1926-05-14

SEALRIGHT COMPANY PATENT

Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved:: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the first report of the select standing committee on Standing Orders, May 11, the petition of the Sealright Company Incorporated, presented May 4, praying for an act to extend the time for payment of fees on a certain patent owned by the said company be now read and received.
He said: I may say that the motion was made covering some of the patents but for some reason or other this one was overlooked.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98 (from the Senate), for the relief of Joseph Robert Crow.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 99 (from the Senate), for the relief of Stanley Bennett.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Civil Service Superannuation
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 100 (from the Senate), for the relief of Katherine Landon Foley.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 101 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edith Annie Say.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 102 (from the Senate), for the relief *of Isabella Stewart Carmichael Wilson.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 103 (from the Senate), for the relief of May Maud Mary Johnson.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 104 (from the Senate), for the relief of Roland George Wickens.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 105 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marjorie Durham Morgan.-Hon. Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 106 (from the Senate), for the relief of Amber May Wolfenden.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 107 (from the Senate), for the relief of Enda Beatrice Burley.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 108 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bessie Hyde Lanyon Calhoun.-Mr. Donaghy.
Bill No. 109 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bleecker Foy Maidens.-Mr. Peck.
Bill No. 110 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Almon Wickett.-Mr. Peck.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I should like to ask, now that we have all the papers, I think, in connection with the Rouyn Railway Bill, with the exception of the agreement with the province of Quebec, that agreement having been completed and appropriate legislation passed, if the government will forthwith table the agreement with the legislation.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING *(Prime Minister): The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) is not in his seat just now, *but I will direct his attention to the question -of my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), brought down the information, I think he was Acting Minister of Railways. It would be easy for him to supplement the information by bringing down the agreement.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I would like to ask the government if any

action is contemplated to extend beyond July 19, 1926, the time for making application to come under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act of 1924. My reason for asking this question is that quite a large number of employees of the government, for instance in the Taxation branch, have not as yet been brought under the Civil Service Act as permanent employees, and therefore have had no opportunity or right to apply to come under this Superannuation Act. Perhaps I cannot expect an answer to-day, but I should be glad if the government would consider the matter and intimate in a day or two whether the act can be extended for another year in order to afford an opportunity for the adjustment of some of these outstanding difficulties, and particularly to permit some of these employees, some of whom in the Taxation branch have been in the service for nearly ten years and who are not yet classified as civil servants, to apply to come under the Superannuation Act.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: As my hon. friend knows, the legislation creating the Taxation branch was introduced by a previous government and it was they who left the employees of that branch outside of the regular civil service. I make that observation in passing. I suppose that is why they have not come in as permanent civil servants.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon.
friend just found that out to-day?


James Alexander Robb: No; I am just making that
observation. As regards the question whether the act should be extended for another year, some applications have come in from different sources. It is pointed out by the actuaries that all this means an addition to the expense of carrying out the legislation and the matter requires a good deal of study. I will suhmit my hon. friend's question to the actuaries and I shall be in a better position to answer him in a few days.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski):: I should like to support the contention of the hon. member.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Only questions can be put on the orders of the day.


Eugène Fiset: I should like to
know what is going to be done.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was going .to offer a
slight correction if the minister will permit me, namely, that some of the employees to whom I refer were appointed when the income tax legislation was first introduced which would be before the passing of the Civil Service Act. I merely offer that in correction of part of my hon. friend's statement.

The Budget-Mr. Murphy


Eugène Fiset: What applies to
employees of the Taxation branch applies also to a certain number of employees of the Department of Marine and Fisheries who are in the outside service, and who have not yet been classified by the Civil Service Commission. They have not yet had an opportunity of electing to come under t'he present Superannuation Act. I shall be obliged if the government will give due consideration to the observations of my hon. friend.
RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: I should like to draw the attention of the government to this telegram which I have just received from the Railway Mail Clerk's Association of Vancouver:.
Strong objections voiced meeting railway mail clerks re action Post Office Department Te adjusting runs this division necessitating removal forty-nine men and families. Please use influence to have department reconsider their action which means domestic and financial losses.
I would ask that this telegram be drawn to the attention of the Postmaster General and *that the matter be reconsidered as it affects a large number of families.
IMPORTATIONS OF WOOL On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to call the attention of the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce to this Canadian Press despatch from Truro, Nova Scotia under date of May 11:
Stanfield's mills here, employing hundreds of people in the manufacture of underwear and other wool products, shut down to-night as result of the strike in Great Britain, which cut off the supply of raw material. Wool supplies for this mill were secured in England and the cessation of export due to the strike was given as the cause of the shut down.
Since protection seems to be desired by a large number of members in this House, has the minister considered the advisability of protecting the Canadian farmer against the importation of British wool?
PROPOSED NEW LINE TO PACIFIC On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. DeWITT FOSTER (Hants-Kings): In the absence of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), .may I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to this article appearing in the Canadian Gazette of London, and upon which I desire to found a question:
Proposed New Line to Pacific Coast The Winnipeg correspondent of the Daily Mail states: "The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is planning
a mew line to the Pacific coast from Winnipeg. The proposal is that the Canadian Pacific branch line which is now being built in a north-westerly direction from the present rail end at Cutknife, Saskatchewan, is to be extended to tap the Edmonton-Dunvegan line at a point north of Edmonton, Alberta.
"This line, at present leased by the Canadian Pacific from the Alberta Government, is to be included in the Canadian Pacific system. The present E.D. and B.C. line ds to be extended southerly to tap the Canadian National at Prince George, B.C. The Canadian Pacific is then to purchase the former G.T.P. line from Prince George to Prince Rupert, B.C., now part of the Canadian National system, thus completing the new Pacific coast outlet for the Canadian Pacific.
Have representations been made by the Canadian Pacific looking for the acquisition of that line?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I regret I am not in a
position to say, but I will ask my colleague the Minister of Railways to give my hon. friend a reply when he is here on Monday.



CONNAUGHT PLACE-ENLARGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:	.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: When does the Minister of Public Works expect to be able to explain to the House the plans of the government in regard to the block of land which it is reported the government have expropriated in this city?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: I imagine there will be an opportunity of going into the matter when we are dealing with the estimates which I hope wlil come up shortly.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 12, 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. T. G. MURPHY (Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose on Wednesday I was endeavouring to show that the Australian and New Zealand trade agreements are subjecting producers of dairy products to unnecessary and unfair competition. I 'had shown by information that I had received from a local creamery in my constituency that the price of butter had been reduced four cents a pound this spring owing to the competition of Australian butter. I obtained from the Bureau of Statistics the importations of butter
The Budget-Mr. Murphy

into Canada for the period from October 1,
1924	to March 31, 1925 and from October 1,
1925	to March 31, 1926. I book those periods because the trade treaty with Australia came into effect on October 1, 1925. The following are the importations of butter for those periods:
October 1, 1924, to October 1, 1925, to March 31, 1925	March31,1926
Pounds Value Pounds Value
From Australia-
Butter	 Nill	N-ill 2,485,502 $910,814
From New Zealand-
Butter	 2,688	$833 2,342,966 $928,345
When we compare these respective periods, therefore, we find that whereas we have imported from Australia and New Zealand butter to the total value of $1,839,159 during the time the treaty has been in effect, our imports amounted on the other hand only to the sum of $833 when there was no treaty. During the month of March of this year I happened to see in a window of one of the retail produce concerns in the city of Ottawa ,a display of Australian butter. I went in and made certain inquiries and learned that at that time this particular concern was selling between 300 and 400 pounds of dairy butter per week, and not only had they at that time no local butter in stock but for the three weeks prior to that they had not sold one pound of the Canadian product. And that store was only one of a chain of some fourteen shops owned by that concern. At the same time the three prairie provinces were exporting dairy butter as western Canada has overtaken production and is on an export basis twelve months in the year. I do not see why any government should subject the producers of butter in western Canada to such competition. They have to export their butter over thousands of miles of railway and then across the Atlantic to the markets of Great Britain while the people of Ontario cities are purchasing butter produced in Australia.
I want to deal for a few minutes now with the situation as it has developed in the province of Manitoba. Until now Manitoba has been almost entirely an agricultural province, but we shall not always remain a purely farming community. As a matter of fact the change is taking place to-day. Three-fifths of the land area of Manitoba is unsuitable for agricultural development. Up to the present we have depended entirely upon the growing of grain, but to-day the people of the province are beginning to realize the importance of development along other lines. There is now being built in Manitoba at Fort Alexander a pulp mill which, when

completed, will have an output of 100 tons of pulp per day. During the last session of the legislature railway bonds to the extent of $3,500,000 were guaranteed by the provincial government for the building of a railway from Mile 8 on the Hudson Bay line to the Flin Flon mine, the guarantee to become effective only when the Flin Flon people expend thirteen or fourteen million dollars on development work in that area. The legislature has also guaranteed bonds for a railway from Winnipeg into the Bice lake mining area. The people of the province are coming more and more to appreciate the importance of general development along various industrial lines. The province, as I have said before, will not always depend solely upon one industry, the growing of grain. To become prosperous we mugt not only diversify our farming but we must branch out into other industrial activities. We have in Manitoba a water power capable of very considerable development. Indeed, competent engineers have expressed the opinion that there is as much potential hydro electric power available on the Nelson river, flowing into Hudson bay, as has been developed on the Niagara, and wre have in Winnipeg the cheapest hydro-electric power to be found on the American continent.
With the resources latent in the province of Manitoba, including pulpwood and minerals, and with the electrical power available there is no reason why our province should not become one of the greatest manufacturing centres of this Dominion. We can manufacture in Winnipeg and in Manitoba generally, we should manufacture the agricultural implements needed in the province and other parts of the west and we have also the facilities for manufacturing our own boots and shoes, our own clothing and other necessities. It is because the people of the province have wakened to the necessity for general industrial development that, in my opinion, there are in this House seven Conservative members from Manitoba whereas in the last parliament there were none. The development of the province along one line is not in the best interests of the people of Manitoba any more than it would be in the interests of the Dominion as a whole if the activities of the people were centred in one industry. A few years ago we bent our efforts to the development of one industry, namely, the growing of grain and as a result of that one-sided development the people of the province suffered whenever there happened to be a poor crop. The greatest handicap under which we have suffered in

The Budget-Mr. Murphy
the past, and from which as a matter of fact we are suffering to-day, has been that restricted policy which has been the means of driving hundreds and thousands of our young men away from the province. Many of the sons of our farmers in Manitoba, on reaching the age of discretion, decided that they did not want to become farmers. Some of them entered the learned professions and some of them took advantage of the technical school in Winnipeg to fit themselves for an engineering career. With what result? When they had received their education and had graduated they found that there was no opportunity for them to apply their talents in their own country. From my own town of Neepawa many young men, after obtaining scholarships in our educational institutions, have drifted away. I do not know of one of those young men who . took the engineering course in Manitoba who is to-day in employment in Canada. They have all migrated to the United States. I am sure the same is true of other parts of the province.
Not only do we need the establishment and development of new industries in Manitoba, but we require also, for the greatest success, the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. I do not intend to deal at any length with this subject nor, to dwell upon the circumstances whereby this road has been left in its incomplete state, having been built within ninety miles or so of its terminus. Every government, leader and parliament since 1881 have committed themselves to the building of this road. In 1881 charters were granted by the government of Sir John A Macdonald to two companies for the undertaking and in 1884 the same government made a land grant of 6,400 acres per mile in Manitoba and 12,800 acres per mile in what was then the Northwest Territories, to insure the building of the Hudson Bay railway. As a result of that policy the road was built up to the present site of the town of the Pas.
I was interested in reading in the Ottawa Journal of May 11 of the present year, an editorial on the Hudson Bay railway. I shall not read the whole of the article, but I shall quote certain facts which the writer thought he had deduced from a debate which had taken place in the Senate this year:
Fact No. One: That lands sold in the west under the legislation of 1908 had no relation whatever to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway.
Fact No. Two: That these lands would have been sold had the Hudson Bay railway never been mentioned.
Fact No. Three: That none of the lands sold was in the Hudson bay area.
Fact No. Four: That, consequently, the whole of the $21,000,000 thus far spent upon the Hudson Bay railway has come out of ordinary national revenue, i.e. the taxpayer of the country.
At this point I should like to pay a compliment to the two daily papers published in the city of Ottawa. I have read them very carefully ever since my arrival in the capital in January, and I really think they are two very high class journals, but on the subject of the Hudson Bay railway the Ottawa Journal seems to suffer from a kind of mental hydrophobia. About the year 1896 or 1897, Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, a firm of railway contractors, undertook to build a railway from Gladstone, Manitoba, to Dauphin. At the same time they purchased from Mr. Sutherland who had obtained a charter in 1881 for the building of the Hudson bay road, a controlling interest in the South Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company. When the line was built as far as Winnipegosis, Mackenzie & Mann continued westerly into the province of Saskatchewan rather than on to Hudson bay. In 1905, upon the creation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the demand became insistent for the completion of the Hudson Bay road. And the Hon. Frank Oliver, the then Minister of the Interior, on behalf of the government entered into an agreement with Mackenzie & Mann under the terms of which they relinquished the Hudson Bay charter and undertook to build a line from a point on the Dauphin and Prince Albert line to the Saskatchewan river, the government undertaking to sell sufficient homestead and preemption lands to provide for the completion of the road to the bay. As a result of that policy Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann built from a point on the Dauphin and Prince Albert line to the site of the present town of The Pas.
I have said that the government of the day entered into a contract with Mackenzie & Mann in 1905 by which the firm relinquished their charter. In 1908 the federal government caused an amendment to the Dominion Lands Act to be passed. On that occasion Hon. Frank Oliver said he found incongruities in the act which made the administration difficult. He also stated, as one reason why he wanted these amendments made to the act, that it was not the policy of the Laurier government to make grants of land towards the building of railways. In that connection I would refer to the debates of 1908, ag reported in volume 6 of Hansard. At page 11130 of that volume I find Mr. Oliver reported as saying:
Therefore, it is a plain proposition. There is, as it were, a (mortgage standing against the lands of the
The Budget-Mr. Murphy

northwest in respect to aid to a railway to Hudson bay. The necessity of such an outlet is greater than ever before and is more impressed on the minds of the people than ever before. Therefore in wiping out the mortgage upon the lands on behalf of a railway to Hudson bay, if we undertook to do as we propose in this act, it is necessary that we should place something in its stead, and that is the proposition that I desire to lay before the House.
Then further on the the same page:
That is to say, in regard to certain sections to allow the 'homesteader to buy an adjoining quarter section at a fixed price under settlement conditions. We believed that by the revival of this privilege we would create a new source of revenue to the Dominion treasury that would be adequate to meet the responsibilities which would have to be assumed by the construction of a railway to the bay.
And again, on page 11135, he is reported as saying:
There was no suggestion of restriction of the area to which the bill of last year applied.
Mr. Oliver had introduced amendments the year before but they had not been adopted; they were dropped.
My if ear was that a question might have been raised as to whether the provision /was adequate or not. What I had in view was to place before parliament a proposition that should put beyond question the fact that we bad adequately provided assistance from an entirely new source of revenue to enable the Hudson Bay railway to be built.
And again on page 11138:
The point we have din view in regard to this preemption matter is that there shall be a railway built to Hudson bay. If we can get a railway built to Hudson bay without any pre-emption provision at all then I am not insisting upon the pre-emption provision. But I am insisting upon the pre-emption provision as a means of ensuring the early building of a railway to Hudson bay.
And again at page 11150, in answer to a question, Mr. Oliver said:
We do not propose that the building of the railway Shall await ithe sale of 5,000,000 acres of this land, but we want to be able to say to the people of the country that if we find it necessary to pledge the credit of the country to an extent to raise sufficient money to aid in the building of the Hudson Bay railway, here is a new source of revenue that will relieve them of the burden of the responsibility they thus undertake.
I think, Mr. Speaker, from the evidence I have submitted, that the statements of the Ottawa Journal in the editorial in question are not facts but fiction. Now, from the year 1908 onward successive governments have recognized that the moneys derived from the sale of these lands were to be expended for the completion of the Hudson Bay road. The people of the west purchased lands on that definite understanding, and to-day there is a contractual obligation resting on the federal government to keep faith with these purchasers.

In answer to certain questions which I put on the order paper earlier in the session I obtained information to the following effect. Under the provisions of the act of 1908, as amended, there were 14,085,880 acres sold, of a value of approximately $42,257,640. Of that amount $19,837,288 have been collected, and there is still owing the sum of $7,300,000. leaving a total to the credit of the fund of $27,137,288. Of that amount $14,944,870 was expended up to February 28 of the present year, so that there is still a sum of $12,192,418 to the credit of the fund. I have said that the total amount collected was $19,837,288. Of this amount the sum of $14,944,870 has been spent,. leaving a cash credit ol $4,892,418. From the very first there has been determined opposition in certain quarters to the completion of the road and now that the completion is likely to be carried out, the opponents of the project are trying to reopen the question of the relative merits of Churchill and Nelson as a terminal. The port of Nelson was chosen as the terminal by two successive governments, after full investigation and report by competent engineers. Over $6,000,000 has been spent on the development of Port Nelson up to the present, and knowing these facts supporters of the road realize that a red herring is being drawn across the trail. But Mr. Speaker, we refuse to be drawn aside; we think there have been enough investigations during the last forty years, and that the time for action has now arrived.
The Conservative members from the wesi are frequently slightingly spoken of in this House as representing minorities. For the three prairie provinces, which may be taken as an economic unit, I would like to submit that the Conservative members do not represent minorities. I find that in these provinces during the last election there were oast for Conservative candidates 171,263 votes; for the Liberals 161,114 and for the Progressives 159,042. To elect each of the ten Conservatives from the prairie provinces it took 17,126 votes; for each Liberal 8,056, and for each Progressive 7,229. If the Conservatives were represented in this House according to the number of votes cast we would have at least twenty me-mbers instead of the ten we now have. I speak of this, Mr. 'Speaker, for the simple reason that the Progressives arrogate unto themselves the right to voice in this House the sentiments of the west, and I claim that the twenty-two Progressives, who represent only 116,114 votes do not express the feelings of the people of the prairie provinces any more than do the ten Conservatives, representing 171,263 votes.

The Budget-Mr. Verville
The Progressive movement is not as strong and flourishing as it was a few short years ago. There is published in the west a paper called the Grain Growers' Guide, sometimes known as the Progressives' Bible. During some preceding years the subscription price has been $2 a year, $1 of which went to pay for the paper, the other dollar being the membership fee in the farmers' local. But so badly have the Progressives fallen off-


Mr. FORKE:: I do not wish to let that
statement pass, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member must know that he is not stating the fact. I have taken the Grain Growers' Guide for a good many years-


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Is the hon. gentleman
asking a question?


Robert Forke: Did I understand my hon.
friend to say that SI paid for membership in the United Farmers, and SI went to the paper?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That is my information.


Robert Forke: The hon. member is mistaken.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I think I am absolutely
correct. That may not apply to a certain year" which the hon. member has in mind, but I am sure that the facts have been as I have stated for at least some years. I have in my hand a notice from the Grain Growers' Guide, which says:
Great bargain! Guide subscription rate is now 41 for three years.
The Progressive party have fallen on such hard times in the west that they have had to make bargain rates for the organ which is supposed to represent Progressive opinion.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make my position clear regarding the fiscal policy of the Conservative party. As I understand it the aim of the Conservative fiscal policy is to manufacture Canadian raw .products in Canada; to stimulate the development of Canadian resources by the Canadian people; to develop industries of the right nature; a policy which will provide employment for Canadian workmen and provide traffic for our railways; a policy which will keep Canadians in Canada and attract other people to our shores; a policy which will accomplish all these results without exploitation of the people and which will restore confidence by placing our tariff on an adequate, scientific, and above all a stable basis. If Canada is always to remain a country of magnificent distances with a sparse population fringing its borders; a nation of producers of primary products, then the policy which aims at free trade is the right one.
But I believe Canada has a greater destiny before her, and that the proper way to make our country as far as possible a self-sufficient nation is lay means of a national protective policy.


Mr. J. A. VERVILLE (Lotbiniere) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty
to take part in the debate which has been going on in this House for several days concerning what we have agreed to call the budget.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in joining my congratulations to those, most flattering and most sincere, which you have already received since the beginning of the session, on the great honour which has come to you and of which we are all proud.
You will find it quite natural for a beginner to crave your indulgence should my inexperience cause me to commit some faux pas, which will undoubtedly happen despite my best efforts to prevent it. Not having the advantage of sufficient fluency in the English tongue to permit of my speaking here the language of the very great majority of the members of this parliament, I do not feel called upon, however, to make excuses, since both languages are official and since I am convinced moreover, being true to my race, of the rights and the beauties of the tongue I speak. Allow me, in passing, to congratulate most sincerely the hon. member for Northeast Toronto (Mr. Baker) on the splendid example he gave his fellow countrymen, and mine, the other day, when he spoke French in this House.	.
I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of discussing in detail the Speech from the Throne, nor, especially, the very able and very sincere budget speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on April 15th. I merely wish to offer a few comments on certain questions which may interest the voters of my riding as also the voters of the district where I have the pleasure and the advantage of residing. Following the example set by several speakers since the opening of the session I take pleasure in acquainting you a little with the feelings and the needs of my constituents.
I shall not hide from you, Mr. Speaker, that the voters of the county of Lotbiniere, which I have the honour to represent in this House, are very well pleased with the economic situation this government has placed them in. I represent a farming district where industries are few and far between. In certain parishes of course one will find small industrial establishments due to the initiative and energy of enterprising individuals; these
The Budget-Mr. Verville

establishments deserve to survive, and deserve all the encouragement the federal government can give them. But those who are at the head of them are workers who do not rely solely on legislation and tariff increases to succeed in business; but who rely chiefly on their own initiative and on the industry of their workmen.
As regards the farmers, who make up the large majority in the constituency I represent, they have felt, and still feel, the terrible crisis which followed the war. They are the ones who need protection, but that kind of protection which, while favouring them, will work no harm to the other classes of the community. To my mind the best protection the present administration could offer the agricultural class would be to afford them easier access to the markets of the world for the sale of their produce. Our farmers do not fear competition; they would rather have access to the markets than keep their produce at home so as to avoid competition.
When the election was being fought last fall I had the advantage,-if it might be called an advantage-of being present at a large Conservative rally; and it amused me to hear distinguished speakers, with magnificent voice and gesture, their arms spread as though on a cross, their eyes lifted skywards, tell us that things looked very dark in the homes of our farmers, that even bread was getting scarce and that those who wished to avoid death by starvation had no choice but to nail boards over the windows of their homes and to leave Canada for the States. And the Liberal party was held responsible for all this. The result of the election shows that our good farmers are intelligent enough to judge their situation for themselves and that they laugh at calamity howlers just like the citizens of the province of Quebec laughed at Mr. Patenaude. At all events the situation of the farmers in my county, and I have reason to believe that the same thing is true elsewhere, has improved considerably within the last few years. And I claim that this is due in great measure to the wise administration of the present government during the last five years. One is inclined to wonder if Providence is not on the side of the Liberal party for whenever that party takes over the administration of public affairs conditions improve and the country prospers; while the facts prove that exactly the opposite happens each time the Conservative party is at the helm. I am loath to acquire a reputation as an overzealous partisan for speaking thus frankly; but I have always said what I thought and I do not wish to lose this habit

in the House. Besides, the facts are there to prove the truth of what I say; and if we discard the red or blue cloths which blindfold us we must admit that these things are true. At any rate the voters I have had the pleasure ^ of meeting since the beginning of the session are pleased with the present government and congratulate the Liberal party for having stayed in power and thus ensured the prosperity of the country. Since the Finance Minister brought down his budget the people have been rejoicing; my constituents, like everybody else, have expressed their deep satisfaction at all the good financial tidings contained in the budget speech.
The government is surely deserving of our most hearty congratulations for their excellent work and the marvels accomplished. After five years of administration, having found public affairs in a terrible mess, confronted with the complete disorganization which followed the war, and despite the acute crisis which has been felt for several years, the government is able to announce to the country a not inconsiderable surplus and moreover its determination to lift some $25,000,000 of taxes off the shoulders of the Canadian taxpayer. I fully appreciate that there is no putting an end to politics; nevertheless one must recognize facts and call things by their right names. For my part, and I believe I speak for the great majority of my constituents, the present government deserves our congratulations for all the excellent measures they have brought to our attention and I consider it a duty to offer them mine.
Since the opening of the session it has been essential that we should discuss each day and every day Maritime rights, western rights, and the rights of other provinces. You will bear witness, Mr. Speaker, that we have not tired the House with the question of the rights of the province of Quebec. I would not wish to revive the old problem of provincial rights; and if I mention the matter it is merely because I wish to explain my own attitude; I believe in giving to each province, as to the representatives of every county, the greatest possible measure of justice, with absolute impartiality, but with firmness. I understand that certain needs are felt in each riding, and I shall tell you nothing new when I say that Lotbiniere county has needs of its own. There is one problem in particular which interests my county and the neighbouring counties on the south shore.
Since 1922 my predecessor in this House has striven to have a proper roadway afforded to vehicular traffic on the Quebec bridge.

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
A detailed report on this question must have been forwarded to the hon. Minister of Railways.
Let me draw your attention to the following fact:	Resolutions asking for the construction of a road for vehicles on the Quebec bridge were adopted by the county councils of Lotbiniere and Levis and the municipal councils of almost every parish of my riding and addressed to the Department of Railways and Canals. Owing to the enormous and ever-increasing traffic of visitors in that part of the province, in summer, and to the very important traffic of the people of my riding and of the two adjacent counties and the city of Quebec, the construction of that road for vehicles on the Quebec bridge is now a necessity. The present government would indeed earn the gratitude of the voters of Lotbiniere were they to start work on this improvement without delay. A minute ago, I said that this improvement is now a necessity and I will add that an inquiry that was conducted has proven the idea to be a practical one. The engineers of the National railways are of the opinion, I am told, that there is in the centre of the bridge plenty of room for the construction of such a road and that the approaches and the floor of the bridge could be so arranged as in no way to interfere with the railways. As you know, in recent years, commissions have been flourishing and if I had my way, I would follow the suggestion that was made before and I would appoint a commission that we could call "the Quebec bridge highway commission." which would be authorized to undertake the work for the project I am putting before the House now. It will be said, I suppose, by certain parties, that at a time when the government are trying to balance the budget, it would not be fair to undertake such a work that may necessitate a large expenditure. I may answer that the country is well able to spend to-day half a million dollars which is the amount required for this work. I will say more: I believe that the Federal government could easily come to an understanding with the provincial government and the Quebec city council and share with those two bodies the cost of the enterprise.
I respectfully submit those facts to the government and hope that they will give them their best attention. There cannot be any [DOT] politics or patronage in connection with the building of this road, its construction is in the public interest and is a public utility; everybody would profit by the road and be glad to have it.
Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin) for the good move he made last week when he insisted on the use of bilingual postage stamps. I wholly agree with him and I am glad to see that there are yet in this House well advised people who wish to preserve for the province of Quebec and its inhabitants of French descent their full rights. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will always remember in all the measures that come before the House, as in the different departments of the government, that in the province of Quebec French Canadian citizens have rights equal to those of the citizens of the Maritime provinces, or of the prairie provinces or any other provinces as well and 'that those Quebec citizens are always respectful of the rights of others in the different parts of the country, but do not want others to abuse their generosity; they want others to remember that in this country the French Canadians are the pioneers unwilling to trespass on the rights of others and at the same time intent on safeguarding their own rights.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr
Speaker, at this stage of the budget debate it is appropriate that addresses should be as short and as pointed as circumstances will permit. I therefore propose to take a very brief portion of the time of the House this afternoon in dealing with some of the matters that are presented by the budget. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Verville) will pardon me if I do not deal directly with his address. I shall have to await the translation of it, but I assure him that I shall do him the honour to read it when the translation is available. It did not sound to me like the speech of a free trader, and I am going to assume that, like many of the other representatives of his province, he is a protectionist, and perhaps therefore we have very much -in common and there would not be very much to criticize in his speech.
There have been, Mr. Speaker, several descriptions of this budget. It has been described as a popular budget. No doubt it was intended to be such, but popularity is as a rule of short life, particularly in matters political, and this budget is not, I think, as popular as it was on the day on which it was delivered. It has also been called the people's budget. I remember in connection with one budget-I think it was the first one delivered by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb)-one hon. member of this House described it as a juggler's budget. That wa3 because of the fact that the figures were rather difficult to understand, rather difficult to analyze, and perhaps did not really disclose clearly the actual state of affairs. I think it

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
was an appropriate description of that particular budget. I would describe this budget as one of insincerity and inconsistency. I say insincere, because of the manner in which the tax reductions in this budget are mentioned and dealt with. A great deal of credit is claimed for a reduction of taxation, and we are always pleased to note anything of that character, but M|r. Speaker, I think it would only have been fair and proper for the Finance Minister to point out that several of these taxes that have been reduced by this government were first put on by this government, and others that have been reduced were increased by this government.
Then in connection with the income tax reduction, which is, as I have said, very welcome, it comes only about two years too late. On this side of the House we have been pressing for it for the la^t two or three years, in pointing out the disparity between the taxation in Canada and the taxation in the United States, much to the disadvantage of Canada, in respect of its capital and of its industry.
The sales tax was, as hon. members know, increased by this government from 3 to 6 per cent, and subsequently reduced to 5 per cent. The stamp tax on cheques was very materially increased by this government, and remains as it was. An entirely new tax was put upon receipts. That has now been taken off, and is being claimed as an achievement.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when all this is taken into consideration, no real or substantial credit is due to this government in connection with the reduction of taxation which was, in the first instance, imposed or increased by this government.
I say this budget is inconsistent because it violates the clear, definite, positive pledges given by this government prior to the last election, and subsequent to it in the Speech from the Throne, in which it was stated definitely that tariff changes would be the subject of investigation by an expert commission before any reductions were made. The reduction in income tax gives rise to some speculation or comment as to the attitude of our Progressive friends. In the last parliament they were strongly in favour of this tax and loud in their protestations against any reduction in it. We have not heard in this debate one word of criticism from that section of the House in connection with the reduction in the income tax, and we wonder why this is the case. We wonder if a trade has been made, and if they have withheld criticism from the reduction in the income tax because of the concessions they are getting in respect of the reduction in taxation

on automobiles. It is a matter for speculation, a matter for fair inference. Possibly before the debate is closed we may have some explanation of it.
While there is a reduction of taxation in this budget, there is no considerable relief for business nor any real stimulus to industry. What is vitally needed is a sweeping reduction of sales taxes and of super taxes on income in order that capital may be set free for the expansion of industrial enterprises and for projects of national development. As necessary is a revision of the tariff that will check destructive American competition with Canadian farm and factory products, give greater security to certain industries affected by the British preference, and guard against the inflow of goods made by cheaper labour in some of the countries of Europe.
The truth is that the greater burdens laid upon capital and industry in Canada as compared with the United States almost equal any protectionist duties levied in the interest of home industries, while the goods and products of Canada are shut out of the neighbouring country by a tariff which shows no mercy for Canadian farmers or manufacturers. It is even doubtful if the heavy Canadian surtaxes bring in as much revenue as would be realized under lower schedules. Taxes designed to punish the rich always bear more heavily upon the poor, and nothing is so fatal as scarcity of capital in an undeveloped country and particularly in a country lying, as we do alongside a rich and powerful neighbour with industries equipped and capital organized to challenge the commercial ascendancy of all other nations.
The new income-tax rates fixed by the budget give a measure of needed relief to smaller income-tax payers, but the schedules lack the essential element of equity; and when the best is said for what Mr. Robb has done, his budget is not so much a "people's budget" as a politicians' budget, designed to make votes for the government rather than to give fair play to capital, infuse energy into business, increase prosperity, and accelerate national progress.
The tariff policy of this country has been a subject of discussion for many years, and we had thought that it was fairly well established that a reasonable measure of protection was the policy of all parties until this government came into power. Certainly this is a matter which should be settled and established at the earliest possible moment. We hear voices in this parliament in favour of free trade and we are looking to the time when this issue will come before the people, clean and clear-cut, when it will not be en-

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
tangled with any side issue, and when it does come, Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of .the House have no doubt what the result will be. As I have said, we hear several voices, more in this House than in the last parliament, in favour of free trade and one may hope the matter may be forced to an issue at an early date. As to the policy of the leader of this party and those who support him in this House, there is absolutely no question whatever. We stand for a fair, reasonable and proper measure of protection for agriculture, for industry and for labour, and the fact that we stood for this in the last parliament, went to the country with fifty-one followers, and came back with one hundred and sixteen is in itself sure proof that that policy met with the approval of a large portion of the electors. We have often been told of conditions in what is said to be free trade England, and it is interesting for us to note just exactly what is taking place there. 1 have here an extract which I think is worth reading, taken from the Saturday Evening Post of April 17, 1926. This is a very excellent American periodical and its editorial column is strong and clean. I think this article may be looked upon as a fair pronouncement and a fair indication of an independent opinion with regard to what is taking place in England. The article is entitled "Protection in Great Britain" and reads:
The gradual trend to a protective tariff in Great Britain is in some respects the most notable of the postwar developments in economic policy. Protection has come into Great Britain through the back door of safeguarding the industries, but it has made entrance just the same. Each industry must pro/e its case, but apparently the appeal is made to a sympathetic bench. The debates in parliament and the controversies in the public press are illuminating and sometimes astounding. The protestant language employed by free traders is sometimes unrestrained to the point of insult. When so highly developed a British industry as cutlery seeks and obtains a high protective tariff, it is time to sit up and take notice, for something unusual is going on.
Taking cutlery as an illustration, the British goods are not only losing out in foreign markets but the foreign goods are invading the home market. Confessedly less durable than the British goods, the invading foreign goods look as good and sell for less. Is this high price of British goods due to low productivity or overorganized labour? Is it the result of antiquated equipment and methods? Is it the consequence of poor entenprise? These are all suggested as explanations, and indignantly repudiated by the classes concerned. Is it the result of underpaid labour in the countries from which the cheap competing goods come? Is it the result of depreciated currences in competing countries?. Is the Dawes plan responsible? Or debt payments? These are all offered in explanation. Finally, quite a large group hold the gold standard responsible at once for the loss of foreign markets and for the invasion of the home market by cheap foreign goods. And, of course, the successfully competing
countries, ourselves included, flatter themselves that they have achieved a technical superiority over the British.
It is too early <m the process to determine the trutl*. Time would make the 'facts clear if the course of events were to continue undisturbed. But political action will intervene. The Liberal party has been the party of free trade. The Liberal party is breaking up. The two-party system will persist in Great Britain, but the two parties will be the Conservative and the Labour parties. The left wing of the Liberal party will go over to Labour, the right wing will join the Conservatives. A few outstanding figures among the Liberals will stand aloof, faithful to their creed and protestant without avail. Both the Conservative and the Labour 'parties lean toward protection, but for different reasons.


Mr. SPENCER:: What is the hon. member quoting from?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am quoting
from the Saturday Evening Post, April 17, 1926. The article continues:
With the dissolution of the Liberal party, free trade will pass into history. The doctrine of protection will take on an imperial complexion. There will be empire preferences, with higher duties against the outside world. It will be a strange sight to see the British Empire, whose foreign investments and positive balance of international trade rest on .free trade, undertake to deal as of old in her capacity of banker and shipper for other trading countries while setting up tariff duties at the briny borders of the United Kingdom. In the view of the traditional Liberal, it will be protection for senile, not for infant industries. In the view of the protectionists, it is an inevitable adaptation to a fundamentally changed world condition.
In that article there is food for thought on the part of those who favour protection and those who favour free trade. Whatever our views may be on this question I think we are all agreed that as far as possible we should have stability of tariff; that business should not be frequently disturbed by radical changes, by increases or reductions in the tariff. That I think is a fair statement and one that will find general assent. [DOT]
I have before me a statement made by the ex-Minister of Finance, the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding on this point. When he was delivering his budget speech in 1923 in this House, he said:
There is a thought which does not receive as much consideration as J. think sometimes it should be given in public discussion, and that is the desirability of something like tariff stability. Business men do not like
to be always threatened with changes in the tariff-
The tariff as it will be when the changes proposed today come into effect will be a moderate tariff and probably as low as the country can afford to have under present conditions. Of course we cannot expect that it will be satisfactory to everybody. It will not meet the desires of those who would rigidly apply the principles of free trade. It will not meet the wishes of the advocates of high protection.
The leader of the opposition at this point interjected:
It comes pretty close to it.

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
Mr. Fielding continued:
I think the country should be content to accept the tariff as it will now stand as one as fair and reasonable as can be prepared under all the circumstances, and business men should be able to carry on the various enterprises without the fear of being soon disturbed by further changes.
The very next session there was unfortunately for industry in this country a cut in several items of the tariff. I refer to the tariff on agricultural implements and the result to the allied industries has been very harmful. It is true that the larger industries-


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: To what class
and to what body of people has the reduction been harmful?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: To the smaller
factories that supply the parts to manufacturers of agricultural implements. I would call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that there has been a continued exodus of the workers of Canada to the United States. Many that I know personally have gone as a result of some of the factories not being able to continue to operate and to give them employment.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
knows that it was in the year 1923-24 that 200.000 people left Canada supposedly for the United States. Since the changes in the tariff in 1924, the figures for 1925 show the exodus as being fifty per cent less, indicating that the tariff changes had nothing to do with the exodus.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wonder how
long my hon. friend thinks Canada can stand an exodus at the rate at which it went on for a few years.


John Warwick King: It has been going on for many years.


Mr. STEW  ART@Leeds: The exhaustion
point would be reached in time. The rate of the exodus is bound to decrease.


John Warwick King: The exodus was
taking place before the changes in the tariff in 1924.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And has continued since the changes in the tariff.


John Warwick King: At a reduced
rate.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I say the
exodus cannot continue in such large numbers every year. Between five and six hundred thousand people have gone and more are going as a result of the recent changes and the threatened changes in the tariff. I

am sure my hon. friend will agree with the argument I am endeavouring to make that we should have reasonable tariff stability in this country. I do not like to quote at too great length, but for the benefit of the Minister of Public Works I will read this article that appeared in the Toronto Globe on Saturday, May 1, of this year, dealing with the question of tariff stability:
With his usual pointedness President Beatty of the Canadian Pacific Railway 'told the members of the Canadian Daily Newspapers' Association on Thursday night that what this country needed more than anything else was stability of tariff. It is a statement with which all business men will agree, regardless of their preference for high or low protection. As Mr. Beatty says, it is common sense, not politics.
Business has become so intricate, the elements entering into it so finely adjusted, that it is highly sensitive, and may be greatly affected by s'light changes in tariff. It is essential in a well-managed business that department costs bear a fixed relation to one another and to the complete product, while highspeed efficiency requires a minimum of lost motion in every avenue of expense and of waste material in every commodity used. It is plain that under these conditions it takes some time to establish basic costs upon which the machinery, both physical and human, will run with uninterrupted smoothness, and that uncertainty of obtaining and maintaining these conditions makes the life of a business rather precarious.
The tariff is not the only factor which may cause disturbance, but so long as an industry knows what contribution the tariff makes to raw material costs it is so much to the good in the matter of stability. It can commit itself to purchases on that basis, for a long time in advance if desirable. So President Beatty remarked that if he met a high-tariff man and a low-tariff man he would be disposed to say to them: "Gentlemen, fix it up bewteen yourselves, but fix it ami make it reasonably stable." He added the significant comment that important British and American companies in many lines of manufacture were waiting to invest money in this country, and would not come in until they knew what our tariff was to be for a reasonable length of time.
Periodical tariff "tinkering" has a disrupting effect on business. When changes are needed they should be made only after careful, scientific study, with due regard to the fiscal requirements of the country, but as infrequently as possible.
That is the point I was endeavouring to make and I would like the Minister of Public Works to consider it and the statements made in this paper which is friendly to his government.
That brings me to the question of the tariff on automobiles and the tariff reduction proposed by this budget. This subject of the reduction in the duty on automobiles has engaged the attention of this House on previous occasions and has been fully discussed. I would refer to Hansard of the session of 1925 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) dealt with this matter, because his observations on that occasion are a little different from what he said in connection with the present budget. As reported on page 1185 of Hansard of 1925 the Minister

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
of Finance said, speaking of the amount of capital coming from the United States for investment in this industry:
If his statement ito-night is correct it would seem that there has been some Unlrted States capital invested in the business since then. But without going into that feature, I would remind the hon. gentleman that no matter where the capital comes from, the industry gives employment to Canadian labour. There are 78 plants engaged in the manufacture of automobiles and their accessories in Canada, employing Canadian labour, and subject (to Canadian taxation, a considerable amount im taxes finding its way into the Canadian treasury.
My hon. friend quoted some prices to show the difference in value between an automobile in the United States and one of similar pattern and style in Canada. I know of course that there is some discrimination, but we account for part of it ourselves. The hon. member will bear in mind that we place a sales tax on the automobile of 5 per cent, and we also impose a luxury tax of 5 per cent on automobiles costing up to $1,200. and 10 per cent on those over $1,200. I mention this figure to remind my hon. friend that the difference in the duty, even admitting his figures, does not account for the difference in the respective prices. I agree with the hon. gentleman that in many parts of Canada the automobile has become a necessity. But it as not always a necessity for there are many people owning and operating motor cars who in my
opinion would be better off without them	
As my hon. friend has truly said, we have in Canada a considerable number of cars. I do not remember the figures he gave but the record I have is 513,821. From the owners of these cars the provinces collect
in taxes the sum of $9,290,900.82	The fact
of the matter is that the automobile has cost the different provinces of Canada millions of dollars to improve their roadways besides huge sums annually to maintain them. I submit to the hon. gentleman that the automobile is a fair source from which to collect revenue.
That was in the session of 1925. At that time the Minister of Finance did not seem to be of the opinion that the duty should be *reduced.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: If my hon. friend's party were returned to power would he recommend an increase in automobile duties?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my party is
returned to power, as I think it will be before very long, it will live up to the pledges it has given to the people. What we complain of is that this government has not honoured its pledges. It went to the Canadian people and said that, so far as the tariff was concerned, no changes would be made before there had been a careful and thorough investigation. That is exactly what should have taken place in connection with the industry I am now discussing, and that is the policy which my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) laid down in a resolution presented to this House in June last. It is the policy that will be carried out on our coming into power.
Now, I was dealing with the tariff reductions on automobiles. If it is desirable to reduce
the prices of automobiles-and I quite agree with the contention that as far as possible they should be reduced-the government had at its disposal a very sure and safe way of effecting sudh a reduction without injury to the industry. They could have removed the excise tax of five per cent on cars up to 81,200 and the sales tax on cars up to the same price. That would have meant a reduction in the case of a car costing $1,200 of $120 and it would have been a' very much greater reduction than will be secured through reducing the duties as now proposed. In the case of a car costing $2,000 there would be at once a difference in price of $200 if these two taxes were eliminated. Having made such a provision to secure reduced prices the government could then have conducted an investigation into the main industry and all its allied activities to ascertain just how much protection they were receiving. Had (they done so they would only have been following the course which they themselves outlined in their campaign speeches and in the Speech from the Throne.
This is the most severe and drastic cut in the history of the tariff as we have had it in Canada, and the effect will be far-reaching. Indeed, it is difficult to predict how serious the consequences will be, for there are so *many allied industries dependent upon the manufacture of automobiles dn .connection with the supplying of parts and materials, and from the standpoint of capital invested. The amount of capital invested is very large indeed. The automobile and allied industries embrace hundreds of manufacturers engaged in the development of raw materials in all stages up to the finished product, and over $100,000,000 of capital is invested. There are also vast numbers of workers involved. The budget in its direct and drastic tariff reduction has therefore created a state of tariff uncertainty which threatens to have far-reaching effects on the country's industrial development. Whatever may be the fate of industries which have been established in Canada behind the tariff protection which has now been removed, and some or all of Which industries may be closed as a result of imports from the United States, there can be little doubt that the establishment of further American plants in Canada, and the expansion of the industries already operating here, have been discouraged in a very definite way. The ramifications of the automobile industry can only be grasped when the extent of the purchases of manufacturers in the dhape of supplies and materials is taken into consideration. It is estimated that parts sold to motor manufacturers during the past year amounted to some $50,000,000. So that we
3364	COMMONS
The Budget-^-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
have, as I have said, a very severe and drastic cut in the tariff, made without investigation or proper consideration, and in violation of the pledges given by this government.
A very large deputation having waited upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and members of the cabinet in connection with this proposed reduction, the Prime Minister said that his government would be influenced not so much by numbers as by arguments. Apparently the voice of '3,000 people speaking as one had little weight with him, whereas the voice of a few members within this House seems to have had a great deal of influence. There is no doubt whatever that this reduction in the tariff, in the face of the pledge given by the government that there would be an investigation and in the face of the statement contained in the Speech from the Throne to the same effect, is a matter of political expediency, pure and simple, and has nothing whatever to commend it from any other source.
I wish to place on Hansard a resolution passed by the council of the town of Gananoque. There is no automobile factory in that town but there are several factories that supply parts required in the industry, and this resolution will reveal how far-reaching will be the effects of the proposed reduction. The resolution wras passed on April 20, 1926, and was forwarded to me in a letter addressed by the town clerk, Mr. J. H. Sampson. Mr. Sampson writes:
I am directed by the municipal council of the town of Gananoque to forward you the following resolution passed at their meeting last night:
That this council of the town of Gananoque views with regret and great alarm the prospect of serious injury to the automotive industry of Canada as a result of the federal government reducing the tariff of import duties on automobiles, and that, in view of the fact that the prosperity of the industries of this town depend so much upon the prosperity of the automobile industry of Canada, and that the prosperity of the town in general is so dependent upon the work which its factories offer, we feel justified in presenting this motion of formal protest at the action which the government has seen fit to take. To us it seems, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the industrial life of Gananoque is seriously threatened by the budget now before the federal House, and we do therefore present this protest, believing it will receive the consideration which it deserves, we do so further move that a copy be sent to the Prime Minister Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, as well as copies to the Hon. J. A. Robb and to our representative in the House of Commons, Mr. Hugh Alexander Stewart, K.C.
As I have said that shows how far-reaching the effect of a reduction in the tariff is. This deputation, it seems to me, furnished an unanswerable argument in connection with the proposed reduction. They referred to the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne dealing with tariff changes, and asked that
(.Mr. H. A. Stewart.]
there should be a thorough investigation before this reduction was put into effect. That is the position of these manufacturers, that is the position of these employees. I do not not know myself whether the duty is too high or too low, whether the proposed reduction is reasonable or unreasonable; all that I am contending for is that there should have been that thorough, complete, exhaustive, impartial investigation which the serious consequences of an action of this kind would warrant. It seems to me the action of the government in this matter is a breach of faith. Not only that, but it is a breach of contract, it is a breach of duty to Canadian industry and Canadian labour. The highest tribute that we can pay to an individual is to say of him that his word is his bond; and the highest tribute that could be paid to a government would be to say that it was honest, sincere and fearless in the discharge of its duties and fulfilment of its pledges. That tribute surely cannot be paid to this government by even its most ardent supporters. Rather must it be said that the making by them of a pledge is almost a sure indication that that pledge will be broken. We have had promises of tariff stability, but instead of tariff stability we have had tariff tinkering. We have had it to such an extent that the supporters of the government were compelled to rise in this House and register a protest. We have had it to such an extent that industry has become unsettled, it has lost confidence, there has been no expansion, and our people have been forced to go to the United States.
We had a pledge from this government, through its Prime Minister at Richmond Hill, that in view of the difficulties experienced in the last parliament, it would not attempt to carry on unless it was more strongly supported in the next; and although the result of that election was to defeat the Prime Minister and all of his ministers from Ontario, and to seriously reduce his following in the House, we find the government attempting to carry on in violation of the solemn pledge it gave to the people on that occasion. We had a pledge given to the House in the Speech from the Throne, a pledge which was very clear, definite and positive with repect to action in connection with the tariff. The House is very familiar with the government's pledge, but it will bear repeating. It reads as follows:
They believe that in the interest of industrial development every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncrtainty with rspect 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 re-

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
presentations 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. A tariff advisory board will accordingly be appointed forthwith. This board will be expected to make a careful study of the customs tariff, the revenue to be derived therefrom and the effect of the tariff and allied factors on industry and agriculture.
If that did not constitute a solemn pledge to parliament and to the Canadian people I can conceive of nothing that would constitute a pledge, and yet the ink on that pledge is scarcely dry before this government proceeds to violate it by an unwarranted, an unreasonable, a drastic cut in the tariff to the great detriment of the automobile industry.
There are some respects in which I complain of this budget from another standpoint. The tariff should be raised in certain directions, and it should first be raised in the case of farm products. That has been very definitely and clearly set out as the policy of this party and of our leader. I am sure that what has happened in the last few months has amply justified that policy, and warranted us in our criticisms of the Australian treaty. We find that there came into Canada during the first three months of the present year the following imports	of butter	from the	countries
named:			United
	Australia New Zealand		States
Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.January, 1926..	.. 473,200	570,185	1,347February, 1926..	.. 842,520	1,073,232	4,178March, 1926 ..	.. 1,169,504	648,589	40,240Total	.. 2,485,224	2,292,006	45,765
These imports had the effect of displacing .an equivalent amount of Canadian butter in the Canadian market. Australian and New Zealand butter is being sold in the city of [DOT]Ottawa, and in the other cities and towns of Ontario, in competition with our own Canadian butter. We prevent the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine, but -what is the use of doing that if we are going to allow Canadian butter to be displaced by butter imported from Australia or New Zealand? This is a serious matter for the Canadian dairy industry. The Minister of Agriculture may contend that we were short of butter at this time, but the fact is that we were exporting some butter during those months. I have the figures from the Bureau of Statistics, which show that in January of 1926 we exported 182,891 pounds of butter; in February 72,480 pounds, and in March 119,542 pounds, or a total export of 374,913 pounds of butter in those three months. So it will be clearly seen that our own product 14011-214
is being driven off the market by Australian and New Zealand butter, which comes into Canada under the ridiculously low tariff of one cent per pound. As a result our agricultural interests are suffering, and we contend that in comparison with the duties imposed against us by the United States, our tariff should be raised. We import farm products from the United States to the value of over 8100,000,000 each year, products which our farmers can and do produce, and which they are forced to sell in foreign markets.
There is another duty which I think should be imposed, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to deal with the matter because it was so thoroughly covered by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken). I refer to the duty on magazines coming into Canada. The hon. member made out a case which, in my opinion, is unanswerable. This importation has been going on to the detriment of Canadian publishers and other Canadian interests for a great many years. I wish in this connection to refer to an article appearing in the Toronto Saturday Night which sets forth my contention in this respect perhaps better than I could state it myself:
There comes into Canada annually twenty-five million copies of American magazines. Many of them have a larger circulation in Canada than have our own journals. In the newspaper field United States journals are also eating their way in to an amazing extent. For instance, one "tabloid" newspapers, printed in New York, has a circulation of some 50,000 copies weekly in Montreal, and probably half t-hat number in Toronto; while such newspapers as the New York Times probably sell to the extent of a million copies annually in this country.
Slowly but surely Canadian publications are being crowded to the wall, and each day the position becomes woree. United States periodicals are practically given away to the readers in Canada, the national advertisers, with headquarters in the United States footing the bills. Presumably they get their money back by the sale of American goods to Canadians.
A certain United States weekly publication now making a drive for more circulation in this country is selling for $2 per annum, of which amount $1.80 goes to the canvasser. The white paper in this journal could not be bought in the open market for less than ten cents per copy, to 6ay nothing of the many dollars expended in one way and another before the finished product reaches the reader. And our postmen are becoming round shouldered carrying them around.
We are merely being used as a dumping ground for surplus United States production, but unfortunately the dumping clause in our Customs Act does not cover the poor Canadian publisher. He is the one manufacturer of all manufacturers who has to stand the gaff.
Of course there is but one end to such business, and that is the ultimate extinction of !Canadian literature. In latter years Canadian printers, pressmen, and writers, have formed an unending procession moving toward the United States border. They are all going where they have a better chance, or from sheer necessity ,having lost their jobs.
And so on. The value of the Canadian press upon Canadian opinion can scarcely be

3366	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
over-estimated, and if we are to maintain a proper national spirit in this country we must see to it that we have a Canadian press expressing Canadian ideals, and one which is not continually holding before our people the ideals of our neighbours to the south. Great as those ideals may be from their standpoint they are not' our ideals. Further, it is undoubtedly true that our merchants are losing a tremendous volume of business every year because of the attractive advertising presented to the Canadian public in the immense number of American magazines sold from week to week. I can thank of nothing more in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole than the imposition of a good stiff duty against these magazines.


Robert Forke: I would like to point out
to the hon. member that he was advertising the Saturday Evening Post not very long ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not condemning the Saturday Evening Post.


Robert Forke: The hon. member was advertising it in the House of Commons.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And I am not
a bit ashamed of doing so; I was advertising the editorial comment. That does not appear to please my free trade friend, but I think it is perfectly sound, notwithstanding.


Robert Forke: I did not read it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps it would not have hurt the hon. member to have done so. I am not advocating the exclusion of this magazine, but I do say it is unfair for the Saturday Evening Post or any other magazine to come into Canada below cost.


Robert Forke: It is the worst offender,
regarding advertising, of all the periodicals we get.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If it is the worst offender it will be the hardest hit if my suggestion is adopted. While many of its editorial articles are attractive and sound, the advertising is to the detriment of the Canadian people and Canadian merchants, and I sincerely hope the government will consider the imposition of a duty such as I have suggested on the advertising matter appearing in these publications.
I believe that concludes what I have to say regarding the budget, and I wish now to deal with the amendment presented by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). One very remarkable thing I have noticed in this debate is the studious way in which hon. fMr. H. A. Stewart.]
members opposite have evaded or avoided this amendment, which reads as follows:
In the late general election campaign assurances were repeatedly given by the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown that before further tariff changes were made an opportunity would be given industries affected thereby to be heard before an advisory board.
That such assurances were officially incorporated by the government in the Speech from the Throne of the present session in the following words:
"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. A tariff advisory board will accordingly be appointed forthwith."
That such tariff advisory board was accordingly appointed.
And this House regrets that in the case of drastic changes announced in the budget such assurances have not been fulfilled.
This amendment simply emphasizes the pledges given by this government to deal with this tariff in a particular way, and points out that the government have failed to fulfil that pledge and have violated the provisions of the Speech from the Throne which they themselves prepared. I think that amendment is unanswerable, and perhaps that is the reason none of the speakers on the other side of the House have dealt with it. I do not see how any hon. member can vote against that amendment. It is an indictment that has not been and cannot b& answered. The pledge is there; the pledge comes from the government itself. The violation of it is there, and comes from the-government itself, and I cannot possibly see how any hon. member who desires to emphasize the necessity of candour and sincerity in public life can vote against this amendment.
I shall vote against this budget, Mr. Speaker, because it is a breach of faith; it is a breach of contract, and it is a breach of duty. By its adoption the confidence of the people in Canada, in industry, and in capital, will be further disturbed, because it will discourage the investment of capital and the establishment of industry in Canada, and will encourage the exodus of our people to the United States.
I shall vote for the amendment because it emphasizes the necessity of a sane, sound and safe method of dealing with agriculture, industry, and labour, in respect to tariff matters, because it condemns treachery, political expediency, and bad faith, and affirms the importance of honesty and integrity on the-part of public men and of governments.

The Budget-Mr. Lovie


Mr. W. J. LOVIE (Macdonald):: The hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Stewart) made a remark a few minutes ago, which I jotted down, to the effect that there has been no expansion in Canada. I am not going to answer that statement along the line of trying to defend any particular government of any particular party, but I shall answer it by quoting from an article that appears in the May number of Canadian Chemistry and Metallurgy. This article was written by an expert and concerns the pulp and paper industry in Canada. I shall quote only such portions as will serve to answer the remark made by my hon. friend who has just sat down. It says:
When one comes to survey the happenings in the pulp and paper industry during the last twelve months it is almost impossible to overcome a feeling of bewilderment at the number and magnitude of the projects which have been completed, which are under construction, or which have been planned and are about to be started. In practically all parts of Canada we hear of new mills being constructed and of established mills expanding, with the results that the industry is developing at an almost fantastic rate, which was absolutely undreamed of a couple of years ago, and which has no parallel in the paper making history of any other country in the world.
Of course, the great bulk of the paper produced is newsprint; and the expansion of this branch of the industry will best be visualized by quoting a few figures recently published by the Newsprint Service Bureau. During 1925 ten machines with a rated daily capacity of 890 tons were started up in Canada and Newfoundland (of which four machines with a capacity of 375 tons were in Newfoundland), while eighteen machines with a total rated capacity of 1,715 tons per day are scheduled to start up in 1928, only one of them being in Newfoundland. And the end is not yet in sight, for already work is well under way in connection with machines to be installed during 1927 and 1928.
It should be remembered, however, that the actual production of these machines may be, and probably will be, greater than the rated capacity. Competition has resulted in quite an appreciable reduction in the price of newsprint during the last two or three years, and the mills have been forced to increase operating efficiency so as to lower cost of production. Great strides have been made in this direction, and the good work which was begun a couple of years ago has been kept up and even improved upon, with very striking results. The Belgo mill at Shawinigan Falls, for instance, has a rated capacity of 390 tons, but has turned out up to 425 tons in 24 hours. In 1919 it was considered a good day's work at the Abitibi mill at Iroquois Falls, Ontario, when they turned out 240 tons a day; but recently the same machines produced 295 tons. This mill has since been enlarged to a rated capacity of 500 tons; the record production for a single day is very close to 550 tons, and the average daily production is in the neighbourhood of 525 tons.
When the members of the Progressive party toured the Maritime provinces just a year ago, we saw at the town of Edmundston on the St. John river a pulp mill being built on the Canadian side, and just across the river, on the American side, a paper mill was being built, and we came to the conclusion that 11011-214J
the two were owned by Americans, and that the idea was that the pulp mill on the Canadian side was being built to beat the embargo, and that the pulp would be run across the line and be manufactured into paper on the American side. The article goes on to say:
An interesting development has been what virtually amounts to the construction of a Canadian fine paper mill in the United States. The Fraser Companies had a large sulphite mill at Edmundston, New Brunswick. There was a ready market for their pulp in the United States; but if it were converted into paper in Canada ' it could not compete with American papers in the United States owing to the high customs duty imposed by the American tariff. As their pulp mill is on the international boundary, the company overcame tihe difficulty by building the paper mill at Madawaska, Maine, just across the river from their Edmundston mill. Not the least interesting feature of this combination is the big double pipe line through which the sulphite stock is pumped in slush form from the pulp mill on the Canadian side to the paper mill on the American side. The first machine of this two-machine mill was started up last November.
So Canadians are not only manufacturing their own paper supplies, but are invading the United States' market as well.
One other portion, of this article I should like to read because it concerns the Australian treaty, a treaty which the Progressive members of this House voted against a year ago because they thought it would be of no benefit to Canada, but which has proved Of benefit to Canada along lines not dreamed of one year ago. The article says:
But though newsprint throws other branches of the industry considerably in the shade, it must not be taken for granted that nothing is being done along other lines. The Australian trade treaty has already been of greater benefit to the Canadian paper industry than had been anticipated. It is now expected that Canada may obtain nearly half the Australian newsprint market, while the demand for Canadian book and writing papers is also good. Provincial Paper Company is developing its business in this promising market to good effect, and as a result has decided to go ahead with the installation of another machine in its Port Arthur mill. Another project directly traceable to the Australian treaty is the organization of the Canadian-Scottish Paper Mills, which will erect a coating mill for book and litho papers on the Pacific coast.
We have repeatedly heard it stated in this House since the opening of this session that if Canada is going to prosper, there will have to be quite a radical change in the tariff to look after the needs of Canadian industry, and that we must have what has been called tariff stability. Some have said that we should have a high tariff, and some newspapers have advocated a tariff, brick for brick, with the American tariff. Others proclaim that the policy of Canada from this time onwards must be a protectionist tariff, and Canada must be definitely committed to the policy of pro-
The Budget-Mr. Lovie

tection. For the last forty years, Mr. Speaket. Canada, no matter whether it was under f>
Liberal or a Conservative government, has been under a protective tariff. In 1878 When the question was up, an amendment was moved to the budget by Sir John A. Macdonald. I am not going to quote the amendment, because it was put on Hansard just a year ago by the then member for Brome, Mr. McMaster, but I should like to quote a part of Sir John A. Macdonald's speech to show that Canada over forty years ago was suffering from the same ills that afflict her to-day, and that after forty-eight years of the National Policy she has not advanced one bit. She is still suffering from the same ills, and we hear almost the same speches, word for word, today as were made in the House of Commons forty-eight years ago. What did Sir John A Macdonald say? He said:
We have no manufacturers here. We have no workpeople; our work-people have gone off to the United '-States. They are to be found employed in the western states, an Pittsburgh, and, in ifact, in every place where manufactures are going on. These Canadian artisans are adding to the strength, to the power, and to the wealth of a foreign nation instead of adding to ours. Our work-people in this country, on the other hand, are suffering for want of employment. Have not their cries risen to heaven Has not the hon. the Premier been surrounded and besieged, even in his own department, and on his way to his daily duties, by suffering artisans who keep crying out: "We are not beggars, we only want an opportunity of helping to support ourselves and our families." Is not such the case also in Montreal and in Quebec?
Then another part of the speech refers to the Maritime provinces. He predicted that if the National Policy were inaugurated we should prosper. He said:
We shall then grow up rapidly a good, steady and mature trade between the provinces, rendering us independent of foreign trade, and not, as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia formerly did, look to the United States or to England for trade, but look to Ontario and Quebec-sending their products west, and receiving the products of Quebec and Ontario in exchange. Thus the great policy, the National Policy, which we on this side are advocating, would be attained.
These remarks, Mr. Speaker, are very much like the speeches we have listened to in this House since January 7, of this year, and if, after fifty years under a National Policy consistently maintained, Canada is not prospering, there must be some reason for it. If one would take a map of Canada and examine it closely he could easily tell the reason for it. I do not want to be accounted a traitor to the country I love or anything else in that line, but I may say that the reason is that you are trying to do politically what cannot be done, in view of the geography of the country. The natural trend of the trade

of the country is north and south, and you are endeavouring by political lines to turn the trade-


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Why does
the hon. member say the natural trend of the trade is north and south?


William James Lovie: Because the south raises products which the north needs, and the north raises products which the south needs. I am not speaking of Canada alone, but I am dealing with the whole continent. Do not imagine that I am advocating annexation. I merely look at the map of Canada and I say that is one of the reasons why Canada is not prospering.


John Wesley Edwards: Is the natural trade of Canada in wheat from north to south, and from the south to the north?


William James Lovie: Probably not in wheat, but we have other products.


John Wesley Edwards: Take meats and dairy produets.


William James Lovie: It is north and south in
meats.


Mr. EDW  ARDS@Frontenac: Not at all.


William James Lovie: Indeed it is.


John Wesley Edwards: Is the
United States not a large exporter of meats and is Canada not a large exporter of meats?


William James Lovie: If the hon. member will wait I will answer his question. I will touch on the question of cattle raising later.


John Wesley Edwards: I will await your pleasure.


William James Lovie: the legislation now before the United States congress- assuming it to be enacted and enforced-does not redress the inequalities of the present system but merely raises prices all around, adding to the burden of the classes that cannot be protected, what then?
That is the question that has to be answered.


John Wesley Edwards: Is it the intention of the legislation to which the hon. member has referred to raise the tariff all along the line on farm products in the United States?


William James Lovie: The idea is to give the United States farmer what his product is worth in the markets of the world plus the tariff. The surplus will be exported and sold and the country will assume the loss.


John Wesley Edwards: Is that relief to be given by raising the tariff on farm products entering the United States?


William James Lovie: No; a fund has been created for the purpose, to put the United States farmer on a level with the protected manufacturer.


John Wesley Edwards: That is something on the line of the Pattersen scheme in Australia.


Robert Forke: Much the same.


William James Lovie: The reason for the excessive cost of these implements is the fact that there is such a tremendous tariff on steel in the United States which is reflected in the implement industry. The result is that our blacksmiths find that they cannot work under present conditions with the prices they have to pay. The excessive tariff on steel in the United States is at the 'bottom of the tremendously high prices which our farmers and blacksmiths have to pay for 'the implements they use and this is making it impossible for our farmers to carry on profitably. The price of an 8-foot binder in Canada is for instance, $275, which is $100 too high. No one can afford to pay that price. One reason why the manufacturers of farm implements in eastern Canada are producing comparatively little is this very fact, that the farmers cannot afford to purchase the machinery. There is not a farmer I know of in the west who would not buy a lot of new implements to-day if the prices were within reason. Take the seed drill as another example of the high prices we have to pay at the present time. We used to think that this implement was high at $125, but to-day we have to pay about $250 for it. Surely something will have to be done to bring down these prices; otherwise agriculture will not be able to carry on. Something will have to be done or agriculture will not be as profitable as we wish it to be. In the case of other classes of machinery the cost is equally high. What would hon. gentlemen to my right have to say to the statement that some years ago I paid $16 for four horseshoes? The price of steel is tremendously high. It is not as high as it was but it is still much higher than it should be. I am afraid the Fordney-Mc-Cumber tariff has been one of the greatest factors in maintaining these high prices.


John Wesley Edwards: What protection does steel enjoy under the present United States tariff?


William James Lovie: I have that information somewhere in my notes but I cannot put my hand on it at the present moment. During recess I may be able to get it and will give it to my hon. friend this evening.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon
friend has been arguing that if the United States removed their tariff on steel the price of iron and steel would go down?


William James Lovie: Yes, that is my argument.
The tariff is too high.


John Wesley Edwards: I thought
my hon. friend was arguing that it costs more

to produce steel rails in England than it does in the United States.


William James Lovie: It costs a great deal more to produce steel rails in England than it does in the United States. Over there they are able to produce then at $19 per ton, but in this country we have paid $43 plus the freight. In the United States they claim to turn out steel rails for $12 a ton, but they sell them for $45 a ton, consequently the United States steel men make a very large profit.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon.
friend should have the tariff there, should he mot, in order to show the difference between the price in England and in the United States?


William James Lovie: The evidence on this matter
is on record in the United States. I have not worked out the figures myself from the United States tariff. I have here a statement as to the effect of railway rates in the United States, and it reads as follows:
Railway rates are high because of high operating costs. So much of the income of the railroads is paid out for equipment, fuel, and wages, that all other expenditures are comparatively inconsiderable. The wages of two million railway men are unusually high prinoipaWy -because the cost of living is high beyond all precedent, and railway workers must be paid accord ingily. Fuel is high for the same reason-high wages in mine and transportation and high cost of retail distribution. Railway equipment ds extremely expensive, because of thigh, general wages, and because manufacturers of many products used in railway equipment are over-protected, and their prices are higher than they would be under a fair tariff. This affects 2,580,000 cars, 69,000 locomotives, rails and other supplies.
The cost of living to the people of the United States would be reduced about $3,000,000,000 by a moderate and reasonably protective -tariff dn lieu of the present Fordney law. This reduction in living costs would quickly bring a reduction dn freight charges, which reduction. Senator Capper, chairman o-f the Senate farm bloc, says is the most important matter before Congress in the interest of agriculture.
As transportation is an enormous charge upon agriculture, American farmers, especially in their present distress, feel keenly the hurt of high freight rates, and should be relieved by the immediate correction of the present tariff-a correction that would help everyone and hurt no one.
The statement has often been made in this House-in fact I think it has been made during the present debate and has not been denied-that agriculture in the United States is not prospering. Upon that point I should like to read the following statement from Governor Lowden. taken from the Breeders' Gazette of December 3. 1925:
A Message from Gov. Lowden President of the Holstein-Friesian Association of America
The most hopeful sign for the future of American agriculture is the new interest which other classes are taking in the problem of the farm. It has gradually dawned upon others that the problem of agriculture is

Private Bills
the problem of all. We are beginning to see that in this complex civilization of ours all of the great industries must keep in step. If one lags behind, all the others suffer.
During last summer more than 200 bankers in Nebraska attended the short course in the agricultural college at Lincoln. They returned to their homes enthusiastic, and are preparing to go back another year with the leading farmers of their several communities. The great national organizations of industry are awakening to the fact that the one limiting factor in the future growth of industry is the food supply. They are more and more concerning themselves, therefore, with the well-being of agriculture. I think they begin to see that our greatest asset as a nation is our fertile soil. Whatever depletes that soil must inevitably slow up industry. It is also now recognized by all thoughtful men that an unprofitable agriculture must hasten the exhaustion of the soils. Farmers who are pressed for cash to meet their overhead expenses must devote the largest acreage possible to cash crops, without reference to future productiveness.
Only the other day one of the profundest and wisest students of the agricultural situation of whom I know said to me that the most important thing of all at the present time is to make the country as a whole understand the importance of the farm problem. His idea was that if only all classes of men could be brought to see that there is a farm problem, its correct solution would be seen to be so vastly important to the future of our nation that an answer would be then found.
We can have a balanced nation only if we have a prosperous agriculture. We cannot long have one standard of living in the country and another in town. Those conveniences now regarded as necessities in the city must no-t be considered luxuries upon the farm. We must contrive somehow to improve educational facilities In the country, just as we have improved them in the modern public school in the city. How to balance agriculture economically, socially and educationally with other industries is the problem that confronts us. It is gratifying to know that other forces of society are beginning to recognize the problem.
So the problem in the United States, as in Canada, is how to make agriculture prosper and bring it up to a level with other industries. We in Canada are largely concerned with finding markets, but the most important markets we have to consider are our overseas markets. It is true we have a home market, but without the stabilizing effect of importations coming into the country, that is something not to be depended upon. In the United States the feeling is the same way. Over there the Fordney-McCumber tariff has so reduced importations into the United States that they miss the stabilizing effect of those importations. One hon. member, during the present debate, asked the question why no complaint had ever been voiced by the American people against the Fordney-McCumber tariff. It is not right to say that there has been no complaint against that tariff on the part of the United States people. The research department of the American Farm Bureau Federation, after a thorough investigation, declared that there is practically no benefit to any phase of the American cattle industry from the present tariff,
and that it is a distinct injury to cattle breeders. The United States tariff commission reported to Congress in 1922 that the only effect of the emergency tariff was to injure Canada. In 1923 the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, the Illinois Agricultural Association, and others, appealed to the tariff commission for relief from this tariff. Over there they say that the United States tariff on cattle is a direct affront to Canada, which formerly exported some 200.000 head of range cattle annually. It will be seen that a large proportion of the people of the United States do not think very much of the Fordney-McCumber tariff. This article goes on to say:
We make a mockery of our boast that our unguarded Canadian boundary line is imaginary only. We fortified it with worse than guns, "with a tariff of distress and ili will that gave us never a benefit.
Canada errs in attributing this action to the American people. She apparently thinks that our public rules in tariff matters. She does not realise that the Fordney law was enacted by a few over-powerful manufacturers, who betrayed the principle of protection, fooled the people, and disregarded the better judgment of many manufacturers who wanted lower duties on their own and other manufactures.
After reading that article, Mr. Speaker, 1 would be very chary in advocating any retaliation against the American tariff, because as I have already said, geographically the trade of this continent will flow north and south. The American or any other tariff does not keep out goods from any country, but simply makes those goods more expensive, raises the cost of living and makes it harder to live.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, to provide for changing the names of certain Pension Fund Societies.- Mr. Mercier (St. Henri).
Bill No. 13. respecting a patent owned by The John E. Russell Company.

Mr. Spence (Earkdale).

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 11, to incorporate the President of the Lethbridge Stake.-Mr. Jelliff-Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. ROGERS:: Explain.
The, Budget-Mr. Lowe


Mr. JELLIFF:: This is a bill to incorporate as a corporation sole the Lethbridge Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, otherwise known as the Mormon Church. This body was incorporated originally under an ordinance of the legislative council of the Northwest Territories in 1897, giving them power to acquire and to hold and to use for religious and charitable purposes certain properties within the Northwest Territories, especially in the province of Alberta. Since that time the church has extended and now wishes federal incorporation in order that it may control and properly administer its property in other parts of Canada. The bill is modelled on one passed in 1924 incorporating in a similar manner the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Prince Rupert, and also on an earlier one passed in 1917 incorporating the Bishop of Mackenzie river. The powers and authorities given in this bill are exactly the same as in the two previous bills passed by this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[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.
William James Lovie: ago by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fe.nsher) to the effect that the duty on heavy trucks should be reduced. When the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) introduced his resolution he asked that the duty on light trucks be reduced, but the hon. member for Last Mountain stressed the fact that the solution of the transportation problems at least in the western prairies would be materially aided if heavy trucks could be used. He stated that a five-ton truck was a size that should be allowed in duty free because, as the hon. member put it, at the present time no one can farm profitably more than fifteen miles from the railway. This is about as far as one can draw a load of Wheat to market with a team of horses and return the same day. With a heavy truck, perhaps not even as heavy as a five-ton truck, that could carry a hundred bushels of wheat the distance could be extended to thirty miles. Instead of taking two days to make that trip as one would with a team of horses, one could put in two trips in a fairly long day. The hon. member for Last Mountain ought to receive the support of hon. members in his request for the removal of the duty on five-ton trucks so that they may be purchased as cheaply as possible. This will greatly help farmers Who live a long distance from the railway.
As I said in the afternoon, seeing that our railways have been built at such a high price, a protected price having been paid for all the steel plate, spikes, bolts and other things that go into them, the country cannot afford to build any more railways than are absolutely necessary. But the men who have gone out to the prairies cannot afford to haul grain for thirty miles during the cold winter weather there is in that part of the country.
If it is not against the rules to refer to a bill that is to come before the House, I should like to say a word about agricultural credits, concerning which I believe a bill is to be introduced this session. That is something that I for one would stand squarely behind. The object of this bill is to provide cheap money on long-term credits for agriculture. It is generally expected that in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces this legislation will not be of very much use, for the simple reason that the people of those provinces can borrow money in eastern Canada just as cheaply as the rates that the western farmers are requesting. Interest rates on longterm loans in western Canada are very high; they hang like a millstone on the necks of many farmers, in fact on practically all of them. A request has been made for longterm credits through federal land banks after 
the pattern of the federal land banks of the United States which have proved so successful. The request is quite a reasonable one. Seeing that the government of Canada can borrow money at five per cent and that one per cent will always clear the expense of a loan, money can be lent at six per cent, and one per cent more for amortization would in thirty-five years absolutely wipe out a loan. To prove mv contention that one per cent covers the expense of all money in the federal land banks of the United States I will read an advertisement which I tore off the back of the February number of the Geographic Magazine. This article which is entitled "Federal Bank Bonds, Safe, Standardized, Stabilized" states:
The record of these banks through eight years of active operation demonstrates that the legal spread of one per cent between the bond interest rate and the rate charged borrowers is ample to meet expenses, build adequate reserves and pay a fair return to the stockholders in the form of dividends. The present average net monthly earnings of the federal land banks considerably exceed $700,000.
The management of the banks is in the hands of men trained in banking procedure and thoroughly familiar with agricultural conditions in their respective regions.
I am not going to read any more of this article except that it states that federal land banks are located at:
Springfield, Mass.; Louisville, Kv.; New Orleans, La.; St. Paul, Minn.; Wichita, Kans.; Baltimore, Md.; St. Louis, Mo.; Columbia, S.C.; Berkeley, Calif.; Houston, Texas; Omaha, Nebraska; Spokane, Wash.
And they have been operating for eight years. Surely it is not an experiment in that country; and I can see no reason why they would not be just as successful in Canada as they are in the United States.


Mr. McMILLAN:: What interest does the farmer have to pay there?


William James Lovie: The advertisement does not
give the interest. The hon. member for Macleod says that the interest is five per cent and one per cent expense.
In regard to the question of conserving our forest resources, those of us who have to travel through those thousand miles of rocky country where we see the marked effects of fire would like to stand behind the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) in everything that his department is doing to conserve the forests of this country.,: Not only is the timber being destroyed in those regions which lie between Ottawa and Winnipeg, but on account of the trees being so near the rock, in fact many of them growing on moss on top of the rock, the moss is burned right off and the rock exposed so that the seed that has been left

The Budget-Mr. Lovie
there is all burned out and the country becomes a barren wilderness instead of being what it should be, one of Canada's assets. The pulpwood industry is certainly one of Canada's assets and if it could be properly looked after, it would for all time bring in good revenues to the Dominion. I am not blaming anyone for the fires that occur there; it is most unfortunate that they should occur, but I should like every Canadian, no matter whether he be Conservative, Liberal or Progressive, to do all in his power to stand behind the Minister of the Interior and any organization who are doing what they can to preserve the wonderful heritage of timber we have in this country. But I am not in favour of preserving this heritage to the extent of advocating an embargo on pulpwood, for the simple reason that eighty per cent of the pulpwood of this country is on crown lands and cannot be exported. Pulpwood taken from those lands must be manufactured in this country. Along the line of the Canadian National railways there are large numbers of settlers who are endeavouring to clean up the land and make it suitable for agriculture. What was solid timberland they are converting into farms, and I for one certainly would not compel those people to take any price offered them for their pulpwood without giving them the benefit of competition. I want to see the Canadian farmer get the best possible price for his timber. I would no more think of putting an embargo on pulpwood obtained from private lands than I would suggest an embargo on wheat; and I know that those of us who come from the west would fight bitterly any proposal to place any such restriction upon the export of wheat. Such a policy is not right and it could never do any good. I do not think it is in the interests of Canada to put an embargo on pulpwood. It is useless to say that the United States need our pulpwood; they do not need our wood, because they have more pulpwood than we have. There is more, timber across the line than there is in Canada. I want to read to the House an advertisement which appears in the Breeder's Gazette of May 6th, 1926, with reference to the timber industry of the United States:
Douglas Fir-America's Permanent Lumber Supply
The densest and heaviest forests the world has ever known stand -to-day between the west slope of the Cascade mountains and the waters of the Pacific.
This forest region contains 26 million acres of towering trees-more than 700 billion feet of merchantable timber-three-quarters of which is Douglas fir; the rest Sitka spruce, western hemlock and western red cedar.
The average yield of these forests is in excess of 30,000 feet per acre and in some cases 150,000 -feet and more. One Douglas fir tree here sometimes produces more lumber than five acres in other forest regions.
What is of more vital interest to the people of the United States is that under modem methods of lumbering, foresting and fire protection, these forests will be a permanent source of lumber supply for the entire country for all time.
Where timber has been cut and fires guarded against countless millions of young Douglas fir trees from nature's own seeding appear and in their vigorous growth offer a new merchantable supply of the finest quality within a comparatively few years.
Emphasizing the importance of Douglas fir, we quote from United States Forest Service Bulletin 88: "Douglas fir iqay, perhaps, be considered the most important of American woods .... Its rapid growth in the Pacific northwest forests, its comparatively wide distribution and the great variety of uses to which it can be put place it first .... As a structural timber it is not surpassed."
We in Canada are just as much interested in preserving our timber supply as the people of the United States are in protecting their resources, although I do not know that we can claim to have gone to the same trouble as they have done to prevent fires. However, I plead with every Canadian to do all that is humanly possible towards preserving this wonderful heritage which we have in this country.
I want to say just a word or two on the budget, which I have not so far discussed. I have touched upon the tariff, which of course is closely related to the budget, but other matters to which I have referred have no direct connection with it. Inasmuch, however, as we are allowed considerable latitude in a debate upon the budget I shall take the liberty of quoting briefly from an article I have here commenting' on the statement which the Minister of Finance has submitted to Parliament. I quote this article in order to make my own reference to the budget as brief and concise as possible. What I am about to read is taken from a Toronto publication which hon. gentlemen who belong to the United Church will recognize. The New Outlook, in its comment on the budget, has this to say:
With the announcement of the tariff changes, and especially the reductions in the income tax the people of Canada got the surprise of their lives. Some modification of the burdens of taxation which have pressed upon all classes since the war were anticipated, but the changes introduced by Hon. James A. Robb, Minister of Finance, in his fourth budget presentation, are so radical as to be almost sensational. A drop from $60 to $10; from $80 to $20; from $100 to $30, etc., on income taxes at one step is something so unusual in budget revisions as to call for universal comment. The reductions in this department' give greater relief to those o-f moderate and small incomes than to those of larger means. The percentage of reduction grows less as the income increases. Few will dispute the fairness of this principle, as by this adjustment the burden of taxation falls on those who are most able to bear it. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction among manufacturing firms, especially motor oar makers and dealers, over the lowering of the tariff on automobiles. This was to be anticipated;
The Budget-Mr. Lovie

but the closing of factories even for a few days, and the throwing of thousands of men out of work, has not been taken very seriously. A good many have regarded it more as a ,political gesture than as a counsel of necessity. The return to penny postage, and the abolition of the irritating receipt stamp has been hailed with general satisfaction. Perhaps the most beneficial effect of the changes submitted for the approval of parliament will be the impression made, both at 'home and abroad, of the reviving prosperity of the country which makes ,possible such a lessening of the burdens of taxation.
If I may be permitted a personal reference to illustrate the impression which the present prosperous condition in Canada is making upon people in other countries, I may mention the fact that my mother, who is between eighty and ninety years of age, said in a letter I received from her this week that she had been reading everything she could lay her hands on in reference to affairs in Canada, and that she was quite pleased to gather from all that she had read the fact that the country was prosperous and that the outlook was bright as a result of reductions made in this new budget. Obviously, therefore, people outside of Canada are following this budget with interest.
One thing that seems to have been stressed in the debates that have taken place in this House from time to time in connection with the tariff is the desire of some people outside and of some members of parliament to have this country definitely committed to a policy of protection. In this connection, I should like, if the House will bear with me, to read a brief extract from an article discussing the question of protection as a policy for the United States. Certain questions have been asked in that country, and as they are quite applicable to Canada it is well that we should have them answered before we are absolutely committed to the principle of protection. This is the quotation :
Are we to protect ignorance, shiftlessness, incapacity, plants that are out of date, and would be destroyed if not protected or rebuilt? Are we to protect plants that are so badly located or badly managed that the same conditions in a non-protected industry would put them out of business? If we are to do this, then protection becomes an alms-lliouse ^nd asylum for cripples and incompetents, and all such must be protectionists demanding profits and good living by tariff legislation. In fact, protection, honestly considered, can be given only to those industries and persons that are efficient, especially adapted in equipment, location, efficiency and circumstances assuring successful production at as low cost to the consuming public as prevails in non-protected occupations, where the most capable make large profits and .the unfortunate have to quit.
That is:	protection requires the use of every
ordinary advantage in the way of training and efficient persona] capacity, favourable, natural conditions and adequate equipment.

We know that this does not always occur, for there is a good deal of lobbying in and around the House of Commons. Manufacturers, without giving any thought to costs of production, clamour for an increase in the tariff in order to be able to carry on, whereas if they operated under competitive conditions they would be obliged to readjust their affairs or they would probably go out of business altogether. We hear a good deal about closed factories, and the closing of factories is invariably attributed to reductions in the tariff, I do not know whether this is so or not, but I may tell you something. Fiye of us in one day went into southern Ontario and examined the Welland canal from end to end. Returning from Port Colborne we passed a factory with closed doors; I think it was in the town of Thorold. It was a glass factory, and naturally enough we asked why it was closed. The reason given us was that these particular manufacturers could not successfully face the competition they encountered. Several other questions were asked, among them one 'by myself to this effect: "I suppose plenty of sand and other raw materials are available for the manufacture of glass in this locality?" "No," our informant said, "that is one of the unfortunate features of the case. The sand for most of the glass manufactured in this factory had to come from the United States." It seems to me a self-evident fact that factories should be located in close proximity to the source of raw materials, because raw materials cannot be hauled very profitably when the present high cost of transportation is considered. Probably it was just as good that this particular factory went out of existence; all industries khould be so located that they can be carried on economically and profitably. But under the policy of protection industries have grown up without any regard to where the source of raw material was located; the only important point seemed to be that there was sufficient protection to allow them to carry on. I for one *-and I know that the group of whibh I am a member take the same view -wall not stand for the recognition of the principle of protection as the guiding principle of t)he Canadian tariff.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Will the bon. gentleman tell me how close the textile industries in Great Britain are to their supply of raw materials, or the rubber industry in the United States?

The Budget-Mr. Mullins


William James Lovie: The industries referred' to by my hon. friend are a long distance from the source of supply of raw materials, but I would point out that sand is a very heavy commodity, and on that account its transportation is extremely expensive. That is one reason why I emphasize the handicap of carrying on the factory previously referred to.
In conclusion let me say, Mr. Speaker, that when we are asked to commit ourselves definitely to protection the great underlying principle of our tariff it makes me think of some lines of poetry I memorized in my youthful days. We all know that one's memory is more retentive in the days of our youth, and that things learned then remain with us throughout our lives. This particular piece of poetry, committed to memory long since, is is vivid in my mind as when I first learned it. The lines in question run as follows:
And shall the foeman dare, boy,
And shall the foeman dare,
While British hand can wield a brand.
To plant his banner there?
No, by our fathers, no, boy,
No, by our fathers, no!
From England's vales to Scotland's dales Our people thundered "No".
And just as emphatically as those men would have answered, "no" if any foeman dared to lay a hand on that country, I for one will answer "no" in the present crisis in our history; and I will not be a party to committing Canada to the adoption of the policy of protection.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up the time of the House to-night at any great length. On every occasion on which I have spoken I have endeavoured to be brief, and I shall not depart from that course to-night seeing that I have only got a lot of timber-in other words, rows of empty seats-to talk to.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: You will not get many
empty seats here.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The constituency of Marquette sent me here for the purpose of endeavouring to make my influence felt on this House. There sre several important matters I wanted to bring forward to-night in connection with the budget, and it is regrettable that the attendance is so slim. It is always more inspiring to a speaker to be privileged to address a full House. It seems to me that when i't comes to a question of legislating for the good of Canada we should consider ourselves one big family, regardless of whether we come from the Maritimes, from Quebec, from Ontario, from the middle west,
or from distant British Columbia. I do not think it is fair for some hon. members to get up and leave the chamber when other hon. gentlemen are endeavouring to make known the needs of the country; it would be far better for all of us to Temain and exert our utmost endeavours to do what is best for Canada. Personally I have striven throughout the session to stay here and listeD to every speaker; even when speeches were made in French I did my best to follow the ideas outlined. Some years ago I remember reading Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and one of the points emphasized was the desirability of members abstaining from reading written speeches and endeavouring to express themselves extemporaneously. Since coming here I have also read Mr. Beaudhesne's Parliamentary Rules, in which hon. gentlemen are warned against reading essays. Now, I intend to follow the rules of this House, and if I cannot talk extemporaneously on questions of vital importance I will either keep my seat or keep out of the House. I read in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules that the following resolution was adopted by the House on April 19, 1886:
That the growing practice, in the Canadian House of Commons, of delivering speeches of great length, having the character of carefully and elaborately prepared written essays, and indulging in voluminous and often irrelevant extracts, is destructive of legitimate and pertinent debate upon public questions, is a waste or valuable time, unreasonably lengthens the sessions of parliament,-
And so on. Now, Sir, I intend to live up to the rules of the House. I am going to abide by the rules as I find them, amd furthermore I shall be very brief.
It is hard for a man who comes from western Canada to remain here when the west is calling to us as it does at this particular season of the year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I know very well that in
saying that I have the sympathy of my Progressive friends, and also of hon. gentlemen from Saskatchewan. I know they feel the call from the west just as I feel it. Perhaps I have been in the west for a longer period than most of the other western members and on that account the call appeals to me with greater force. It seems to me that instead of wasting time we should get through the business of the House with greater promptitude in thie interests of this country. I read in one of our journals a piece of poetry which seems to me to express in a vivid manner what I
The Budget-Mr. Mullins

might call the sentiment of the west. That poetry is thus worded:
Put me west of old Fort Garry,
Where the prairie roses bloom,
Where the auto laughs at distance And a man has elbow room.
Let me ride upon the pilot,
When the first through train goes out,
Let me hear the settlers welcome it With joyous, ringing shout!
Let me be upon the prairie When they start a baby town,
And they're living under canvas While the first mud-sills go down;
For it truly stirs the blood To see cities in the bud,
And to feel a nation growing From the fertile prairie mud.
I have listened to speeches from hon. gentlemen representing many sections of Canada. I have listened to hon. gentlemen from the Maritimes, from Quebec, from Ontario, from many different provinces and districts. In the few brief remarks I intend to Offer to-night I would like to express my views as a member of the great Canadian family. For I prefer to look upon Canada politically Speaking, as a family. The interests of the family, as a whole, are one, but if any particular member is suffering from peculiar misfortune or disability, special consideration Should be generously extended. If the Maritime provinces, if British Columbia, if the great west, if Ontario and Quebec 'have each peculiar and individual problems, or at times suffer exceptional disadvantage, Jet us not hesitate to give special attention to their condition. Even a gesture makes for goodwill. All this no doubt is subject to the qualification that the concession must not be such as will prove injurious to the family as a whole. The principle is really justice, justice to the nation as a whole, the greatest good for the greatest number, and justice to ea-dh individual member, part and section of the community so far as it is possible to effect it.
Hon. members representing Other sections of the country have placed t'heir positions before the House. I wish to do so, Mr. Speaker, as far as agriculture in the west is concerned. And that is a big and vital subject, because the top six inches of the soil of those great western prairies has to go a long way toward liquidating the debt of this country. Give us half a chance and we will help the rest of the country pay that debt.
I have spoken many times on one particular subject, and I was told to-night that I was not to touch it; to keep away from it and let the steer alone for once. I fully in-

tended to, and I am not going to say very much on that subject. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has ceased to read his newspaper; I have tried my best since I have been in this House to get him to reduce the rate on steers. I ask him again to give us the $15 rate to England; unless he does so that industry will shrink until it disappears. The hon. member who preceded me spoke of cattle going to the United States; give us the $15 rate for mature cattle and there is a market overseas which cannot be blocked. I have in my hand a request from one Scotch firm for 5,000 head of cattle; there is a wonderful trade in the Old Country. It is true that some rubbish is not fit to go over there, because the Scotchman is a pretty canny chap and wants well bred steers. Ship the rubbish to the United States if you will, but do not ship them, the immature young well bred steer off the western prairie. Saskatchewan, listen to me; I mean this. A well bred yearling or two-year-old growing on your farm is the best value you have and the best asset to any bank in western Canada; nothing on the farm will pay as well.
I have heard a great deal about the shipping of dead beef, but that is not feasible, as the minister knows. I am sorry that I must take issue with my leader on that matter: he as well as others on this side have spoken on that question and I am afraid I cannot agree with them. Let me say for the information of the House, after being in the trade for fifty years and after having shipped dead beef, that you will only try one shipment. The minister only tried one, and he knows that the loss amounted 9 p.m. to about $50 per head. The logical way to ship Canadian cattle to the British Isles is on the hoof; that has been proved to be the only feasible way. I can demonstrate that with a statement by Mr. McLean of the Harris Abattoir Company ; I do not know why he has had a change of heart, but he was formerly an advocate of the dead beef business. I quote:
It would be unwise for any province of Canada to attempt a chilled meat business at present, stated Mr. J. S. McLean, of Toronto, at the annual meeting of the Western Canada Live Stock Union. His company, the Harris Abattoir Company, had discontinued chilled meat shipments because seventeen shipments made in 1921 lost the company an average of 2$ cents per pound. The total loss on 1,200,000 pounds was $28,000.
I was in the London market and saw South American chilled beef selling at 4jd. per pound, with our best Canadian steers selling at lid. Which do you prefer? Those who advocate the shipment of dead beef do not understand the situation, and they are play-

The Budget-Mr. Mullins
ing into the hands of the enemy in the Old Country-those who were opposed to the admission of Canadian cattle into the British Isles. The minister knows that I am correct in that statement.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Absolutely.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Ireland and those other
countries say that Canada should ship dead beef; Ireland ships a million head of cattle to England a year, while Canada ships one hundred thousand. Ireland could be put into one corner of my constituency, but we are only shipping a hundred thousand head of cattle each year when we should be shipping a million. They want Canadian steers.
Let me say in passing that I did not intend to mention the steer; I have enough material without it, but the hon. gentleman who preceded me mentioned it, and so many professional men on this side of the House talk of dead beef that I want to put them right, in order that they may understand the subject thoroughly. That business is not practical; it is impossible; it brings us into competition with South America, which can ship no other way because its cattle have to cross the equator. It is impossible to ship dead meat from Canada and compete with South America. They would not ship their cattle dead if they could ship them alive, and the enemies of Canadian cattle in England are asking Canada to get into that dead meat trade, in order to get them out of the road of live cattle. The live Canadian steer is the finest of all animals, and the Scotchman knows it; just thirty days after the steer is landed in England it is ready to go on the market at the top price. I am sorry to see the Mail and Empire, a Conservative organ, persistently writing of the dead beef business; it is wrong, and I say so from the floor of this House; speaking from experience. I made one shipment of 600 cattle from Boston, which I have never forgotten; they went into competition with the cheap stuff from South America, and the loss was so great that I am not going back into that business.
I want hon. members of this House to know that the only salvation for Canada's cattle industry is live cattle, with more ships, and-for the last time, for the benefit of the minister-the 815 rate on the government ships. The minister has that power; he can give us that rate to-morrow morning if he will. But when I asked the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) the other day if it was possible for Canada to have a 815 rate on live stock he told me that the question would be better answered at some other time, 14011-215



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
some future day. AVe in western Canada are tired of waiting. I do not say this for my own benefit, because I am out of the business; but I do say it for the men who have the cattle. The hon. member who just took his seat knows all about it. Do not come west, Mr. Minister, and give us another interview in the Free Press, to say that you are still doing something for us. Do not repeat that statement which you give us yearly; do something to-morrow morning instead. Who owns the Canadian Government Merchant Miarine, and who is operating it? It is owned and operated by the government of the day, and if my party were in power and would not use these ships to-morrow to relieve the man on the land I would cross the floor of the House in five minutes. I would not sit in this seat longer than that if my party would not give that industry consideration, in order to keep the fertility in the soil of western Canada. Western Canadians know that our production is dropping from thirty bushels to the acre; you in Saskatchewan are dropping from fifty bushels, due to the lack of live stock on the farm. You are taking the fertility out of the soil, and you are putting nothing back into it through lack of live stock.
Mr. VALLANCE:: If the minister reduces the rate to 815, will the hon. member walk over to this side?


Henry Alfred Mullins: That is not the only question to be settled. There are other big economic questions up for consideration, but if the minister will do it, I am big enough to give him credit for it in western Canada. I know there is a practical man on this side of the House who will do it if he gets hold of the lines, and if he does not do it when he gets the chance he will hear from me pretty loudly. Why should I cross to that side? I have told you twenty times, and I say it again now, that I believe in live cattle shipments, not dead meat shipments.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the policy of this side. The dead meat shipments are advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Henry Alfred Mullins: But they are not in power. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) said that the government merchant marine were out of the combine, and that I was a year late in making my representations. I do not think I was one minute late. If you are not in the New York combine, you are in the trade combine out of Montreal at all events, and what is the difference? There is no difference whatever. You could sail those ships to-morrow morning if you wanted to.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Mullins
[Stage Direction]
The Jensen line, a privately-owned line in Toronto, is sailing four ships, and they would carry the cattle at $15 if they could be protected against a rate war. Those ships carry nothing but live stock going east, and they come back empty. Why cannot you do it with the merchant marine boats? There are twenty-four ships, of 8,000 tons each. I have crossed the ocean, Mr. Speaker, on small boats of 3,500 and 4,000 tons. For thirty-five or forty years I have been crossing the ocean on just little tubs, boats that could not begin to compare with those of the government merchant marine. They try to tell us that these boats are no good, but they are splendid sea-going boats. Do not give these boats away; do not sell them for $45,000 or $50,000, because you are going to want them soon, and you will certainly need them when you open up the port I am going to ask you to open up.
I must ask your pardon, Mr. Speaker, and the pardon of the House for touching on the cattle question at all. I would never have brought it up if the hon. gentleman had not reminded me of it, because there are so many other important questions affecting this great Canadian family that we are supposed to represent in this House. We have the Mari-times with their coal problem, Alberta with her coal problem, Ontario with her peculiar problems-we have just heard of Toronto's need for a customs house; and in western Canada we have our great problems of transportation, better banking facilities, and the need for cheaper money. Do not go out there, you easterners, with your capital, and charge the exorbitant rates of interest, 8, 9 and 10 per cent, that you are charging out there, which works against the man on the land. No man can stand that exorbitant rate of interest. You have got to give the farmer in western Canada cheap money; you must help him and encourage him, and if you do that, we shall have a wonderful country.
For the benefit of the treasury benches, let me say this: Do not buy these corners here in Ottawa. Do not waste any more money on these buildings, because the day is coming when this parliament will be sitting in Winnipeg. There is the axle, half way between the Atlantic and the Pacific; there is the logical place for this parliament, and once you give the people of the west a chance, the bulk of the population of this country will be found west of Winnipeg on those great prairies. You gentlemen opposite who have the lines in your hands, hold those bronchos in and tell them to give you a $15 rate and cheaper money, better transportation and 
cheaper rates, so that the farmers of the west can get their products to the markets of the world.
It was not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to take up as much time as I have done, but I wanted to place myself on record for the benefit of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), for I shall not be here for the vote on Tuesday night. The hon. gentleman was for some reason or other very anxious about my seat and about my two friends here, who are just as loyal to the farmer in western Canada as any hon. gentleman sitting at the Progressive end of the House. I want the hon. gentleman to watch every step and move that I make in this House, and be sure and tell the people of Marquette of everything I do, which he said he was going to do. The hon. member for Brandon says there wall be very few Conservatives come back to this House after the next election. He made me feel very anxious about this seat which I have been trying to hold since the 7th of January. I almost felt I was going to lose my seat when I learned that he had said in Toronto:
One thing I do know is that the Conservatives, if there were another election, would never get the representation they have now in the west. They have seven members now from Manitoba, where they are in the minority.
Then he goes on openly to admit that he is a Liberal. He is reported as follows:
The present Liberal government in Ottawa, in the opinion of the Progressive leader, will last this session without any difficulty. It may last its full term. "After all," said Mr. Forke, "the Progressives are simply Liberals in action." [DOT]
Robert Forke: I would like to say for the
third and last time-because this is the third time I have had to rise to deny that statement-that I never made it. I am not ashamed of it at all, but I did not make it.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I have never seen the
statement denied. If I was misquoted in the press, I would correct the error. When I joined the Progressive party some years ago I thought they would be of some use to western Canada, but at the very first meeting I attended they began attacking the tariff. You have played on that string too long in western Canada. It is the only thing you have. You play with it, when it is not of vital importance to western Canada. It is like playing a Chinese fiddle with only one string. But you make the admission which has appeared in the paper. I have known you and I have always felt that you were just a good solid staunch Liberal, but that was the first time I saw the acknowl-

The Budget-Mr. Mullins
edgment in the paper that you were a Liberal in action. Now, I think enough has been said about you-the big stick and that sort of thing; but I do not think you would use the club very severely on any one. Having known you for a great many years and having known your sentiments, I say that you are a Liberal, and you have a right to go over to the treasury benches and take a portfolio. There is no one more honest in Canada to-day than the gentleman we call "Bob Forke". I know enough of procedure not to call members by name in this House, but I talk to my hon. friend just as we talk on the western prairies. The hon. member for Brandon knows our manner of speaking on the prairies, but in the House we address hon. members in a different way.
I do not wish to criticize the banks, but I want to give them a little advice. I suggest that they should give their branch managers out west more discretion, that they should say to them: "You shall have more latitude with regard to the man on the land', and, taking into consideration section 88 of the Bank Act, advance money to him at a reasonable figure, six per cent and no more."
In regard to rural credits. I would substitute the words, Mr. Speaker, "agricultural credit." I do not approve of any man going into debt if he can help it. I wish to see the man on the land out west get out of debt. A mortgage on a farm on the prairie is a cloud on every golden wheat field. If -conditions were favourable out there there would be no reason to borrow money. An open letter was written to Mr. W. F. Maclean, House of Commons, Canada, from McAuley in my constituency, which reads:
The people of this district have been put to considerable inconvenience by the closing up of the branch of the Royal bank at this point, for no reason other than they had been offered an inducement to do so by the Bank of Toronto, which has a branch ten miles from here which, we understand is not paying due to a limited territory and if they can secure out business it will help them, so a "saw off" was arranged and our business was traded for a similar concession at some point in Quebec.
The Royal bank officials admit that they have made a profit each year since opening in 1919 and their local loans were repaid without loss. We are told that there was approximately $90,000 on deposit here when they closed and the manner of dosing out was done in a most arfcibtrary manner. On Tuesday January 26, word came to the local manager that the doors were to be closed on January 30, no notice was given but the news soon spread and depositors came in to withdraw their accounts and take away securities lodged in safe deposit boxes, rented from the bank.
Depositors were given the option of taking their deposits in cash while it lasted or having it transferred to any branch of the Royal. In cases where no instruc-
14011-215i
tions were given the account was transferred to the Bank of Toronto at Welwyn, Sask., which the bank was no doubt allowed to do under the Bank Act, which we understand is very favourable to the banks.
As soon as our board of trade learned that the bank was to be closed a public meeting was called and a delegation of two were sent to Winnipeg to wait upon the western representative of the Royal bank, to ask that they keep open for at least a month, so that we could lake steps to secure another bank, or at least to allow us reasonable time to settle our business affairs. They said they could not do this as their hands were "tied".
The delegates called upon the representatives of several other banks, who agreed to consider the matter of opening here, but we now find that the Bankers' Association has whipped these into line, and the Bank of Toronto people who bargained for our business, are laughing at our futile efforts.
For a time they had a branch bank at McAuley, but for some reason or other the boards of the banks made some kind of trade and left that place without a bank. The farmers need banks when they are shipping their grain, and they need them also for their savings. The bank manager of a small branch must have wider powers in western Canada, because he really knows the conditions. If in the matter of loans he is subject to a limit of one or two thousand dollars and he has to send to the head office at Quebec, Montreal or Toronto for authority to make a larger loan, it takes a couple of weeks, and it is then probably too late to meet the requirements of the man seeking the loan. Furthermore, the loan is often not granted because in the head office they do not know the real conditions as well as the man on the ground. We want more banking facilities out west. This letter was sent to Mr. Maclean and a copy was forwarded to me. I have read it for the benefit of the Banking committee and I ask that when that committee meets again something be done to help the men in the rural parts of that great western country.
I will speak now on an important subject -and I know there will be severe criticism, but I am going to stand up against it; a good many men in a certain line of business will take objection to what I am going to say in this connection. I say that the proper method of making a success of the farming industry in the west is by the promotion of the cooperative spirit. This proposition was started by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) some years ago. A hill was introduced to provide for the marketing of the grain of western Canada. It was followed up and a great many people criticized it, but they have adopted that plan, and I say the system of co-operation is the only true system to provide for the marketing of the grain product.
The Budget-Mr. Mullins

I have closely watched the operation of this system. It is run in an honest way, and I believe it is going to be very successful. Such a system is imperative. I have always said that in order to be successful the farmers should get together-but not for politics; keep out of that issue altogether. It is imperative that the agricultural leaders of the west, and the leaders in manufacturing, railways, banking, and other commercial interests of tb" east should get together on common ground, for a common understanding, for the common good of all concerned. I wish to refer to a statement made by President Roosevelt on this point-and I may say that I had the honour of riding on a ranch with that gentleman, who has crossed the Great Divide. I mbt him on another occasion in Toronto and I was with him also in Dakota; I slept with him under canvas many years ago. I always admired Teddy Roosevelt. He said:
The co-operative plan is the best plan of organization, wherever men have the right spirit to carry it out. Under this plan any business undertaking is managed by a committee, every man has one vote and only one vote, and everyone gets profits according to what he sells or buys or supplies. It develops individual responsibility and has a moral as well as a financial value over any other plan.
The farmers of western Canada have made .numerous attempts to solve the question by [DOT]co-operative marketing by the wheat pool. I feel that it is the only solution of the question of marketing the grain in western Canada. The day will arrive when the western country will produce men who will not be swept off the rocks by the surge of a popular political wave. I want the hon. member for Brandon to listen to this statement. I have made some study o!f the question. This is a matter I have worked out-I do not mean my speech -and I did it particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Brandon:
Co-opera<tion Is The Clarion Call
The day has now arrived when western Canada must produce agricultural leaders who will not be swept off the rock of reason by the surge of a popular political wave; leaders who are capable of understanding (that the need for legislation is only incidental, that the primary need of the prairie farmer is broad, comprehensive co-operation-co-operation in production, co-operation in distribution, co-operation in marketing. It is true that production must be largely an individual matter with the farmer, but if he can cut his threshing bill in half by co-operation, what is to prevent him from cutting his ploughing and seeding bills down through get-together methods? Why cannot he make a weedy farm as unpopular as a skunk in the dairy room, and thus save for himself the millions of dollars it costs the western farmer annually to grow weeds?
The tariff is a matter that has finally got to be solved by a mutual agreement and understanding between the farmers and the manufacturers. No sane, concerted action has ever been adopted in connection with the Canadian tariff, and there will never be a solution as long as senseless political sparring at long
I Mi. Mullins.]
range continues. We do not purpose discussing the tariff question in this pamphlet, because of the reasons iust stated. Here is something worth noting, however: The farmers complain that the tariff cost them some $9,000,000 in 1922, but never a word is said about the loss of $150,000,000 to the farmers of western Canada in 1922 through weeds.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) said that I discussed the Australian treaty all through the constituency of Marquette and evaded the tariff issue. That is not the case. The question of the tariff was discussed on every platform in Marquette. I had before me a memorandum of subjects so that I would not go astray. I had so many heavy subjects to handle, such as the expenditures of the country, questions pertaining to transportation, and so on, that at times I may have been able only to touch on the tariff lightly. Perhaps that is what the minister alluded to, but the tariff was discussed on every platform and was explained to every woman in the county. In order to realize that the women of Marquette appreciated the value of protection, you have only to count the' Liberal votes in Marquette where the silver-tongued orator, Dr. Roche, used to have a close call. It was always a close constituency, and the majority I received showed that the ladies in that constituency recognized the fact that the government had made a treaty that hurt the Canadian hen. Every time the ladies there wanted bo buy spring millinery and new dresses they thought of the tariff and they went to the polls and voted accordingly.
At Shoal lake we have the highest class dairy in the country; nothing in Canada can beat it because it is carrying off all the prizes against the world. It took the first prize at the National Exhibition at Toronto. A lady from McAuley carried off the first prize for dairy butter, and the women in that constituency know that the treaty which the government made permitting Australian butter to enter Canada was wrong and against their interests. I am well aware of the support that I received and the vote that was quietly registered. It was largely Liberals who voted for me because they knew. that the government had made a treaty that was affecting their interests.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to put down the paper he is reading because I cannot talk to him when his face is concealed behind a paper. I have been looking at his kindly face for forty years in western Canada and I have no ill-feeling towards him. I like to see his genial smile, but when he hides his face behind a newspaper I cannot speak t.c him. The Canadian dairy cow is speaking through me to you and she says'

The Budget-Mr. Mullins
Why did you do it? I tried to give you the best milk that could be produced and you made a treaty allowing Australian butter to come in. The Canadian hen says: I laid the best eggs in the world for you and you have made a treaty allowing Chinese and Australian eggs to enter Canada in competition with the finest egg in the world, the egg that is laid in Canada under the most sanitary conditions. I have seen people in those foreign countries raising eggs; I have seen how they feed the hens, and I refuse to eat imported eggs. I appeal to the minister to do something in the interest of the farmers out west.
There were 253,000 tons of screenings at Fort William out of last year's crop and they were disposed of in this way: 126,000 tons went to the United States, only 995 tons came to Manitoba-and part of that I fed-and the balance went to Ontario points. If the government want to do a favour to the farmers on the prairies they will prevent these screenings from going to the United States and let them go back to the western farmer at a reduced rate so that he can feed the young growing cattle. The men who are running the grain pool are putting in a screening elevator; they are going to clean some of the wheat at home and we shall have the screenings for feed.
I am looking forward to the day when we shall get on to the right system of farming and have homes, not boarding houses on the prairies. I have been taken to task for speaking of the cowless, sowless, chickenless farmer. I did not mean anything wrong although I meant every word I said. I did not mean to be insulting to any man who is growing wheat in western Canada. The man to whom I was referring was not the mixed farmer but the man who has not a home on the prairies, who is just exploiting the soil, and who is ready to move out at any time. The Saskatchewan members know him well. You will have more patriotic citizens when you have them making homes for themselves, because a man will defend a home before he will defend a boarding house. I want to see the farmers of western Canada build comfortable homes for themselves, make them congenial and keep the boys at home. I do not want to see the boys lured to the city because they see their brothers there getting rich through other sources. I want to see the coarse grains driven to market on four feet through live stock such as hogs, cattle and so on, because that will make any farmer in the west rich. He cannot become rich just by growing grain. My hon. friends from Saskatchewan know that there must be diversified farming if they are
to succeed. It is imperative that the prairies shall be populated, and homes will be established there when that great country gets half a chance in the way of transportation so that the barriers may be broken down and we may get to the east and reach the ocean through the Hudson Bay railway.
Mention of this project brings me to a question which has been discussed to a considerable extent. If I may say so, I happen to be the only man in this House to-day who was present at the meeting in Winnipeg thirty-eight years ago when Hugh Sutherland, a personal friend of mine, and Mr. Scarth, were contesting that seat. Hugh Sutherland brought forward a telegram announcing that the rails were on their way and that the road would be built. Well, that was thirty-eight years ago and we have been building the Hudson Bay railway ever since. At every political meeting since that time the people have been told that the work would be proceeded with, and bit by bit the road has been constructed until at the present time it is within ninety-two miles of the water's edge, having been constructed up to Kettle rapids. But that is as far as it has gone. Now the government tell us that they are going to complete the Hudson Bay railway. Let me assure them that I am heartily with them and I trust that they will carry out their intention.
In this connection I have been criticized for having gone to Middlesex and talked to some of my old time friends who were in the cattle business. The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) knows just what I said, and he can bear me out when I declare that nothing that I had to say could possibly call for adverse criticism, inasmuch as I did not discuss the Hudson Bay railway. The hon. member is no doubt aware also of the identity of the person who sent a certain telegram which has provoked so much criticism of myself. All the way from Arkansas I have received communications more or less to the effect that my comments on the subject had left a nasty taste in the mouths of these people. I ne^er opened my mouth in regard to the Hudson Bay railway. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) is not here, but I want to tell him that when he refers to the hon. member for South Oxford as the gentleman who was with me on the platform he is entirely mistaken; it was the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. D. M. Sutherland) who accompanied me. The hon. member for South Oxford was out west and he did say that the Hudson Bay railway should be built, but Doctor Sutherland was with me on the platform and was never west
The Budget-Mr. Mullins

of the Great Lakes. He did observe at the close of the meeting that the government were throwing away millions in connection with the Hudson Bay railway and that this was a waste of money. These remarks he made after x had spoken and I said to him from my seat, "Wait a moment; you are wrong; you do not know what you are talking about." As I say, this was at the close of the meeting and I had no opportunity whatever to make any statement. Now I ask my hon. friend from Lisgar to go to Marquette and explain the circumstances to the people there. I have been criticized severely in this matter but this is one of those occasions in politics when one is misrepresented, whatever one may do. It does not matter whether you keep silent or whether you speak; people will criticize you. Let me say, however, that here as well as elsewhere I stand absolutely- for the farmers $f western Canada, and I defy any man to show wherein I have done anything that will tend to prejudice their interests. And so long as I have the honour to occupy the seat for the constituency of Marquette I will do everything in my power to further its interests in every way.
I am absolutely at a loss to know who is distributing the pamphlets criticizing the Hudson Bay railway. Who is the man and where does he come from? I do not believe that he has ever seen Hudson bay. I do not think he knows anything about it. Yet he or somebody 6*186 goes to a lot of expense to have these pamphlets printed and distributed. If this Mr. J. L. Payne wants a picture of the Welshman in the gulf I will bring a lantern slide and show it for his benefit. The year in which the embargo was placed against Canadian cattle I was waiting in Montreal with a friend who had 507 head of cattle in this vessel and she was stuck in the ice in the gulf for two weeks. Some of the boys took a picture of her. But that would sink into insignificance in comparison with some of the pictures that appear in this pamphlet, a copy of which has been left in my post office box.
I have read in the Ottawa Journal an article on Hudson bay, and while I do not want to fall out with the press I must point out that this article is altogether wrong when it states that money spent on the Hudson Bay railway is just so many millions thrown to the icebergs and the wolves and seals. Why, while I waS reading this article in the spring people were bathing in Hudson bay. I had up in my room to-night a gentleman who was in swimming in the bay and he told me that the water was warm in September. The gentleman to whom I refer, Mr. Hoey, was a mem-
ber of this House in the last parliament, and the Premier of Manitoba as well as the mayor of Winnipeg have told me the same thing. A friend of mine spent from May to November last year at Hudson bay and as a result of his observations he was able to assure me that in his opinion the bay was navigable beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know myself that it is navigable, and there is no reason why the Hudson Bay railway should not have been built. If it had been built all the way and had been found then to be impracticable, the people of eastern Canada might with justice have exacted their pound of flesh.
I want to tell the Minister of Railways that if he wishes to create a reputation for himself -he will complete this project, but I am afraid that the course which the government is at present pursuing is a mistaken one. I am sorry that the minister is not in his place, because it was my desire to put my views particularly to him. I do not want to be in any way critical; but I must ask him to give the country an honest deal in this matter. He can make a record for himself if he will go about the completion of the Hudson Bay railway in the right way. Do not let him give us assurances as was done in the case of the Canadian National, that the thing can be done for ten or twelve million dollars and then find in the long run that the cost has increased to some four hundred millions. We want a railway which will be honestly constructed in every detail.
In this regard I desire to quote a letter which will speak for itself. What the government is doing at present is this: it is simply laying down what may be called cull ties. These ties are being spread along the line and they are not more than six inches in diameter. They are made of swamp cedar and are being purchased from the United States. Surely this is appalling. A friend of mine, an old cruiser, happened to be going on an expedition along the route of the Hudson Bay railway, and in reply to a request I made of him to keep his eyes open and advise me of conditions he writes me the following letter from the Pas. It is important that hon. members should be apprised of the contents of this letter. It is addressed to myself and reads:
Referring to my previous correspondence with you, I am giving herein a few more particulars in connection with the H.B.R. You may remember that in 1918 a large quantity of material was taken from the H.B.R. caused through the exigencies of war. Included in the items were sixty cars of steel, each containing thirty tons. Probalbly locomotives to the number of a dozen, in addition to flat cars and a very large number of ties were also removed. I have never yet heard whethei the H.B.R. was given any cash credit for the equip-

The Budget-Mr. Mullins
ment thus taken, but if so, it would be very interesting to know the amount so credited. I understand that the ties thus removed were used on the line between Preeceville and Kenville.
You may not know, but it is a fact, that large supplies of edibles are always kept in warehouse at Port Nelson. From information I have gathered, large quantities of these supplies are sold at cost to the Hudson's Bay Company, particularly to Mr. Harding, manager of the H.B.C. post at York factory.
This is the point which to me is of most importance.
It is more than interesting to note that the ties now being distributed along the Hudson Bay railway are in no cases No. 1, but are better described as being culls made from old swamp cedar. A man who knows a great deal about ties tells me that many of the ties are only five or six inches in diameter and are not likely to hold the spikes.
I am mentioning these matters to you as I should like some one to put questions to the Minister of Railways on the points raised by me in this letter.
If the government are starting the work of completing the Hudson Bay railway in that fashion the prospect for us in the west is no* very hopeful. If you put down ties that will not carry a donkey engine you are not going to be able to transport much traffic. I ask the government to remember that there are going to be heavy wheat trains and heavy stock trains rolling up to Hudson bay. I har^ every confidence that this route is navigable, regardless of what Mr. Payne says, or what any pamphlets profess to show. I know it because of this experience: I have crossed the Atlantic ocean about 104 times. In the course of these trips I have asked the old mariners I encountered on the cattle ships how they have spent their lives. Mlany have told me that they have spent years fishing and sealing in Hudson bay. I have asked them often what that route was ilke, and their reply has invariably been, " I would rather navigate the Hudson bay route than the strait of Belle Isle. It is not nearly as dangerous, it is a far better and an easier route." Think of the ships that have been wrecked on the island of Anticosti. Why, if you took a map of Anticosti you would not be able to put the head of a pin upon a place where there had not been a shipwreck. On the other hand, ships have gone in and out of Hudson bay freely and I only know of two vessels that have been wrecked in the course of a long period of years. My implicit belief is that the Hudson bay route is a safer and easier route than the St. Lawrence route. I have no fault to find with the legitimate claims of St. John or Montreal, and I have been shipping out of the latter port for a great many years. But these ports enjoy a big trade from Ontario. All I ask is that we in the west be given a chance. There is no existing route as satisfactory for the transportation of live
stock as the Hudson Bay route will be when it is completed. I have seen from 100 to 150 cattle thrown into the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec due to the heat and imperfect ventilation on the cattle ships. You will never get happenings like that on the Hudson bay route. Our western cattle are raised under cold, bracing conditions. They are healthy and hardy and will stand the Hudson bay route twice as well as they do the existing long railway haul to the Atlantic. It is the long haul from Winnipeg to the seaboard that is mainly responsible for shrinkage in the number of weight of cattle; they do not suffer so much on the ship. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has crossed the Atlantic several times and knows that I am speaking the truth in regard to this matter. It is the railway haul, not the ocean trip which is most to be feared. Given fair weather, you can maintain your cattle in good condition on shipboard.
Much criticism of the Hudson bay route is being indulged in. I am sorry to say that even some hon. gentlemen on this side criticize the project, and make fun of me when I refer to it. But I want to remind my critics that some years ago it was said that only a strip of 46 miles west of the Great Lakes was fit for agricultural purposes; the rest of it was a frozen and arid district. That statement was made by a prominent engineer, but some of us have lived to see how foolish that prediction was. It was said at the time of its inception that the Canadian Pacific railway would not pay for the axle grease used on it, that it would traverse an arid and frozen country. The man who made that foolish prediction published a book on the subject. He was a most learned engineer, and he considered it to be his mission to save this country from the great loss of building the Canadian Pacific railway. Away back on May 6, 1886, an old friend of mine, Mr. W. P. Luxton-the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mt. Rogers) knows him well,-wrote an article in the Winnipeg Free Press, of which he was editor. That article, the language of which is as applicable to-day as it was then, was thus worded:
This project is the bright hope of the Canadian northwest. Compared with it, many other most important things are insignificant. It is nature coming to disperse the barriers which she herself has raised. Our natural disadvantage is that our land is too remote from the sea coast and the markets of the old world; our wonderful natural advantage is that in Hudson bay we have a sea coast near at hand, and via Hudson bay we have a shorter route to the old world than that of our neighbours in the east. While nature has placed us far inland, in the very centre in fact, of the broadest portion of the continent, she has placed near at hand the great inland
The Budget-Mr. Mullins

sea that will solve the difficulties of our position. Our lands are the most fertile in the world, and the opening of the Hudson hay route must instantly bring us as near to European markets as are the provinces in the east or the states to the south and east. The prospect is magnificent! No more exciting offer was ever held out to any -people than that which is now extended to us by the Hudson Bay railway and the great natural privileges with which it is to connect us. Let us see to it that no man dares to oppose this .great country in this its great desire.
We, have been a patient people in the west in regard to this project. Now after all the time that has elapsed, we are looking to this government to complete the railway and complete it in an honest fashion. If the present government cannot do it, let them make way for hon. gentlemen on this side. Then the road will be built and built in an honest manner. Then we shall see great trainloads of grain and cattle thundering over the Hudson Bay railway on their way to the ocean terminal. There is a paper called the Journal published in Ottawa. I read it every morning. I do not know why that paper criticizes the Hudson Bay route in the manner it does. It doesn't care a tinker's darn for Harry Mullins, Mr. Murphy or the member for Springfield (Mr. Hay). But the man who writes for the Journal is only one individual. Does he know all about the subject? Has he been to Hudson bay? With his limited knowledge of the subject, is he going to endeavour to mould public opinion? I have been up that route- although not quite as far as the Minister of Agriculture-I have been all over it, I have photographs of the route and of the country. It is a splended -route and a splendid country. The district through which that road will pass is a fine country. The district tributary to the railway is exceedingly rich in minerals, and the waters of Hudson bay teem with fish. Many western men, including the mayor of Winnipeg, have been over the route and seen the country for themselves. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) has been all over that country and knows it well. He knows that it is a wonderful country, and that the Hudson bay line will pay well.
The opponents of the project are now attacking Nelson; they want the terminus diverted to Churchill. But the harbour at Nelson is a splendid one; there is nothing wrong with it. The work will not be as costlly as has been said; the Journal had better go up there, take a trip over the road and find out what we have. I appeal to hon. members from Quebec to stand back of the project; do not fight it. I do not need to appeal to hon. members from Saskatchewan; they know all about it. I belonged to Ontario in my boyhood days, and you professional men from 
Ontario should not block us in the realization of this hope. Is there another Mr. Marler to spring up and thunder in this House, with his documents and data, against the Hudson Bay railway? I wish I had a legal mind and could pile up legal data as other hon. gentlemen have done; I would like to be able to prepare a brief, but I have not the legal mind; I can only appeal from the common sense standpoint. But I am afraid some of these eastern men are going to talk against that project, and I know they are absolutely wrong and unfair to our western people. What an opportunity we have, with an outlet on the Atlantic; now with an outlet in the middle we3t and another at the Pacific coast 1 We can have a wonderful Canada and I appeal to you not to block this proposal. We have sympathy for you in the Maritimes and in all the other provinces and I ask you not to take issue with us, because this railway will solve the greatest question in those prairie provinces.
A great deal has been said about the climate at the bay. I have a document here from a gentleman who knows all about it, who has lived there for a long time. It is too voluminous to read, but the climate is said to be free from disagreeable features or conditions of exceptional seasonal severity; it is a climate of beautiful warm summers, cold but exhilarating winters and short interventions of spring and fall. Between the Pas and Winni

peg there is a difference of about three degrees of temperature the year-round. Not only are summer temperatures especially favourable to plant life, but the length of daylight, about eighteen hours in, these latitudes, and its low absolute altitude are important and unfailing influences in the rapid growth of field crops. We in the west are two or three weeks ahead of Ontario now; the grain is up and the grass is growing; the west is calling those who belong there. I have lived in the -west for 'half a century, and I feel satisfied that if you give us an
10 p.m. honest road to Hudson bay and complete , it to tidewater there will be no handicaps at all. The merchant marine will come there and every ship will be needed ; do not sell another boat, because there will be plenty of cargo both ways.
I have taken up a good deal of time on. this matter, but I would have liked to say a great many more things about it. However, there will be another opportunity for me to speak on the Hudson bay project, and for the benefit of the hon. member for Brandon and the hon. member for Lisgar I would like now to give my views on the questions of the tariff and the budget. I am sorry I must.

The Budget-Mr. Mullins
be absent on Tuesday when the vote is taken, but I have to leave on account of my health; do not think I am shirking my duty. I am going to talk to you now about your pet tariff, and then I will close. I know you want me to come to that soon.
1 know, as do my hon. friends, that the world likes a man who keeps his word. It pays a man to keep his word in western Canada, because half of the business there is conducted by word of mouth. I have seen hundreds of thousands of dollars change hands without the help of our legal friends; they were not needed. They take a man at his word out there, and if you make a statement on any public platform in the west, be sure you are correct; the men there will not stand back of you if you break your word. I know the Minister of Agriculture wants me to talk on the tariff for a few moments, because he said I bamboozled the electors in my constituency. I did no such thing. I have lived under Sir John Thompson, Sir Charles Tupper and all the prime ministers down to the present, including the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier; we have always had a tariff since the days of confederation. How will we get revenue without a tariff? The Prime Minister stated in Neepawa, I think, that he was going to have a tariff board, but what did he do? He formed a tariff board, and immediately emasculated it .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I think that is the word; tie immediately emasculated that tariff board-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Mullins: If the word is wrong I
am willing to be corrected; I am not as highly educated as some of our university graduates, but I am sure the word is right, because I looked it up before using it. That was what happened to the board, and it was absolutely unfair: the west did not like it. On that account, for the benefit of the hon. member for Brandon and the hon. member for Lisgar I want to put myself on record, so they may go. to Marquette knowing how I stand. I stand for a man who will give his word and keep it. But the Prime Minister went to Kingston on October 21, just before the election, and told the manufacturers there that he believed they should have protection. He remarked:
We realize that our industries here have to have safeguards with respect to competition from other parts of the would; competition from the country to the south of us; competition from conditions as they are in England, and we think that is all the more reason why, in these days of depreciated currency and the like, we should have the benefit of expert advice and information on ail these great questions of the tariff.
The tariff board was formed, and on it was appointed a personal friend of mine, a gentleman I have known for many years, Mr. McKenzie. I know he is not a high tariff man; his father was not and neither is he. The matter of any proposed tariff changes should have been left to that board, in all fairness. The people of western Canada will not take that question as seriously as the hon. member for Lisgar does. He said he was going to watch my step in this House, and that is one of the reasons why I want to place myself on record to-night; I want to show where I stand.
So far as reducing the income tax is concerned, the reduction will help the young man who is getting three or four thousand dollars a year and has some idea of getting married, but it does not help very much the poor fellow who has a little faith in this country and has invested his money in the stocks of Canadian companies. I know a chap who has invested all his life's savings in Canadian companies, to help promote industry in Canada, and who is living on his dividends. Why should you curtail his income? You take mighty good care of your own salaries, and go after the fellow who has a little faith in his country and is drawing an income from dividends from Canadian companies; you tax those dividends three or four times. But you do not tax your 814,000, your $10,000 as ministers, and your $4,000 indemnities. You have that fixed so that you will pay only one tax, but you are going to tax three or four times the dividends of the man who is trying to help build up his country. Think it over. Do not block industry in this country. I am not making this appeal for myself, but for the many people in this country who have their money invested in Canadian companies and are living on their dividends.
The automobile tax reduction is not such a great thing. To me it does not mean very much. I believe in protection, but I do not believe in a manufacturer hiding behind the tariff and making a fortune out of it. As my right hon. leader says, I would see that he was not allowed to do that, especially the man who is manufacturing implements. I would have a tariff board, and I told the people of Marquette that we would have a tariff board. But the kind of tariff board I mean is not one that would take an industry by the scruff of the neck and throw it out of business, saying: Get to one side, you do not know your business. That is what the government has done in connection with this automobile reduction. They have made a drastic cut in the duty. I saw those four
The Budget-Mr. Mullins

thousand splendid people from Oshawa come and stand in the front of this building. Unlike the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I did not pick out a young fellow to talk to; I picked out an old fellow, and I asked him, "How long have you lived in Oshawa?" "All my life," he said. "Do you know Mr. McLaughlin?" I asked him. He said "I do." Mr. Speaker, old Mr. McLaughlin had no motor car. I was in California some years ago and bought a motor car there, and I was driving Mr. McLaughlin in my car through the orange groves in that southern country. I drove a McLaughlin buckboard and a McLaughlin buggy on the western prairies, and they were made of real honest material. I bought a car in the United States-get this, Mr. Member from Brandon, and tell the people of Marquette about it; I want you to tell them-I bought a car in the United States, and the spokes flew out of it and the body began to squeak; it was the poorest, shoddiest material that was ever put in a car. I bought a D-45 McLaughlin in Canada; I had it eight years, and I only gave it up because I got so ashamed of the people of Winnipeg asking me, "Mullins, when are you ever going to change that car?" I was afraid to let it go. I would rather have one McLaughlin car made in Canada than twenty shoddy cars made in the United States. Just look at an American Ford coming into the city of Winnipeg. Look at the wheels shimmying and wobbling. I believe the hon. member for Brandon is too shrewd a Scotchman to vote for anything like that. I am sure he would rather give double the money for a Canadian made Ford or a Canadian made McLaughlin. I do not think the hon. member for Brandon had anything to do with this cut in the duty on automobiles. I do not think he wielded the club over the government's head in the matter. I think his sympathies would be with the 4,000 men who came to this parliament asking us to protect their homes and their livelihood.
Some hon. member has said that the city of Hamilton consumes as much beef as we export. I have not checked that up, and I do not know whether it is right or not, but I should like to see a few Hamiltons and Torontos with their industries out west, and I would like to have a few of them scattered through the constituency of Marquette, to consume the products of our great prairies. Would I support a measure that would have a tendency to drive those 4,000 men away from Oshawa where they have made their homes, where they have lived all their lives, where they used to build buggies for Mr. McLaughlin, and where they said they had 
splendid homes and fine working conditions- would I drive them across the line? No, Mr. Speaker, not by my vote in this House, not if I lose my seat in Marquette forty times over; I will never do it. I spoke to these men, and found out from them the inside conditions. I do not hold any brief for Mr. McLaughlin if he was hiding behind the tariff, but I do say that you should have put the tariff board to work and have found out the facts before you touched this industry. It is unfair to cut the tariff without investigation.
Let me say a word to the Labour leaders from Winnipeg. I sat under the ministry of one of them. I listened to him preaching for a number of years, and he was a splendid chap. I do not know what has changed his ideas; I do not know what is the matter with him now. He used to preach splendid sermons in our church.


Mr. BENNETT:: He has fallen by the
wayside.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I do not know what
has changed him. I do not know anything about his colleague (Mr. Heaps) as a preacher, but I do know about the other man. I know a manufacturer in Winnipeg, manufacturing gloves and mittens. At the request of the industrial bureau I put a little money in that business to help him out. He had a hundred girls at work, and one Saturday he came to me with beads of perspiration standing on his brow, and said he had no money to pay those girls and asked me to help him out. He took me over to the Bank of Toronto and got me to endorse a paper for him so that those girls could receive their weekly pay. That fellow was not drawing as big a salary from the business as those girls were. They were making from $25 to $28 a week, and that poor fellow who was manufacturing these gloves only drew $100 a month. As I walked across the market square with him I heard a man standing on a soap box fairly eating up the poor employer; he was just devouring him, running #ie poor employer down, and here was a poor employer with me who was sweating drops of blood to meet the pay cheques on Saturday night. So I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, have a kindly word for the manufacturers. They are not all you think of them; be fair to them. I say that honest labour has a right to organize, and to strike if they are being oppressed by capital-yes, every time; but do not be unfair to the manufacturer. These men who oame from Oshawa were being treated fairly. Every one of them that

The Budget-Mr. Dussault
I talked to spoke very highly of his employer, and they were all well satisfied with their working conditions.
I am going to support the amendment, and I want to let the people in Marquette know that the government did not carry out its promise that it would appoint a tariff board and have a thorough inquiry into the question of the tariff before taking action. I am not finding so much fault with the budget as with the method adopted by the government on this occasion. That being the case I cannot support the motion to adopt the budget. I appeal to hon. members of this House not to be unfair to industry, not to take too narrow a view of it, and not to be too rabid in their ideas in regard to the western country and the building of the Hudson Bay railway. With these remarks I leave the situation in regard to the problems of western Canada in the hands of my hon. friends on this side of the House.


Mr. J. ETIENNE DUSSAULT (Levis) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, when at the opening of this session, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) proposed your reelection as Speaker, I enthusiastically approved of it like every other member of the House. Of course, you were best qualified to hold that position under the abnormal and difficult conditions due to the result of the last general election. But in doing so, the Liberal party gave the country and parliament further evidence of their self-denial and they deprived themselves of the services of one of the most Able members of parliament and of the most eloquent orators of our race. Mr. Speaker, let the first words that I utter in this chamber be words of hearty congratulation to you.
I do not intend to speak very long on the subject which is now before the House, but I would not take up the budget at once without saying to the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker), like hon. members who preceded me, how much we appreciated his delicate feelings in expressing himself in this House in the French language. The example which he set is worth being followed by every one of his English speaking colleagues. The compliment which he paid to us was appreciated not only in this House, but I venture to say in our whole province and the people of my district whom I met on my last week-end trip have asked me to thank the hon. member for Toronto Northeast on their behalf and to tell him that if he keeps on studying the French language, they will soon be glad to call him " Boulanger " and should he go further, to open to him the

doors of the Liberal party. The electors of the constituency which I have the honour to represent have received with a great deal of pleasure, I should say with enthusiasm, the budget as presented by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). I come from a district where wealthy people are an exception. A good number of my constituents, perhaps not the average but those who have some means, enjoy a decent comfort. They were among those who, under the old scale of taxation had to pay an income tax ranging from $40 to $200 a year. The present budget decreases their charges considerably and enables them to get a little more than what they formerly used to consider as luxury; it enables them to give their children a better education and, at the same time, to enjoy more of the pleasures of life. They have been just as happy to hear that the Minister of Finance did not have to show deficits or to announce an increase of the debt. Judging from the present budget, we may state that our country has gone through the after-war crisis and that, in the future, our financial results will favourably compare with those obtained by our beloved chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Ever since the beginning of this session the members sitting to your left strove to show, in all possible manners, why and how they have been reelected as members of this House. They state that, in their constituencies, the only important issue was that of high protection. Since this session began hon. members from the Maritime provinces have told us that they had been elected, not only in order to favour protection, but in order to uphold the rights of those provinces. The members from the West told us: We must have freight rates which will enable us to ship our products to the European markets; but everyone of them favours protection. Among the members who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, I seek in vain for one who said: I favour high protection, I want a higher tariff on such and such an article manufactured in this country; I would like to see the duty raised 10 or 20 per cent above what it is to-day. They are in a general way in favour of high protection, and nothing more.
With us, Mr. Speaker, conditions differ somewhat from those in the rest of the country. In the province of Quebec, the people are not exclusively supporters of free trade, but they do not advocate a high tariff, and you will readily understand why. In such constituencies as are depending on industry, it is more than likely that the voters should demand more protection in favour of the
The Budget-Mr. Dussault

industries on which they depend for their living; but when hon. gentlemen on the opposition side tell us that the province of Quebec as a whole is advocating protection, I feel that it is my duty to take exception to such a statement. For instance, Mr. Speaker, in the constituency of Levis, which I have the honour to represent in this House, there is not a single industry that is dissatisfied with the extent of protection enjoyed at the present time; and for years and years back, the people of Levis have been taxed for the benefit of the manufacturers. For that reason, it would hardly be fitting to come and tell them: You ought to consider yourselves fortunate in having to pay a higher price for anything you purchase inasmuch as what you thus pay goes towards the making up of wages earned by your workers! There is no worker in our district who can make a living out of the wages resulting from a high tariff policy. Should the big interests ever decide to establish any new industry in the city of Levis or in the town of Lauzon, I think that my constituents would be justified in protecting and doing their utmost towards safeguarding the capital from which they would derive their means of subsistence. But until such industries are established I see no reason why our people should be keen on paying a much higher price for anything from which they derive no benefit, directly or indirectly. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people in Ontario are beginning to admit the fitness of what I have just said. In fact, last night I clipped from the Star a short item reproduced from the Hamilton Spectator:
Everything that gives Quebec and Ontario a common aim, everything that turns the sympathetic attention of men in Ontario to Quebec and of men in Quebec to Ontario, is of value to both. The growth of manufactures in Quebec will in time bring industrialist and workman there to see the viewpoint of the Ontario manufacturer.
That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what we said to the voters during the last electoral campaign. We said: "If the manufacturers expect the province of Quebec to patronize them, the least they can do is to come along and let us benefit by their investments and thus assist in the development of our province."
The chief industry in my constituency is that of steel shipbuilding and neither the employers nor the workers engaged in that industry could depend on protection for the betterment of the conditions they are confronted with; a high tariff would solve none of their problems. Their competitors in that branch of business are British firms, from the United Kingdom, and every one knows that

no party would ever undertake to increase the tariff to the detriment of British shipbuilders. The remedy to the ills suffered by our workingmen employed in that particular industry is within reach of the administrators of this country: it is the readjustment of dry dock charges for ships in need of repairs, and such a readjustment can be made without any loss of revenue to the public treasury. Rates charged for the use of the dry dock in the case of ships to undergo permanent repairs should be decreased by half, so as to enable our Canadian shipyards to compete successfully with foreign shipbuilders.
This, as a rule, is what takes place when a large ship, liner or cargo boat is stranded somewhere in the river-the insurance companies concerned in the salvage of that ship immediately call for tenders from the different Canadian shipbuilding companies as well as from American and English shipyards. When thus competing, Canadian builders, as for instance those of Levis, must add to the cost of actual repairs such rates as they are compelled to pay for the use of the docks. Their competitors in England, who have been engaged in that industry for centuries, own their own dry docks and, in the price of their tenders do not include docking charges. Mr. Speaker, here in Canada, the department of Public Works would only have to lower by one half their docking charges and as an immediate result, our Canadian shipbuilders would be in a position to compete with the British shipyards. In fact, what happens when the Canadian employer is thus prevented from securing a contract? The ship is raised and laid up in the dry docks where she undergoes temporary repairs, which means, for instance, that whatever plates of the hull are warped or twisted are not even removed but covered with new ones; then the ship is launched again and with a full or half cargo, proceeds to Europe where the permanent repairs are to be made. If dry dbck charges allowed our contractors to compete for the job not only would it not cost one cent more to the country, but the vessel remaining here for a full month would be a four or five times better paying proposition than when the length of its stay is a mere three days; moreover, our workers would find employment for one, two or three months. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that common interest demands that those engaged in ship construction and repairs should live near the dry dock, since a dry dock without expert workmen would be like a hospital without a doctor; if these men are not kept employed they must

The Budget-Mr. Dussault
look for work elsewhere. I do not say they will leave the country but they will go away in search of a living. It is one of navigation's essential needs, Mr. Speaker, that dry docks be properly supplied with material and labour.
But there is more than that. The other day when we were discussing the estimates of the Marine department, on an item of $35,000 being called, an item having to do with continuing the subsidies paid for salvaging equipment in the province of Quebec and in British Columbia, some hon. mem|bers asked the Minister of Marine what services had been rendered to navigation by the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Co., which receives an annual grant of $25,000 from the Dominion government. Since nearly all the employees of this company come from my riding, and since the main artery of the company's operations is in the city of Levis, on the south side of Quebec harbour, I know better than any other what signal service these people have rendered navigation along the entire course off the St. Lawrence. This company, which employs all the men I have just mentioned, has a very powerful equipment; I even venture to state that no other firm of the same character in the whole of the Dominion, on either the Atlantic or the Pacific coast, can compare with it in this respect. In order to keep this entire outfit under steam during the season of navigation, to be ready to respond instantly to a call for succour, to keep and pay regularly skilled salvage workers, the company is put to an expense far beyond its income; hence it would naturally operate at a heavy loss. It was to avoid this loss that the Marine department was asked to grant a subsidy. To show how well this company does its work I shall cite one instance which occurred in our district last December. On December 6th the steamer Airedale started down the river from Montreal; at Ile-aux-Coudres, just below Quebec, she ran ashore going at full speed. The underwriters got into touch immediately with the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Co., and the latter lost no time in desp>aitching a wrecking crew to the scene. But the company's equipment was not powerful enough for the work in hand; they had to call on the Marine department for help with boats and men. In passing I wish to congratulate the Minister of Marine on the fine work done by his department at the time. Mr. Speaker, in cold December weather when ice was beginning to form on the river these men succeeded in floating the vessel in four days: they started on December 10th; on December 15th the Airedale had been floated, brought
to Quebec and put in dry dock. On December 17th, two days later, she left Quebec, reloaded with all her cargo. You readily grasp, Mr. Speaker, the importance to navigation of such assistance to ships in distress. You know that on the 1st of November each year, because of the approach of winter, the shipping underwriters charge a special rate not on vessels alone but on their cargoes as well. If, on account of neglect on the part of the government or shortsightedness in the Marine department, this ship had not been salvaged the insurance companies would have been obliged to pay the full value of the policies on the boat, which amounted to a considerable sum, and on the cargo besides. The insurance companies would have passed these charges along to alM the goods shipped and all the boats leaving Quebec or the St. Lawrence after December, and the following year insurance rates would have been raised; and when an insurance company has once raised its rates you know what trouble it is to have rates reduced later to the old figure. As you can see by what happened in this particular instance, dry o'ocks, salvage equipment, skilled labour, the Marine department, the lighting of the channel, the buoy service, dredging by the department of Public Works or of Marine, aill form part of the one scheme of things, all have a share in making the St. Lawrence an inland waterway renowned for its safety in shipping circles the world over. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that next year the Minister of Marine will not be bothered so much when he asks for a renewal of this subsidy.
Increasing the safety of navigation on the St. Lawrence will do no harm to traffic on the lakes. If the insurance companies raise their rates on the St. Lawrence shippers in Quebec province will not be the only ones to suffer; the same higher rates will be levied on goods coming from Ontario via the lakes and on goods from the west. So when these gentlemen help to keep the St. Lawrence salvage service well equipped they are striving, like the rest of the country, to ensure favourable rates.
Mr. Speaker, among all the members from the Maritime provinces who have told the House of the evils that beset that part of the country only one pointed to any remedy. I am speaking of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). After explaining in detail just what industries are affected in his province, after an eloquent plea for his fellow-citizens, he indicated as a remedy the reestablishment at Moncton of the administration of the Intercolonial with the understanding that the railway would be maintained and operated in the interest of the Maritime prov-
The Budget-Mr, Dussault

inces and under the direction of high officials from those provinces, and he said: "That is what I demand, and what I will continue to demand as long as I sit in this House."
Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's stand appears rather selfish to me. Of course the Intercolonial serves the Maritime provinces, but it also serves all the counties on the south shore from Montreal to Campbellton; and if there be two paying divisions on this railroad they are certainly those between Montreal and Levis and Levis and Campbellton. It is only in Quebec province that the railroad makes any profit at all; and I do not think it quite fair that the system should be operated solely for and by the Maritime provinces when it derives its revenue from the population of our province. Why is such a request made? The reason is not far to seek; certain members are evidently dissatisfied with the way patronage is exercised in their district. And I can quote the hon. member for Kings (Mr. J. A. Macdonald) who said that in his part of the country the only people employed are those recommended by the Liberal committee or the Liberal member, or ex-member, or the Liberal candidate. It is a pity the hon. gentleman doesn't come and see how things are where I come from; if he thinks he is on a red-hot gridiron he would find that I am not on a bed of roses. There things are just the opposite: patronage is in the hands of the Conservatives and is used for the sole advantage of Conservatives. Since October 29 last I have recommended people three or four times, not because they were Liberals but because they really were in need of earning the money; I would no sooner recommend a man than he would be discharged forthwith. So I wonder what it would profit these people from the Maritime provinces to do away with the staunch friends they have just now in the head offices of the railway. And since that is the way with patronage, Mr. Speaker, I wish you would come down to my riding and see some of the properties belonging to the Railway department. You would find a deep-sea wharf built by the Department of Public Works and later given over to the Intercolonial. I am certain that not $1,000 a year has been spent for the maintenance of this wharf, and if repairs are not undertaken immediately it will be carried away by the ice. You will say: But you should take the matter up with the railway board. The railway commissioners tell us:	We cannot pay attention to the claims of members of parliament, particularly Liberal members:	that
would be patronage.

I do not see why we should not bring about a better understanding between the people of the Maritime provinces and the people of the province of Quebec. We are all anxious to ensure their full rights to these provinces; however, they should not tiy to trespass on the rights of their neighbours. I would be perfectly willing to have an Intercolonial Commission composed of representatives of the Maritimes and of one or two representatives from Quebec province in the interest of the south shore of the St. Lawrence from Montreal to Campbellton. But when it is suggested to establish one sole dictator at Moncton and to operate the Intercolonial for the exclusive benefit of the Maritime provinces, we claim that nothing of the sort was promised at the time of Confederation.
Nevertheless, I wish to congratulate the hon. member from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) on having had the courage-lacking in his colleagues from the Maritimes-to tell us frankly what he is after and what his constituents expect. We know that these gentlemen want the railroad administered for themselves and only by their own people, without consulting the other provinces. Not a very auspicious start, I'll admit, for negotiating an agreement between the Maritimes and Quebec, where the Intercolonial passes; but it is a start at any rate. However, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we of the province of Quebec will not allow ourselves-and our constituents would not stand for it if we were to countenance such a proceeding-to be swept aside in the administration of a public service which is absolutely essential to our trade. Mark you, I am not speaking of secession. During the election, last October, there was some mention made of secession in the Maritime provinces; this was badly received in Quebec. As a new member in this House I found that the following which appeared in the Halifax Herald of February 18th last was in very bad taste:
The possibilities of commencing a secession movement in the Maritime provinces were to-day informally discussed by a handful of local businessmen, headed hy Walter H. Termant, a prominent manufacturer of this town. It was stated that a meeting to formally debate the topic would be called at an early date and Mr. Tennant was authorized to secure a speaker and arrange the details of the meeting.
Mr. Speaker, you know that during the period when the province of Quebec had most reason to complain of the treatment we received at the hands of those who governed us, nobody ever raised these cries of secession, because they were known to be too dangerous. If to-day it is sought to create a movement

The Budget-Mr. Charters
along that line in the rest of the country and bring about a political divorce you can rest assured that Quebec will be against the divorce no matter what form it may take. Quebec will be the last province to separate from her sister provinces; but she will know how to safeguard her rights in their entirety, no matter what may happen.


Mr. SAMUEL CHARTERS (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate and at this hour of the night I have no intention of delaying the House for more than a few minutes, and 1 rise only for the purpose of making an observation or two regarding matters directly affecting the people of the district from which I come. The greater number of the people in the county of Peel are engaged in what is called mixed farming in the widest sense of the term, in stock raising, grain growing, dairying, fruit and1 vegetable growing and other lines akin thereto. Others in the urban section are employed in the manufacture of 'boots and shoes, woollens, bricks and the growling of flowers.
These industries and occupations are all dependent for success on the home market, something that we hear very little about during 'this debate in comparison with other years. The value of the home market is well illustrated by three or four items which I wish to present. In one year, 1922, of all the food produced in the Dominion of Canada the following are the percentages consumed by the Canadian people:
Per cent
Beef	 96
Fork	 93
Mutton	 97
Butter	 94
Eggs	 98
Potatoes	 97
Turnips	 97
Other lines of vegetables, fruit and so on were consumed in the same proportions. The portion of the home market with which the people I represent are most directly concerned is that which consists of the cities of Toronto, Hamilton and all the adjacent towns and villages. Within a radius of forty-five to fifty miles there is an urban population of no leiss than 700,000 people, a population greater than that of Alberta, or Manitoba, or Nova Scotia, and almost equal to that of Saskatchewan, a population comprising one-twelfth of all the people of Canada. A district of that size surely deserves the consideration of the government and of tmembrs of parliament generally. In, that area there are manufacturers of all kinds whose wants have to be supplied. They are supplied' by the farmers of the surrounding districts. Any policy that
retards progress in that section, that fails tc promote prosperity in that urban district, injures very greatly the farmers of the surrounding country. It is contended, and no! without a good deal of justification, that everj one of the industries and occupations to which I have referred are injured to some extent because of the action or on account of the inaction of the present administration. For that reason there is no free trade sentiment in the county of Peel or the adjoining counties of Halton, Lincoln, Wellington and York or indeed from Kingston down to Niagara Falls, and there has been no free trade sentiment in my constituency for a number of years.
In the election of 1921 the opponents of the then government took the ground that the tariff was no longer an issue and that nothing was to be gained by discussing it. In the election contest of October last the candidate supporting the administration took exactly the same ground, stating not that the tariff was too high, but that in many cases it was much too low. I want to refer to one or two of his statements. Speaking at Erindale, where hon. members will probably recall the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made the second speech in the campaign, the candidate supporting the present administration made this reference to the tariff:
The whole tariff on 'fruits and vegetables is absurd under present conditions, and if I am Elected to parliament, I shall make every effort to secure the adjustment to prevent the flooding of our market with produce from the southern states at the same season when it is in direct competition with our own home-grown stuff.
Again speaking at Brampton on October 27 he said:
The fruit and vegetable growers were entitled to something in the nature o.f a luxury tax, or something to keep out {the fruit and vegetables that come here and take the taste out of the mouths of the people for their fruits in due season.
And again at Clarkson on October 20 he made this statement:
I do not wish to deprive anyone of the right to their strawberries in January, or their peaches in May; but if they want them they should be prepared to pay a luxury tax on them. This may not be orthodox Liberal policy, but it is justice.
A similar position was taken by those supporting the candidate. By the way, six cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, paid a visit to the constituency, and others used influence in different directions. I took the ground that the tariff was not too high as applied to the industries that obtained in the county of Peel.
I said 'that these industries had been suffering because of conditions created by the government or because of something +he gov-

The Budget-Mr. Charters
eminent had leffr undone. The boot and shoe industry, which-has two factories in that constituency, has suffered in common with the rest-not because the cut in the tariff was so very great, although it has been great enough to increase the importations in different lines, but because of the attitude of influential supporters of the government in relation to it. We are told on the one hand by one supporter of the administration that industries that cannot meet competition under a tariff of twenty per cent have no right to survive. Another one equally influential tells us that the boot and shoe industry is the next to be attacked by those who are opposed to the tariff and anxious to introduce a policy of free trade. The trouble is not so much what has been done as the threat that is being held over manufacturers of this line of goods.
It is also no longer denied that the action of the government has very seriously injured the woollen industry. Not only have mills been closed down and men driven out of employment, but many have been actually forced to go to another country in order to secure the work which they are denied in Canada. In addition to this the hope of many that out of and in connection with this industry a sheep industry would be developed that would be of great value to the farmers of Canada, has of course vanished.
We have in the county of Peel no fewer than six modem, well-equipped, brick-making plants, the success of which depends almost altogether upon the local market. When building operations are very dull, as they are at present in Toronto, and particularly so in Hamilton, these plants are of course not busy. Some of them are closed down at the present time; others are working on short time and with small staffs. The conditions in the larger towns and cities is illustrated by the condition that exists right here in the city of Ottawa. Hon. members may have noticed in the Ottawa Citizen the other morning a statement giving a comparison of the building permits issued during the first four months of 1926 with those issued in the same period of 1926. In 1925, in those four months 245 building permits were issued in Ottawa for buildings that cost a total of $1,260,709. In the same four months in 1928 the number of permits issued was 120 and the value of the buildings was estimated at $305,000. In other words, the number of permits was cut in two while the value of the buildings was one-quarter of what it was in the same period the year before.
Take the matter of dairy products, fruit and vegetables. I have no disposition to go over the ground which has already been so
[Mr. Charters.!
well covered, but I must observe that the district from which I come is greatly interested in both these lines, and the feeling of the people there is that a policy of protection is indispensable. Those who have studied the question, those whose living depends upon the proceeds of these industries, are firmly of the conviction that a good substantial tariff is essential if they are to succeed. They have no hesitation in saying that when any country raises its tariff 10, 15 or 25 per cent, it is the duty of this country and this government to increase the Canadian tariff by the same amount. We are not afraid to say that in the matter of dairy products, as well as in connection with fruit and vegetables, we are in favour of a brick for brick policy in order that we may be able to keep our market for our own people rather than divide it up with other countries who increase their tariffs to cur disadvantage.
Let me now refer for a moment to the flower growing industry. One of the greatest flower growing centres on the American continent is the town of Brampton where there is a plant of some twenty-six acres all covered with glass. The industry at this moment employs more than 325 men and it is interesting to note that its consumption of coal last year was 14,000 tons. Now, if there is one commodity more than any other that is a luxury it is flowers, and surely if anyone finds it necessary to go out of this country to secure his requirements in this respect, he should be prepared to pay a duty. There are fifty-two other plants in Peel and the surrounding counties all of which afford employment to a large number of Canadian workmen. If people want to import flowers, is it not reasonable to expect them to pay a fair duty? What are the facts in relation to this business? A few years ago the American duty was 25 per cent on cut flowers and the Canadian duty 17^ per cent. Our producers secured some business in the cities of the United States, although their exports were not very considerable, but the moment they began to assume appreciable proportions the American government at once raised their tariff from 25 to 40 per cent and so shut out the Canadians. I made a personal appeal to Mr. Fielding when he was Minister of Finance, urging the case of our Canadian producers and asking that they be given treatment comparable to that extended to those engaged in the same business in the United States. I received a negative reply. The request was repeated to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) last year, when I pointed out that as a result of the duty on coal having been increased our Canadian flower growers

The Budget-Mr. Charters
were still further handicapped. Coal is really the raw material of this industry, and when the duty was raised fifty -cents a ton the result was an increase of $7,000 in the coal bill which this one concern I have mentioned had to foot. Surely, therefore, it was fair to request that the duty on American flowers coming into Canada should be increased in proportion to the tariff which the United States had imposed against this country. The answer the Minister of Finance gave was that no further increases in duties would be made that year. Perhaps he will be wiser this year, and as he is making some changes he may see his way clear to concede a wise and necessary adjustment in this regard. I repeat, if there is anything that is a luxury surely it is flowers, and if the people of Canada think it necessary to go outside Canada to get their flowers they should be prepared to pay a reasonable duty.
The question comes down to this: whether or not free trade is the goal to which the present government is striving. If it is then the government should have the courage to stand up and declare its policy and put it into force, giving the manufacturers and all others concerned an opportunity to test it.
The government should do this and take the consequences. On the other hand, if we are to maintain the principle of protection, then I contend, as we all in this House contend with the exception of twenty or thirty members, that there should be a tariff sufficiently high to protect the manufacturers, the workingmen and all other classes affected, giving them the right to the Canadian market first of all and enabling them to develop to the fullest their respective lines.
During the election campaign, and in this House three or four or five times in the course of the last parliament, the Prime Minister very wisely made the statement that until the finances of the country were in a more satisfactory condition even necessary public works would have to be denied as, in fact, they were being denied hon. members who were making applications to have various things undertaken by the government. That was a wise stand to take. Now I want to give two or three examples of the manner in wdiich this policy announced by the Prime Minister has been carried out. There is in the county of Peel a property known as the Port Credit harbour. Fifty years ago there was considerable shipping there, grain and other commodities being handled. Changing conditions, however, have put the harbour out of business, and nothing has been done at this point in the way of shipping, no grain of any kind nor other commodities having 14011-216
been handled in the past thirty years. Every government for fifty years now has been appealed to, first of all to repair the harbour, then to restore it and finally to replace it; because, strange as it may appear, there is in reality no harbour now. Even the wharf has been allowed 'to disappear. That was the condition last year- All appeals made to previous governments have failed, but last summer while the election was on this government was approached for assistance for the harbour. The government looked upon the request kindly. They said that something must be done. They thought that here was a property that must be preserved and protected. The matter appeared to them so urgent that they could not wait until a government dredge could be brought to the mouth of the river and so they hired a dredge from the harbour commission in Toronto. It happened that a government dredge was operating at the same time in the Thames river in the county of Kent. That dredge was costing $216 a day while this other one secured from the city of Toronto was operating at a cost of $346 per day. The matter was so very urgent however that evidently the government thought they must have this dredge. Now on August 12 the bargain was entered into and the dredge was forwarded. It was to operate until such time as the harbour might be made oapable of accommodating such shipping as might be available. I may observe that the election was in progress at the time the dredge was going full swing. The people who had been hoping for years that something would be done to improve the harbour were rejoicing when this work was started and they were informed that this was but a small evidence of what would be done if support were given the present government. Well, the dredge continued operations for twenty days at a total cost of $6,937 or, as I have said, $346 a day. At the end of that time, however, the dredge disappeared, having done its work in helping to influence the electors to support the government candidate. And that was the end of the matter. When the question was asked in this House, if the operations would be continued, the minister replied, "No, as dredging to meet present requirements completed last year." The "present requirements," of course, were of a political character. The minister probably knows nothing about conditions in the place where the property is situated. The facts are that this money was expended because, and only because, there was an election in progress. Further than that, the money was expended to no purpose. There was no value in it, there is no improvement in the harbour

The Budget-Mr. Charters

property so far as shipping is concerned. I make the statement now that but for the fact that an election was on, and that Peel was a county that had not supported the Liberal party for many years and it was thought this would have an influence on the people, no dredge would have been sent in, and the expenditure of this money would not have been incurred. That is one case where the promise of the Prime Minister to practise economy has been broken. I do not need to stress the matter further.
Now let me give one more case. Within three or four miles of that place there is another property owned by the government, which is known as the Long Branch rifle ranges, and consists of 463 acres. It is under the control of the Department of National Defence, is within five or six miles of the city of Toronto, and is situated on the Toronto-Hamilton highway-perhaps the most extensively travelled roadway in Canada-is in a growing district, and is very valuable. For some years efforts have been made by real estate men and others to induce the government to sell the property, but without success. There had also been appeals made to the government to set aside a portion of the property for park purposes. The application was made by the township council, by the people of the village of Lake-view, also by the trustees of the public school board, but no response was received other than one of a negative character. Last year, however, just when the election was on the way, it was announced that the government had decided to give a 99-year lease for seven acres of this property to the township, and it was to be used for a park. Again, as at Port Credit, the band was out, a procession was formed, dancing and other celebrations were carried on to spread abroad the news of the wonderful work the government was doing in the interests of the county of Peel. That was just before the writs were issued.
It will be remembered that on September 5 the Prime Minister made his statement that the elections would be held on October 29. Three days afterwards, on September 8, the Prime Minister visited the townshhip in which this property is situated and addressed the electors. On the following day, that is to say on September 9, advertisements were published asking for tenders for the purchase of 26 acres of this same property, the tenders to be returned on September 25. It was very well known by everybody in the neighbourhood, and by many in the city of Toronto, that the placing of this property on the market at that time was for the pur-
pose of allowing it to be secured by a very ardent, a very industrious, and a very capable supporter of the Liberal candidate. Three tenders were received. The first was from Abraham Swartz for 11,100 an acre; the second was from Hubbs & Hubbs for $1,200; and the third was from W. G. Harris for $1,351. The highest tender was not accepted, and Hubbs & Hubbs were allowed to change their tender from $1,200 to $1,525. They were given the property at that value, and it is in their possession at the present time. That is to say, 26 acres of as valuable property as can be found in the province of Ontario, outside the cities and larger towns, have been given to these men in the middle of an election campaign for $40,000. What happened subsequently? A short time afterwards the property was subdivided by the men in charge and was placed on the market at a valuation of $150,000. That is the price the government of this country was prepared to pay in order to secure support in a district within a few miles of Toronto. As a result of this transaction there is no doubt whatever that the government will lose a sum not less than $100,000. Why do I say that? Because the men who purchased it have placed it on the market at a valuation of $150,000. They make this comment in their advertisement:
Lakeshore properties similar to Parkview have increased over 100 per cent in four years. Parkview will do the same or better.
Under such conditions as I have indicated there should be some explanation from the government, and there should be some better price paid for the property, although a transfer has probably been made by this time. On March 15 in answer to the question, "Is it the intention of the government to offer the remainder of the property for sale" -that is the rifle ranges property-the minister replied, "No." In the middle of an election campaign the government picked out 26 acres of the most valuable of the whole area of 463 acres. They put it on the market in order that friends and supporters might secure it at a tender lower than the other two, but they allowed their friends to change their tender after the other offers had been put in, and gave them this property under the conditions that I have explained. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is time that attention should be drawn to matters of that kind. Now that it has been ventilated the House and the country will know what estimate to put on such transactions, and for that reason I do not intend to pursue this particular matter any further.

The Budget-Mr. Culligan
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is always ready to lend a helping hand if there is a brother in distress, especially about election time. The third of the ministers to employ public funds in order to assist the Liberal candidate in that election was the hon. gentleman who presides over the Department of Agriculture. Ten days before the election a grant was made by the department when nobody expected any such grant to be made; when in fact the grant had not even been passed by parliament. There is in the county of Peel an organization known as the Alfalfa Seed Growers' Association. Ten days before the election a cheque was received from the minister's department addressed to the funds of this organization. It was not handed to the treasurer and deposited as an ordinary cheque would be, but was passed around amongst interested individuals to allow them to know what good work the minister was ready to do. It was said the amount was very small, but it indicated the willingness of the minister to grant funds for election purposes in the county.


William Richard Motherwell: Will my hon. friend give some authority for making the statement he has? It is the first I have ever heard of it.


Samuel Charters: I suppose that is the
way my hon. friend administers his department. There is no doubt about the facts. My hon. friend can verify them if he looks the matter up and will be able to unearth a cheque.


William Richard Motherwell: There are grants
going out to organizations every month in the year, and the grant to this organization must have gone in the usual way.


Samuel Charters: This is the first time
a cheque of that kind has ever reached the county of Peel in that way or in any other way from the department.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend will have to produce some evidence for his assertions.


Samuel Charters: We will give you all
the evidence you require.


William Richard Motherwell: You have not given it yet.


Samuel Charters: My hon. friend squirms, and I do not blame him for it.


William Richard Motherwell: No squirming about it.


Samuel Charters: It is time that he and other ministers of the crown devoted some attention to saving public money rather than squandering it.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend has
made a statement that is false.


Samuel Charters: I have already exceeded the time I intended to occupy, and I simply wish to say this in conclusion: The evidence I have given of these three transactions can be multiplied over and over again in the case of Canada as a whole. The acts are worthy of general condemnation, and if the opportunity is given, as it probably will be in a very short time, the people of the Dominion will express their feelings about such conduct as did the people of the county of Peel who were expected to be influenced by improper methods. The people of the county of Peel condemned the action of the government in the strongest possible way by giving the largest Conservative vote that has been recorded in the county for upwards of twenty-five years, and I have no doubt when the proper time comes the people of the Dominion as a whole will be equally emphatic in their condemnation.


Mr. A. P. CULLIGAN (Restigouche-Ma-dawaska):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first
attempt to address this honourable House, and for that reason I crave the indulgence of hon. gentlemen. It is not my intention to speak at any length.
Before dealing with the budget, I shall refer to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) during the debate on the Address. The remarks in question were uttered on February 1, and will be found on page 614 of Hansard. My hon. friend made reference to the "lumber lords" in the province of New Brunswick, and I have no doubt he included myself in that class, as I happen to be in the lumber business. I wish to point out to this House that I belong to the New Brunswick Lumbermen's Association and believe that I have attended every meeting of that body during the past year. I also wish to state that there was no promise made by the Hon. Mr. Baxter that he would favour the lumbermen provided they would support him. It is not necessary for me to speak of the depression that has existed in the lumber industry since 1921 and still continues. We as lumbermen in the province of New Brunswick felt we could not continue to operate unless we got some concessions in the way of cheaper stumpage. We appeared before the Veniot government on several oc-
14011-216i
The Budget-Mr. Culligan

casions and pointed out to them the absolute necessity of relief in the way of stumpage reduction; otherwise we would be obliged to curtail or close our lumber operations. At that time we were paying a stumpage of S4 per thousand feet as compared with our fi lends in Quebec paying $2.70. Not only that, but there is a difference from 15 to 18 per cent in the scale of logs in favour of Quebec operators, so that you will readily see that it was impossible for us to carry on and compete with our Quebec friends. It was not until a few weeks prior to the election, held on August 10, 1925, that the then Liberal government made a reduction in stumpage of $1 per thousand. Why was this done? Simply to try to swing the lumbermen into line, or at least part of them. After the announcement of the reduction of $1 per thousand the lumbermen met and talked the situation over. It was then that we all agreed to support the opposition, and we felt that since Hon. Mr. Baxter knew the deplorable condition that existed in the lumber market, if elected to power he would give such assistance as was necessary for us to carry on our operations, and also give employment to thousands of men who have no other way in our province of earning a livelihood and supporting their families. Not only that, but we all felt that it was high time to hurl from power the most extravagant and unbusinesslike government that ever held the reins of power in the province of New Brunswick. To convince you of these facts, all that it is necessary to do is to read over the financial statement of our province from 1917 to 1925, during the regime of the Liberal party, and one will readily see that the Liberal party have doubled the bonded debt of our province, and have nothing much to show for the huge increase in the public debt.
My hon. friend went further and stated that Mr. Baxter promised the lumber lords if he and his party were placed in power he would put a stop to the Grand Falls water power development that was so much talked of by the Liberal party. Now, I want to say frankly that no such promise was ever made by Mr. Baxter to the lumbermen. The facts are that the lumbermen, as well as all other classes, were anxious to see the Grand Falls power developed. Mr. Baxter and his supporters announced from every platform during the campaign that the development would be carried on, but not along the same lines as the Liberal party proposed; and I wish also to state to this House that the people of New Brunswick are very fortunate indeed that a .change of government has taken place and to ;have such a capable man as the Hon. Mr. ,
Baxter at the head of the government to develop our water powers, and also to carry on the business of our province in a businesslike way. The government has now undertaken to develop the Grand Falls power without one cent of cost to our province. Had the Liberal party been returned to power and undertaken to develop the Grand Falls as outlined by the Liberal Premier, Mr. Veniot, to my mind our province would be in bankruptcy before many years. To convince you that what I am saying is true, all one needs is to read the history of the development of the Musquash power, which was carried on by the Liberal party in the province of New Brunswick. When the bill for this particular power came before the House it was stated that the cost W'ould not exceed one and one-half million dollars. Up to to-day the Musquash development has cost our province close to four millions, and I understand there are still unpaid claims to the extent of some seven or eight hundred thousand dollars.
Just one word more with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester. He stated that the bushmen were only receiving $1 per day for their labour during the past winter. I wish to state that this is not correct so far as Restigouehe county is concerned. Wages paid in the camps in Restigouehe county were from $30 to $40 per month. I want to state further that most of the men employed nowadays in the woods work either by the thousand feet or by the piece; and I can tell this House that in my own camps most of the men working in this way made as much as from $65 to $70 per month. It is. absolutely necessary for them to earn this amount of wages in order to support their families.
The constituency I represent, Restigouche-Madawaska, is located on the border line separating the province of New Brunswick from the province of Quebec, and the activities of its people are largely taken up by fisheries and lumbering. It means that we are closely interested in freight rates and that the problems arising from this indicate matters are of extreme importance to us if we are to have a fair show in marketing our natural and industrial products in central Canada.
Although we are not very much interested in the reductions in the tariff in so far as they affect us directly, we are Canadians and as such we are anxious to see this country of ours and eveiy section of it treated with fairness; and I might add right here that, in my humble opinion, the reductions in the duties on automobiles and automobile parts will not produce the relief that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) believes-, but on the con-

The Budget-Mr. Culligan
trary they will endanger the very (Life of this industry, thereby affecting seriously the 35,000 men earning their living at it.
As a solace for the handicaps that the Maritime provinces are up against, the government has appointed a royal commisison to inquire into the Maritime rights. But this panacea has not in the past proved to be of much use. Royal commissions have cost the country considerable money, and in most cases their findings have been of no avail. The pulpwood commission is one case in point. This commission cost over $75,000 and was barren of results.
Maritime rights are a vital question in Canadian national life, and every unprejudiced man will agree that if this confederation is to be upheld, these rights must be respected and looked after with fair justice. Early and adequate action must be taken by the government, because there can be no prosperity for the Maritimes until the present conditions are corrected.
Will the royal commission appointed to inquire into the Maritime rights be a cure-all?
1 am afraid it will not! The order in council creating the commission defines its powers as follows:	To make "an examination from a
national standpoint of all the factors which affect the economic position of the inhabitants of the provinces in question" and "upon the result of such inquiry and examination there should be based specific recommendations which in the opinion of the commissioners would result in affording relief from the conditions complained of." But after all that has been written on this particular question of Maritime rights during the last two or three years, the government should be very familiar, if they are really in earnest to give help, with evea-v aspect of the questions raised which have been fully debated in the press of the whole country. It seems to me, under present circumstances, that the action of the government in apointing a royal commission to look into Maritime rights was taken to gain time, and to evade the responsibility of deciding the course to be taken. All the matters coming under the investigating powers of the commission have been discussed time and again all over the country, in all their phases and bearings, and still no solution has been arrived at. Will the commission be in a better position than the government, with all the -material they have in 'band, to decide what course should be taken? I should say not! I am afraid that -ail this show is simply, once
more, to pass away time and drag along the final settlement of this important question of Maritime rights.
The axis of political influence is decentered. With the new state of things, the older provinces, who are responsible for the building of the new provinces, have lost their control of the government. It is now from the west that comes the influencing hand. Since the election of the hon. the Prime Minister in Prince Albert, and the appointment of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Dunning) as Minister of Railways and Canals, an altogether new direction has been given to Canadian politics by the government, which still claim that they maintain the Liberal principles, while actually they only sacrifice the interests of the country at large to snap the support of the Progressives.
Conclusive evidence is at hand that the present government is led by Progressive intrigues. Numerous proofs of it have been given since the opening of the present session. But it is not my intention to go into these details. I simply wished to mention them so that my name shall be on record on this question.
As one of the members from the Maritime provinces, and especially representing Resti-gouche-Madawaska, it is my duty to endorse all the legitimate claims made in favour of the eastern provinces and, further, to plead for my constituency. Public works were promised to the late member, Mr. Michaud, which have never been carried on. The county I represent deserves a little more recognition and protection from the government. Promises were also made, I understand, to the late member that dredging -would be done at Campbdlton -for harbour improvements. A dredge was to be sent to Campbellton last summer to commence the necessary dredging, but the people are still waiting for it. I do hope these promises will -be fulfilled this coming summer. It is a case in point showing the w-ay the present government fails to carry out its promises.
I need not stress further the claims of the Maritimes, and especially of Restigouehe-Madawaska. Better informed speakers than myself have covered the .ground fully and forcefully. I simply wished to express my views on the budget as submitted, so that the stand I shall take when the vote comes will be made clear.
On motion of Mr. MacLean (Prin-ce) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Motherwell the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Private Bills

Monday, May 17, 1926