1926-05-12

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West) presented the third report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
He said: I move that in accordance with the recommendations contained in the third report of the select standing committee on Mis-
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
cellaneous Private Bills the fee and charges paid on Bill No. It, to incorporate the President of the Lethbridge Stake be refunded less the cost of printing and translation.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the name of Miss Macphail be substituted for that -of Mr. Fansher on the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, and that the name of Mr. Fansher be substituted for that of Miss Macphail on the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved that the name of Mr. Cantley be substituted for that of Mr. Nicholson on the special committee ap-
2. x
Field parties-
Yukon (Mt. Logan Expedition)	
British Columbia	
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	
Head Office, Ottawa, not apportioned. Compilation and dissemination of data including drafting, printing of maps etc	
T otal	
pointed to consider the present sources of supply in anthracite and bituminous coal, and other matters in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What amount of money was spent by the Geodetic branch in 1923-24-25?
2.	What amount was spent in each province in each of said years?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.
1923-24		.. $302,225 37
1924-25		.. 265,369 62
1925-26 (approx.)..	.. 265,445 81
T otal		.. . .$833,040 80
1923		1924	Approximate 1925		
				$ 1,539	28
; 17,385	73	$ 32,975	19	19,029	293,757	20	8,451	14	14,854	306,135	24	6,171	40	956	956,995	40	21,301	90	9,262	0414,310	73	18,743	30	19,493	0156,799	95	27,980	97	32,882	7513,013	15	11,309	40	11,388	1414,300	37	5,129	21	2,573	41341	47	1,898	02169,527	60	132,965	64	151,204	62

Note: Figures for 1925-1926 are only approximate as complete returns have not yet been received.
TOPOGRAPHICAL BRANCH-EXPENDITURE	Hon. Mr. STEWART'


Mr. FAFARD:: 1.
1.	What amount of money was spent by the	1923-24	$ 526,340 45Topographical branch in 1923-24-25?	1924-25	
481065 202. What amount was spent in each province?	1925-26	
398 121 423.	What is the approximate cost per square mile?	______________Total	$1,405,527 07

Questions
2.
Field parties-
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Northwest Territory	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Yukon	
Head dffice, Ottawa not apportioned. Compilation and dissemination of data including drafting, printing of maps, etc	
1923-24	1924-25	1925-26

56.531	28	29,747	42	8,094	4368,110	07	66,666	76	20,348	5126,944	87	15,284	23	15,253	5921,578	64	13,572	31	10,419	18452	12	73	73	17388	107,369	74	16,081	01	12,949	948,512	96	7,169	21	6,405	879,939	90	14,854	00	15,300	083,653	45	3,000	00	306,642	53	292,425	41	279,905	58Total	
$526,340 45 $481,055 20 $398,121 42
Note: Figures for 1925-1926 are only approximate as complete returns have not yet been received.
3.	Revision of the sectional maps approximately $3 per square mile. Detailed maps from $25 to $30 per square mile.


EXPENDITURE ON IMMIGRATION
Mr. DOUCET:: 1. How much money was spent on immigration: (a) from the British Isles; Ob) from the United States; (c) from the continent of Europe during each fiscal year from 1920-21 to 1925-26?


Charles A. Stewart: (a)	(b)	(0Great	United	ContinentBritain	States	of Europe1920-21	$423,562.92	$456,870.41	1921-22	302,373.04	419,956.92	1922-23	332,610.09	525,363.90	$51,353.541923-24	523,318.03	549,355.76	87,711.151924-25	679,599.67	363,740.21	87,557.73*1925-26	515,051.20	381,440.45	59,508.84
* 11 months ending February 28, 1926.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-STATUS OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Are employees of the Soldier Settlement Board classed as temporary employees ?
2.	Are temporary employees of even five years and more standing deprived of the annual increases which permanent employees receive?
3.	Are temporary employees ineligible under the Superannuation Act?
4.	In view of the wotIc .presently handled by the Soldier Settlement Board and the work which will likely be placed on said board in the revaluation of soldier lands, is it the intention of the government to reduce the staffs of said board?
5.	Is the government aware that practically all members of the staff of the said board at Vancouver are returned soldiers and married men, have had six years' service or more and are still temporary employees?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to place the said employees in the permanent cavil service, especially in view of Privy Council orders 2958 and 3560, giving authority for same?
7.	In view of the probable amendments to the Civil Service Act, 1918, is it the intention of the government to place the employees of the Soldier Settlement Board on the same footing as those who have been appointed under the said Act?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	There are twelve permanent employees. The balance of the staff numbering 482 is by order in council exempt from the provisions of the Civil Service Act and in so far as it is thus exempt it is regarded as temporary staff.
2.	Only permanent employees appointed under the Civil Service Act and classified by the Civil Service Commission are eligible for statutory annual increases.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	Under consideration.
7.	Under consideration.


MR. J. C. BLANCHET
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Was Mr. J. C. Blanchet postmaster of Chartier-ville, Compton county?
2.	If so, when was he so appointed, on whose recommendation, and, what is the salary paid said post office?


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for Mr. Lapointe):: 1.	Yes.
2.	1st May, 1905, on recomendation of the member for the constituency. Present salary and allownaces, $310.89.
Importation of Bulbs


TAR SAND AREA OF ALBERTA-DRILLING OPERATIONS
Mr. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: 1.	Did the government do any drilling in the tar sand area of Alberta during the last year, and if so, where was the well located, and what was the depth reached, and what was the object in drilling the well?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to carry on operations on said well during the present year, and if so, when are these operations to start?
3.	Are the drilling rig and tools used in this work owned 'by the government, and if not, by whom are they owned?
4.	What is the amount of money expended on this work up to date, and under whose instructions is the work carried on?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Yes. Two test holes were drilled on river lot 13, McMurray settlement, township 89, range 9, west of 4th meridian, to a depth of 83 feet and 237 feet respectively, in order to obtain samples of the underlying strata containing unoxidized bitumens and oils.
2.	No, but it is planned to take samples from other localities in the same district.
3.	The drilling rig used last year was loaned, without charge, by the Northern Alberta Exploration Company. The tools used were the property of the government.
4.	Direct charges for wages, board, and transportation amounted to $2,418. These operations were carried out under instructions of the Director of the Mines branch issued under departmental authority.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS INDIAN AGENT AT CARDSTON
Mr. DAVIS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the department and any persons whomsoever, with regard to the suspension of Indian Agent Faunt of the Blood Indian reserve at Cardston. Also a copy of the report sent to the department by Inspector Christensen of Regina in this connection.


Charles A. Stewart: As this matter is
now under investigation I would not be prepared to bring down all the papers. I can furnish all the correspondence txcept such letters as may prove to be a reflection on the integrity of the agent. I do not care to do that at the moment. I will ask my hon. friend either to allow me to bring down such papers as will not affect the investigation that is going on, or permit the motion to stand until the investigation is completed which I hope it will be in a short time.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: I do not object to letting
the matter stand provided the correspondence in connection with the matter will be brought down within a reasonable period of time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion stands.
[Mr. C. A. Stewart. 1


IMMIGRANTS AFFLICTED WITH LEPROSY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West):: I am informed, and a rumour is current to the effect, that, all persons afflicted with leprosy who seek admission to Canada as immigrants are to be concentrated at Grosse lie, near the city of Quebec. I should like to know from the government whether there is any truth in the report.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Health):: I may say that certain negotiations have taken place between officials of the federal Department of Health and the provinces, but no decision has been arrived at.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: May I ask
whether these negotiations have to do with the importation of lepers?


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend expect an answer to that question?


IMPORTATION OF PLANTS AND BULBS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: I intimated to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that I should like to ask him a question to-day. Perhaps I might preface the question by saying that my attention has been called to the matter by a gentleman to the delay in importing bulbs and plants, and my question is, whether some arrangement can be made whereby those who live in western parts of Canada, and who are importing bulbs or plants from the United States, may not be delayed so long in getting them through the customs. They have to write to the department at Ottawa; then a questionnaire is sent to them; they have to send that back, and in due course of time the order comes to enable them to get the plants or flowers out of the customs, and by that time the life of these plants is somewhat impaired and their usefulness is gone. I think that sort of bureaucracy might be avoided by giving some local official the power to permit these plants or flowers to be passed through the customs, without having the insect specialist at Ottawa pass upon the question of their admission to Canada. These plants are perhaps some two thousand miles away from Ottawa. If the minister can remedy that state of affairs, he will confer a gerat favour upon the public.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I received notice of this question a moment or two ago. A memorandum has been placed in my hands by one of my

Strike in Great Britain
entomological officials. I might inform my hon. friend that the gentleman who made the complaint neglected to apply for a permit to import these plants, and that just as soon as we heard of the case we telegraphed for a permit to be issued, which enabled him to get them out of the customs. I think an arrangement has recently been made that a request may be sent to Ottawa by telegram, and the reply can be sent by telegram. If we can discover some quicker way of doing it than the present method we will be glad to adopt it. I think every civilized country has regulations of this nature in regard to the importation of flowers and bulbs, because of the prevalence of disease in the plants which disease might be transmitted through this medium, and we have to employ men to facilitate this work. It might be delegated to some one in the locality, but that method is always associated with supervision in order to see that it is properly done. The matter has become important. There are embargoes on plants coming into Canada and also on plants going out of Canada to other countries. Not only is it necessary that they should get a permit to import, but they must get a permit from the exporting country, which shows the importance which all countries attach to the necessity of taking precautions to prevent diseases coming in. This is done as expeditiously as possible, and if there had been an application for a permit in the case referred to there would have been no delay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In regard to the merits of the legislation there can be no question, but in the administration of the act I think it is desirable that, in dealing with local conditions two thousand miles or more from Ottawa, officials should be appointed in the district. The difficulty lies in the fact that there is not simply one case but there are several. If notice were given to the public that no bulbs or plants would be allowed in the country without a permit and also a certificate from the country of export, it would facilitate matters. There are several cases of this kind. The brother of the man to whom I referred sent him a root from Minneapolis and it was lying in the customs five or six days before permission was obtained for its release.


STRIKE IN GREAT BRITAIN- P. M. DRAPER
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: Will the Prime Minister inform me whether P. Mi. Draper, who is collecting funds for the strikers in Great Britain, is in the
employ of the government, and if so whether he is collecting funds with the knowledge and approval of the government?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I have not any officifa'
knowledge of the matter to which my hon friend refers. I cannot say whether any Mr Draper is or is not collecting funds. I have seen some press reports to the effect that the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, of which Mr. P. M. Draper is the secretary, was doing something of the kind. All I can say is that the Trades and Labour Congress are managing their own affairs, and the government is not interfering with them in any particular. The Mr. Draper, who is, I understand, secretary of the Trades and Labour Congress, is an employee of the government, and has been so for a great number of years; his position is the same to-day as it has always been in that regard.


Peter McGibbon: Has the minister no control over the employees of this government?


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: A great many hon. members belonging to the Conservative party have claimed to represent labour. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would use his good offices to try and induce these members to go out and assist Mr. Draper to collect funds for the strikers.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND ('South Oxford):: In view of the question which has been raised and the report in the press that the general strike in Great Britain has been settled, I wish to ask whether one Tom Moore, who is president of the Trades and Labour Congress, is in any way connected with the government service or any government commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend is aware that Mr. Moore is one of the directors of the National Railways which is indirectly a government organization. I am not aware of his holding any other position in what could be described as the government service.


Donald Sutherland: I
should like to call the Prime Minister's attention to a report in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, in which the Attorney General of Australia is reported to have said that the strike in Great Britain was not merely a question of wages and hours of work for the miners, but that the whole position was transformed by the threat of a general strike, that the carrying out of the strike was a challenge to the government and that the
Tariff Advisory Board

British government had intimated that it was a challenge to constitutional government. Could the Prime Minster tell me whether these people serving on commissions and in the service of this government have a license to act as they see fit in a matter of this kind?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reference
to the strike situation in Great Britain, matters will best be helped along by allowing the government and the members of parliament in Great Britain to deal with them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I, for one,
do not propose to aggravate the situation by being drawn into any contentious argument on the subject.


TARIFF ADVISORY BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: A statement appeared in the Montreal Star of yesterday to the effect that Mr. L. D. Currie, speaking as a representative of the government in Sydney a few days ago, made the statement that a sitting of the Tariff Advisory Board would be held there shortly and it would almost certainly be followed by the granting of adequate protection to the steel industry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the
first intimation I have had that this gentleman was a representative of this government. The representatives of this government are in this House, and I am not aware of any others authorized to speak on behalf of the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not many from Nova Scotia.


Milton Neil Campbell: He is reported in the
despatch as speaking as a representative of the King government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend need not take too seriously any despatches from the source to which he has just referred. I am not aware of any authority for the statement alleged.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
minister could tell us whether the gentleman who has been referred to as a government representative is prospective candidate for the constituency and was the defeated candidate in the last election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is the
same gentleman who was a candidate in the last election, I think he would make an excellent candidate in the next one.


DUMPING DUTY-AUSTRALIAN BUTTER AND FRUIT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Alfred (Fred) Davis: In
the absence of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to this message received from the west:
Customs are demanding payment of the dumping clause du-ty on all butter received from Australia since January 1, 1926. This will mean a loss of about $70,000 to the 'trade, and is unfair, as all butter received from Australia up to May 5, was released from customs on the basis of one per cent per pound duty, and sold to the trade on this basis. Try and have this order changed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe the Minister of Customs dealt with this matter yesterday. I do not recollect the reply made, but my hon. friend will find it on Hansard.


Alfred (Fred) Davis: The reply made was that
the dumping duty on butter would apply only to butter shipped from Australia after the 1st of January, 'but according to this telegram the duty has been collected on butter that arrived in Canada after the 1st of January.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister
of Customs is a pretty busy man these days, but I will draw his attention to the remarks of my hon. friend.


RESTRICTED T.B. AREA IN FRASER VALLEY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BARRY J. BARBER (Fraser Valley): f should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question in regard to the creation of a restricted tuberculosis area in the Fraser *'*alley. Many of the smaller dairymen have suffered considerably, a number of them losing from twenty-five to seventy-five per cent of their herds, and they are complaining bitterly of not receiving compensation which would enable them to replace a number of the animals lost. When may they expect to receive this compensation? This restricted area has been completed and after something over two months many of these men have not yet received compensation.
William Richard Motherwell: These compensation accounts
are usually paid within thirty or thirty-five days depending on the expedition with which the reports are sent in. When the accounts go through the usual office routine they are paid immediately. I think payment would take place within about thirty days from the time the inspection was completed.

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)


Mr. BARBER:: Many of these animals
were tested when the veterinary surgeons first began to test the herds in this district. A number of these men in my district have not yet received compensation although the testing began two months ago.


William Richard Motherwell: The officers are
scarcely through with their work yet; they may be through about the middle of the month. The accounts would have to go through the usual routine.
THE BUDGET	-


CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 11, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. R. J. Manion.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: 3334	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
their survival from day to day, and then we began to hear rumours of private conversations and interviews between them and the Progressives, followed by news of negotiations and later on of commitments on the part of the government. As a result of those commitments, whatever they were, the government found themselves under the necessity of violating what the amendment declares to have been a pledge given to the people of the country that there would be no changes in the tariff before the manufacturers and the employees affected were given an opportunity of stating their case. It is because of that violation, or alleged violation, of the promise made by the government, that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has submitted his amendment regretting the conduct of the government in this respect, and inasmuch as I believe that the government have broken faith with the people I am going to vote for that amendment.
With so vast a country adjoining us we cannot do anything else than adopt such policies as our neighbours put into force, and the more we see of the consequences of their policies, the more we appreciate the. necessity for following suit. It seems to me that the government at this stage should let the public know definitely whether it is their intention to foster native industries with a view to retaining our own workmen and providing employment for our Canadian people, or whether, on the other hand, the intention is to abandon that policy and to give up our own markets. The government have suddenly introduced this change in the tariff, particularly in respect of automobiles, and they have done so at the instigation of the Progressives. Now, I do not think that the Progressives did anything wrong; they had a right to barter, as all parties have. We must recognize the fact that we have three, or rather four, parties in the House of Commons to-day, and we cannot condemn any of those parties for negotiating among themselves, holding conventions, and making commitments. Nor can anyone quarrel with the fact that we have three or four parties; they are with us and that is all there is to it. Indeed, we are entitled to have them. But what we do say is that if the government came to the conclusion that they were obliged to put this policy into effect they should have so informed parliament. They should have said that a change of programme was necessary and that they desired to be given a chance to put the measure through. But they interfered with the tariff without any notification to parliament. My one charge, therefore, is that the government 
did not honour the pledge they gave parliament and the country, a pledge given not only in their campaign speeches but also in the Speech from the Throne.
In my constituency there are two factories which will be affected by this tariff change, one at Danforth and the other at Leaside. I am in touch with the employees of these factories and they have protested against the action of the government in not allowing them to explain matters. They sent delegates to present their case, but the government have insisted upon the reduction. The result is that the manufacturers are now in a state of uncertainty, while the employees are very much afraid of losing their jobs. It is true that Mr. Ford has said that he will carry on his factory at Danforth. I believe he will, and I believe the Durant factory at Leaside will carry on. Certainly I hope that all those who are engaged in the industry, not only at Windsor and at Oshawa but elsewhere, will do their best to keep going. I trust they will carry on and will succeed under the altered conditions. What has hurt the industry somewhat is the suspicion which has prevailed in the country that undue profits were being made, but however this may be I hope the government will make such concessions as will enable the industry to carry on.
Another important question before the House at the moment is the enormous burden of taxation which the Canadian people have at present to carry. The people are [DOT] asking themselves, "How much longer can we stand this awful taxation which we are now obliged to pay?" I am going to suggest on this occasion, as I have suggested before, a means of relieving the country of this burden. The solution for the problem is to be found, I think, in a proper railway policy. We have been altogether overrailroaded for many years now, having had two great transcontinental systems, the Canadian National Railways, owned by the people, and the Canadian Pacific, the property of a private corporation. No matter what may have been the legislation by which this condition came about, the plain fact is that it exists, and it is costing the country over $300,000,000 a year to maintain this wholly unnecessary duplication of service. Can we not do something to simplify the railway situation in Canada, to eliminate this costly overlapping, and, at the same time, to give to the people an efficient and less expensive service? Well, I have suggested the remedy before, and I am going to suggest it again.. The first thing for us to do is to ascertain whether we cannot consolidate the two rail-

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
ways. I am sure that the consolidation of the Canadian Pacific with the Canadian National Railways would result in an enormous saving to the country, while it would make for a more satisfactory service. Today we have not only duplicate trains but duplicate head offices and management, and duplicate headquarters staffs, most of this due to the struggle for business between these rival concerns. We have also a duplicate express system and a duplicate telegraph service involving the upkeep of cables and one thing and another, all of which is costing the country a vast sum of money. The demand of the country to-day is that this unjustifiable duplication shall cease.
It may be said that the two systems are necessary. Indeed, I understand that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) since coming into office has intimated that in his opinion the Canadian Pacific Railway should continue to operate independently and supply opposition. I think he is entirely wrong. There should be a consolidation of the two roads and the Canadian Pacific Railway should be merged into the Canadian National system. If that were done I believe that one headquarters staff in Montreal, reduced 50 per cent, could administer the two railways much better than they are now being managed by two independent staffs. It is absurd that we should allow this mad race to go on between two rival railway systems operating over the same territory on their main lines, while not more than one-tenth of the accommodation they have to offer can be taken advantage of. Most of all, if we had consolidation we would have a rerouting; that would mean new and improved services for the branch lines and the main lines, and no one can imagine how great an improvement there would be in that respect. We would have a much better system. We could take the best bridges, the best grades, the best approaches to the cities and towns, and work them into the reorganization, and in that way not only would we get a much better service on the main and branch lines, but the economies we would effect would amount to over $300,0010,000 a year. But still this waste goes on. Every day you see this rivalry between the two head offices in Montreal, and in addition, each maintains a big propaganda organization; each has men out every day canvassing for business, at enormous cost, and the public have to pay the piper. Now that has got to change, and I believe the disposition of the country to-day is to effect a change, to improve the service, and to save a lot of money.
Not only would there be an improvement through rerouting. Traffic in Canada to-day is carried not only by rail but by water and on the highways, and some day soon you will have to deal with carriage by the airways. As a consequence, you cannot deal with transportation effectively unless you combine all these various services in one system of transportation instead of two, and that one consolidated system should be charged with the maintenance of traffic by rail, the maintenance of traffic by water, and the maintenance of traffic by the highways. I do not believe the two great railway systems can maintain themselves if they have to fight the very severe competition by water, which is growing every day. Some day, when we build the Welland canal to its proper depth-or we may build an Ottawa canal to a ship depth-we shall be having seaports on lake Ontario, lake Erie, lake Huron, lake Superior and Georgian bay. That will enormously increase the competition the railways now have to meet, and unless we get them into this consolidation, they will not be able to meet it.
While the Canadian National Railways own, as I think they do, 70 per cent of the railway strategy of this country, the Canadian Pacific Railway has an equally valuable thing in that it has its own steamships, its own lake and river vessels, and its established lines by sea. If we are to get the best transportation service; if we are to give our friends in the west reduced freight rates; if we are to develop the Maritime provinces by bringing their coal to Ontario, we shall have to depend more and more on transportation by water. In that respect no move would be wiser than to make arrangements with the Canadian Pacific and consolidate the whole thing, bringing in their steamship lines, so that we will have combined in the one system railway transportation, water transportation, highway transportation, and airway transportation. The Canadian Pacific has its steamships and the government railway has the merchant marine. Let us make one big consolidation of all these resources for the betterment of service, and the economies that can be effected thereby.
One of the things that is worrying the people of Canada to-day is the heavy taxation with which we are burdened. The railway competition is getting more desperate every day. It is costing us $300,000,000 a year, and I believe more-because I have gone into the matter rather closely-through the unnecessary duplication, with two systems, with their two head offices and all the overhead charges, with these unnecessary express companies and these unnecessary telegraph
3336	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
companies. All these services can be consolidated and the expenses cut down. The call to-day wherever you go is for lower freight rates, and we cannot get them; but if we had this consolidation the freight rates could be reduced.
Just to give you an idea of what is menacing the railroads now, do you know how much the motor bus and the motor truck are cutting into the revenues of our railways to-day? The motor bus and the motor truck are getting all the local business; they are taking more and more revenue away from the railways every day, and water transportation will go on taking more and more traffic away from the railways, so that soon there will not be enough business, even if the country does grow-and it is going to grow-to make the railways a paying concern.
Moreover, if you make this consolidation a lot of the trackage now existing will be unused. You will not take up any trackage that is necessary for the movement of freight, but there are lots of lines that could be taken up without interfering with the service, and these unnecessary tracks, ties, ballast, and other equipment, could be used later on for giving railway facilities to the newer parts of the country that are being opened up. We hope to bring settlers into this country, and we hope to give them railroads. The consolidation I speak of would enable us to provide the necessary equipment for giving railway facilities to these parts of the country that are being settled, and in that way it would help build up the country. In the meantime we are wasting this money; we are not reducing rates; we are not giving the people the service we ought to give them, and I see nothing but bankruptcy ahead of the two great railway systems unless this consolidation is effected. The traffic returns brought down to the House recently show ihat there has been a considerable falling off in traffic.
What could we do with the $300,000,000 a year that would be saved by this consolidation? I will tell you first of all what we could do. We have not yet determined what the railway debt of Canada is. Actually it is over $2,000,000,000, nd it has been propesed that we ought to fix the railway debt of this country at say $1,000,000,000. If we did this, and if we made this saving of $300,000,000 through the consolidation of the railways, we could pay three per cent on $1,000,000,000 on which we pay nothing now, but which is part of the debt of Canada. We could also afford to pay six per cent on Canadian Pacific stock to take them into the deal. In addition, there would be dislocated by this consolida-
tion of services over 30,000 men, and we could afford to pay the 30,000 men $1,000 a year each until such time as they could secure other employment in this country or the railways called for their services later on. In addition, we could pay 6 per cent on say $300,000,000 of Canadian Pacific stock, and then we would not have used the first $100,000,000 of what we are now wasting. We could do many other things in the same direction; we could improve the service, stop this leak, reduce freight rates and put our railways in a better position. Although I was a party to the taking over of the old Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern railways, I now agree with the suggestion that we should have let those roads go into bankruptcy. But we did not do so; we have them on our hands now and are maintaining them at this enormous cost of $300,000,000 a year. We could save at least two-thirds of that amount, which might be used to assist settlers in the newer parts of the country, and in many other ways.
Those are the real facts of the case. The House does not seem to be interested, but the people of Canada and particularly those in the west are very much concerned. They are appealing to parliament to find some way out of this situation. I go to Toronto twice a week, and I see the rival trains on that service; some of them are filled up, some with a very few people. That competition goes on in the transcontinental runs, on branch lines, and all over the country; it is getting worse all the time and disaster is ahead if it is not stopped. That is all I have to say about the railway situation. We could save a large amount of money; we could reduce taxation and at the same time improve the freight rate situation. I have always been a believer in public ownership; I believe in public ownership of the railways; I believe in the success of the National railways under public ownership; all the Canadian people believe in that also, and the province of Quebec is a strong supporter of that principle.


Mr. LANCTOT:: Excepting myself.


William Findlay Maclean: Then my hon. friend does not belong to the province of Quebec.


Roch Lanctôt: I would like to see the Canadian Pacific Railway take over the Canadian National Railways.


William Findlay Maclean: I would not like to see that, because all the people of Canada own the Canadian National Railways, while only 19 per cent of the Canadian Pacific Railway is owned in Canada; all the rest is owned in London and in the United States.

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)


Roch Lanctôt: I don't care.


William Findlay Maclean: I know that, but I do, and the people of Canada care.


Roch Lanctôt: It is too costly.


William Findlay Maclean: It is too costly, but my proposition is to stop this unnecessary expense.


Roch Lanctôt: The Canadian Pacific Railway should have it.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not agree with that; the people of Canada will not stand for it, particularly the 4 p.m. people of the west. But they are looking for some arangement which will stop this enormous extravagance. The Canadian Pacific Railway ought to be glad to enter into such an arrangement, because they cannot stand the competition of the Canadian National. It is too much for them, because the Canadian National has 70 per cent of the strategy, which they got in the early days when the old Great Western, the Canadian Northern and the other early railways were built. The greatest piece of strategy they got was through Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when he built the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. They have all the strategy through western Canada; competition is growing; the Canadian Pacific Railway is feeling the effects of it, and notwithstanding Mr. Beatty's statements to the contrary I believe he would like to enter into an arrangement which would make this great saving to the nation and would be better for the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Not only is public ownership growing, but I want to tell the House something else which may be of interest. Five years ago the province of Ontario under Mr. Drury, then head of the farmer government, established a savings bank. It could not be called a bank, but was officially named the Province of Ontario Savings Branch. Eventually he got it going, under an agreement with one able young man, a good organizer, to whom he gave this pledge. He told this young man that if he established this Savings branch he would not be interfered with. He gave him a free hand, and this new departure is the greatest instance of public ownership in Canada to-day with the exception of the National railways. The people have their own bank, and it is a great success. The banking interests of Montreal did not like it and tried their best to destroy it when the Drury government went out of office. They appealed to the Ferguson government, which
at last decided to reduce the rate of interest from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. But notwithstanding that reduction the deposits in that Savings branch total $25,000,000; it is the best bank in Ontario to-day and enjoys the confidence of the people.


Mr. MARCIL:: Do they discount notes?


William Findlay Maclean: No, but they deposit in other banks and I think get four per cent interest.


Charles Marcil: Someone has to discount
notes, or business cannot be carried on.


William Findlay Maclean: The province
of Ontario could come to this House and ask for full banking powers under the Bank Act, but in the meantime the province has this amount of money on deposit which they can either use or deposit in other banks. This is the greatest experiment in national banking being carried on in America to-day. Other provinces have followed the lead of Ontario, I believe, but without the same measure of success. I have not seen a word in the papers of what took place in Toronto the other day. The provincial treasurer, Colonel Price, has come to see what a great asset this bank is; he has taken new premises for it at the corner of Adelaide and Bay streets, and it is the busiest bank in Toronto today. All the poor people of Toronto go there with their savings; the bank is open earlier in the morning and closes later in the afternoon than	do the	others; they	areout to do	business	and to	serve the public.The result is that, notwithstanding the opposition	of the	greater	banks and	the
efforts made to squelch it, this new venture in banking is the surprising thing in Canada to-day. It is a great success; it will continue to grow, and I believe it will in the near future receive all the powers of a chartered bank.
Ontario	has not	only this bank; it	has
public ownership of its hydro-electric development and of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, which was the first to open up the mining country of northern Ontario. All the mining development which has taken place in Ontario has been the result of the policy of Sir James Whitney in building this railway. If Quebec has anybody to thank for the discovery of its great mineral wealth in the Rouyn district, it is the enterprise of the province of Ontario in opening up that north country by the construction of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. That railway will doubtless play a prominent part in the development of the mines of northern Quebec. To
3338	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)
that railway is due the fact that there has been great mining development in northern Ontario, and we may see similar development in northern Quebec. The province of Manitoba is now looking to the National railway to provide a railway service to its mining districts. All these developments have come or are coming as a result of public ownership.
In this connection may I point out that a new bank has been instituted in Toronto. You hear nothing about it, the papers will not even note the fact that it has come into existence, but I want hon. members who are opposed to public ownership-and especially the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lanctot) who questioned me a moment or two ago-to go to Toronto and see the new bank, and they will come back prepared to recommend the opening of branches of that bank in their own province. It marks the advent of the greatest banking system that has yet been established in Canada, and the noteworthy fact about it is that it is publicly owned. Yet certain hon. gentlemen opposite seem to entertain the opinion -that the public cannot succeed in any enterprise which it owns. Surely that idea ought to have been dispelled by the success which the publicly owned system of National railways in this country has encountered. I cannot but believe that my hon. friend opposite can see the trend of the movement. Certainly Mr. Beatty and the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway do. They seem to be getting apprehensive of the competition which the Canadian National Railway gives, and they are getting reac^y to favour amalgamation.
I want to tell my hon. friends opposite another thing. The United States to-day do not own a railway, they do not even own a bank share.


Roch Lanctôt: What policy did they
.pursue during the war?


William Findlay Maclean: 
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If agricultural implements were manufactured in Winnipeg, what would happen to Toronto and Brantford?


William Findlay Maclean: Toronto would
be able to take care of itself. We probably would get cheaper goods, on the same principle that the farmers get more for their grain by co-operation.


Mr. ROGERS:: Where is the proof that
the farmers are getting more?


William Findlay Maclean: They _ say so
themselves, and we know the price is much better.


Robert Rogers: Does the hon. gentleman
know that?


William Findlay Maclean: I know a great
deal about it. Perhaps my hon. friend knows, and if so he might tell us. I will leave it to the farmers to say whether or not co-operation is a success. The English papers are stating that the astonishing thing in the world to-day is the success of the pooling of the grain of the west, resulting in the getting of better prices therefor. That is a great change, but it shows how our ideas are progressing and how new ideas are coming to be adopted. If we do not take advantage of these things we miss our opportunities.
I should like to see the Canadian National Railways give better freight rates. Our farmers in the west are organizing and cooperating-and the farmers in the United States are organizing in much the same manner, except that they have approached congress in a different way. They are not satisfied with the prices they are getting for their grain, but the main thing is that they are organizing. The farmers desire to see more local banks established in the west with local capital, so that they will have a better banking service, without of course injuring the present service. This must be done by organization and legislation. Rather than adhere to the insane idea of having two great systems of railways in competition with each other, a consolidation should be effected so that the Canadian National Railway would be able not only to meet all its commitments. but also to make a reduction of freight rates.
I propose to vote for the amendment because the government have failed to give the people what they pledged themselves to give, namely, an opportunity to the men who work in the factories and those who own the factories to be heard before any decision should be arrived at in regard to the tariff.
The Budget-Mr. Gervais

They did not give them that opportunity. I come from a constituency in which two of these factories are located, and although there may be a reason for the change, the people in my constituency think that there should have been a hearing before the tariff board before any conclusion was arrived at. Later on in the session I will direct the attention of the House further to some questions connected with the budget, and I have no doubt that there will be ample opportunity to discuss them.


Mr. THEODORE GERVAIS (Berthier-Maskinonge) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do not propose nor could I hope to introduce many new arguments before this House. We have witnessed, since the opening of Parliament, a constant interchange of conflicting opinions. Not only days but months have been taken up in denouncing on the one hand, a political system, and in vindicating it, on the other, without much care for or much consideration being given to the actual facts. I have heard and listened with much interest to the different speeches pronounced by the succeeding orators, from the representatives of the Maritime provinces to those of the western provinces, and hon. gentlemen opposite have been almost unanimous in condemning the present government and in opposing the proposal of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) moving that the House should go into committee of ways and means to consider certain resolutions.
Every hon. member opposite, whether from Prince Edward Island, through the Maritime provinces, Quebec, or Ontario, but especially those from this latter province, taking part in this debate, has stood up strongly in defence of the old protectionist principle. Their story of grievances did not say much about Quebec. In their view, the Maritime provinces have serious grievances against the government. Those hon. gentlemen have even evolved out of these grievances a kind of policy entitled "The Maritime Rights"; and, of course, the sole remedy to such a situation lies, according to the hon. gentlemen, in a protective tariff. Our friends from Ontario told us practically the same thing. Protection was the predominant idea in every speech delivered in this House by the hon. members. Though they dealt with every conceivable matter, their fundamental and constant theme reverted invariably to the lack of protection and the lowering of duties by this government. Long was the wail, especially from the Ontario members. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec is not a 
free trade province but that contrary to the Martimes and Ontario she has no reason to complain of this government.
Matters of interest on the hustings and
questions relevant to this House, that we have to decide, are different. It seems to me that in this House, hon. members should look carefuly into public matters, scrutinize and criticize earnestly, in order to be in a position to co-operate, as they should, with the government in the best interest of the country. How different are those recriminations from the praises sometimes heard! I was pleased to hear some hon. members opposite refer to the hand of Providence. Forced to look into the budget speech, these gentlemen could not but admit that the financial statement, the year's financial review, as submitted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his budget speech, was most gratifying, and so they credited Providence for so much Allow me to repeat that old saying of the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier: "If Providence is on our side, what reason have the Conservative party and, presently, the hon. members opposite, to be against us?" If Providence favours the Liberals, why does that apostle of co-operation, the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) not give his support to the government. That would bring him in line with Providence.
About ten years ago, when I entered this House, I heard for the first time the budget speech being delivered. Sir Thomas White was then Minister of Finance, and I remember the impression of anxiety .that budget left on my mind. How different is the situation to-day! What improvement in our finances, in the general business conditions! If our friends opposite would only refer to the public records of that time, look over the statistics, they would realize what improvement has taken place, especially since the advent of the Liberal government.
Allow me to outline briefly the financial situation of that day. When the Liberal party went out of office in 1911, the country's debt was insignificant. The public debt amounted to $335,000,000, and so what we had to pay in interest was not very much. When we came back, we the Liberals, in 1921, the debt had reached two billions and some four or five hundred millions of dollars; and the interest due alone, for the first year, exceeded the total sum of expenditure under the Liberal administration of 1911, and amounted to $142,000.000. I know there were many justifiable disbursements resulting from the war, and I do not want to enter upon that ground already gone over; but on how many improvident ventures they engaged during that

The Budget-Mr. Gervais
period. Carried, I should say, on the wave of war extravagances, the Conservative, Unionist and after war governments plunged themselves into most reprehensible expenditures. For instance, and speaking from memory, the merchant marine, a sorry remembrance, the building of those merchant ships at a cost of $72,000,000 to $73,000,000. And if the Liberals have some responsibility to share for the unfortunate railway situation the Unionist government had to face, they certainly have none as to the building of that merchant marine when the country was burdened to the utmost. That waste of $73,000,000 of the public money at a time when Canada was so much in need of funds was probably forced upon the government of the day by some private interests. And what have been the results? The deficits in the administration of the merchant marine have been added to those of the Canadian National Railways.
At the same time, the government was supplying money for the labour housing plan which has had more or less satisfactory results; they were helping enterprises of all kinds; they were subsidizing the construction of roads in the different provinces. Quebec had given the example for the building of good roads; the other provinces were somewhat envious of it, and probably under the pressure of particular interests of those provinces, enormous sums of money were granted for the public roads. Quebec has taken advantage of it like the other provinces and 1 am happy to say that so far as the public services are concerned the province where I come from has been one of the pioneers of the whole Dominion.
Having 'heard the recriminations of the Maritime provinces and of Ontario, let me tell you a few words about the province of Quebec. I heard yesterday the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) give us a summary of the financial situation of the province of Ontario and show us the amount of its expenses and the regular and annual increase of the public debt which would amount to $275,000,000 or $280,000,000. In the province of Quebec, in spite of the large subsidies that we give for the encouragement of the public services, public instruction and colonization, the debt does not exceed $60,000,000. We do not deny to hon. gentlemen opposite the right to complain of their province especially those of Ontario, but after all, we Liberal members of Quebec, are satisfied and happy to come from that province, and we have nothing to beg to-day from the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, all the public statistics have been searched, analysed, explained in some fashion or other by hon. gentlemen opposite, so as to be in a position to ask for more and more protection for the industries. We must not lose our senses over this tariff issue. Every tariff question is a business question and we must examine it in the light of reason and actual facts and judge it on its merits. The tariff is a tax. It may be a necessary one; it can be very useful if it is handled with care, but I am opposed to protection, especially when it is applied to every commodity as a matter of course. Protection, according to our friends across the floor, would be a universal panacea. It would seem that every ill can be cured by protection. Industries would grow and develop under protection. The farmer would also see much better days. Moreover, they have requested more protection even for eggs; hens would lay more if that policy were applied on a larger scale. Protection would be a cure for every ill. I believe that they have gone too far and that this tariff question should be considered more judicially in t'he light of the plainest economic data, provided that we set aside the spirit of partisanship and that we discuss it in a broadminded way, because the people take less interest in the questions which are discussed in the House of Commons of Canada, owing to the fact that we give too much time to academic discussions. In 1922 and 1923, the government reduced the duty on agricultural implements. I have listened to all the grievances and the pessimism of our friends on the other side about the future of the industry of agricultural implements. There had been much said on that subject that one day that I happened to be in my county when an employee of one of the greatest manufacturers of agricultural implements was putting up a binder, I asked the local agent what was the price of the binder that year, and if there was not a difference in price as compared with that of the previous year. Looking at his price-list, he answered that there was a difference - of $12 and, without me questioning the mechanic, he added, being so much imbued with the idea of protection: "The tariff is not to be blamed for that." But I think that it has very much affected the cost of the agricultural implements, in the same way that the cut in the tariff will presently greatly influence the price of motor cars.
You cannot realize, Mr. Speaker, what arguments were used during the last election, by the candidates of hon. gentlemen opposite. I heard one of them shifting his ground', resorting to a chain of fallacies to show

The Budget-Mr. Gervais
what would bs the effect of a tariff similar ' to the American duty on hay, eggs, butter, cheese, potatoes, in one word on anything. With all sorts of false arguments he tried to show that if the Canadian tariff were $4 a ton that would mean some 50 cents a ton to the producer of hay. I never understood his reasoning and I will not undertake to repeat it; he did not understand it himself; neither did the voters who heard him. I represent a riding which produces large quantities of hay; and even if the government were to put a tariff of 810 a ton on hay it would have no effect in the counties that I represent. Even with no Canadian tariff a,t all on hay, things would be the same; whether the tariff be one cent a ton or 810 a ton, no American hay will ever be imported into Berthier-Maskinonge in competition with the local product. The tariff has nothing to do with it. Of course in certain localities, certain exceptional conditions may happen when, the price of hay being high, the people near the American border, might import a quantity of hay; but all they will have to pay is a duty of 82 per ton. Do you know what it costs to move a ton of hay -from my counties to Halifax? It costs 87.50. The cost is the same when the hay is shipped to St. John, N.B., Portland, Boston and New York. It is evident that in these districts if the harvest be poor the people are right to import American hay when they are near the border instead of ordering it from Berthier-Maskinonge and paying freight charges of 87.50 a ton.
The transportation problem goes to the root of all our trade difficulties and of nearly every question we discuss in this House. I have just said that the counties I represent produce a great quantity of hay. This year we exported, in spite of the tariff barrier of $4 a ton, not to .the Western States but to the Southern States, the Carolinas, Maryland, Virginia, through the firm of Bunting, who bought their hay from us, the county of Berthier, I say, shipped to that market, within three months, over 21100 cars of hay, and that was only one quarter of the crop. And do you know what -that hay cost when it was unloaded? It cost 815 freight and S4 duty before any allowance was made for its own value. When the government puts a tax of 84 a ton on hay the tax is paid by the American consumer. I said a moment ago that the transportation problem is at the bottom of all our trade relations in this country. It is at the bottom of the trade in hay of which I am speaking just now. There is much room for improvement there. I re-

quested the railway board to explain the situation fully; here is what we find: For carrying hay from Berthier county to Maryland and the Carolinas the Canadian Pacific charges 77 cents per cwt; and 36 cents per cwt -for shipment to Boston. When the Canadian Pacific moves hay for a hundred miles, say, to the boundary, the charge is 13 cents per cwt if the hay is consigned to Boston, and 25 cents a cwt when it is consigned to the southern states; the balance of the freight charges are collected by the American railways. Please note that the Canadian Pacific charges 25 cents per cwt when the hay is shipped to the southern states and 13 cents per cwt. when it is shipped to the Boston and New York markets. You will say that that is discrimination, that the rates are not properly balanced. I appealed to the railway board; and it appears that this state of things is unavoidable. I did not succeed in having the matter remedied; and we still had some 2,000 cars of hay to ship.
During the election campaign and in this House I have heard hon. members claim on more than one occasion that the tariff on eggs was not high enough. They complained about the Australian duty. I must tell you. Mr. Speaker, that during the campaign -these gentlemen made a good many complaints, not about the treaties that the Canadian government had negotiated with France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, but about the treaty with Australia, the effects of which were entirely unkown to them at the time. Australian eggs were to be dumped into Canada and the description was so striking-I can still see the magnificent, sweeping gestures of my opponents-that we could almost see those eggs overrunning the continent, coming here in serried ranks and ousting our own eggs from the Canadian market. The problem is a peculiar one: except in British Columbia, perhaps, we do not produce sufficient eggs for home consumption. During the summer we export eggs; but in the winter months our production falls below our needs.
Because of the law of supply and demand and the consumption being pretty regular, the price of eggs rises when winter comes along, and when the price is high enough, buyers turn to American eggs. That is because we cannot produce eggs during the winter. It is a thing the Canadian farmer has not yet learned. The various branches of agriculture are so numerous that he has not yet turned his attention to the production of eggs in winter.
I may say, and I do say it because I am sure of what I state, that egg production is the

The Budget-Mr. Gervais
most paying industry; it brings much more than hay raising or even the dairy industry. There is no industry bringing such high returns and the only question is to establish it among our Canadian farmers. Speaking of agriculture I might use Lafontaine's words at the beginning of one of his fables; "The farmer's	patient	tare	and	toil are	oftenerwanting than the soil" and I say: "The farmer's	patient	tare	and	toil are	oftener
wanting than the hen."
When the hon. members of the opposition show us a vivid and interesting picture in support of the idea of erecting a tariff barrier the question suggests itself: "Why not erect a tariff wall, why not raise the tariff?" We have the dumping clause to protect us against goods feeing dumped in our markets and, on the other hand, we must have some protection against the greediness of the producer, so that the consumer is not left to his tender mercy. If we have too high a barrier it is quite evident that it will not cause our hens to lay, because the price is even now remunerative but the price of eggs would become exorbitant. We must put a check to low prices as well as to high prices. It is the duty of competent authorities to check the scale of prices and a high tariff leaves the consumer entirely in the hands of the producer. That is why we should not adopt the high tariff asked for toy our friends of the opposition.
I often heard the question of coal discussed in this House and I believe a commission was appointed to investigate that subject. Allow me to tell you that I will be pleased to see the government take the matter in hand and if it is necessary, grant bonuses to the railroads so that they may carry coal from the Maritime provinces and Alberta into central Canada. Our country must be independent of the United States; we must not depend on our neighbours for our coal supply, either for factory or home purposes and it is with great pleasure that I will see the government grant subsidies to the railways, whenever necessary, so as to supply our factories and our homes with Canadian coal. There is another thing that I would like to see accomplished by the government. I would be happy to see the government take all possible means to oppose the diversion of traffic taking place from the west towards the United States. I know that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) who spoke a few moments ago would like the building of deep water harbours on lake Erie, lake Huron and lake Ontario. He favours co-operation provided the traffic goes through the province he represents. I would be pleased to see the governmentemploy all possible means to stop that diversion, so that the traffic may be directed to Canadian -ports without going through the United States and I ask on this question the co-operation of my hon. friend from South York and of all the members from the province of Ontario. Every year we complain that a large part of the traffic is sent through the United States. We have made great sacrifices to equip our ports, build our railroads and, perhaps because private interests are at the bottom of this, we let our traffic take the way of the United States.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would welcome on this question the co-operation of the member from South York and of all the members from Ontario, but before he spoke about cooperation the hon, member took good care in the beginning of his speech, to declare that he holds protection as a principle and that even his father before him, held protection as a principle. So that he will co-operate provided he finds it to his advantage. There is but one co-operation which he does not care for. He praised the province of Ontario, he even praised the Drury administration for creating a system of rural credits, but there is a cooperation which he does not like and that is the co-operation of Progressives and Liberals in this House.
At the very outset of his speech and as a term of comparison, the hon .member for South York made a review of facts, comparing Canada with the United States and he said: "The United States have progressed under a policy of protection." Think of comparing Canada with the United States! Are there two countries absolutely alike in the world? Are the geographical, topographical and climatic conditions the same in Chnada as in the United States? It seems to me that one is hardly justified in comparing Canada with the United States in order to build up a case in defence of his faith in protection. And the hon. member's deductions from that comparison are absolutely wrong.
If the party of the hon. member for South York had submitted the budget which the Liberal party presented this year, I think I would have heard my hon. friend along with every member of the opposition, say: "See what our party did, see what Canada is now, see how we found it in 1921 and its present condition".
We have restored our finances after four or five years, we have been able to reduce the burden of taxation by over $50,000,000 and when I glance at our trade, I find that Canada holds the fourth or the fifth rank among all the countries of the world. Canada
The Budget-Mr. Murphy

comes after Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States, but it is ahead of Italy, whose population is 40,000,000, ahead of Russia, Poland, Spain, India, Japan, one of the most interesting countries. In view of those facts, the hon. member no doubt would say: I want the economic system which the Liberal party gave us.
I think that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in spite of his long experience and his independent actions is prejudiced by the idea of protection and does not view the situation properly. I believe he was somewhat influenced-if he can be influenced-by the complaints of his friends from the Maritime provinces, Ontario and other parts of the country and he did not realize what the situation actually was.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to tell you how pleased I was to hear the budget speech of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). For there is in this budget something over which any Canadian, any public man may well rejoice. We have corrected the blunders committed during the inefficient Tory administration. Canada has taken the right direction and with the kind co-operation of the Progressive party, our country is following again the path of progress. We understood what Providence expected from us, but we understood also that we must help ourselves. I trust that in the best interest of this country, and for its future welfare, this government will continue to administer its affairs and that much later on, when the present generation will be gone, the opponents shall be heard talking of this period as they are talking now of the prosperous time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and warmly acclaiming the administration of the Right Hon., Mackenzie King, that of the Liberal party.


Mr. T. G. MURPHY (Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, in common with other members of the House I awaited with some degree of eagerness the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). The annual budget of Canada has always held more interest for the people than any other matter dealt with by parliament, and of late years that interest has been accentuated in a marked degree by the enormous additions to our national debt and our ever-increasing burden of taxation. While I am unable to congratulate the minister for the reasons advanced by his supporters I feel that I can congratulate him upon his presentation of a difficult subject.
On this subject I desire to make certain observations which I will endeavour to make as concise as possible. As an outcome of the [M,r. Gervais.]
year's business the minister estimates a decrease of debt of $22,353,000. This is very gratifying, but how has the result been attained? On account of economy practised by the government? I am afraid not, as the following comparison will show.
In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925, the total expenditure as shown by the Public Accounts was $340,619,936.48, while for the year 1926 it is $356,590,000, or an increase of $15,970,063.52. I am afraid we cannot give any credit to this government for economy in expenditure. Let us on the other hand compare the revenues for the two years 1925 and 1926. For the year 1925 the total revenue was $352,232,552.97 and for the year 1926, $378,943,000, or an increase of revenue for 1926 of $26,710,447.03. An examination of these figures clearly shows that the reason the government has been able to produce a surplus is because the revenue has increased and not because the government has been * economizing.
I have shown that the government expended in round figures $15,970,000 more in
1926	than in 1925, while for the coming year,. 1927, the estimated expenditure, including $30,000,000 to be advanced to the railways, is $381,871,351, or an estimated increase for
1927	of $25,281,351 over 1926. How any man can say that this government has done anything by reason of its policies to reduce the national debt passes my comprehension, when expenditures are increasing every year and the only reason we have any reduction in debt is because this government has taken more money out of the people of Canada.
I have heard it argued in this House that the government has reduced taxation.


THE ROYAL ASSENT SUSPENSION OF SITTING
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this 'honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Gertrude Grr.
An Act for the relief of Melville James Andrews.

The Royal Assent
An Act for t'he relief of Hairry Reginald Oddy.
An Act for t-he relief of Mildred Roxie Horner.
An Act for the relief of Frances Muriel Burnet.
An Act for the relief of Ada Toms.
An Act for the relief of Vera Sanderson.
An Act for the relief of Noel Leslie Deuxbury.
An Act for the relief of Lillian May O'Reilly.
An Act for the relief of Jean Victoria DM lane.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Alberta Barker.
An Act for the relief of Annie Hazel McCausland.
An Act for the re'Jief of Sterling LeRoy Spicer.
An Act for the relief of Amy Bell Comey.
An Act for the relief of David Frank Crosier.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Gildea Nye Brown.
An Act for the relief of Edward Thomas Faragher.
An Act for the relief of Bertha Viola Lidkea.
An Act for (the relief of Mike Ayoulb* (otherwise known as Michael Ayoub).
An Act for the relief of Alice Marion McGinley.
An Act for the relief of Harold Edgar PeriocMef.
An Act for the relief of Hendel Tuerner Lubrinetsky. An Act for the relief of Paul Hugh Tumibull.
An Act for the relief of Helen Eliby Pollington.
An Act for the relief of Alexander Stewart.
An Act for the relief of William Melville Moore.
An Act for the relief of John Samuel Milligan.
An Act for the relief of Marion Richardson.
An Act for the relief of Isadore Boadmer.
An Act for the relief of William Albert Thomas.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Isabel Clerk.
An Act for the relief of Helen Seymour O'Connor. An Act for the relief of Yetta Selma Trachsell.
An Act for the relief of Alexander Dewar.
An Act for the relief of Florence Burrell.
An Act for the relief of Edith Marion Byarn.
An Act for the relief otf Charles Davidson.
An Act for the relief of Doris Selina Irvin.
An Act for the relief of Frank John Davis.
An Act for the relief of John Norman Smith Me Murray.
An Act for the relief of Archie Claire McIntyre.
An Act	for	the	relief of Mabel Elizabeth Harcourt.An Act	for	the	relief	of Louise Gordon Pook.An Act	for	the	relief	of Ez-illah Harriet Cole.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Burnside.
An Act for the relief of Cora Mae Murray.
An Act for the relief of Janet Thornhill Gorrie.
An Act for the .relief of Lillian DuBord Bulloch.
An Act	for	the	relief	of Henrietta Schierholtz.An Act	for	the	relief	of Maude Elizabeth Gilroy.An Act	for	(the	relief	of Richard Howard Buckley.An Act	for	the	relief	of William George Darlington.
An Aot for the relief of Arthur Watson.
An Act for the relief of Frances Marporie Warren.
An Act	for	the	relief	of Charles Douglas Palmer.An Aot	for	the	relief	of Beatrice Isabel Lamontagne.
An Act for the relief of Jane Johnston Mitchell Wells. An Act for the relief of Jeremiah Gibbs.
An Act for the relief of Caroline Elizabeth Riisbridger. An Act	for	the	relief	of Cassie Woodley.An Act	foT	the	relief	of Isabella Freeman.
An Aot for the relief of George Guthrie.
An Act for the relief of Lily Stead.
An Act for the relief of Alice Grace Hopkins.
An Act for the relief of Vera Catherine Searle.
An Act for the relief of Charles Frost.
An Act to change the name of the Dominion Express Company to "Canadian Pacific Express Company."
An Act for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1927.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of
Finance) that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. R. J. Manion.
Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have often heard it
argued in this House that the government had reduced taxation, but until this budget was brought down there was not the slightest evidence of any attempt on their part to do anything of the kind. Rather was there an increase of taxation by such means as raising the sales tax from 3 to 5 per cent, imposing a tax on receipts, and increasing the stamp taxes on cheques, drafts and other bills of exchange. During the year 1922 this government collected from the people of Canada in taxes the sum of $320,320,945, and during the year 1926, just ended, they collected $324,860,000. During the period from 1922 to 1925, while the taxes were being increased, the government received from other sources large amounts that should have been used to reduce both our national debt and the taxation which we are paying. In 19122 the government received from the Imperial government, as Canada's share of payments made by Germany for the cost of the army of occupation, the sum of $6,314,500, and in the same year the Imperial government reduced its indebtedness to Canada by $18,694,730. In the year 1923 the government received from the Imperial government, in settlement of exchange rates on payments from July 1920 to August 1921, the sum of $8,193,333, and in the same year the Imperial government reduced its indebtedness by $56,226198. In 1924 this government received from the Imperial government, in settlement of exchange re the Minister of Shipping, $632,500, and in the same year the Imperial government reduced its indebtedness to Canada by $66,469,227. I am not familiar enough with the system of bookkeeping in vogue with this government to know whether these amounts which were received from the Imperial government were taken into consideration in connection with the national debt; I do not know how they were handled. I do know, however, that the government received in cash from profits in exchange and from other sources, the sum of $15,140,333, and during the period 1922-24 the Imperial government reduced its indebtedness to this country to the extent of $141,390,156. Taking only the rate of interest paid on that amount, at 5 per cent, it would come to $7,069,507 which, together with the amount received from profits on exchange of $15,000,000 odd, would make a total of $22,209,841. I say, therefore, that this government during those

The Budget-Mr. Murphy
Further on in t!he same speech the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
We do not want to work injury to any industry. We want to help as far as possible all industries. We hope to make suoh readjustments of the tariff as will develop the industrial life of our country from one end of the country to the other.
He went on to elaborate in that speech how the tariff board he proposed to inaugurate would operate, In the Speech from the Throne we had it again promised that there would be no tinkering with the tariff, that there would be no reductions or increases in the tariff until after investigation had been made by the tariff board. This is the promise contained in the Speech:
They believe that dn ithe interest of industrial development every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty with respect to tariff changes; that changes in the tariff should be made only after the fullest examination of their bearing upon both primary and manufacturing industries and that representations requesting increase or decrease of duties should be made the subject of the most careful investigation and report by a body possessing the necessary' qualifications to advise the ministry with respect thereto.

In view of these explicit promises made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign and contained in the Speech from the Throne, and in view of the fact that the tariff board was appointed eight days prior to the presentation of the 'budget, were not all industries in this country justified in believing that no changes would be made in the customs tariff until after full investigation? No governmental supporter has yet sought to justify the action of the government in breaking its pledged word; we have had many speeches by Liberal and Progressive members, yet not one speaker has attempted to justify the stand taken by the government. Not even the chief apologists for the administration-[DOT] and I refer to the Progressive members to my left-have sought to do so, and previously during this session whenever the government was in difficulty we could always rely upon them to give their aid immediately.
A delegation came to Ottawa from the city of Oshawa. shortly after the budget had been brought down, asking that the duties on automobiles be not reduced but restored tc the old scale. The Prime Minister told the delegation that parliament would decide on the matter. That sounds very plausible, but while we are asked by the government to decide this matter, they have not submitted any facts or figures, without which we cannot reach an intelligent conclusion. Since parliament is to adjudicate on this matter the government should lay on the table all the data they have, including the reports and

expert advice the Prime Minister stated they had received. That has not been done, for the simple reason that this government wished to make a spectacular move which would gain for them a cheap popularity.
The arguments advanced by those supporting the reduction in automobile duties is that the prices charged by the makers of Canadian cars have been too high, notably in the case of the Ford car. The duty on this class of car has been reduced from 35 per cent to 20 per cent, with a corresponding reduction in price of from $15 to $45. If a reduction in price were the only consideration, the result could have been more easily attained and a much greater reduction made by simply removing the sales and excise taxes. Then an investigation could have been held by the tariff board to determine whether or not the manufacturers were using the protection accorded them to exploit the people. However, if those desiring cheaper cars do not agree with that argument and think the tariff has everything to do with the price, I would ask them to be logical. Hon. members to my left and from Saskatchewan argue that they want cars, notably the humble Ford, at the very lowest price possible. They have argued at great length that the 35 per cent duty has been simply added to the price of the car. If that is the case-which it is not, but which we will assume for the purposes of argument -if the price is the only consideration, the duty should be removed altogether, and not merely reduced. If these champions of the government, the Progressive group and the members from Saskatchewan, adhered to their expressed principles they would have forced this government to entirely remove the duty on cars. They had it in their power; this government could not have refused and continued in office, and we all know how tenaciously they cling to office. During the last ten years I have heard from many public platforms and read in many papers and pamphlets the attitude of the Progressive party on the tariff. According to their expressed beliefs the tariff policy of the country has been and is absolutely wrong and indefensible, and when opportunity offered they intended to exterminate it, root and branch. The opportunity arrived during this session; the Progressive party had it in their power to challenge the protective tariff; had they so desired they could have made the automobile duties the issue, and insisted upon their removal. The government would have had to capitulate or appeal to the people, then the issue would have been clearly joined and the people would have had an oppor-

The Budget-Mr. Murphy
tunity to pronounce their verdict as to whether this country should have a free trade or a protective policy. I was more than astonished when I heard the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) enunciate the new policy of the Progressive party, which I find at page 2618 of Hansard for this year:
We have stated our 'position in relation to the tariff and perhaps I may state it again, although not definitely. I am not going to say just how low I want the tariff, but I want a tariff low enough at all times to permit of outside competition. Such a tariff is the only safeguard which the consumers will ever have: there must be outside competition with home industries. And that is about as definite as I will be at the present moment on the tariff. Is there anything selfish in that? It is a legitimate policy and one which we are prepared to stand by. We have nailed our colours to the mast so far as the tariff is concerned and I can see nothing blameworthy in the position we take.
That policy, Mr. Speaker, is but the palest imitation of the free trade argument thundered forth from many Progressive platforms. That does not go even so far as a tariff for revenue only. The hon. member states that they have nailed their colours to the mast; I would like to say that they have changed their colours, and instead of the red flag of a fiscal revolution they have hoisted the white flag of abject surrender. Then the hon. member for Brandon in April of this year addressed the Canadian Club of Toronto, and in the Toronto Star of April 12 is reported as having said during the course of an interview :
The present Liberal government at Ottawa, in the opinion of the Progressive leader, will last this session without any difficulty. "It may last its full term," he said. "I suppose it depends on my crowd."
"After all," said Mr. Forke, "Progressives are simply Liberals in action. I believe Mr. King is a Liberal. When I say that, I mean a real Liberal."
And further on:
Mr. Forke denied the stories about wielding the big stick over Mr. King. "There's nothing in it," he said. "I think we're learning by bitter experience that Progressives can't be as independent as we should like to be.


Mr. FORKE:: I would like to ask whether the hon. member is reading from the Toronto Star.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes.


Robert Forke: I want to say emphatically
that I did not speak to a Star correspondent while in the city of Toronto.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I do not think the hon.
member will deny that he made a speech before the Canadian Club of Toronto; it is just possible that the Star reporter was present and it is also possible that the hon. member was interviewed by the reporter without being aware of the fact.


REVISED
Robert Forke: No, I am not so dense as
that.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have not heard the hon. member deny that those are his statements He has said that he was not interviewed by a Star reporter, but he has not denied the sentiments expressed in this report. In any case, judging from the actions of the hon. gentleman in this House, we know that this clearly expresses his attitude. Further, the newspaper report credited Mr. Forke with the statement that the Progressives were learning by bitter experience that they could not be as independent as they would like to be. I can readily understand those sentiments, because during the campaign of 1925 there was no Liberal candidate in the riding of Brandon which the hon. gentleman represents. A man was nominated to carry the Liberal colours in Brandon, a man who had been Premier of Manitoba and who should have been accorded the right to carry the Liberal standard in that constituency; but for some reason or other he was taken away from there and ran in South Winnipeg.
I can readily understand, therefore, the tender feeling with which the hon. member for Brandon would regard the continuation of the King administration. It surely cannot be that the members of the Progressive party are afraid to place the issue squarely before the Canadian people, that they have not the courage of their convictions, but prefer to barter with a weak government for a reduction of the tariff because of the unique position they occupy in this House. Surely they are not afraid to let the people of Canada decide the issue. If they do fear a decision by that tribunal then their attitude is a most selfish and sectional one and constitutes the gravest violation of the principles of true democracy as it substitutes minority rule for rule by the majority.
We have wasted hours and days of valuable time in useless argument regarding the duty on automobiles. This discussion might as well have taken place on the duty on boots and shoes, on the duty on clothing, or on hundreds of other articles in our tariff schedule. To me it seems the very height of absurdity for this House to waste its time and its energy in arguing whether the rate of duty should be thirty-five per cent, twenty-seven and a half per cent, or any other rate, until the principle of our fiscal policy has been definitely adopted. There can be no compromise between the doctrines of protection and free trade; either the one or the other must be chosen as the fiscal policy for Canada; and while we have, and have had since 1878, a protective fiscal policy


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Murphy
it is being improperly applied to-day owing to the uncertain course of this administration, with its attendant evils of instability and lack of confidence. Is it not about time that the members of the major groups in this House, who believe in protection, should cease their futile arguments over tariff rates, leaving such questions to be worked out on a scientific basis by the tariff board. The days that have been wasted over these details should have been devoted to an intelligent study of our pressing national problems such as transportation, emigration and immigration, the conservation of our natural resources, and the manufacture of our raw products into finished articles in Canada. I wish to make my position clear on this matter, and beg to state that, while I am a believer in a national protective policy for Canada, I hold no brief for the automobile or any other manufacturing industry, and when it is shown after proper investigation by an impartial tribunal such as the tariff board that unfair advantage is taken of the tariff by a manufacturer to make undue profits or to charge excessive prices for commodities, I will lend my efforts to remove or reduce that tariff; or if better means can be devised to take from that particular industry its ill-gotten gains, I will support such a policy.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), when speaking a few days ago, made a few kind remarks in regard to certain members including myself. At page 2948 of Hansard he is reported to have made the following statement:
I want to point out, especially for the benefit of the hon. member for Marquette, the hon. member for Neepaiwa (Mr. Murphy), and the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hay), that in my election campaign I was o-piposed by a Conservative. He announced his policy and said that if he got into parliament he would stand for the reduction of the duty on autos. He declared, "That is our policy, that is what we will do."
I do not know what the Conservative candidate said during the election campaign in Lisgar, as to that I am prepared of course to accept the statement of the hon. member, but I can clearly state what I told the electors in my own constituency, and that was that I stood clearly for the protective policy as enunciated by my leader. Further on the same hon. gentleman is reported as saying:
On the question of the reduction of the duty on automobiles, I think I am safe in asserting that it will meet with the approval of the people of Manitoba, and I would just like to say for the benefit of my hon. friends that as I took good care that the people were not deceived at the last election, so we will take good care if we have to deal with the matter again [Mr. Murphy.J
to see .that the situation is correctly presented to the people and that hon. members will not be able to escape on a technicality.
It is indeed refreshing to find a man who is so honest that he feels it incumbent upon him to tell the p'eople of Manitoba just what the hon. members for Marquette, Springfield and Neepawa did when they were down at Ottawa. It is too bad that the hon. gentleman did not live in the time of Diogenes, or in biblical times. He might then well have exclaimed with the Pharisee: "O'Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other men are."
Further on in the same speech the hon. gentleman said:
But since the welfare of the country demands that the budget be supported, I naturally hope they will have regard to the national welfare and support the budget, as I intend to.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have great regard for the national welfare. I have such regard for it that I believe that consideration for the national honour comes first, and that the pledge of the Prime Minister to the people of this country should be kept. Furthermore I have this to say: I hope that when the hon, member for Lisgar goes back and explains to the people in Manitoba how he and other Progressive members from that province voted on the budget, he will explain to them why he supported the budget after having committed himself to the policy announced in the Speech from the Throne that all matters in relation to the duty on automobiles, or any other article, should be referred to the Tariff Advisory Boafd. I also hope that the hon. gentleman will explain that he was as careful in this House to be as independent of the Liberal party as of the Conservative party. A policy of independence was the policy enunciated by the Progressives in Manitoba during the last campaign. They were to be as independent of the Liberal party as they were of the Conservative party; they intended to have no truck or trade with either. They insisted that all legislation should be settled on the floor of the House, and that there should be no party caucus behind closed doors. I believe the Progressive members do not meet in caucus but in what they call "conference".
Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: In committee.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I hope the hon. gentleman when he makes the promised explanation will enlighten his constituents with respect to all these other matters at the same time.
Since I came to this House I have heard a great deal about the prosperity which is alleged to prevail in this country. Certain

Private Bills
figures have been quoted by hon. gentlemen opposite to substantiate that view, and they have always quoted figures showing the increase in the deposits in the savings banks, in the amount of life insurance, and so on. But never yet have I heard any Progressive member, or any farmer member, take the position that prosperity exists in the great industry of agriculture. We know such has not been the case in the west during the last four or five years. No, the reverse of that is true, in fact the farmers there were getting rather desperate with regard to the conditions which prevailed. And what was the remedy they were advised to adopt? It was that they should change their methods and adopt diversified farming. A great many farmers have done that. They increased, for example, their stock of dairy cattle, and commenced to produce cream and butter. But having done that, what treatment did they receive from the Dominion government? They were allowed to suffer from the most unfair rate in the tariff schedules. We have heard members of the Progressive party argue in this House that the farmers of the United States who were instrumental in having the Fordney-McCumber tariff put into effect now want the American duties lowered. May I ask whether any representations have been made by the United States farmers to secure a lowering of the forty-two cent rate of duty on wheat? Have they petitioned the United States government to lower the duty on cattle so that Canadian live stock could enter the large markets of the United States at Chicago and other large centres? No, they have not done anything of the kind. The farmers of the United States are so anxious to have the duties reduced that only a few weeks ago they procured an increase in the tariff on butter from eight to twelve cents per pound.
Not only were the farmers of the west subject to such unfair tariff schedules .as were then in existence, but this government saw fit to make' a trade agreement with Australia, and it has been argued that this competition is not detrimental to the Canadian producer. I always like to get my information first hand. I wrote to one of the creameries in my constituency, and I received the reply on April 16, in which the manager stated that the price of butter in that district, owing to the Australian competition, had been reduced four cents a pound during the last ten days.


William Richard Motherwell: What date was that?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I received the letter on
April 16 last.


William Richard Motherwell: The price of butter always drops at that date.


James Dew Chaplin: I guess the cows go on the grass.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I would call the attention
of the government to the following resolution which was passed on February 13, by the dairymen of Manitoba. I do not know whether the price of butter always drops at that time of the year or not-possibly the Minister of Agriculture can tell us.


William Richard Motherwell: It is going up at that time.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Apparently they thought
it had some effect then. The resolution reads:
Resolved that this association request the National Dairy Council of Canada to appoint at the 1926 annual meeting of the council a committee to wait upon the federal government at as early a date as possible to urge adjustment of the Australian trade treaty in so far as it affects dairy products.
And about the same time, on February 9, the Free Press in an editorial stated:
It is undeniable however that the Canadian farmers pay for this enlargement of markets for Canadian goods in Australia by having to face competition in our winter season of dairy and meat products in Australia.


William Richard Motherwell: The price is going
up.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Friday, May 14, 1926