditure will continue to rise. Indeed I am bound to say that I believe it would lend encouragement to the people were the government to spend

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
more money; but we have been economical in administration. We have cut down expenses to such an extent-I see my hon. friend smiling; I do not know that he was a member of the government in 1914, but I know that he will not argue that the service of the country required more money and more controllable expenditure in 1914 than in 1924. We have cut and cut to the core, and I want it to go out to the country that that is what the government has done and is going to do all the time. We may be a moribund government; we may be guilty of misstatements, as the hon. member said this afternoon, but these are uncontrovertible facts that I commend to his attention and to that of hon. gentlemen opposite when they are criticizing this government in its administration of the country.
I want to deal for a moment or two with the vexed question of unemployment-unemployment in Canada and unemployment in the United States.


Mr. HANSON:: Where?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend wants to know where, let him go to the state of Massachusetts which is, perhaps, the most densely populated state of the union, and where there is possibly more employment in the way of manufacturing pursuits than in any other state. Am I wrong in making that statement? What is the ratio between Canada and Massachusetts as regards employment? Does my hon. friend know that in Massachusetts to-day there are people who wish to emigrate to Canada, who are out of work, and that in a highly protected country like the United States? If he does not know that, he can get that information very quickly. There are more men walking the streets in the large manufacturing communities of Massachusetts and the central part of New York state than there are in Canada to-day. What do the employment figures show? I am not going into details because I do not want to deal with the question at any great length. Is it not striking that hon. gentlemen opposite are continually preaching to us about unemployment? Since January 1, 20,000 people have been added to the payrolls of Canada, according to the Bureau of Statistics. These people have gone, not into the logging camps, nor on to the farms, but into the manufacturing industries of Canada. My hon. friends are fond of talking about the exodus to the United States. During last year 41,000 Canadians who had been in the United States for six months and over returned to Canada. Are these figures worth while considering?


Henry Herbert Stevens: How many went south?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
the figures. I heard the leader of the opposition speak of almost 100,000.


Arthur Meighen: The minister never heard me say that.


Charles A. Stewart: , Then I will take it back.


Arthur Meighen: The number is twice
that.


Charles A. Stewart: It is growing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many people left
Canada in January according to the government reports?
MA STEWART (Argenteuil):	A great
many visitors go to Florida in January.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Over 9,000 people left this country in January to locate permanently in the United States.


Charles A. Stewart: As regards
the index figures of employment in the United States, based on January, 1920, as 100 per cent, I have gone carefully into the matter and I have been somewhat astounded at the results that are shown. The index figure shows 80.4 per cent, a reduction of 19.6 per cent from normal employment throughout the whole of the United States, while the index figure for Canada shows 80 per cent at the end of February this year. These figures are not so very far apart for a country so highly protected as the United States, where nobody is out of employment, but where everybody is happy, having a full dinner pail and sufficient to buy stockings for the children about which my hon. friend was complaining this afternoon. These are figures one cannot pass very well without comment. I have heard my hon. friends opposite refer frequently to the optimism of Sir Henry Thornton. I am not going to refer to anything he has said in an optimistic way, but I want to refer to one thing that he has said because it affects the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). Sir Henry Thornton, in making the financial statement which was published by the Montreal Gazette, which is a good Conservative paper, one not liable to quote any statements that are not reliable as regards business conditions, said that from Fort William eastward along the line of the Canadian National Railways in 1923, 112 new businesses were established, and in 1924, 200 odd. My hon. friend said this afternoon that something like 2,200 had gone out of
1682	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
business. I want to tell him about some that have gone into business, and those 200 odd manufacturing institutions established in 1924 along the line of the Canadian National Railways employ 8,000 persons. I give that for the benefit of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River.


Robert James Manion: There is a great deal of unemployment in Fort William, and if the minister would give me a list of these places, I shall be glad to send it to Fort William.


Mr. STEW  ART@Argenteuil: I shall be glad to furnish my hon. friend with a list of those places.


Robert James Manion: A number of businesses in Fort William have gone out of business and we can supply those plants with men.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon
friend said that we were going to ruin the implement business. What has happened to the Massey Harris Company this year? I do not know where they get the money; perhaps the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) will know; but for some unaccountable -reason during '1924, that disastrous year, for the first time in four or five years they paid a dividend of $68,000.


Mr. SPENCE:: They did not make it out of the business, for they did nothing. They are not doing half the business they used to do.


Charles A. Stewart: I have the greatest respect for my hon. friend, and I said I do not know where they got the money. They are anxious just now to secure some of the money they lost in Germany, but they did not get it from there.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Did they pay a dividend?


Charles A. Stewart: All I know is that that is the statement of the Massey Harris Company.


Arthur Meighen: Not a cent.


David Spence: They used to employ 4,000 people. To-day they are employing about
1.000,	or 1,500 at the outside. I live near there and I know.


Arthur Meighen: Did the minister observe in their statement that they had bought all the stock of the Batavia company which stock had risen to par?


Charles A. Stewart: I quite believe that.


Arthur Meighen: That is where they got the money.


Charles A. Stewart: They got the money from Batavia and paid the dividends?


Arthur Meighen: No, they own the stock. They found it profitable to buy the stock in the Batavia company at New York and the stock had risen to par adding to the assets and profits of the Canadian concern. They paid no dividend at all.


George Perry Graham: They must have had
some money to buy the stock.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
notice that the International Harvester Company, which is perhaps the best barometer of business conditions as regards industrial employment in the United States, were paying extensive dividends.


Arthur Meighen: Did the minister notice that in the Massey-Harris report it was stated that Canadian business was 60 per cent last year of the year before.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I did not notice that.


Arthur Meighen: It is important.


Charles A. Stewart: I am glad my hon. friend noticed the $68,000 because I thought that would be contradicted too. But this is a fair example of the arguments that are made in regard to this tale of woe which we hear from hon. gentlemen opposite as a result of the reduction in protection that has been inaugurated by this government. I was considerably interested in the speech of my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Snowball) this afternoon, who gave us some ancient history. I want to refer to conditions that existed in this country in years gone by inasmuch as they were mentioned by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) -the other night in his speech. The hon. gentleman is not in his seat at the moment but he agreed the other day with what I said in this regard and I promised at the time that I would say something more about those conditions when I had an opportunity in this debate. During the period in which we enjoyed the highest protection that Canada has ever witnessed, that is to say, from 1888 to 1894, we saw the hardest times in this country which the people of Canada have ever experienced-times indeed such as I trust will never recur. Aly right hon. friend smiles.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, he was in school in those days but a few of us old fellows still remember that period. Personally,

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
I recall those days with very distinct regret inasmuch as I lost any little money I did have up to that time. I sold pork dressed taken to the,..market in the town of Barrie for $4; I sold my wheat at 60 cents a bushel, my peas at 50 cents, and I sold three-year-old steers at $19 a head, and then I almost had to beg the butcher to take them. And my hon. friend from Northumberland this afternoon depicted exactly the same conditions as existing in the old province of New Brunswick in former days; he pointed out precisely the same thing. The other night I brought to the attention of the hon. member for West Toronto when he was speaking that in those days one could see on a visit to Toronto a line of men marching down Yonge street on their way to the parliament buildings and the city hall to ask for bread or work. Perhaps my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) will also remember those occasions; although he is not as old 'as I. his memory I thank will carry him back pretty well to similar conditions. Now 1 mention this because it has a bearing on what hon. gentlemen opposite are always preaching, that is, that the panacea for all our ills is increased protection with a view to increasing manufactures and so providing employment. Well, protection did not bring about any such result 'at that time, and I know of no country in the world, nor can any hon. gentlemen opposite point to one, where protection can be carried on to better advantage than in the United States. That country does not export more than 8 per cent of all its products; except for that small quantity it consumes practically all its output, with a population of 120,000,000. But hon. gentlemen must remember that the United States enjoys climatic conditions which Canada does not; 'and I will venture the assertion that the position would be different here if it were not for our seasonal employment. In the building trades, in every outdoor work, in railway construction and maintenance and in a dozen different industries, in agriculture, where the men are thrown out of work for three or four months, there is bound to be unemployment during a part of the year. Such is not the case in the United States, nor can that country be compared to Canada in that respect. But -after aM are the people there any more happy than Canadians, or are they doing any 'better in the United States than the people are in Canada? Are conditions -any better to-day in that country? Let me give one more example. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other day, speaking of the railway
situation, said: There is unemployment on the railways, and there has been a reduction in traffic, the true barometer of the business condition of -the country. But while there have been reductions in the Canadian National Railways' net earnings 9 p.m. the hon. gentleman forgot to mention that the reductions in the net earnings of the Canadian system had been twice as much on the American side as in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: But the year before the increase in the earnings on the American side was several times what it was in Canada. That is why the reduction took place.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is always talking about the year 1924.


Arthur Meighen: As compared with 1923.


Charles A. Stewart: Hon. gentlemen make the heavens ring with their denunciation of the wrongdoings of this government, whose policy they want the country to believe is bringing destruction to Canada. But I have shown conclusively that the United States is not the paradise hon. gentlemen paint it; it is not in the happy condition they would have us believe; and high protection there cannot prevent deflation. Indeed, they suffer from this in the United States practically to the same extent as we do in Canada, and the tariff has nothing to do with it. I agree with the statement of the hon. member for West Toronto, in answer to a remark of mine with respect to the condition of the country in 1893, that it was not a result of the tariff; it could not be attributed to that source but followed naturally a period of inflation. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite that protection will always bring inflation, over-capitalization and over-industrialization in any country whatever; and deflation will ensue as surely as night follows day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman says that protection always brings inflation.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will he say that the inflation that took place in all European countries during the last- ten years was due to protection rather than to war conditions? Further, was protection the policy in those large European countries before the war?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not going to discuss the European countries but I will take the statement of the ex-Minister of Finance who the other day told us that
16S4	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
France was in the happiest condition of any country in the world by reason of the fact that she was highly protected and could therefore make splendid progress. He said that over 800,000 houses had to be reconstructed in France as a result of the war. Well, he could have gone on to tell us that millions upon millions of dollars had to be invested in France for the rehabilitation of the country. Undoubtedly that was true.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Should we have been better off in this country if we had had all our houses and factories destroyed?


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly
not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then let me tell my hon. friend that the work was done almost entirely by the first of January 1924 and the men are all working now in the factories they built.


Charles A. Stewart: When the war ended, so far as Canada was concerned, we enjoyed for a period of a year or two considerable prosperity. Why was that? Because we were engaged in the re-establishment of civilian life, and that is why we had employment to such a marked degree at that time. And my non friends did perfectly right to encourage it; in every province it was the same.


Mr. DUFF:: And the very reason for building the Canadian merchant marine was to provide employment.


Charles A. Stewart: Throughout -the length and breadth of the country the population was changing its labour from the making of war material to the manufacturing of depleted civilian supplies. That was what made us prosperous for a year or two after the war, and to the same fact we murt attribute in large measure the prosperity at present enjoyed in France. Now, I have no quarrel with that; but undoubtedly such is the case. My hon. friend however is arguing that because of protection France is prosperous, whereas the condition that exists there at the present time is due to the fact I have stated. I have dealt with the United States. I think it is a fair assertion to make and a fair assumption to arrive at with respect to conditions in France.


Mr. SHAW:: How could the hon. minister expect much unemployment in France with approximately one million men in the army?


Charles A. Stewart: Of course, that would help a great deal. My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) this afternoon dealt with our

adverse balance of trade with the United States, and while he was rather careful not to stress too much the question of protection, he did say that until we were in a position to pay the interest charges on the financial investments of American citizens in Canada by our trade with the United States, so long would we go on piling up the mortgage indebtedness that was being placed upon us by them. Well, complaint is constantly being made that we are allowing our raw materials to go to the United States in the shape of pulp, wheat and other products that might be manufactured in their entirety in Canada. So far as the pulp business is concerned, I think the situation will cure itself rapidly. If my information is correct, we are going ,to have two large mills established by American interests in the vicinity of this city, and efforts are being made for the manufacture of the product in Winnipeg, so that more and more we will be manufacturing our pulp supply. But. that has nothing to do with the issue raised by my hon. friend. He would, as I take it, increase the tariff, he would manufacture more than ever, and he would ship the finished product into the United States. At once the question arises in my mind, if our neighbours to the south are such horrible sinners that invariably when they find a manufactured product coming into their country they raise the tariff against it, how in the world is my hon. friend going to increase our export trade with our neighbours by manufacturing these raw materials?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend did not get my point correct^. I said that I would so frame our fiscal policy as to divert a substantial portion of the purchases now made in the United States either to goods manufactured in Canada or in Great Britain and on the continent.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon
friend's contention, I take it, was that we export to the United States large quantities of our raw materials that we should manufacture ourselves.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has not
got me correctly.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend said: We will reduce our manufactured imports from the United States and increase our manufactured exports to them. Does he expect the United States to be more generous than they have been in the past? I have not noticed any generosity on the part of our American friends in matters of trade. But I am not concerned whether they are generous or not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Neither am I.
MARCH 30. 1925	16S5
The Budget-Mr. Stevxirt (Argenteuil)


Charles A. Stewart: The problem we are concerned with is how we can manage our own affairs in the best interests of the Canadian people, let them raise the tariff as high as they please in the United States. But my hon. friend will not cure the difficulty. If that is his solution for preventing the Americans taking a mortgage on this country, then I fear that in the way he stated it this afternoon, it will not be effective to any very appreciable degree at all events. Do we not want American investments in Canada? If we are going to succeed, shall we not require millions of dollars to develop our natural resources? They cannot be allowed to lie undeveloped. The money must come from somewhere, and I would be pleased, indeed delighted, if all of it were to come from the Old Land, but I do not believe we can expect this, although I think we may expect English capital in increasing volume. Needless to say, we cannot expect it at the rate we hope if we are to succeed in the development of our resources. Then if this argument for protection is not going to help us in that direction, I fail to see how it will help at all. I am not going to raise any wail about the agriculturists of Canada. I think in days gone by hon. gentlemen opposite have said some rather harsh things about conditions in the Dominion and the inactivity of this government because we did not reduce the tariff to help 50 per cent of our population engaged on the farms. Undoubtedly Canada is a desperately hard country to govern. I think everyone who has had a turn at the job will admit that. In central Canada we have a group of men who are engaged very largely in manufacturing, or at least who make the most noise about it and say, " We want protection." Not protection in a moderate degree, not protection that will put them on an equality, as they fondly remark, with their fellows in other countries, but protection that will give them special privileges. That is the demand throughout this part of the Dominion. But I cannot believe that their view is shared by a very large proportion of the people in eastern Canada. Then in the Maritimes the people are very much in the same position as they are in western Canada. My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Snowball) quoted this afternoon a statement made by an ex-minister, Mr. McCurdy, who sat with the right hon. leader of the opposition in the government over which he had the honour to preside, that he did not believe a policy of protection was in the best interests of the people of Canada. So I think I am
safe in assuming that the people of the Maritime provinces are a unit with the people of western Canada in desiring that we have at least only a moderate tariff for the benefit of Canadian industries.
It has been stated, Mr. Speaker, that I am an out-and-out free trader. If I ever entertained that idea I had to give it up during the war. I well realize that we cannot have free trade in Canada, I think I have stated that on more than one occasion since I came to this House, but I have been depicted as one member of this government who would wish to destroy every vestige of the tariff in order to bring about free trade. I never made any such statement; I do not make it now; but I most emphatically say I do not believe that adequate protection, or high protection, that our hon. friends are so fond of demanding, is either necessary or in the best interests of the country.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman believe in protection at all?


Charles A. Stewart: Not if you
define protection as " adequate protection." I believe in a tariff for revenue because I conceive that we cannot change conditions in this country.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman believe in inadequate protection?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no such thing. "The animal does not exist."


Arthur Meighen: Does he believe in protection at all? Does he want it continued in Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: Not as protection.	*


Henry Herbert Stevens: You want it disguised?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I do
not want it disguised. That is where my hon. friends become absolutely ridiculous at times. There are only two things in their opinion. One is protection, as they call it. Whether it is a tariff for revenue or high or low protection, it is protection. The otheT is free trade. That is the argument they like to present, and that is what they would wish to mislead the public with.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman
explain why the government is increasing the duty on slack coal? Is that just for revenue?


Charles A. Stewart: Partly, yes.


Arthur Meighen: WTiat is the rest?
1686	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to depict the difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves in respect to this matter. We are not going to jeopardize industries in this country. We carefully surveyed the whole field last year, and we did no injury to industry. What we did last year had the result of reducing prices on farm implements to the agricultural community, and the reductions then made did no injury to the business which they affected. Hon. gentlemen opposite have said: It is not what you have done, because you have not done anything-


Arthur Meighen: Oh no.


Charles A. Stewart: If that is not a fair statement of what hon. gentlemen opposite have said, my hearing must be very defective. It is not what you have done, they say, because you have done nothing, but what you are going to do, and that man Stewart from western Canada is the biggest sinner of the lot; watch out for him! That is what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite on more than one occasion; it has been said from platforms in this country. I want to say here and now that I do not wish to touch the tariff upon any industry until I know beyond any question of doubt that I am not going to do injury to that industry.


Arthur Meighen: Is not that protection?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is not.


Arthur Meighen: What is it?


Charles A. Stewart: It is simply allowing an industry to get started and get under way.


Arthur Meighen: By the tariff.


Charles A. Stewart: Not by imposing a tariff, for the tariffs are in existence already. My hon. friend would like to lead me away from the question I was attempting to discuss.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no. Keep right on.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, he
would. He would be glad to lead me away from this question. What I was talking about was the tariffs that were in existence, and that have been in existence. I was not talking of tariffs on new industries, but of the tariffs in existence to-day. I made a plain statement. So far as I am concerned, I have been asking for the board that is to be established, in order that I and other members of this House might have full information as to the conditions of the manufacturing industries in this 
country, so that we might know absolutely what we were doing before we attempted tariff revision of any sort-usually downward, I admit, because the record of this government has been that ninety-nine and one-half per cent of its tariff revision has been downward. My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Snowball) gave a list of articles this afternoon on which the tariff has been reduced; it will appear in Hansard, and I commend it to the consideration of hon. gentlemen who have been complaining that we have not given sufficient reductions in the tariff and that we have not made sufficient reductions in taxation. That is the answer that I desire to make to the members of this House and to the country.


Mr. GOULD:: Would the minister kindly
define what the phrase "the death knell of protection" means?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I shall be glad to do that. The death knell of protection has been heralded from every platform in every election in this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do not forget where it
originated.	v


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
forgetting that, but hon. gentlemen have used the phrase not for the purpose of commending the government of this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No chance.


Charles A. Stewart: Nor for
the purpose of commending the hon. gentleman who first used the phrase. They have used it in the hope that they could lead people to believe we had wreckers here in this government who would pay no attention to the industries of this country at all, and who had no thought whatever for the capital invested in those industries. That is the purpose for which the phrase has been used by hon. gentlemen opposite, but it did not have the desired result.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did not the minister last year in the budget debate declare that the substantial reductions made last year were simply a movement in the direction the government was taking, and that it sounded the death knell of protection?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is probably fairly correct, yes. It did indicate the direction in which we were moving. I have never denied that, and I want to repeat now what I have said before, so that my hon. friend will not forget it, and so that hon. members of this House will know

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
exactly where I stand on this question. I do not believe in high protection. I do not like protection of any sort, but there is a condition in Canada that this government or any other government must take into consideration, and this government will have to move with caution, I hope, but always in the right direction.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the right direction?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I differ *with my hon. friend. His right direction is upward.


Arthur Meighen: What is your direction?


Charles A. Stewart: My direction is down-ward wherever possible. I hope that after this speech there will be no misunderstanding in the minds of hon. gentlemen
opposite.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister answer
the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould)?


Charles A. Stewart: I answered
him.


Arthur Meighen: I did not hear it. Nobody else did.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, cannot we
have order? I want to listen to my hon. friend's speech, not to the leader of the opposition.


Charles A. Stewart: It will take me just a little longer. I have a few things to say and I am going to say them.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would again draw to
the attention of the House that there should be no interruptions. Of course, now and then it is quite natural that an hon. member should ask of the gentleman who is addressing the House permission to put a question, or ask an explanation of something, but when the interruptions are too frequent, the privilege degenerates into an abuse. I hope the House will let the hon. gentleman continue his speech.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I think I have said sufficient to indicate that the country is not in such a deplorable condition as hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe. I think I have said sufficient to show that the accounting of the country is safe in the hands of the Acting Minister of Finance, and that the accounting reflects the true condition of the railway situation in Canada. I think I have said enough to convince even hon. gentlemen opposite that the panacea for all our ills, be they small or great, is not increased protection.
Now imay I speak for a moment on the outlook for the future? We have to remember our situation, our climatic conditions our location upon the North American continent, with a rather small area northward, and a tremendous area east and west, with a population somewhat diverse, and with, I will admit, some difficulties, owing to the fact that markets have been shut off by our neighbours to the south; but I do not admit for a single moment that higher protection would be the cure for that difficulty. We have vast undeveloped natural resources, particularly of coal, and I want to say a word or two on that, because hon. gentlemen are anxious to know what we are going to do about the coal situation.
A great deal has been said about a national coal policy for Canada. For the last couple of years the officers of my department have been devoting some attention to the coal situation in Canada, and if I may be permitted to take a moment or two, I should like to mention a survey that we made last year in connection with coal mining operations in the United States as they affect Canada. WTe have an abundance of coal, but unfortunately it is situated in the extreme east, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and in the far west, in western Alberta and British Columbia. Throughout the whole area of central Canada no discoveries of coal have been made up to date, and from year to year we have to import in the neighbourhood of twenty-two or twenty-three million tons of coal from the United States. It has been said that in a cold country coal is just as vital to the residents as bread. Having that in mind we thought the first problem to be tackled was that of domestic fuel. I find that year by year we import into Canada about 4,000,000 tons of domestic coal. This hard coal, or anthracite coal, comes into the country as far west as Winnipeg and even into the Maritime provinces. The quantity imported into the Maritime provinces is very small it is true, and the bulk of the imports go into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Last year we voted a sum of money for the purpose of assisting in the transportation of domestic coal from the Maritime provinces and western Canada. Owing to the strike nothing was done in western Canada last year, but we do hope, and I am going to ask that a sum be voted again for this purpose, that we shall have a movement of at least fifty or one hundred thousand tons of coal in train lots with full sized cars drawing capacity loads in order to establish a rate upon this coal, and that we shall get it moved during the summer months when the rolling stock is idle and when


Mr. CARROLL:: The minister said the
cost of coal production in the United States was $4.


Charles A. Stewart: Not in the
United States.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
said $4.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry
if I made that statement.


Robert Forke: The minister mentioned $2
later on.


Charles A. Stewart: I meant to
say that universally over there it was $2. If I mentioned $4 I meant to indicate that was
M All GET 30, 1925	1689
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
the cost-even a little more than that, it is nearly $4.50-of production per ton at the Canadian mines. I want to say frankly that I think something should be done, and can be done to reduce that production cost in Canada; it will mean a very extended market for the coal industry in this country. But coming to the situation as it exists, I said something about hoping to establish coking industries in the east-at Montreal, at Quebec, and at other large cities-in order that we might supplant as far as possible the importations of anthracite into the area in question by the substitution of the slack coal of Nova Scotia, which can be coked and makes a high grade product. That is what we hope to accomplish and thereby give to the Nova Scotia mines-in addition to the advantages they will otherwise get-an annual consumption in Canada of at least one and a half millions tons of a product that up to the moment has to go upon the dump very largely.
You will note Mr. Speaker, that there has been coming into Canada since 1921 particularly, an increased quantity of slack coal which is sold at the pit mouth in the United States for about $1 a ton and which makes a very cheap commodity and one which can be landed in" Canada at an exceptionally low rate. There have been developments in the grates used in industry for the purpose of burning slack, roller grates having been placed in many of the manufacturing establishments, and no doubt fuel costs have been very largely met by this process. But we have discovered that there has been a tremendous increase in the consumption of daek, and one of the difficulties we have experienced at the border is that of preventing the entry into Ontario and Quebec markets of large quantities of slack that should be listed as run of mine. Consequently we have had a considerable loss of duty on importations of this product, so much so that this coal has penetrated into Winnipeg and westward and taken from the Alberta mines the bituminous markets that formerly at least for a few years, they held. I am bound to say that it has had a rather demoralizing effect both east and west upon the coal fields of Nova Scotia and the coal fields of Alberta. I hope that the increase of this duty will cure this situation and that we will not be troubled at least in the future with the difficulty of ascertaining whether or not a large quantity of this commodity has been coming into Canada paying only fourteen cents duty when it should have paid fifty-three. Three cents is not much of a reduction, but remember the 108i
Canadian railways that purchase their coal in the United States will benefit to an extent. Furthermore I wish to say that very careful investigation was made with respect to this particular increase and its effect upon the manufacturers, and I think I can assure the House that not one-fifth of one per cent will be added to the overhead by the increased duty even upon manufacturing industries using slack coal in its entirety. So that no particular harm will be done, but it will increase the market for the coal fields east and west, and thereby assist an industry which has been having a rather difficult time. It is true the duties are not always responsible for these difficulties. Strikes have been prevalent on these properties. We had a strike in Alberta during the whole of last summer and a strike is in process in Nova Scotia at the present time, and these strikes have a very demoralizing effect upon the coal industry. But I say-and I want to emphasize the point-that in some way or other there must be a reduction in mining costs both east and west in order that the operators may place their commodity on the market at a more reasonable price than they have been able to do in the past, I do not think they can complain very much about the railway rates.


Mr. MILNE:: I notice by the press that
the railway companies of the United States have contemplated a reduction of fifty cents a ton in freight. Has the minister heard anything of that?


Charles A. Stewart: I also noticed that statement. It was stated that it was in order to meet the increased duty, but so far no notification has gone out of any decrease, and I doubt if there will be any decrease for the very good reason that they are hauling coal as one of the cheapest commodities they move in the United States. Freight rates in the United States are somewhat higher than in Canada, but that is not true of the coal movement. I can give my hon. friend the figures, but I do not wish to detain the House longer in connection with the matter. It will be discussed at greater length when the bill is brought down.
In conclusion I do not see that we need have any gloomy forebodings of the future of Canada. In agriculture we have simply touched the fringe of things. I should like to make a brief statement in that connection. Referring to farm lands for example, as nearly as we can estimate we have about three hundred million acres of good farm land, suitable for agriculture and grazing.
1690	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil)
The improved farm lands used for agricultural purposes do not aggregate more than sixty million acres. In agriculture there is room for tremendous expansion; we must have more than fifty per cent of our population engaged in that industry and I hope that ratio will always be maintained. A great deal has been said about the home market. No matter how rapidly that market will increase, it will not help the man upon the land to any appreciable extent because his price for the next decade or two upon the main articles of production will be fixed not in Canada, but very likely in Great Britain.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do those figures include all farm lands?


Charles A. Stewart: Those are all the farm lands of Canada. I mention that in order to show the possibilities of the tremendous expansion in this particular respect.
Something has been said about the water powers and I should have mentioned the question. My horn friend from Vancouver Centre referred to that subject this afternoon. He said the imposition of an export tax on electric power meant but one thing in his estimation, namely that we intended to encourage the export of power. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, in my department, and so far as I am concerned as a member of this government, I have never heard anything of the kind; rather to the contrary. There is a law upon the statute book at the moment authorizing us to issue licenses for only one year, and so far as I can ascertain that is all that the government intend to do in that direction. Whatever their intention may be, as a member of the government I have not heard of any change of policy. What I do say is that notwithstanding the fact that we have only developed to the extent of three million odd horsepower out of a possible development of forty-one million horsepower, I think it is good business to keep the cheap power in Canada for the development of Canadian industry, and I see no objection, and my hon. friend opposite sees no objection, to the imposition of an export duty. They all have their peak loads and that is what they are exporting at the present moment to a large degree. I see my hon. friend opposite shaking his head. I believe the Hydro Electric Commission at Niagara have a long contract for the export of power, but I do not know of any other case. I was making inquiry as to that, and so far as I know there is only the one contract. I think that as one means of

assisting the development of power we are entitled to an export tax on the power which goes out, to assist in the development of industries which will come into competition with our own. So that we have tremendous possibilities for developing this power, and there too do we not need the capital for Canada? We will find the capital in Canada for the development. We can point with some pride to the fact that eighty per cent of the debt of Canada is owed to the people of Canada, and the interest goes to the people of Canada. But we will need that money and' additional millions of money for the development of water power alone in Canada, for the development of agriculture and for the development of our mining and fishing industries.
On the authority of the best mining authorities in Canada the statement is made that we are only at the beginning of things so far as mining is concerned, that there are immense possibilities in mining, that the development in the next few years will be phenomenal, that the eyes of the world are turned towards Canada, and that the 'increase in mining activities in Ontario and Quebec alone has been unprecedented.
So far as fishing is concerned, in my own province and in Saskatchewan and in the northern waters of Manitoba nothing has been done in the way of fishing development.


Robert Forke: Oh, yes.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is thinking of lake Manitoba. We are talking now of the country away beyond that. Hudson bay is teeming with fish, and what has been done there for the development of the fisheries? I point to these things with a spirit of optimism, in the hope that this gloomy foreboding with respect to the future of Canada is rapidly nearing cessation. Does it look as though we had reached the end of our tether? We are overbuilt in railways. That is quite true, but we have the necessary natural ressources to warrant the building of every one of these railways. All we need is the people to come in and assist us in developing. That is what is required in Canada.
Referring to our forest resources, perhaps we cannot be so optimistic, but I want to say that we must change the situation with respect to the destructive forces as they affect our forestry situation in Canada, in order that we may catch up with the depletion of the forests; in other words that we must grow annually as much as we cut. I should like to undertake, if it is at all possible, the establishment, in my hon. friend's province of Manitoba, of a plant that will manufacture

The Budget-Mr. Senn
*pulp and that will be under restriction to cut in such a way that after they have cut over the territory, they can begin again where they started and have a sufficient growth to carry on for an unlimited time in a forest that will be set aside for that purpose.
These are some of the facts that I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members. I have spoken at greater length than I intended. I have tried to point out to hon. gentlemen opposite that the picture they have painted is not the picture that should be painted of Canadian industry or agriculture, but rather that we in Canada are suffering only in common with the United States, Great Britain and the continent; that we are going through exactly the same experience. I wish to point out the fallacy that hon. gentlemen hold up to this House and the country, that a change in the tariff, high protection, will be the panacea and cure for all our ills. Upon that statement I rest content, leaving it to the judgment of the country and of the House.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state very briefly my reasons for participating in this debate on the budget proposals which have been brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). May I add my congratulations to those that have already been extended to him on the able and concise way in which he delivered his address to the House? I cannot, however, extend my congratulations any further. I am afraid that the government- have failed to gauge public opinion correctly and to realize the needs of the country respecting economy and tariff adjustments. These proposals which are before the House at the present time are certainly not affording relief to industry which has been suffering from high taxation and which requires the help of protection. On the other hand, the statement made by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) the other night proved clearly that those who are looking for further reductions in the tariff are not satisfied either. The unfortunate part of the whole situation is this, that the people of Canada look in vain for any measure of relief for the unfavourable conditions under which they are labouring, conditions which have, in a large measure, been brought about by the ineffective policy of the present government.
I listened with a good deal of attention and interest to the address just delivered by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). He made a very serious attempt to prove that
there is no cause for alarm and that Canada is prosperous, at least to a certain extent. But he will have a good deal of trouble in convincing the people of Canada of that. Wherever you go you will hear the people asking: What is the matter with Canada anyway? Why are we not prosperous? Why is there so much unemployment and hard times? It cannot avail for the government to shut their eyes to this situation and to sit quietly by without attempting to do anything to relieve it. There are plenty of indications of the lack of prosperity and of hard times. Let me indicate to the House a few which are apparent to everyone and about which there can be very little dispute. There has been enough talk in this House of unemployment to convince everyone that there is a certain amount of unemployment, altogether too much of it, in the country. Again, there has been a good deal of talk already in this session in regard to emigration. Everybody will admit that the number of people who are leaving the country is alarming. Again, we have closed factories, running up into the hundreds, and even into the thousands. We have business failures; we have vacant houses; we have railway deficits; we have decreased revenue such as was spoken of by the Acting Minister of Finance. By no means the least alarming of all these conditions is the lack of confidence which is being displayed by industry, and no amount of talk on the part of members of the government, no amount of statistics such as were given to the House by the Prime Ministei during his speech on the Address, will serve to convince the people that Canada is in a prosperous condition. The people who have these conditions constantly before them will be led to contrast the statement of Liberal policy which is outlined in the budget address with the progressive and constructive policy embodied in the resolution that stands on the order paper in the name of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). That resolution specifies the urgent need for immediate tariff revision, and I am one of those who believes that the protective principle should be applied in any such revision. Customs duties which were adequate twenty years ago are not so to-day. I do not believe in a little dabbling here and there with the tariff, raising the duty a little on coal, making the duty a little lower on some other commodity and so on. That is not what should be done at all. We should have a scientific revision of the whole schedule of tariff rates. When I speak about a revision of tariff rates, I do not mean that in every case the revision should be in an upward
The Budget-Mr. Senn

direction. There are some instances in which the revision might be downward and yet afford the necessary protection to allow those industries to exist.
Speaking however, about downward revision of the tariff, one cannot help wondering at the attitude of hon. members to the left of us this session. During the three sessions of parliament which have preceded this one, they made constant and effective attempts towards tariff reduction, and the government were compelled to accede to their demands because they needed Progressive support. But since the beginning of this session I have wondered why the Progressive party have not urged for any further tariff reduction and why they did not take a greater part in the debate on the Address. If they had made those demands during the debate on the Address, I am convinced the government would have been forced to concede them some further tariff reductions. It would appear, however, that they accepted the mandate of the Prime Minister, when he spoke in Toronto, that there would be no further tariff reductions this session. They seem to be making a gesture in the other direction at the present time, but the meekness with which they accepted that mandate would serve to convey to the House one of two things, either that their attitude on the tariff question is changing, or that there is some kind of an understanding between the two parties.
It is true that there have been one or two free-trade speeches from members of the Progressive group during this session. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) made a free-trade speech during the debate on the Address. Amongst other things he mentioned the inferior quality of goods that were produced by a certain glass company situated in Hamilton that has had to go out of business. He also said that other industries were demanding higher protection because they were lying down on the quality of their goods. I wonder if he meant to convey to the House the impression that the United Farmers of Quebec, in their demand for protection for certain of their commodities, are producing an inferior quality of farm products. I have before me the report of the annual meeting of the Ontario Vegetable Growers' Association at which there was passed a resolution asking for higher protection on vegetables and some other farm commodities. I wonder if the hon. gentleman meant to suggest that they were lying down on the quality of their product. Then we have the woollen and knitted goods industry which has suffered severely as a result of the increase in the British preference and

because of the French treaty. I want to deny most emphatically the imputation that the product of our woollen and knitted goods factories is inferior to the product of mills of a similar character elsewhere. It is true they dc need protection but they need it for an entirely different reason which I shall attempt to make clear to the House later on.
I want to deal for a few moments with the need of protection, from two standpoints particularly, first from the standpoint of agriculture, and secondly from the standpoint of the woollen and knitted goods industry which I believe is more closely allied to agriculture than any other industry, because of the fact that its raw material is an agricultural product. If proof is required of -the urgent need of tariff revision in agricultural products it should only be necessary to compare the Canadian tariff schedule wdth that of the United States. A year or two ago I made a comparison in the House in that very respect showing clearly that on almost every line of farm products the American commodities can enter this country at a much lower rate than is enjoyed by Canadian goods going into the United States. I have heard different members of the House, particularly to my left and sometimes across the way, make the statement that the farmer cannot be protected. I think my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) made that statement the other night. I cannot agree with that contention at all.
I believe that the farmer can be benefited by a proper protective policy in two ways: First, the protective policy should be such sis to create confidence on the part of industries, which give employment to our consuming population, and by so doing help to create and maintain a large home market; secondly, if that policy is to be effective our home market must be protected from undue competition on -the part of foreign products by imposing adequate duties on all classes of farm products.
By way of illustrating my first argument let me refer to the discussion which has taken place in the House as to the number of people who have left Canada during the past three vears. No one will deny that the number is so large as to be alarming. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) proved to the satisfaction of the House the other day that a conservative estimate of the number would be approximately 600,000 people, I have with me copy of a bulletin issued by the Department of Labour, called Prioes in Canada. On page 2? of that bulletin may be found a weekly family budget. I have made from that statement a list of commodities and the prices of those commodities,

The Budget-Mr. Senn
such as are produced from Canadian farms, and I find that the average cost per person amounts to something like $1.66 per week. If these 600,000 people could have been retained in Canada by a wise protective policy they would have consumed at this rate something like $5,179,200 worth of agricultural products per year, or it would' have meant they would have consumed $130 worth of products from each of 40,000 Canadian farms. Or, to illustrate this in another way, according to official returns which I have with me, we exported last year 13,648,000 pounds of butter. If each of these people had consumed twenty-three pounds in the year, or less than one-half pound per week, we would have had no exportable surplus at all and our home market would have been sufficient to absorb all our products. During the year 1923 we exported nearly 3,000,000 dozens of eggs, while we imported practically the same amount. If these people had been kept in our own country by a wise policy of tariff protection there would have been no need to export any of our eggs. The same effect would be produced to a greater or less extent in all other classes of farm products. Turning to the other side of the question, if tariff rates on farm products were sufficient in many lines, the American product would be kept out of our markets at a time when our prices are such as to allow a measure of profit over the cost of production. This is nowhere more apparent than in the case of fresh fruits and vegetables, butter and eggs and other farm commodities. The American product comes into Canada at a time when prices are particularly high, and the result is that by the time our own product is ready for market, prices are beginning to drop and the Canadian producer gets a less price in his own market than was obtained for the imported produce. If anyone should enjoy the benefits of the best prices it is our own Canadian producer. The 1919 platform of the Liberal party had free food stuffs as one of its planks. This was intended no doubt to appeal to the consuming population of our towns and cities; but free food stuffs cannot benefit people if their earning capacity is lessened by undue competition in their own line of product.
Customs duties which were adequate on farm products twenty years ago, when the prices of those commodities were very low, are not sufficient to-day, and there is some justification for the contention that the tariff discriminates to a certain extent against the Canadian farmer. If, however, the schedule
of rates on agricultural products were thoroughly revised to assure adequate protection, I am sure that this contention would be entirely overcome.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) to-night talked about a tariff for revenue, and I think the subamendment which was moved by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) the cither night
10 p.m. also had reference to the same thing. Now I contend that a protective tariff is also a revenue tariff and to prove that contention I will give a few figures. Let us look at what happened following reductions in the tariff made by the present government particularly in 1922-23. In 1919 our dutiable imports amounted ito $526,494,000, while the duty collected was $158,046,000. In 1924, following reductions made by the present government, our dutiable imports rose to $591,142,000, while the duty collected dropped to $124,114,000; showing that while we imported more dutiable gowfe, the revenue collected was greatly lessened. On the other hand, let us consider similar figures before and after the Fordney tariff came into effebt in the United States. In 1920, their dutiable imports totalled $1,985,865,000, while the duty collected was $325,645,000. In 1923, after the Fordney tariff had come into effect, their dutiable imports were reduced to $1,651,110,000, while the revenue collected had increased to $582,764,000, or 75 per cent. This serves to show very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that a protective tariff is also a revenue producing tariff and is the best and mod; effective way of increasing our revenue from customs duties.
A few minutes ago I said that the woollen industry was very cl/osely allied to that of agriculture. Canada is a cold country in winter, and every Canadian is interested in the production and manufacture of wool. The estimated annual consumption of wool in Canada is 70,000,000 pounds on a grease basis, or as it comes from the back Of the sheep, and that is the way in which the producer is paid for his wool. Our own product in 1924 was approximately 13.000.000 from Sheep and lambs. We exported 6,300,000 pounds, or about one-half of this, while we imported 33,000,000 pounds of woo1! on a grease basis in the form of raw wool, tops, noils, waste and yam, but we also imported 40,000,000 pounds on a grease basis in the form of woollen goods further manufactured than yam. There are about 40,000 farmers keeping Sheep in Canada, and they find it a very profitable kind1 of live stock. Anyone who follows the reports of our live stock markets will see that lambs are selling at a price that is uniform and fairly high. Out Canadian wool is also selling at a
The Budget-Mr. Senn

much better price than it formerly did. It is said that the annual consumption of wool in the world to-day is 300,000,000 pounds per annum more than pre war consumption, and yet the number of Sheep in the world is less than before the war. In a country with a climate like Canada where people must wear wool for comfort, it would seem that wool growing should appeal in a very direct way to agriculture. The tariff schedules are out of date so far as the wool tariff is concerned and were framed for conditions which no longer exist. What is required to build up the wool production of Canada for the benefit of our farmers and of the wool working industry is a scientific tariff on wool and woollen products to encourage the manufacture of wool in Canada from the raw material as it comes from the back of the ^heep through all its processes to the finished article.
Many statistics have been given in this House during the past year or two to show the precarious condition not only of the woollen industry but of the knitted goods industry as well. Owing to the great increase in the British preference in 1922-23, the importation of woollen and knitted goods has largely increased. To show the effect of the increase in the British preference, I have taken from the monthly reports of the trade of Canada, the total amount of imports of woollen and knitted goods from Great Britain for the calendar years 1921 and 1924. The amount in 1921 was $22,014,757, and in 1924 $31,430,902; or an increase of approximately 43 per cent. The import of knitted goods in 1921 from Great Britain was $2,897,072; in 1924 from the same source it was $4,369,354, an increase of a little over 50 per cent. A similar comparison may be made of importations of French woollen and knitted goods prior to the French treaty as against importations following that time. The French treaty came into effect in September 1923. For twelve months preceding that date importations from France of knitted and wollen goods amounted to $1,439,748. For the twelve months following that date, the imports were $3,246,813, or an increase of approximately 125 per cent.
This cannot help but have a decided influence upon the market for Canadian products. It is impossible for our knitting factories to pay wages such as they are paying and compete with the product of the cheap labour of Germany, France and Great Britain. I have with me two clippings, one from the Toronto Star of February 3rd of this year advertising French wool pullover sweaters at 98 cents, the other from Eatons spring catalogue of 1925, advertising Paris wool pullover

sweaters, knitted of contrasting all wool yams for 95 cents. It is needless for me to say that our factories in Canada cannot begin to compete with such prices. The result is that these companies which have been loyal to their employees and are endeavoring to carry on in the face of such merciless competition have met with business disaster and are still losing money. I have in my hand a copy of the annual report of one of the largest knitting companies in Canada, in which the company reports a loss of $52,000 in its operations during the past year. I want to appeal in the strongest terms to the Acting Finance Minister for relief. Surely the government will not sit by and see industries which have been built up by years of careful and painstaking effort driven out of existence by foreign competition with which they are entirely unable to contend. It is well known that the average wages of employees of woollen and1 knitting factories in France and Germany would not permit our Canadian employees to exist at all. I have with me a comparison of the wages paid to woollen operators in England and Canada:
	Yorkshire	Canada
Winders	$ 5 92	$13-*15Twisters	6 34	13- 15Spinners	5 77	13- 15Reelers	6 52	17- 20Overlookers	17 03	35- 60Doffers	5 22	13- 15W arehousemen	12 06	19- 22Blenders, carbonizers, laborers	12 06	18- 20Male help in grey room,	stock room, packing depart-	ment	12 30	19- 22Firemen and greasers	13 89	30-
If we had any guarantee that cheap goods such as I have cited would continue to come into the country after our own factories had been closed down, there might be some possible excuse for allowing them to do so, but the danger is that when our own industries are driven out of business and our markets are in the hands of foreign manufacturers without any competition goods would be dearer than ever. Let me give what the Minister of Finance-whose absence I am sure we 'all regret-said in speaking about this subject in 1904. I am quoting from Hansard, volume 3, page 4634, of that year. He was referring to foreign manufacturers:
They are not worrying about the good of the people of Canada. They send goods here with the hope and expectation that they will crush out the need of Canadian industry. If Canadian industry is crushed out, what would happen? The end of cheapness would come and the beginning of dearness would be at hand. Artificial cheapness obtained to-day under such conditions at the expense of dearness at a very near day in the future is not a system of which we

The Budget-Mr. Senn
could approve, or that any of us on either side of the House could encourage.
This is exactly wha-t is happening with some of our most important industries to-day. The woollen and knitted goods industry is slowly but surely 'being depressed1 and driven out of business by undue competition on the part of foreign competitors. When their resources are finally exhausted and their foreign competitors have our markets to themselves, and Canadian consumers are at their mercy, we will pay dearly I am afraid, for slight advantages w-e have enjoyed during the period of industrial depression. This will also prove a severe handicap to the production of Canadian wool, an industry which should rapidly increase and be a great source of revenue to the Canadian farmer.
The same is true of the agriculture implement industry, and of certain lines of agriculture as well. Ou.r fruit and vegetable growers, our poultry keepers, cannot compete with produce from the warm climate and cheap negro labour of the southern states. When they are driven out of business by foreign competition, our Canadian consumers will pay dearly for the privilege they have had, of buying cheap foreign goods.
The argument that the public may benefit by the demoralized prices that prevail when an industry is being depressed is unsound, and it amounts to the proposition that the community benefits in the end by the ruin of all its members. According to such an impossible theory the sooner every farmer, manufacturer and labourer is ruined by selling goods under cost, the better off the country would be as a whole. It seems to me that is not a very sound argument.
There is an impression abroad which is too often repeated, that our woollen and knitting factories and other factories are getting a very large share of the cost of the finished article, that is, of the retail price. This is in a great many cases an erroneous statement. I want to give the House the proportional costs in a heavy suit made of Canadian wool, sold at a retail price of $20. The costs are as follows:
Heavy suit of Canadian wool costing, $20
Canadian wool	 $4	10
Cloth mill, wages, overhead, soap, dyestuffs,
oils, freight and profit	
2	76Buttons, trimmings, etc	
1	25Clothing mfgr., wages, overhead and profit..	4	89Government sales tax	
65Retailer, wages, overhead,	profit	
6	35
Heavy suit of Canadian Wool costing $35
Canadian wool	 $3 85 11 per cent
Cloth mill, wages, overhead soap.
dyestuffs, oils, freight and profit 5 95 17 per cent Clothing manufacturer, wages, overhead and profit	 13 65 39 per cent
Retailer, wages, overhead, profit.. 11 55 33 per cent

These are actual figures for the early part of 1924, and serve to show that our mills get a very small percentage of the retail price for manufacturing the raw material into the finished cloth.
I contend, and contend very strongly, that if the people of Canada consider it desirable to have a prosperous wool growing and wool working industry which will profitably employ a considerable number of workers to the benefit of the nation, who will consume as raw material a very large part of our own production, they will have to use the same methods as are being adopted by every other protectionist country.
I want to mention one of the budget proposals which I believe will meet with at least some measure of approval on this side of the House, and that is the provision for a tariff advisory 'board. I think the suspicion on the part of any industry that there is discrimination in the application of tariff rates would be overcome by the appointment of such a tariff board. This proposal is an admission on the part of the government that a tariff is necessary, and that it is only a matter of the amount of the custom duties that should be charged. Of course the success of .such a board will depend very largely upon its personnel; they should be men who are fair-minded enough not to allow their prejudices in favour of protection or of free trade to influence them in their decisions. If such men are appointed, I have no fear but that tariff revision will be successfully and thoroughly carried out.
It is not my intention to say anything in regard to the railway situation further than this: that transportation rates are bearing very heavily upon all classes of industry, not only in the Canadian west and in the Maritime provinces, but upon the Ontario farmer as well. I feel very strongly that the management of the Canadian National railways are spending altogether too liberally on rolling stock and equipment. If they would exercise the same economy which other lines of industry are compelled to do in these hard times, we would not be called upon to guarantee bonds to the extent of eighty million dollars a year.
In my opinion there is only one solution of our transportation problem. There will
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud

always be railroad deficits until such time as our population increases and more traffic, both freight and passenger, is obtained because of a denser population. We need more population, and we need more capital to develop our resources.
To encourage these necessities we should have an active immigration policy inaugurated, and I believe that it should be inaugurated simultaneously with the tariff revision which I have advocated. If confidence is restored throughout the country, Canada should develop very rapidly. I am convinced that when the people of this country have an opportunity they will place in power the party who will by means of the policy outlined in the resolution which stands in the name of the leader of the opposition restore confidence, build up industry, increase railway traffic, relieve unemployment, and gradually but effectively bring about an era of prosperity such as a great and growing country like Canada deserves.
Mr. JOHN G. ROBICHAUD (Gloucester): It was with a great degree of sorrow, Mr. Speaker, that at the opening of this session we again have had to make reference to the death of mlemlbers Of this House, and more especially for myself to a late member representing a constituency in my own province. That New Brunswick should have lost two of its federal members in the course of a few months, was a matter of great concern, and I cannot but avail myself of this first opportunity Of paying a passing tribute to our late friend Hon. John Morrissy. Few public men in New Brunswick have commanded during their career a greater degree of respect and public confidence than the late member for Northumberland.
The electors of this good old constituency have certainly sustained a great loss, but it is gratifying that in their wisdom they have thought fit to send to parliament, as a successor to their departed member, a man of no less standing than the senior surviving member of the Snowball family. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the electors of Northumberland have every reason to be proud of their selection, and that they will continue for generations to adhere to the Liberal principles of those who have been so prominent in the political as well as the commercial history of that industrious and historic region of the Miramidhi.
During the past three or four years, there has been a great deal of talk about Maritime rights, so called. Some of my hon. friends, representing constituencies in the province of New Brunswick, have unscrupu-

iously permitted themselves to make this a political issue in various by-elections recently held in my province. That any one public man should attempt to monopolize or champion such a vital issue as the constitutional rights of the Maritime provinces, is a matter which should not be left unchallenged. I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, the sincerity of these men. I doubt very much if it was not rather political power than Maritime rights that these agitators were trying to attain.
I stated, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of this House last year that if there was such an issue as Maritime rights, it was only in the abstract for, if really there existed a real issue, grievances which could be stated in concrete form, discrepancies would exist here and there, and either one or the other political party would have to assume the blame, but as it is, we are only suffering from the sequence of the national growth of Canada, the results of the great war and conditions unthought of by the Fathers of Confederation. The rights of the Maritime provinces, therefore, is a national issue. It should not be championed by any one political party and whatever the remedy may be, every one within the reach of my voice should be ready to assist in finding the solution for the problem. I still doubt if our troubles in the Maritimes are anomalous. But we are having and have had our troubles. Mr. Belding who has just arrived from a countrywide tour for the sole purpose of sizing up the situation in Canada as it relates to the existing conditions in the Maritimes terminated his trip only a few weeks ago and was tendered a banquet at St. John. Mr. Belding as is well known, was authorized to undertake this mission by the St. John Telegraph Journal, and is one of the ablest members of the editorial staff of that publication. After making am exhaustive resume of his important mission, Mr. Belding winds up with the following remarks:
Gentlemen, there is much I would like to say. There is a great deal I hope I will be able to say later in one form or another, but I must close. I would rather be the prophet of a new evangel than he who hangs crape on the door. I come back to you and to the Maritime provinces, not with a promise but a challenge. We were in at the birth of this confederation. We have an opportunity now to join in a great nation-wide movement to make that union permanent. Shall we say the path is too steep, the way too long and the darkness near? Or shall we turn our faces to the morning and go forward to the tasks of a great new day, building up on the northern half of this continent a prosperous Dominion, animated by a national spirit which will command success? That is our task, and I have faith to believe we shall not falter and we shall not fail.

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal to be learned from this declaration. In other words, I must emphatically persist in my contention that the troubles in the Maritime provinces are not peculiar to that section of Canada. They are not the troubles of one political class, but of the whole nation, that is to say, what affects the loyal citizens of the Maritime provinces should affect also the whole Canadian nation, and the alleviation of our burdens should be a matter of concern to each and every member of this House. We in New Brunswick have spent very generously to keep pace with the progress of our immediate neighbours; namely, the Americans of the New England states and our Canadian brothers of the province of Quebec. Few sections of the country possess better roads. New Brunswick provides ideal inducements to tourists. We have spent enormous sums of money for the building of railways and in this particular regard, I fear there has been a large degree of discrimination against our people. If the amount of subsidies paid to the different provinces by the federal government since confederation is to be regarded as a proper criterion in regarding the claims of each and every province which entered the union I believe that the province of New Brunswick has been discriminated against in so far as the subsidies which that province has received for the building of railways are concerned. I have before me no figures and have prepared no statement in this connection, but speaking from memory I think it will be found by referring to the available statistics that the province of New Brunswick has received since confederation some $24,000,000 in the shape of federal subsidies. The province of Ontario has received about five times that amount, and the grants to other provinces have been in like proportion, whereas if we refer to railway statistics we shall find that the subsidies paid for the building of roads in the province of New Brunswick have been very much less than they should have been on a proportionate basis. As regards road building we have been discriminated against in other respects. The people in my own constituency are served by branch lines which, I believe, should be brought to a propeT standard in the immediate future. I have already brought this matter to the attention of Sir Henry Thornton, and in his consideration of the question the contention was advanced that the country served by the lines in question is perhaps too sparsely settled to warrant better equipment and better accommodation.. Now the fact is that the population
served by the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway is one of the most industrious that can be found in any section of Canada. I do not believe that any railroad in the province of New Brunswick serves a larger number of inhabitants per mile than does the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway, if we consider branch lines on the basis of meeting the necessities of rural districts. The Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway, serving as it does the southern coast of the Baie des Chaleurs, forms the only means of communication for a population of no less than 28,000 people. Now, Sir, I should like to find anywhere in Canada branch lines consisting of from ninety miles of railroad which serve a like number of people, especially in rural districts such as we have in my constituency. The hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. Snowball) in the very eloquent speech he delivered this afternoon advocated the extension of this road from Tracadie to Newcastle. I believe the expenditure for such a purpose would be money well served. As I said before the lines already in existence provide accommodation for 28,000 people and the proposed extension, which would bridge a gap of fifty-two miles, would serve a class of very industrious people and carry the traffic of a country rich in natural resources-lumbering, fishing and agriculture. The building of this line would complete a contour around the north-eastern coast of New Brunswick, and I am sure that no better paying road could be found anywhere in the Maritime provinces.
I have read with very careful attention the extensive digest presented to this House by the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and one must admit 'that it was a wonderful attempt. The hon. member certainly has a command of figures above the ordinary, and as a financial critic I doubt if this parliament could find a better subject. But, Mr. Speaker, the twisting of figures and the distorting of facts will not extricate the country from the chaos into which it has been plunged by the inevitable result of the Great war and the reckless administration which preceded the present government. After such a lengthy speech from the exMinister of Finance, in the course of which this House heard a complete condemnation of the fiscal policy of this government and of anything that would tend to remove taxes from the shoulders of the consumers, one might have expected an amendment more effective and broader in its scope than that proposed by that hon. gentleman.
Conditions in Canada demand reduction of taxation, says the ex-Minister of Finance in

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
has amendment to the motion. Well! I wonder how these reductions can be effected by the imposition of higher customs duties on implements of production and on the immediate necessities of life. Did we not reduce the cost of living by cutting down taxes last year? Did we not give the consumer the advantage of lower tariffs which meant a deflation of some fifty million of dollars in our revenues? Whatever subterfuge our friends to your immediate left may invent, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the consumer has reaped the benefit of this vast reduction in taxation. But it is the sales tax that we wish to reduce, our hon. friends diagonally opposite will shout, and they declare that the orgy of extravagance on the part of this government renders that impossible. Our friends opposite will admit having expended lavishly without due regard to economy and in many cases it has been well demonstrated that they unscrupulously allowed political friends to make huge war profits and attempted to justify it on the plea that it was "to win the war." Now, Mr. Speaker, that we have won the war, was it not a wonderful achievement in itself? It was noble patriotism to help winning the Great war; so must it be highly patriotic and worthy of Canadian citizenship to meet our war obligations.
It has been demonstrated again and again that ordinary expenditures under the present administration are well within the mark and that the heavy burden on the tax payer is very largely made up, of extraordinary expenditures which neither this government nor any other that may come for a generation, will ever be in a position to eliminate or control. It would only cumber Hansard to go into this subject in detail. Figures have been given time and again and have never been refuted. But it will be said that the time has now arrived where war taxes could be reduced. It must be remembered Mr. Speaker, that war expenditures are as much of a drain on ordinary and extraordinary revenues to-day as they were when the world's greatest conflict was at its highest pitch. It does not sound very logical to say that war charges are as much of a drain on our revenue to-day as they were when war was on. In my point of view, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that they are much more so. It is readily admitted that war expenditures were provided for by huge loans, and war taxation was resorted to for the redemption of these loans; or in other words, the whole war expenditures have been a drain on the present generation as they will be on future generations. At the end of the fiscal year of 1914 the interest charge on our debt

was 814,687,797, whereas at the end of the fiscal year of 1923, on an interest bearing debt of $2,653,867,212 we had an interest charge of $136,007,667. I have not before me an exact statement of war expenditures, but it might fairly be stated that we have to meet in round figures interest on war charges amounting to over $100,000,000. If we add to this some $34,000,000 for soldiers' pensions, we will find that the drain on our ordinary revenues on these two items alone is greater than ever, and uncontrollable. Therefore the war burden on the tax payers of Canada is as cumbersome as ever and the question is more vital then ever. It thus behooves every Canadian citizen whatever his political affiliation may be, to shoulder his part of the burden and help the Canadian nation through.
The ordinary elector will say that we have nc more war expenditures. It is true we have debts bearing huge interest, and we have to pay a large amount of soldiers' pensions; but the fact remains that during the years 1914 to 1918 inclusive, while we were struggling for the liberty of the civilized nations, this parliament resorted wholly and solely to war loans to pay war expenses. No provision was made for sinking fund and no provision was made for the conscription of wealth. Probably if there was a reason why, as an elector of this Dominion, I voted against conscription, it was solely because there was no conscription of wealth, which was a great mistake, and I believe that while huge profits and fortunes were made right and left in this country, the time was opportune to levy on the wealth of the country to pay war expenses. After all, when we sum up the situation in Canada, notwithstanding the lack >of foresight on the part of our friendis diagonally opposite when they were in power, notwithstanding the fact that they have failed to provide for the redemption of these war expenditures and notwithstanding the fact that they failed to enforce the conscription of wealth during this great conflict, I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that conditions in Canada are not at all so bad as they are sometimes represented. I believe it is a great mistake for the press of this country and for hon. members opposite, or to your immediate left, to advertise Canada as a country facing blue ruin; for after all our debt per capita is not greater than the debt of the United States. Although we have a huge debt, the main creditors of Canada are her own sons and daughters. No less than three-quarters of our debt is comprised of war loans which have been floated within Canada, and consequently we have as our creditors our own people. Surely those who have been patriotic enough to

Ocean Shipping Rates
subscribe to those war loans will, if ever the time comes that Canada will be forced to pay her debts, have enough of patriotism left to carry on our debt, to carry on Canada and the nation still further until, perhaps, in the future which, I hope, is not far distant, we shall see better times in this country, larger revenues as compared with our expenditures, end a time when our debts will be paid and wiped off the books of the nation.
Speaking of our hon. friends opposite some moments ago, I enumerated certain expedients to which they had resorted in order to try to win a few seats in the by-elections which have been held in this country since the last general election. Our hon. friends, in their political manoeuvres, have been trying to sink test wells into Canadian public opinion, but I am proud to say, without apparent results. The last amendment brought down by the ex-Minister of Finance is another striking example of their futile manoeuvres. With the one hand, they hold out the flag of high protection, calling to their colours the manufacturers and capitalists of this countrj', whereas with the other they are endeavouring to sink deep into the sentiments of the masses their abhorrence of taxation. 1 believe the time has come when the Canadian nation can no longer be duped by such insane and equivocal demonstrations. Canada is steadily and cautiously moving towards normal conditions. I have great hopes for the future of this country; I believe in the fiscal policy of the present administration ; I have every faith in my honourable leader, and for these and other reasons which I have already enumerated, it shall be my duty to give to the motion my most wholehearted support.
On the motion of Mr. Johnston the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Tuesday, March 31, 1925