1926-05-17

PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. Ill, to incorporate the Executive Council of the Free Methodist Church in Canada.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 112, respecting certain patents owned by the Sealright Company, Inc.-Sir Henry Drayton.

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

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I notice in Hansard of Friday, that while I was absent, an inquiry was made by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) regarding papers relating to the Rouyn railway. I find that in the course of a day or two all the papers will be brought down on an order for return secured by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. O'Neill).
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: This is a matter of great importance to the House and everything has already been made public through the Privy Council. It is now

weeks since the contract with Quebec was entered into and I can see no reason why it should not be now tabled. There can be no excuse.


Mr. DUNNING:: I expect to table it in
the course of a day or two.



PROPOSED NEW LINE TO PACIFIC

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	On Friday last
there was also an inquiry by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster) with respect to a proposed new line to the Pacific coast. The department has no information with regard to it.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS Mr. MANION:
1.	Are negotiations in progress for the renting of the newly built government elevator at Prince Rupert to the wheat pool?
2.	If so, on what terms?
3.	Has any grain yet passed through the Prince Rupert elevator?
4.	Have the government owned harbour board elevators at Vancouver been working to capacity in the past year?
5.	How many bushels of grain passed through these
elevators in 1925?

[Stage Direction]
15.000	00 36,772 25
20.000	00
4,824 63
3.	A committee on Civil Air Operations has recently been formed to advise the government on this subject, and the question of a programme for this and subsequent years is now under consideration.
4.	No.
Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 1923, 64,960 net tons; 1924, 100,943
net tons; 1925, 143,036 net tons.	_
(b) If the management were not satisfied with this coal they would have discontinued its use.


RED LAKE DISTRICT
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What amount has 'been spent by Interior department for survey and mapping of map entitled Red Lake District"?
2.	What amount was spent by Air Service branch?
3.	How many square miles were surveyed in said
district?
4.	What was the cost per mile?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	$800.
2.	$6,400.
3.	2,400 square miles.
4.	Approximately $3 per square mile.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL PURCHASED
Mr. HUBBS:: 1.	Have the Canadian National Railways purchased any coal from the Coal Valley Company?
2.	If so, what quantity, and were the officials of the Canadian National Railways satisfied with the results obtained from same ?


Mr. HUBBS:: 1.	How many tons of American coal were purchased by the Canadian National Railways in 1925?
2.	What were the names of the firm or firms from
whom this coal was purchased?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	2,971,706 net tons.
2.	Bertha Consumers Company, Black Diamond Company, W. H. Bradford, Buffalo &[DOT] Susquehanna Coal Co., Blue Diamond Coal Sales Co., Canadian Industrial Coal Co., Carver Coal Company, Century Coal Company, Conger Lehigh Coal Company, Carnegie Dock & Fuel Company, R. M. Davis Coal Company, J. K. Dering Coal Company, C. B. Devlin & Company, Eastern Fuel Company, Empire Coal Company. Glen Alum Fuel Company, Geo. Hall Coal & Shipping Corporation, M. A. Hanna Company, Percy Heilner & Son, Houston Coal Company, Hutchison Coal Company, Island Creek Company, Inland Coal & Dock Company, Light
Questions

Coal Mining Company, Logan County Coal Corporation, W. A, Marshall & Company, Middle West Coal Company, Milnes Coal Company, Moreland Coal Company, Magher Collieries. Munro-Warrier Coal & Coke Co., C. M. Moderwell & Company, Norfolk & Chesapeake Coal Co., Northern Coal & Dock Co., Pittsburg & Shawmut Coal Co., Pansy Coal Company, Punglove Coal Mining Company, Red Jacket Coal Company, Seneca Coal Mining Company, Service Fuel Company, Shawmut Coal & Coke Company, Sitnet Fuel Company, Smokeless Fuel Company, Thorne, Neale & Company, Valley Camp Coal Company, Geo. E. AVarren Corporation, E. P. Weaver Coal Company, Whitney & Kem-merer, Winslow Coal Company, Youghio-gheny & Ohio Coal Co.
PORT ARTHUR ELEVATOR Mr. COOTE:
Year
1923-	24	
1924-	25	
1925-	26	
Receipts .. 2,319,971 02 .. 2,322,765 79 .. 2,685,293 59

Expenditures 1,559,138 37 1,470,145 56 1,613,003 59

The receipts for 1925-26 may be increased, as the books for the reception of refunds are not closed until about the 20th May.
STATISTICAL BRANCH Mr. DOUCET:
1.	What is the total number of employees in the Statistical branch?
2.	What is the total amount of their salaries?
3.	What is the cost of printing and publishing the various statistical reports?
4.	What is the total revenue of the department on the sale of these publications, and what other source of revenue exists?
1.	When was the government elevator at Port Arthur constructed and what was the total cost of same?
2.	What is the total storage capaciy of said elevator?
3.	What were the total receipts of this elevator during each of the past four years from (a) overages; (b) screenings; (c) drying of grain; (d) cleaning grain; and (e) all other sources?
4.	What was the total expenditure in connection with the operation of this elevator during each of these years?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Cost up to February 28, 1926, $1,453,801.26, of which $90,000 is cost of site
2.	3.250,000 bushels.
3.


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: The total number of employees in the Do-1 minion Bureau of Statistics was:
1.	On April 30, 1926, 224.
2.	For month of April, 1926, $25,533.
3.	Fiscal year 1925-26, $99,217.
4.	None. AH revenue from the sale of government publications is received by the Department of Printing and Stationery. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics have no other source of revenue.
All other Cleaning Sources
Overages Screenings Drying
1921-	22
1922-	23
1923-	24
1924-	25

47,085 62 2.156 92 23,134 07 9,144 67
1921-	22	$121,305	191922-	23	
117,403	621923-	24	
138,185	051924-	25	
142,833	72
Note: Earnings in Answer No. 3 and Expenses in Answer No. 4 are for the elevator years ending July 31.

2,794	92	40.263	68	30.899	52	300,269	0123,382	54	10,310	13	40,333	25	281,189	1932,272	87	1,478	34	69,197	44	340,890	5529,434	31	38,331	56	69.503	83	271.978	74
IMPORTATIONS OF SILK Mr. DOUCET:
What quantities of velvet, velveteen, silk and plush velvets of not over 24 inches in width, and silk fabrics of not over 26 inches in width, have been imported into Canada: (a) from all countries, (b) from France, Italy and from each of the countries which benefit under the clause "the most favoured nations," for the fiscal years 1923-24, 1924-25, 1925-26, respectively?
BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS Mr. COOTE:
What were the total receipts and expenditures of the Board of Grain Commissioners for each of the past five years?


James Alexander Robb: Year	Receipts Expenditures
1931-23	$1,937323 03	$1,237,531 181922-23	
2364,037 48	1,460,511 69


James Alexander Robb: No statistics are compiled showing importations of silks according to various widths.
BATTLEFORD GOVERNMENT LAND Mr. DAVIS:
1.	Has the land formerly occupied by the Royal Canadian Northwest Mounted Police at Battleford, Saskatchewan, been leased since the removal of the
police?
2.	If so, when, to whom, and at what rental?

Questions
3.	Were tenders asked for or advertised for, and
where?	-
4.	What were the names of the tenderers and the rental offered in each case?
5.	Has rental been paid for the use of this land, and if so, what amount?


Hon Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Yes, pasture has been leased.
2.	Lease dates from 1st July, 1925, when R.C.M.P. vacated pasture, to Bernard Phillips, $220 annual rental.
3.	Yes. By advertisements and posters under the direction of the agent of Dominion lands at Prince Albert.
4.	Bernard Phillips; H. Barclay Bragg. Annual rental of $220 and $125 respectively.
5.	Yes. $220.


Mr. DAVIS:: 1.	Has the hay land connected with the .property of the Indian department at Battleford been leased since the industrial school was closed?
2.	If so, to whom was it leased, and under what conditions ?
3.	Have these conditions been complied with?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: It is presumed that the above question relates to the Indian industrial school lands situated in South Battleford, Saskatchewan.
1.	Yes, most of the lands.
2.	(a) The Saskatchewan Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, (b) For a term of fifteen years at a nominal rental of one cent per acre on the condition that the said association repairs and maintains the buildings to the satisfaction of the depart-
[DOT] ment.
3.	Yes.


MR. J. C. BLANCHET
Mr. DOUOET:: 1.	Was Mr. J. C. Blanchet, of Chartiervillc, county of Compton, Quebec, appointed to any branch of the Customs department?
2.	If so, at what date, on whose recommendation, and what salary?


Hon. Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	April 22, 1926, Civil Service Commission, $600 per annum. Reports from the collector and inspector concerning his qualifications for the position have now been received and the advisability of accepting the appointment is being further investigated.


BRANCH EXPERIMENTAL FARMS AND STATIONS
Mr. DOUCET:: What was the casual revenue from each of the branch experimental farms and stations during (a) 1924-25, and (b) 1925-26 to date?	.


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Casual Revenue from Branch Experimental Farms and Stations to May 12, 1926
1924-25	1925-26
Agassiz, B.C		$ 8,552 55 $ 9,941 71	
Brandon, Man	5.084 36	5,027 01Beaverlodge, Alta	21 85	39 60Cap Rouge, Que	11,589 40	12,411 11Charlottetown, P.E.I. ..	2.930 91	2,671 25Fredericton, N.B	6,435 56	6,898 27Farnham, Que	6,030 14	4,679 56Harrow, Ont	9,916 34	13.962 55Indian Head, Sask	1,258 18	2,613 33Invermere, B.C	1,140 73	1,700 69K&puskasing, Ont	7,338 62	8,020 44Kentville, N.S	9,739 33	10,465 00Lennoxville, Que	4,578 68	7,557 67Lacombe, Alta	6,109 36	5,455 54Lethbridge. Alta	1,076 03	3,222 98LaFerme, Que	4,089 38	4,164 00Morden, Man	4,228 82	10,437 26Nappan, N.iS	6,000 32	8,103 88Rosthern, Sask	
Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere,	2,217 45	5,274 22Que	3.863 70	7,891 44Swift Current, Sask. ..	4,137 43	7,586 12Summerland, B.C. .. .	2,220 97	2,481 90Sidney, B.C	4,151 11	5,531 01Scott, Sask	2,479 85	5,728 20


DALHOUSIE PREVENTIVE SERVICE
Mr. CULLIGAN:: 1.	Was J. Edwin Cook of River Charlo, New Brunswick, a returned soldier, appointed by the Civil Service Commission to Hie position, special customs, grade 1, in the preventive service with headquarters at Dalhousie, New Brunswick, in the year 1925?
2.	Was the said J. Edwin Cook ever ordered to report for duty? If not, why not?
3.	Is it a fact that another person, A. Wallace of Dalhousie, New Brunswick, was subsequently appointed to this position? If so, on whose recommendation?
4.	Is it a fact that the choice of the Civil Service Commission was rejected? If so, why?
5.	If Wallace was appointed to the position, on whose recommendation was appointment made?


Hon. Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	J. Edwin Cook of River Charlo, New Brunswick, was assigned by the Civil Service Commission to the position of special customs officer, grade 1, at Dalhousie, N.B.
2.	No. Mr. Cook was not a resident of Dalhousie, N.B.
3.	Yes. Mr. A. G. Wallace, the second candidate on the list, being a resident of Dalhousie was subsequently appointed.
4.	Answered bv No. 1.
5.	Answered by No. 3.
Questions


STRIKE IN GREAT BRITAIN-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN WHEAT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What steps are being taken by the government to safeguard Canadian wheat in view of the general British strike now continuing?
2.	As a matter of emergency has arisen will the government provide some measure of protection to our wheat by either financing it or affording some sort of guarantee as to prices?
3.	Has the government communicated with the banks, or the Canadian Bankers' Association, to come to the help of the grain dealers if the strike continues indefinitely, so that the farmers who grow wheat will not suffer?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think this question might be dropped. It relates to a strike that is happily ended.
Question dropped.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONTREAL STREET RAILWAY PURCHASE
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways purchased the electric line running from about Moreau street to Bout de L'ile, from the Montreal Tramway Company or one of its affiliated companies?
2.	If so. for what purpose and for what price?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	General railway purposes. The management considers it not in the public interest to publish price.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-NOTE ISSUE
[Stage Direction]
Mr.* FOSTER:
1.	Is it a fact that R. W. Pressprich and Company of New York are to-day offering $2,500,000-4 per cent notes due July, 1927, of the Canadian National Railways, guaranteed both as to .principal and interest by the government of Canada?
2.	If so, why should this offering not be handled through a Canadian institution?
Charles Avery Dunning: The management of (Canadian National Railways has no information as to what securities R. W. Pressprich and Company are offering, but assume that the notes referred to are part of an issue of 20 million dollars of 4 per cent notes made and sold by the Canadian National Railways on July 1, 1924. If R. W. Pressprich and Company bought a block of these securities and are now offering them for sale the Canadian National Railways have no connection with the transaction.


MASSEY-HARRIS COMPANY
Mr. FOSTER:: 1. Has the Massey-Harris Company, Limited, of Toronto, been granted supplementary letters patent, confirming a new by-law No. 00 recently adopted by the directors of the company?

2. If so, is the government aware that the powers given under the said supplementary letters patent are very detrimental to the small shareholders?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Supplementary letters patent dated the 1st of March, 1926, were granted to the Massey-Harris Company, Limited, for the purpose of converting the 250,000 shares of the capital stock of (the company of the par value of $100 each into 125,000 cumulative preference shares of the par value of $100 each, and 125,000 common shares of the par value of $100 each. The supplementary letters patent in question were issued under section 34 of the Companies Act, and were based on a resolution of the shareholders of the company passed at a meeting held on the 13th of February, 1926.
2.	No objection to the issue of the said letters patent was made by any shareholder of the Massey-Harris Company, Limited. The material on file shows that the resolution was sanctioned by more than two-thirds of the votes of the shareholders in person or by proxy cast at a special general meeting of the company duly called for considering the same. There is no information on the files of the department indicating the effect, detrimental or otherwise, to the small shareholders of the company.


ALBERTA HOMESTEADS
Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: 1.	What number of entries were made in the province
of Alberta under the Dominion Lands Act during the period 1908 to March 31st, 1026, (a) pre-emptions, and (b) purchased homesteads?	.
2.	What was the area of (a) pre-emptions and (b) purchased homesteads?
3.	What was the gross revenue received from (a) preemptions and (b) purchased homesteads?
4.	What amount of arrears is due on (a) principal and (b) interest?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	(a) 12,449; (b) 1,919.
2.	(a) 1,991,840 acres approximately; (b) 307,910 acres approximately.
3.	(a) $5,432,681.98; (b) $1,027,431.63.
4.	(a) Principal $1,439,821.55 approximately; interest $752,760.16 approximately; (b) principal $54,166.91 approximately; interest $25,-S33.75 approximately.


LEEDS VILLAGE-LYSTER MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Who has the contract for rural mail delivery between Leeds village and Lyster, in the county of Megantic, Quebec?
2.	When was the contract last renewed?
3.	Were any tenders asked for?
4.	Were any complaints lodged with the department against the said contractor?
5.	If so, what were the nature of said complaints?
6.	What steps has the department taken in the matter?

The Budget-Mr. Mac Lean (Prince)


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	There is no contract for the performance of a rural mail delivery service between the points mentioned, but there is a contract for the carrying of mails between Leeds village post office and Lyster station post office-the contractor being Joseph Roy.
2.	31st March, 1926.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5 and 6.-'See answer to No. 4.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Are any June or other training camps beang held for the militia: (a) city units; (b) country and rural units; (c) permanent force?
2.	If so, where, for what units, length of time, and how many officers and men?
3.	What will be done this year for artillery units as to training?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CULLIGAN:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Civil Service Commissdon, the Department of Customs and Excise, and any other department or official thereof, relating to the appointment of a special preventive officer for the Department of Customs and Excise at Dalhousie, New Brunswick, in the year 1925 and since.


SCREENINGS
Hon. Mr. ROGERS:: For a copy of all orders in council, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the purchase of screenings during the years 1917 to 1921, inclusive, along with a statement showing the firms from which the said screenings were purchased, the amount from each firm, the price paid, to whom sold, the amount to each firm and the price in each case.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 14, 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. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: When I moved the adjournment of the debate on Friday night, I did so in the hope that my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Hatfield) rather than myself would speak to-day, and I feel that the House would prefer to hear that hon. gentleman. I sincerely trust, however, that at some future time we may have the pleasure of hearing him. Now, inasmuch as only one side of the case has been presented from the province in which I have the honour to represent a constituency, and lest the people of that province in common with the members of this House should think that the representatives of Prince Edward Island are all of one opinion in regard to the budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has brought down on this occasion, I shall ask the indulgence of the House while I present the views of those people as I understand them. Before I proceed to discuss the budget, however, I beg to be allowed to welcome back to the House the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who unfortunately has been absent through illness.
I am sure that all sides, irrespective of party, are glad to see him once more in the House.
I think I may also say on behalf of hon. members on this side that we shall all be only too pleased to welcome back, when he returns, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) who, I understand, has been slightly indisposed for the past few days. I for one admire our public men, whatever party they may represent. I have admiration for the leader of the opposition and respect for his followers, not only those who occupy the front benches but the members of that party generally. Naturally, too, I admire the,members of my own party, and before I resume my seat I shall probably have something further to say on that point.
As it is always a pleasure for one to be able to bring good news, I think the position in which the Minister of Finance found himself on April 15, when he was able to present to the House the budget now under consideration, must have been very gratifying indeed. Not only must it have been a matter for congratulation on the part of the minister himself, but it must have afforded the people of this Dominion from coast to coast an unusual degree of satisfaction to have such a budget brought down in this parliament. Our friends opposite tried, of course, as one would naturally expect an opposition to do, to criticize the budget adversely but I think the House will agree with me when I say that this criticism has not been characterized by any note of seriousness. The tidings which the Minister of Finance was able to broadcast to the people of Canada a month ago were of such a character that they must have been received with enthusiasm by hon. gentlemen opposite themselves. When for some fancied reason people fear that some dreadful pall is hanging over them, that some dire calamity
3408	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
is about to befall them, it is doubly gratifying to them to find that after all their fears were unfounded, that the storm that threatened has passed, and that the sun will dhine with increasing brightness, dispelling the gloom.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, though perhaps unintentionally, have painted a gloomy picture to the people of Canada. They have tried to tell the people, or at least some of the people, that if this dreadful alliance between Progressives and Grits continued the country would certainly be ruined. Those hon. gentlemen must have been greatly disappointed when the Minister of Finance was able to show that the Dominion had been able not only to meet all obligations but to report a surplus of over $20,000,000, besides reducing the income tax and in other ways lightening the burden of the people. In view of this satisfactory condition of affairs, my task to-day is a comparatively easy one. I do not think it requires any special pleading to convince a man that it is easier for him to pay $30 instead of $100 in income tax, nor is it difficult to prove to him that he can much more readily afford an automobile which costs to-day $150 less than it did previously. I do not think, either, that it calls for any special pleading to convince the people of this country that the return to the two-cent postage rate will benefit them at the same time increasing the revenues of the country as we hope it will. Contrary to the views expressed by some of our friends across the way, I firmly believe -we shall see an increase in the sales of automobiles, an increase in our postage revenue, and if not an increase at least a very slight falling off in our income tax revenue. Taking the revenue as a whole, I hope the next budget statement will show that the various reductions announced by the Minister of Finance this session have not materially affected it.
My good friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) has moved an amendment to the budget. However its real intent may be camouflaged, I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, most emphatically to the fact that the hon. gentleman's amendment constitutes a direct vote against the budget in every particular. It is a direct vote against the reduction in the income tax; it is a direct vote against the reduction in the automobile duty; it is a direct vote against the return to penny postage; it is a direct vote against the wiping out of the receipt tax-in fact it is, I repeat, a direct vote against the budget as a whole. I do not think I need labour that point any further. Our friends opposite camouflage their opposition to the reduction in the automobile duties by saying: Leave

that to the tariff board. I venture the assertion, Mr. Speaker, that if the tariff board has recommended such a reduction, our friends across the way would immediately have condemned the tariff board and declared: This is something that the government should handle themselves and not leave to the tariff or any other board. In a word, they would have found some excuse for voting against the budget..
Although these hon. gentlemen have to a certain extent opposed the legislation that has been brought down, such as the bill for the revaluation of soldier settlers' land, the old age pensions bill and the rural credits bill, I am certain that they will not have the courage to vote against the final passage of any of these measures. I think I am safe in saying that they will sit absolutely quiet and swallow every bit of legislation when it comes up for third reading.


Mr. MANION:: May I ask my hon. friend who on this side of the House ever opposed the revaluation of soldier settlers' land?
Mr. .MacLEAN (Prince): My hon. friend will remember that there was a great deal of criticism of this measure from his quarter of the House.


Robert James Manion: There was criticism as to method, but there was no opposition to the principle. My hon. friend is hedging now, that is all.	'


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I feel sure that
in the course of a few days when the measures I have referred to come up for final disposition my prediction as to what will happen will be fully borne out.
Now, a great deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite about the pledges that they allege the Liberal government have broken during the past four years. We have been told that every pledge made to the people in 1921 has since been broken by the government. I take very strong exception to this allegation. In the 1921 election the big question before the electorate was: Will we be able to make revenue and expenditure meet? The Liberals said: Give us a chance and we will do it. They have accomplished this, as I shall show in a few minutes. They also promised to reduce the tariff on the implements of production. I submit, Sir, that this pledge has been fully redeemed. I remember quite well in the first two sessions of the last parliament hon. gentlemen opposite day after day taunted the government wtih having succeeded to office on the strength of these pledges: To reduce the tariff, and to make revenue and expenditure meet. We

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
were told that the government had accomplished nothing towards the redemption of these pledges, that they were standing still, in fact they were afraid to make a move to implement those promises. Immediately the tariff reductions were made our friends opposite changed their tune and declared that we had ruined every factory throughout the Dominion. I state most emphatically, Mr. Speaker, that the pledges made to the people in 1921 by the Liberal party have since been fulfilled by this government. We have made revenue and expenditure meet, we have reduced the tariff on implements of productoin, and also the duties on certain commodities. The ruin that our friends opposite predicted would follow reduction of the protection enjoyed by the manufacturers of agricultural implements did not follow; on the contraiy, instead of driving our implement manufacturers out of business, their financial statements disclose that they have been making more money than they ever made under the former tariff. Our friends of the opposition are not now charging this government with doing nothing, they are not charging us with breaking our pledges, except in one particular. They claim that the Prime Minister pledged himself at the opening of parliament not to interfere with the tariff. Well, Sir, I do not think that the Speech from the Throne can be fairly construed as constituting such a pledge, nor do I agree that either the government or the Liberal party were in any way committed to the course suggested by our friends opposite.
Now, Mr. Speaker. I wish for a few minutes to deal with the financial condition of the country in an endeavour to prove to the House and to the people that we have met our pledges with respect to making revenue and expenditure meet. In this connection I propose to put a few figures on Hansard The gross national debt reached its peak in 1921. The public records show a reduction in 1925 of $84,000,000. The net national debt reached its peak in 1923. The public recards show a reduction of $4,698,116 for 1925, and a further reduction of $22,353,000 by this budget. In other words, there has been a reduction in the net debt of over $27,000,000. These figures are from the public records and can be verified by any hon. gentleman. They wil be found at page 46 of the Public Accounts. Sir, we have more than met that pledge to make the national revenues and expenditures balance, we have placed on the right side of the ledger a substantial surplus in reduction of the national debt.
But let me go a little further. Since confederation we have had only eleven surpluses
totalling $101,000,000; of these this government has to its credit a total of $58,692,182, made up of three surpluses as follows: 1924, $35,993,593; 1925, $345,589; 1926, $22,353,000. This government has been able to show a surplus greater by $15,602,277 than the surpluses shown by all governments from confederation to the present day. That is a record of which we on this side of the House should be extremely proud. We have been twitted by hon. members opposite since 1921 with our supposed inability to make revenues and expenditures meet, but these records prove the contrary. I do not think we need more substantial evidence of the progress made by this government in meeting its obligations and keeping its promises in this regard.
It has been stated1 that a large portion of our expenditure is uncontrollable, and I think that is perfectly true. It is very hard under present conditions for any government to show a substantial reduction in yearly expenditures. We have such large amounts as our provincial subsidies, aggregating over $12,000,000; interest on war debt amounting to $167,000,000; interest on debts other than war debt of over $12,000,000; pensions of over $36,000,0000 and superannuations of over $1,600,000. These are fixed charges which no government can escape; so long as Canada is a self-governing country these obligations must be met yearly, and it is impossible to make any substantial reductions in these amounts. I could make further reference to these matters but I think it is not necessary, because I feel sure the people in general are quite aware that this government has made revenue and expenditure meet. Not only that, but it is substantially reducing the debt, and everyone knows that Canada has turned the corner so far as her financial obligations are concerned.
The hon. member for Fort William in his speech the other day attributed a great deal to Providence; he said that Providence had been kind to this government and that by the assistance of Providence they were able to show a surplus. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, I must say that Providence was very unkind to the last administration, because never in the history of the Dominion has such a continuation of deficits been rolled up as was done by the late government. I therefore think I am safe in saying that, if the surplus Shown by this government is attributable to a kind Providence, that Providence was certainlv unkind to hon. members opposite when they were in office. On the other hand the hon. member said that Providence was kind to drunken men, and often took care of those in an intoxicated condition when they were not able to take care of themselves, alluding to the
3410	-	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
present government. If that be so it would have been much better for this country if our friends opposite had become intoxicated in 1911 and remained in that condition until 1921. Our finances would have been in much better shape, because the situation was certainly serious when this government came into power and there has been nothing but improvement since then. When this government came into power in 1921 the estimates for the coming year were prepared and, I understand, were largely in excess of the revenue expected. So. if our friends had been returned to power, we would have had a continuation of those deficits which were rolled up in previous years. When hon. members opposite undertake to criticize this government on their financial showing, they do it with very poor justification.
The hon. member went further in speaking of the manufacturers, and said that he for one would be willing to pay his share of any increases in price necessary to keep the manufacturers in business. I suppose the manufacturers will have no objection to accepting money from hon. gentlemen across the way, but I venture to assert that these hon. members and the supporters of the Conservative party throughout the country will be just as willing to accept the benefits accruing from these reductions as will members and supporters of this party. If the hon. member for Fort William wished to contribute something to keep the manufacturers in business I suppose his contribution would be received, but I do not think he was serious in that suggestion.
The hon. member went still further, and said that this country had been treated by the United States as a customer who, having gone in to deal with a storekeeper, had been kicked out of the store. I take exception to that statement; the United States has not treated us in that way. I wish to point out to hon. members who may not fully understand the situation that we in the Maritime provinces are almost wholly dependent upon the United States for a market, and this statement applies especially to the people of Prince Edward Island. We are an agricul-* ural province; we have no industries of any .Jnd, and if this budget works an injury to some other provinces, I certainly do not see that it can possibly be injurious to Prince Edward Island. I do not understand how hon. members opposite representing that province can vote for the amendment, thereby voting against a reduction in the income tax; a reduction in the duty on automobiles; a reduction in postage; against the wiping

out of the stamp tax on cheques and, in fact, against every other item contained in this budget. I do not see how they can do that and square themselves with the people of their province. That is none of my business, however, and I leave it to the hon. gentlemen and their own electors. They are able men, well qualified to judge the situation; they are fair men, and I give them credit for carrying out their convictions as they understand them. So far as I am concerned, I believe that this budget in every particular is beneficial to the people of the province of Prince Edward Island.
It was stated, and stated very emphatically, during the last election campaign, that this government was driving business out of the country, that it was ruining the industrial life of this country. I have a few figures here which I do not think bear out that statement. They show the prices at which the stocks of our leading banks sold in 1921 and 1925, as follows:
Price Price
1921	1925
Canadian Bank of Commerce	
$184	$213Dominion Bank	
192	205Imperial Bank	
180	159Bank of Montreal	
205	259Bank of Nova Scotia	
251	275Royal Bank of Canada	
196	238
That does not look as if this government was driving the banks out of business at any rate. It does not look as if this government was hurting industry in this country. I have a few more figures here regarding the industrial situation, showing the prices realized for industrial bonds in 1921 and in 1925, as
follows:
.	Price Price
1921	1925
Canada Cement	
$54	00	$106	00HoiUiiuger Mines	
7	35	14	95Dominion Canners	
27	00	134	00Canadian Salt	
62	00	152	00City Daily	
76	00	88	00Dominion Glass	
55	00	107	00Canadian Cottons	
72	00	119	00Steel Company of Canada	
55	00	91	00Dominion Bridge	
69	00	101	00Sherwin-Williams	
90	00	125	00Ontario Steel Products	
53	00	68	00Asbestos	
44	00	89	00Penman's Limited	
95	00	159	00Spanish River	
54	00	100	00Laurenti.de Paper	
71	00	80	00Tuckeht's	
40	00	65	00Provincial Paper	94 00	101 00
Even the most sanguine broker could not hope for a better showing than those figures indicate in the prices of industrial securities. In a great many cases the prices have doubled and trebled as compared with 1921. So as far as the financial situation of our country is

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
concerned, I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite, by any special pleading, can prove to this country that any of our industries have been seriously affected, let alone driven out of business.
Coining to the tariff, I wish first to point out that the difference between the position of the farmer and the position of the manufacturer is very marked indeed; so much so. that there is really no comparison at all. The manufacturer, under protection, can set his own price. He can take the cost of production, add to that the cost of distribution, add insurance, add all taxes on his business, federal, provincial and municipal, including the sales tax, add the duty on the imported article, and to all these he can add a good substantial margin of profit, and then go out and sell his product in a protected market. The farmer, on the other hand, has to sell his product in open competition with the world. There is the comparison between the two, and when our friends across the way talk of protecting the farmer I think they are endeavouring, to say the least, to camouflage the situation. They are endeavouring to pave the way to lining up the farmers of this country in support of a high protective tariff all round, but I think I shall be able to show as I proceed that protection can be of very little use to the farmer when he has a large surplus to export.
Our friends from the Maritime provinces, a great many of them, have been elected on the question of Maritime rights. The provincial papers at that time said that these men were neither Liberal nor Conservative, but that they were supported by a large number of the independent people of the Maritime provinces as Maritime righters, and that they were going to be independent in their viewpoint. But I notice that our friends across the way from the province of Nova Scotia, since coming to this House, have not been very independent in their viewpoint. Whatever their attitude may be in the future, they have up to the present been very strong supporters of the Conservative party, and they have strongly advocated the principle of protection. That, of course, is their own affair. If the principle of protection is satisfactory to the people of Nova Scotia, if protection is essential to that province, our friends are no doubt doing right in supporting that principle, but representing as I do a constituency in the Maritimes which is altogether an agricultural and a fishing constituency, I cannot see how a high protective tariff can be of either direct or indirect benefit to that province or to my own constituency in particular. I do not wish to be considered an
extremist in my tariff views. We realize in the province of Prince Edward Island that if we had free trade with the rest of the world, it would be of advantage to our little province in particular, but none of us has ever advocated that. We are big enough and broadminded enough, I trust, to be willing to contribute our share of any protection that is needed for any legitimate industry in this country, and I think the people of that province, both Liberal and Conservative, will continue to maintain that attitude and be willing to pay their share to see that no industry shall suffer unduly from too radical reductions in the tariff. But we feel very strongly on this point:	Where any industry is receiving
a degree of protection which is out of all proportion to that which it should receive, our people are very, very strong in the contention that that protection should be brought down to a reasonable point which would allow the people of our province to import, if they wished to, these products at a reasonable figure, thereby contributing to the revenues of this country a certain proportion for the upkeep of the government, rather than allowing the whole amount of the protection to be turned into the coffers of the manufacturers. That is the attitude, I believe, of the people of the province of Prince Edward Island.
So far as the automobile industry is concerned, that is only one of the many which we thought was possibly receiving too high a protection, and that a reduction could be made. I have an article here on Maritime rights which appeared in the Canadian Annual Review this year. It was written by W. C. Milner, B.Sc., LL.D., and I should like to put an extract from it on Hansard. The author gives his view of the situation. I am not saying that I accept that view; I simply give it for what it is worth. The writer says that one-half or more of the people of the Maritimes are engaged in agriculture. For lack of markets this industry has practically made no progress in ten or even twenty years.
He goes on to state that there cannot be successful competition against the farmers of Ontario and Quebec in the Toronto and Montreal markets. I wish to emphasize that as a fact which we realize in the province of Prince Edward Island. We cannot compete with the farmers of Ontario and Quebec in their own markets, and it is absolutely impossible ever to think of doing so. The writer goes on to say that the list of articles produced in the Maritime provinces for which there is a demand in the central provinces is exceedingly small. Efforts have been made to extend west the demand for fresh as well
3412	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
as for cured fish, but that demand has been exceedingly limited and the movement has virtually failed. Nova Scotia apples are in request, but on the other hand, the British Columbia product is retailed in nearly all the grocery stores of the Maritime provinces. New Brunswick ships certain commodities west, -and Prince Edward Island has of late years developed a large egg trade with Montreal. The writer further states that there is a wide demand for the silver fox pelts of Prince Edward Island. He says that the coal industry has been regarded of late as the obstruction that hindered the progress of the Maritime provinces. He remarks that the coal areas are owned and operated by Montreal capitalists who, being human, work for their own profit while their expenditures are necessarily enormous. The local consumer complains that the price has advanced from $3.50 per ton delivered at Halifax twenty years ago to $12 a ton at the end of 1924. The expenses of every household have been raised as a result and the increase has added materially to the cost of living. A reliable mining man has furnished the following statement:
The contention is made in the (press that no increase in wages or cost of material warrants the advance, and demands are made for an investigation that will go to the root of the matter and ascertain the cost of mining and profits. If it costs the people $12 per ton to mine and deliver their own coal it is argued it would be more profitable to take off the duty, import cheaper American coal, and close our mines entirely. In other words the coal mines ought not to be a burden on the other industries of the country.
This writer has no doubt given considerable study to the matter. As I say, 4 p.m. I am not endorsing his views, I am simply giving them as coming from a gentleman who has made a study of the subject.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Will the hon. gentleman name one mine in the province where the cost of coal is $12 at the pit mouth?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: In this case the price is given as $12 a ton delivered.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You said it was the
price at the pit's mouth.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: No, I did not say that. I said the price was $12 a ton delivered.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Where?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: 3414	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
National railway, is simply making it easier for them to send their stuff down here. We might save a little on the freight we have to pay on their goods, that is all. In nine years out of ten they have enough for themselves. They don't want our cheese, our butter, our eggs, or fish, etc.
They want the Maritime provinces to hunt up their own markets, while they take the pure gold and spend it there.
He then went on to give a further review of * his trip. No Liberal member could express the views of the Liberals of Prince Edward Island better than Mr. McEwen did in the statement I quoted. Those are the facts of the case and I am glad to see our Conservative friends as well as our Liberal friends appreciate the situation. A few minutes ago I referred to the subsidy which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) suggested he might give in ease of freight rates as a compensation to the Maritime provinces. Here we have the statement by one of the right hon. gentleman's own followers that he cannot see how a subsidy to the Canadian National system or any other Canadian railway system would be of any benefit to the shipment of the products of the Mnritimes to the central provinces.
I wish to say a few words in regard to the tariff which will always be a live question in this country. I notice that the Montreal Star on October 7, 1925, gave a report of a conference held at Washington of representatives from all countries in the world with regard to interprovincial trade and trade throughout the world in general. At that conference the following resolution was passed:
A resolution calling for abolition or diminution of present customs barriers between nations was adopted at the closing session of the inter-parliamentary union here to-day. The resolution, which was introduced by Adolph Braun of the German delegation, calls for the appointment of subcommittee to draw up a plan. It was passed without opposition.
In that resolution we can see the trend of the nations of the world in regard to the tariff question, and	I	believe instead
of a gradual increase in tariff duties, the time is not far distant when the countries of the world will realize that it is to the benefit of all concerned to have freer trade and will attempt to abolish or to reduce to a certain extent some of those tariffs which at the present time are certainly heavy obstacles in the way of trade. In discussing the reduction in the duty on agricultural implements, hon. gentlemen opposite have been quoting comparative prices of 1921 and 1925 respectively. That, I submit, is absolutely unfair. Everyone knows that there was no reduction in the duty either in 1921 or 1922. The reduction
IMr. A. E. MacLean.]
did not take place until 1924 and it was not effective until the beginning of the implement season of 1924. So that the only fair comparison that can be drawn in discussing prices is between the seasons of 1924 and 1925. There is no doubt in the world that prices increased between the years 1921 and 1924 and they might have gone on increasing still had the duty not been reduced; for the manufacturers of agricultural implements will continue to take every advantage of the tariff so long as that privilege remains open to them. And they had that privilege until the year 1924.
I have here a report of an industrial commission appointed by the provincial government of Ontario, a government which nobody will think of accusing of having shown any Liberal tendencies. The members of the commission were asked to investigate all phases of the subject, not confining their attention to agricultural implements but taking into consideration industry generally throughout the province. Their report shows a substantial reduction in the prices of implements between 1924 and 1925. The list is of considerable length, covering every article of use to the farmer.	It shows-to mention one or
two examples-a reduction of $23 on binders, $23 on com binders, $21 on double disc harrows, and so forth, right down the column.


Robert James Manion: When were the reductions made on implements?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: They became
effective in 1924.


Robert James Manion: They were made in 1923.


James Alexander Robb: No, 1924.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: 
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman has made that statement two or three times. I should like to point out that my amendment is distinctly a criticism of the government for not making a thorough examination before changing the tariff, and for that alone.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: No doubt my
hon. friend and his colleagues are quite willing to camouflage the situation, but however much as they may try to conceal the real intent of the amendment, the statement I have made is absolutely correct. It is a direct vote against every proposal in this budget. If not, the amendment should have been specific as to what parts of the budget the opposition approved and what parts they objected to.


Robert James Manion: Should we not have said
that we have confidence in this government!


An hon. MEMBER:: Surely.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friend
might do far worse than that.


Robert James Manion: Impossible 1


Robert Rogers: We do not really know
what the budget proposals are; they have not all be.en stated yet.

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)


Alfred Edgar MacLean: As the hon.
Minister of Finance remarked last week, whatever changes may be made, the budget will continue to be a truly Liberal one' and also very popular.
Now, the question of agricultural imports and exports has been gone into pretty fully by a number of hon. members, but as our friends opposite are featuring it very strongly this session I wish to present a few figures to the House. It is only very recently that our friends of the opposition have been shedding tears of sympathy for our farmers. Although they were in power from 1911 to 1921, during all those years we did not hear very much from them about the needs of our farmers. We all remember the Conservative campaign cry pf 1911: No truck or trade with the Yankees. Well, soon after our friends came into power we find that the largest importation of eggs in our history took place-not all from the United States possibly, but the volume was tremendous. In 1913 we imported no less than 13,158,538 dozen. In 1914 we imported practically a similar amount. Eggs continued to come into this country in large quantities right down to 1921. All through those years our friends were not shedding crocodile tears over the woes of our farmers, in fact they never moved a hand to prevent this gross injustice, as they now term the importation of eggs and dairy produce. I submit it is rather late in the day for the opposition now to try to make the farmers of Canada believe that they are their friends. As has been pointed out time and again, when we have a surplus of products protection cannot be of any benefit to our producers. Take silver fox furs. In my province it is a large item of business and we used to enjoy a splendid trade with the United States. Then the government of that country put on a duty of 50 per cent and shut us out of the American market completely. Will any of my hon. friends opposite say that our silver fox breeders would have been benefited by a retaliatory duty of 50 per cent on similar furs coming from the United States? The proposal would have been absolutely foolish, for it would not increase the price of silver fox furs in the Dominion by a fraction of a cent. The same argument holds good all along the line. We have a poultry association in the island which last season handled about $400,000 worth of eggs. In their report they state that $26,000 worth of those eggs was shipped into the United States, also a large quantity of dressed and live poultry. A duty on these articles would have no effect and would give no benefit to the Maritime provinces in any conceivable way, so the question of the import and export of agricultural products between the countries of the world is one which I really do not think our farmers will take seriously. I am sure that if the tariff board now constituted believe it to be in the interests of the farmers of Canada tQ have protection on certain articles, they will not be slow to recommend it, and I think this government would take that recommendation into consideration. No one is more ready to accept such a recommendation than I, and no one is more ready to see the farmers and fishermen of this country receive some benefit, but until I am shown that that benefit will be derived I do not think it wise to start a tariff war with the United States in which we may perhaps lose some of the benefits we already enjoy.
The question of the Hudson Bay railway is too large to go into at the moment. I was opposed to the construction of this railway until a delegation came to Ottawa last session, and until I saw some photographs showing the work from start to finish; I was then convinced that that road should be completed. I believe both parties are committed to it; I notice that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House have so expressed themselves, so I do not think it is a party question. The honour of the Dominion is at stake; we should complete this road, for which we are led to believe certain lands were reserved, and some sold, the resulting funds being earmarked for the construction of this railway. If this is the case we should go ahead and complete the ninety-two miles still to be constructed. I must say, however, that as a Maritime man I can never be convinced, that this will be a successful graincarrying route, or that it can be used for the export of cattle, as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) suggests. But if there are minerals, fish, timber, lumber and pulp wood in that country we should complete the road and give those people a chance to transport these products. This will help increase the wealth of our Dominion, and I think it is only justice to the people of the west who have been hoping for this road for so long. The photographs which were shown in this building revealed that a work of great magnitude has been constructed at the bay. When we see a steel bridge a mile long extending from the shore to an island to form part of the harbour; when we see the tremendous equipment, the steel bridges built over every stream and river, the grading all done and everything ready for the rails to link up the work at the bay with the rest
3418	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
of the road, we should not hesitate one moment. Every member of this House should support the proposition, see that the work goes ahead, then wait for further developments as to the feasibility of carrying grain before further expenditures are made. That is my attitude, and if that route can be made feasible no Canadian will oppose the further development of the port, if it is to be a benefit to the country as a whole.
In dealing with the question of the potato trade of Prince Edward Island there is just one little feature I would like to point out. A couple of years ago the railway management decided to close a small station near my home because of the lack of business; the station had fallen below the margin of business required for a booking station. We took up the matter with the management and pleaded with them to let the station remain open for another year to see what would develop. I wish to put on Hansard what the potato trade of that province will do if given a chance, not only for the farmers of the country but for the Canadian National Railways as well. In 1922 the earnings at that station had fallen below $5,000, and the freight moved was only slightly more than 1,000 tons; in 1923 the earnings were 86.700 and the tonnage about the same; in 1924 the earnings had increased to $9,800 and the tonnage to 2.100 tons, while in the year ending April, 1925, the earnings had increased to $23,370. That is what this country, given a chance, will do for the Canadian National Railways and for the farmers of the province, and I ask this House to do everything possible to assist that industry. The farmers and potato growers there are forced to build their own potato warehouses; it is impossible to ship out the tremendous crop in the fall, so frost-proof warehouses must be constructed at a station, and under the present arrangement the Canadian National Railways will not put in a siding to these warehouses unless they receive full payment for such construction, These sidings cost from $1,000 up, and it will readily be seen that a couple of farmers joining together and building a potato warehouse costing from $5,000 to $8,000 will have a heavy additional expense in building a siding which may cost from 81.000 to $2,000. I would like the Canadian National system to take this matter into consideration and see if some scheme cannot be arranged by which sidings may be built to accommodate these potato shippers. I venture to say that the cars going over every new siding will increase in number from year lo year, and will show a revenue to the rail-

way. If some plan could be worked out whereby a bonus would be given on each car of freight to be applied to pay for siding accommodation, or some similar system for the benefit of the farmers and potato growers, it would not only benefit that particular class, but the country as a whole.
I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) although he is not in his seat, for the splendid assistance he gave in making Prince Edward Island a disease-free area, a statement of the cost of which I would like to put on Hansard. Our products are now shipped to the markets of the world labelled as dairy products from a disease-free area, and I am pleased to be able to state that we are receiving the benefit of this work through an enhanced price for our products. With the permission of the House, I should like to put this table on Hansard. The total cost for covering the whole province was only $57,000 approximately, and the results have been wonderful. The local government have done their share, and I wish to express the appreciation which the farmers of the country feel for tJheir action in endeavouring to put this thing over. The table is as follows:
Prince Edward Island Restricted Area
First test	Aug.-Nov.,	1925..	94,772	561	$14,194	06Sixth day	retest-Dec.,	1925..	3,155	3	116	00
Jan., 1926.
$14 310	06
Salaries,	first test	
$17,818	72Salaries,	retest	
2.353	32

Expenses,	first test	
$13,155	94Expenses,	retest	
1,751	39

Tuberculin, first test	 $ 5,212 45
Tuberculin, retest	 173	50
$ 5.385	95
Eartags	 $ 2.716 65

We have heard a great deal from our friends-opposite to the effect that they always stand four-square by their policies, that everybody can always know where they stand, that they have always stood for instance, by the principle of protection. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has declared

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
that emphatically time and time again. This government, on the other hand, has had many reflections cast upon it for having been what has been called a wobbling government; it has been said of it that you never know exactly where it stood. The right hon. leader of the opposition is a gentleman for whom I have the highest regard, a gentleman who has the admiration I believe of the people of this whole Dominion no matter what their politics may be, but we find that his party, and he as leader of that party, have not always stood four-square by their policies as they claim to have done. In 1910 the right hon. leader of the opposition supported the Lancaster motion for the total abolition of the Senate. Last year he was very severe in his criticism of the right hon. leader of the government foT attempting in any way to change or interfere with the Senate.
Again, in 1911, the right hon. leader of the opposition moved for a reduction of duties. In 1925 he moved a similar resolution, but this time it was for higher protection. The same inconsistency was shown in their attitude in regard to taking over the Canadian National railway. The right hon. leader of the opposition pushed the resolution through the House guaranteeing principal and interest on the Mackenzie and Mann railway, and to take over this and other roads. But last year, at the time of the election we were led to believe that the Conservative party were willing to abandon these railways and turn them over to private ownership. I do not know whether I am justified in making that statement or not, but that was the information we received in our little province.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does not the hon. member know that that statement was explicitly denied by the right hon. leader of the opposition through the newspapers of this country?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I cannot say that I saw the denial.


Charles Murphy: It appeared in many newspapers, notably in the Free Pres, in a halfpage advertisement.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Then we shall
have to take it as read, but at the time the campaign was on, it was the general belief that that was the attitude of the Conservative party.


Robert Rogers: The Liberals were wrong
again, as usual.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That appeared not only in Liberal newspapers, but in the press of Ontario which reported speeches of the right hon. gentleman at the beginning of
the campaign. He went so far as to say that if it was impossible to bring the Canadian National railway system to the position where it would be on a paying basis, something else would have to be done about it. However, I do not wish to take any undue advantage of the right hon. gentleman seeing he is not here. I am glad to see, however, that hon. gentlemen opposite at the present time are willing to own the Canadian National railway system, now that it is making such splendid progress under present management and that they are willing to adopt it as their own creation and stand behind it, I presume, to the limit. I am pleased to see that they have changed their minds, if they did have any intention of abandoning the government railways, and have come to what I believe is the right attitude on this very important question.
Again, in 1923, the policy of the Conservative party as announced by the leader of the opposition was " Ready, aye ready," but in 1925 it was not ready until after a plebiscite or a general election had been held on the question of our participating in overseas wars. So it is always well to remember the old proverb, " People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." I suppose both sides have their faults and that each side cap be called to account for something. If this government is guilty of all the sins that our friends opposite have charged against it, I think our friends opposite need to be reminded occasionally of some of their own shortcomings.
With regard to the interests particularly of the little province from which I come, there are many improvements we need. There is, for instance, a second car ferry steamer. That is something the government will have to consider in the not distant future. The steamei we have now has given splendid satisfaction up to the present, but she cannot go on forever, and our people feel that they should be safeguarded against any return to the former transportation difficulties we had by providing now for another car ferry as soon as possible.
We are always looking for something in the way of branch railways in the province of Prince Edward Island, and I am afraid that we have been waiting perhaps a little more patiently than other parts of the Dominion. I hope our good friends from the west, if the Hudson Bay railway is completed, will not forget that there are other places in this Dominion that should receive some consideration in the matter of branch lines. Particularly is this true of some of the outlying sections of Prince Edward Island which have not
3420	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
railway facilities to-day. These parts should receive consideration as soon as the management of the railway is able to take this matter up.
In conclusion, there were certain matters referred to by two hon. members of this House at the beginning of this session and speeches made along a certain line which I think should be abandoned. We had the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) charging the Liberal party with all kinds of practices during the election campaign in the province of Quebec. Then we had members on this side of the House making similar charges against the party opposite. I do not think it is fair to the leaders of both our great political parties in this House to treat them in this way. We have in the leader of the opposition a gentleman of outstanding ability who has given possibly of his best to this Dominion, and I do not think it is right for us to criticize on the floor of this House any attitude he may have taken during the election campaign. On the other hand, I think it is unfair for hon. gentlemen opposite to criticize the leader of this government in connection with these matters. He has given of his very best to this Dominion for the past few years, and I think there are enough really big questions in this country to occupy our time without bringing these matters up. We should leave these personalities alone, and rising above such things, give our public men a fair chance. They are doing the best they can on behalf of this Dominion. Their's is a big task to carry out. Canada is a difficult country to govern, and the members of the administration, it seems to me, occupy a very unenviable position. Let us as members of this House endeavour to see to it in our respective communities that the political leaders, no matter of what party, shall be given that fair play and that considerate treatment which they merit.
In the last campaign flag-waving was unfairly resorted to; it was responsible for the loss of a great many votes to the Liberal party. Let me also say this to Liberal members from Ontario and Progressive members from the west: if there is not as large a representation of these two parties in the House at the present time as there should have been it is due to the fact that we defeated ourselves by running too many candidates. In too many instances there were three cornered fights with Liberal, Progressive, and Conservative candidates in the field. If Liberal and Progressive aims and policies are the same why not stick to our guns and meet our Conservative friends on equal grounds, not with our forces divided. Then, I hope,

we shall emerge from the next conflict with a greater measure of success than rewarded our efforts at the last election-as I feel sure we defeated ourselves in many constituencies, and I trust that the splendid showing made by the present administration in the financial situation of the country will continue, no matter what party may control the situation in the future.


Mr. THOMAS OANTLEY (Pictou):: I
join with the last speaker in congratulating our genial friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on his return to the House.
There is no question but that the budget, which we have been discussing for the past three or four weeks, presents features of considerable interest. Tt will probably be very favourabfy received in the middle west, with perhaps little enthusiasm in Quebec, with some hostility in Ontario, and with very little enthusiasm in the Maritime provinces. The reduction in the income tax was overdue and will be welcomed by all wage earners who are now taxed; but the double taxation on industry which it now introduces is as vicious in principle as it is altogether foreign to Canadian experience. May I point out that respectable people of the middle class who have invested in industry, perhaps the savings of a lifetime, are now to be taxed as a result of their thrift, and faith in Canadian industry. There is no doubt that tax-free victory bonds will, under this budget, command an additional premium.
There is another regrettable feature about the budget. According to the figures presented by the Finance minister (Mr. Robb), the Canadian automobile industry has provided a market for a very considerable quantity of iron and steel to the value, I believe, of $11,000,000. In addition to the reductions of duty already brought into effect I understand the Finance minister contemplates putting this large amount of the material entering into automobile manufacture on the free list. May I say that to the extent that that is done it is going to further unfavourably affect the iron and steel industry which is in a very bad position to-day, particularly in the Maritime provinces, as the minister must be aware.
Coal and steel are the twin industries of Nova Scotia, but the present budget provides no relief and gives no encouragement to these industries. I think that is particularly unfortunate in view of the unfair competition which results from the depreciated currencies of our European competitors, more especially Belgium and Germany. I have no doubt the Finance minister is aware of the fact that during the past winter a considerable ton-

The Budget-Mr. Cantley
nage of Belgian and German wire rods came out to Sydney at a cost of about $9 per ton less than it was possible to produce them at that point. Such a condition of affairs is, to say the least, regrettable. However, I will not labour the point any further.
It is unfortunate that the government took action on the tariff and entirely ignored their announcement in the Speech from 5 p.m. the Throne as to the necessity for careful inquiry by the Tariff Advisory Board before making any changes in the duty. This point has been dwelt on by other speakers, and I will not now further discuss it.
There is another matter which has not as yet been discussed in this House. For the past three or four weeks a committee has been conducting an investigation into the matter of unrestricted reciprocity as understood by a gang of smuggling crooks aided, abetted and protected by officers of the Department of Customs and Excise, with the attendant and consequent debauchery of the preventive branch of the Customs service. May I impress upon both my hon. friends the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs and Excise the absolute impossibility of stopping smuggling in the Maritime provinces and Quebec in view of our enormous coast line, extending as it does from Passamaquoddy bay, New Brunswick, up the bay of Fundy into Minas' basin, thence along the south coast of Nova Scotia, and the entire coast of the island of Cape Breton-which island lies within 150 to 200 miles of St. Pierre, the supply station of the eastern smugglers. Then you have also the entire coast of Prince Edward Island, through the straits of Northumberland, the gulf of St. Lawrence and the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence river and right up to the city of Quebec, a coastline of not less than fifteen hundred miles. On eighty per cent of this entire coastline liquor can be landed and distributed during the entire season of open navigation. I am satisfied that if the Minister of Customs and Excise had at his disposal one hundred armed vessels and one thousand coastguards he would not be able to stop smuggling in that section of the Dominion so long as customs and excise duties remain at their present high figure of $10 per gallon. So long as the duty on a case -of whiskey is $21.50 or approximately one hundred and fifty per cent of the c.i.f. cost and in proportion on other liquors, it is simply impossible to stop smuggling. The c.i.f. cost of ordinary brands of good Scotch whiskey, landed at Halifax or any other port in the Maritime provinces, or in the St.
Lawrence, is about $14. On the other hand the duty is over one hundred and fifty per cent and the spread is so great as to make it impossible for any government to stop this smuggling. The same argument applies to cigarettes. If the Minister of Finance will reduce the imposts to what they were three years ago he will accomplish a dhange for the better. I may be told that hon. gentlemen on this side raised the duties to their present figure. I think they did. And I fancy it was done at the behest of certain "unco guid" people in Toronto and some others of that stripe. When they did so they made the greatest possible mistake in the interests of public morality, sobriety and good conduct in this country. I hope the government will make a change and reduce these duties to at least one-third of those now in force. If they do that they will find that four-fifths of their difficulties in connection with the smuggling of cigarettes, tobacco and liquor will disappear over night, with an accompanying decrease in debauchery, crime and all the evils attending the operations of the nim runner and smuggler.
In regard to the desirability of a national policy for fuel, 'let me say that in no country in the world is fuel a matter of greater importance that it is in Canada. It is the foundation of industry, and without the assurance of a continued supply the capital needed for industry cannot be obtained except on speculative terms. From the heard of the Great Lakes westward there need be no fuel problem, as the British Columbia mines can supply the whole country west of the Rockies and under reasonable, fair and practical freight rates the Alberta .mines can supply the middle west and also can command most of western Ontario. While last year there was a considerable increase in the output of Alberta coal, there was a very decided drop in the production of Nova Scotia coal. Altogether we produced in 1925 slightly over 13,000,000 tons and we bought and brought into this country from various sources, largely from the United States in round figures 17,000,000 tons in addition. In other words we did not produce 45 per cent of our requirements.
The industry in Canada has an investment of from $146,000,000 to $150,000,000 and is entitled to all the consideration possible as regards not only protecting the industry but making this country independent of any foreign country for its indispensable fuel. Unless our policy in this matter is completely changed this Dominion will some day suffer as to both its domestic fuel and fuel for its manufacturing activities. With a national fuel policy providing an adequate duty on
The Budget-Mr. Cantley

the various kinds of coal and fuel, be it bituminous, anthracite or coke, Canada can within ten years be placed in a position entirely independent of any outside source of supply.
Let us consider the situation in the United States. There was a time when we in Nova Scotia despatched each summer from the town where lives the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) more than 1,000 vessels loaded for eastern United States points and an equal number sailed from Cape Breton. The United States government later imposed a duty of SI.75 a ton on our coal and stopped that business instantly with the result that they have developed their own resources; they are to-day shipping into Canada from ten to twelve millions tons of coal annually and they are now by far the greatest coal producers in the world.
Surely we can take a lesson from the experience of other countries. Are we wiser than the combined peoples of all the world? It would seem as though we thought we were, but I am sure and I think most hon. members are also sure that we are not. Every business man, everj' man of any intelligence who reads the newspapers knows what the situation is. The remedy is obvious and I cannot understand why we do not put it into force. Three things we ought to do. We should first impose upon coal a duty sufficient to enable us to control our own market. We should have an adequate protective duty on all classes of coal, coke and patent fuels equal to, say, not less than 25 per cent of the present laid down, e.i.f. cost. That would be, say, $1.25 to $1.50 a ton, the duty to apply to all coal, coke and patent fuel imported irrespective of its origin or the purpose for which it may be used. I have said that the rate should be $1.50 a ton and if it were that duty would be considerably lower than that at one time imposed by the people of the United States on Nova Scotia coal then largely shipped and sold by us to New England cities. Some of my hon. friends may balk at a duty of $1.50 a ton. While the industry is certainly entitled to that amount of protection I wish to emphasize the fact that a rate of duty less than one dollar a ton applied to all classes of fuel will entirely fail of its object, be mischievous and disappointing
I now want to make some reference to my good friend the Minister of National Defence, who is familiar with this subject on which a discussion took place on various public platforms in Pictou county a few years ago when we had the mutual pleasure of
fMr. Cantlev.]
meeting each other during the campaign of November, 1921. My hon. friend at a meeting at Trenton six days before the election made this statement:
After all our discussions about far away politics, the important thing that has to be settled on December 6, is what is to be the future of this town. 'You want to consider between now and then as to which one of the men who come to you and ask your suffrages can best help in changing the conditions as they now exist, and can best bring to the solution of the problems that face you all, that capacity which will mean that once more we will have prosperity where now we have doubt and despair.
Where do we stand in regard to this matter? What is the situation? We have in the candidate of the Conservative parly one story and one story only, from him and his friends:	"We are not going
to make any changes in ithe tariff. You should bow down and worship the National Policy, that second Ten Commandments which cannot be touched or interfered with." That wonderful policy under whose benign sway conditions of unemployment and distress have come which exist in this and other communities? He doesn't propose to change a single line in this wonderful document. Are you going to get much help or comfort from that quarter? Not at all.
He proceeded:
Well, the primary cause of these conditions here is the enormous imposition which has been allowed to be placed upon the carriage of the products of the industries of this country of Pictou. Our coal mines are not working because it costs $2.30 a ton more to carry their coal to Montreal. Your steel works are not working because it costs $4.80 a ton more to send your products to your markets.
My hon. friend was wrong by $1 a ton. It was $3.80, not $4.80. He continued:
T come to you and I say that I speak for myself and my party, and that coming into power, as we will on the 6th of December-
And they did.
-we propose to change those railway conditions, so that you will be able to send your products to central Canada, and thus compete with the Steel Company of Canada, and the Americans ait that point.
He did change them; or his friends did change them; the rates that he then complained of they further increased in 1922 and again in 1924. He continued:
You have been told that there is a wonderful duty on steel. Protection on steel. There is no protection on steel. What is a 10 per cent duty on your products? There must be higher duty put on. I frankly say that I stand for that. I believe in that.


Mr. MACDONALD (Anfcigonish):: Will my hon. friend kindly tell me from what paper he is quoting?


Thomas Cantley: I am not quoting from any paper; I am quoting from the notes of the shorthand reporter who took down the hon. members speeches at the various meetings. 1 have a great deal of it in addition to this and I will let my hon. friend have the whole of it after I get through.

1 'he Budget-Mr. Cantley


Finlay MacDonald: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is trying to get on Hansard an alleged report of a speech which I never delivered, and for the purpose he is following the course adopted in the last parliament by a member who is now Prime Minister of New Brunswick. I affirm again that the alleged speech which my hon. friend is trying to attribute to me was never uttered by me, and the report is a false one.
I made that statement in 1924 on one occasion when His Honour the Speaker ruled upon my point of order, holding that it was not in order for an hon. member to quote in this House any report that did not appear in the public press and the author of which was unknown. My hon. friend does not tell us who the stenographer was, and we know nothing of the origin of this alleged report.


Thomas Cantley: I can give the minister the name of the stenographer. -He is Mr. J. R. McGregor whom the minister knows well.


Finlay MacDonald: It was my hon. friend's secretary *who made the speech, and not I. I never uttered those words in the way in which they are reported.


Thomas Cantley: What does my hon. friend mean by the phrase " in the way " the words are reported?


Finlay MacDonald: I never used the words which my hon. friend is now quoting and which, as I have said, were quoted on a former occasion in this House and ruled out of order by the Speaker. At that time Mr. Baxter attempted to get the words into Hansard and upon my raising a point of order the Speaker ruled that they were inadmissible.


Thomas Cantley: My hon. friend has a great deal more parliamentary experience than I have. Indeed, I have practically none. Perhaps the rules of the House may prevent my quoting the speech, but I hardly expected that the hon. gentleman would stand up in his place and plead for mercy at my hands in this matter.


Finlay MacDonald: I rise again to a point of order. The hon. member has no right to put words into my mouth, words which I never uttered. A stenographer produced a certain alleged report which was never made public and which was used entirely for the purpose of misrepresenting me, and I say that the report is utterly false. I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the ruling given on the previous occasion by Mr. Speaker Lemieux. On May 15, 1924, Mr. Baxter having attempted to quote this false and fabricated report, the Speaker ruled as follows:
I think it is perfectly clear that the hon. gentleman is wrong in reading a report containing certain statements which are specifically denied by the hon. Minister of National Defence. That is my ruling. I hope the hon. gentleman will accept the ruling and not continue to read from an alleged report. The hon. member says it was not a report published in the press but was specially taken down by somebody at a meeting. It is not usual to quote from a
report .the author of which is not known	
The report is said to have been taken at a certain meeting but the statements contained in it are specificalily denied by the Minister of National Defence. Under the circumstances I think the hon. member, who is well aware of the spirit and letter of the rules of the House, should abstain from quoting from the report.
I would ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Cantley: I have already given the name of the author of the report. I was present at the meeting-


Finlay MacDonald: My hon. friend never met me on a single platform m Pictou in that campaign.


Thomas Cantley: I did not say I did.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The Minister of National Defence has categorically denied having made such a speech as the hon. member is quoting from, and I must ask that it be not further referred to.


Thomas Cantley: I think it was said at that time-I do not think the minister will deny it-that I had issued a manifesto to the people of the county.


Finlay MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the point I make is this: my hon. friend is quoting from a document containing utterances which are absolutely fabricated, and is attempting to ascribe to me words that I never used at all. The alleged report from which the hon. gentleman is quoting never appeared in the public press and was never heard of until weeks, indeed months, afterwards, when it was produced and its statements ascribed to me.


Robert Rogers: I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Cantley) is quoting just now.


Thomas Cantley: I am not quoting at all at the moment. And what I have been quoting from is a speech which was delivered by the minister at Trenton, whereas the speech to which he has been referring and which was under discussion here last year or the year before was one which was made at Stellarton.
The Budget-Mr. Cantley


Finlay MacDonald: It was the same speech taken by the same stenographer.


Thomas Cantley: It is not the same speech.


William Duff: The Minister of National Defence having repudiated the speech alleged to have been delivered by him, I must ask the hon. member to take his word and refrain from further references to it.


Thomas Cantley: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I am rather surprised at the attitude taken by the minister: I gave him credit for a little more courage.


Finlay MacDonald: My hon. friend had so much courage in 1921 that he never met me on a single platform to discuss public questions.


Thomas Cantley: I had courage enough to appear on platforms in 1925 when the minister avoided me.


Finlay MacDonald: You probably would not have been there if I had arrived.


Thomas Cantley: Why did the hon. Minister of National Defence mobilize his entire forces-horse, foot and artillery, commissariat and war chest, and in the dark of the last September moon leave the fastnesses of Pictou, which had supported him for thirty years? Why did he abandon, even as did Kruger, that other celebrated man of war, the wife of his bosom and his little ones, leaving them to the tender mercies of the Tory enemy? Under cover of night he marched from Pictou and dug in in the mountain fastnesses of Antigonish, forty miles away, and to-day he warms his cabin in the vale of Kippoch with peat, the duty on coal being too high. Now he talks about people not having courage to meet him! With whom does the balance of courage lie to-day? I think it is for the minister and not for me to explain any want of courage.
To come now directly to the budget. Iron and steel, the basic industry of civilization, has made but little progress in Canada during the past fifteen years. We have advanced perhaps one and a half per cent in Canada while in the same period the expansion in the United States has been about 75 per cent. During the past year Canada imported about 1181,196,800 worth of iron and steel products, largely from the United States, while the

value of these duty free products imported in 1925 was $15,126,109; in the same year dutiable tonnage was imported to the value of $120,000,000. In 1926 the free tonnage imported was valued at $22,000,000 and the dutiable at $158,000,000.
Here is another arresting fact in connection with the ftiatter. Our free and dutiable iron and steel in 1925 was valued at $134,000,000 or an increase of $46,000,000 over that oi 1924. The point is that the proportions of free or 99 per cent rebate steel is going up year by year, and going up rapidly. We have a tariff that is the laughing stock of any commercial man in any country who has any knowledge of fiscal affairs. Our tariff contains items respecting the iron and steel trade that have not been altered for nearly thirty years. There are to-day in that tariff over seventy items that are either entirely free or enjoy a rebate of 99 per cent, and this country has gone on for years collecting large amounts of duty on certain iron and steel products running into enormous figures only to rebate them again later.
The iron and steel tariff as it now exists is the most irrational and confusedly mixed mass of out-of-date schedules imaginable. Take one item No. 387:
Swedish rolled iron and Swedish rolled stcefl, nail rod3 under half an inch in dameter, for the manufacture of horse shoe nails.
There has been no Swedish rolled iron for use in the manufacture of horse shoe nails imported into this country for years-and still the item remains. Swedish rolled iron nail rods were replaced by mild steel years ago. Then take item 1005:
Steel under one-half inch in diameter or under one-half inch square when used in the manufacture of locks and knobs.
That item was put there when Sir Charles Tupper introduced his first iron and steel tariff in 1887. What does it mean? It means the little spindle that goes through a door lock and engages with the knobs. This steel has been admitted into this country for thirty years free of duty although it could at any time during all those years have been made in any of our mills. Ontario factories have been making locks and knobs for thirty years and have enjoyed ample protection on their product-and still have had that particular item coming in free. I might say the same of thirty other items. Why do we not profit by the wisdom and experience of the United States? There is no such nonsense in their tariff. Take iron and steel. The United States customs authorities have been deal-

The Budget-Mr. Cantley
mg with these matters for sixty years, they have evolved a tariff whose definitions are so clear that they cannot be evaded. Take paragraph 306 of the United States .tariff which deals with steel:
"All 'metal produced from iron or its ores, which is cast and malleable, of whatever description or form, without regard to the percentage of carbon contained therein, whether produced by cementation, or converted, cast, or made from iron or its ores, by the crucible, electric, Bessemer, Olapp-Griffith, pneumatic, Thomas-Gilchrist, basic, Siemens-Martin, or open-hearth process, or by the equivalent of either, or by a combination of two or more of the processes, or their equivalents, or by any fusion or other process which produces from iron or its ores a metal either granular or fibrous in structure, which is cast and malleable, excepting what is known as malleable-iron castings, shall be classed and denominated as steel."
There you have a definition of steel which cannot be got around in any way whatever. Every item of iron or steel that is made in the United States and that falls under any of the categories of iron and steel products is amply protected, with the result that there has been an enormous growth in the volume of these products and to-day that country, in respect to that production, leads the world.
Consider the type of competition which the steel plants of Canada have to contend with. Take the United States Steel Corporation, organized in 1901. To-day it has 138 miscellaneous works and departments, comprising 112 blast furnaces, 34 Bessemer converters, 332 oil heated furnaces, 44 blooming and slab mills, 15 billet and sheet-bar mills, also eight rail mills, seven universal plate mills-I might read the whole list, but I will not weary the House. Consider their resources in another way. They have 237,714 acres of gas and oil territory, 1,407 active gas wells and 246 active oil wells, 20 gas compressing stations, 8 gasoline plants with a pipe line distribution system aggregating 1,285 miles. In 1925 they had a production of 15.738,157,000 cubic feet of natural gas-practically all consumed in their own plants-97,910 barrels of crude oil, and 1,313,088 gallons of gasoline. Look at their ore resources. They have 19 active mines which produced last year 27,996,845 tons of ore, and several other mines in reserve. They have railway equipment, including 1464 steam locomotives, 61,916 train freight card and 2,600 odd other items of railway operating equipment. They have also 139 lake and 35 ocean steamships, and 413 river transport vessels.
Then take their production. The output of the several principal departments for the
year 1925 in comparison with results for the preceding year was as follows:
1925	1924
tons	tons
Iron and manganese ore	
27 996,845	24,774,541Limestone, dolomite and	fluorspar. 5,344,893	5,033,889Coal	
31,475 568	27,738,007Coke	
16,301,224	14.408,041Pig iron, ferro and spiegel	
14,798,999	12,683,729
Steel ingots (Bessemer and otpen
hearth)	
18 898,697	16,478,857Rolled and finished steel products for sale	
13,271,010	11,722,908
Consider what they contributed to the taxation of the United States. Last year they paid in federal taxes nearly $51,000,000, and their volume of business was $1,406,505,195, an increase of about $200,000,000 over the year before, and their total undivided surplus on December 31, 1925, was $521,863,109. That is the corporation and the kind of competition which our iron and steel plants have to meet, and the better to aid them we carry their steel on our canals free of all tolls, and impose a trifling duty-the Minister of Defence says ten per cent-and with what result? Out of seventeen Canadian blast furnaces today we have only six in operation; of open hearth furnaces we have forty odd with about 25 per cent of them in operation.
Consider for instance the situation to-day at Sydney Mines. For the last four years not a wheel has been turned nor a furnace lighted in connection with that plant. There are situated two modern blast furnaces; about one hundred and fifty retort coke ovens; a coal washer, than which there is none better on this continent; five 70-foot open hearth furnaces modem in every respect. This plant is situated on top of the finest metallurgical fuel in the world. Why is it not operated; why have we to-day almost two thousand men, in that town of ten thousand people, without work?
Go to New Glasgow, the home of the iron and steel industry of this country, where all the pioneering work in connection with that industry was done either in New Glasgow or in Ferrona, a few miles away. I left school at less than fifteen years of age, after having a difference with the schoolmaster; he is now in heaven, while I have only reached the House of Commons, which certainly is not thought to be the gate to heaven. I have wrought at nearly everything in connection with the iron and steel trade; I know what it is to get up at six o'clock in the morning; I know what Blue Monday means, and the attractive anticipations of Silver Saturday; I was associated for a period of nearly forty years with the men who were the pioneers.
The Budget-Mr. Cantley

Graham Fraser, Simon A. Fraser, Forrest McKay and Harvey Graham; these were the men whose vision, industry and perseverance fought out in eastern Nova Scotia, long before any steel was made in Ontario, all the problems in connection with the utilization of our own and, later, the Wabana iron ores. 'We built there the first commercial coal washer on this continent; we installed and worked successfully a battery of retort coke ovens, three years before there was a retort coke oven erected anywhere else on this continent. I can claim honestly and with some pride that New Glasgow is entitled to the credit for all the pioneering work in solving the problem of making first acid and later basic open hearth steel successfully from our own and also from the AVabana red hematite ores.
Take the situation at New Glasgow to-day; there you may see a forge and mill plant costing say $10,000,000 or more, and how much work is now being done there? We should have 4,000 men working, as we once had. The situation during the past two years has been such that those men who could not get away, simply because they owned their houses, have had to exist on sixty, seventy and eighty days of work each year. All the young, active men who were not tied down went to the United States, and we have left only the older men who, unfortunately for themselves but luckily for the town, are not able to get away being house and property owners. The Scotia company operating that plant never built a single house for its employees. The men were thrifty, largely of Scotch descent, built and owned their own houses. We have had and have there to-day the most intelligent and capable class of labour, not excelled by any other on this continent, but what kind of treatment are they getting? Absent treatment, under which all the active and energetic young men, the best blood, the best brains and brawn of our country have gone to work in a foreign land. How long are we going to put up with it? Only until the people get another opportunity to give a verdict against the party now posing as the government of this country.
Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal more that I should like to say, but time is moving on, so I will conclude with an appeal to the Minister of Finance, to the government, to hon. members opposite and to all parties in this House to give consideration to a matter which, to my mindi, vitally interests not only the workers of Nova Scotia but the national safety as well. Involved in it are pro-

tection to and extension of the coal, iron and steel industries of this country. The next great world struggle for national extension, development and sea power will be on the Pacific. AA7hen that time of stress and struggle comes-and it may come much sooner than most of us expect-Canada will be involved. I do not suggest that our armed forces will be engaged, but none the less this Dominion will be profoundly affected. One of the combatants will conserve and reserve for their own purpose the basic, indispensable products of coal, oil, iron and steel. In view of such a possibility should not and must not we as a nation now take thought and develop our resources, both as to fuel and iron and steel, the most valuable of all metals, so as to make ourselves entirely independent of any foreign source of supply, and thus comply with the first law of nature, that of self-defence? To that end we must develop our coal resources and stimulate in every way possible the iron and steel industry of Canada; only in that way can we make this Dominion economically independent as concerns all essential materials. Such a policy will bring prosperity and contentment to the Maritime provinces and will be a large factor in the unification, development and safeguarding of the Dominion. I thank you.


Mr. P. L. HATFIELD (Shelburne-Yarmouth) :: The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) addressed much of the early part of his remarks to what he called camouflaging the issue by the opposition, and I could not help thinking, Mr. Speaker, that that came with very ill grace from the hon. member. In rising to open his remarks he admitted that he had attempted to camouflage the issue on Friday night in moving the adjournment of the debate, because he expected me to make his speech for him this afternoon. We on this side of the House do not believe in camouflaging the issue; I would not consent to that sort of treatment, and told my hon. friend that he would have to make his own speech. But he had not proceeded very far, Mr. Speaker, before I rather regretted my decision, because I discovered that in large measure he was delivering the speech which I am now supposed to give. Perhaps the House will be the gainer, however, because I will be enabled to delete from my remarks much of the data and statistics which he has already given.
Notwithstanding the fact that I have had the honour and privilege of sitting in this House during the last parliament and up to the present in this parliament, this is the first

The Budget-Mr. Hatfield
occasion upon which I have risen to offer any extended remarks in the discussions which have taken place from time to time. There is a very good reason for that, I think. Hon. members will recall that in the elections of 1921 the province of Nova Scotia, from which I have the honour of a seat, returned to this House a solid contingent supporting the present right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who was subsequently called upon to form a cabinet. Included in that contingent were such eminent statesmen and parliamentarians as the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, Hon. A. K. Maclean; he who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald); H. J. Logan, George Kyte, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), and others that I could mention. Under those conditions it seemed almost superfluous that I, a backbencher, coming to this House for the first time, should be called upon to make any general remarks in the debates as they came before this House, as the interests of our province were so well taken care of by these hon. gentlemen. But you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that something else happened in the province of Nova Scotia since the last parliament dissolved. We had a general election in October last, and the province of Nova Scotia did on that occasion what she has done on many another-she almost completely reversed herself in so far as her party representation in this House is concerned, and today, Sir, we have only three members on this side from the province of Nova Scotia giving support to the government.
The hon. Minister of National Defence, by reason of his departmental duties, can hardly be expected to give the same detailed consideration and time to the debates here as he otherwise might do. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has had his lips effectually sealed by his elevation to the Deputy Speakership. So, Sir, under those conditions it does seem proper and right that I should now rise in my place and attempt to discharge my duty as best I can in presenting to the House the interests of my province as I see them, and particularly of the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
I ask the indulgence of the House. Mr. Speaker, in that I desire to offer the most of my remarks and to plead more particularly with this House on this much vexed and much mooted question of Maritime rights. But before I do that, may I be permitted to offer a few general remarks in connection with the budget itself?
I think there is general agreement in this House and in the country that Canada has at
last, as we say, turned the corner of hard times and is now on the road towards a better era of prosperity and national development. I think, Mr. Speaker, it should be common ground for general satisfaction, and indeed profound gratitude, that that is the case, because we remember, Sir, that when we entered the post-1 war period there were those in this country, perhaps best qualified to judge, who viewed with concern and gravity the position of this country so far as the future was concerned. Indeed, Sir, they went so far as to express grave doubts as to whether or not Canada could ultimately recover and recoup herself from the great losses of that terrible world conflict. It is because the budget statement reveals the condition in this country that it does reveal that I think we should find common ground for general satisfaction and profound gratitude, because there is no gainsaying the fact that while we may not all feel that Canada is all the way on the road to prosperity, she certainly is on the way.
I am not one of those, Mr. Speaker, who think that all this is due to short-time administrations and overnight policies. Depression and prosperity in a country are not as a rule the result of short periods of administration; they are rather the result of long periods of administration and they are not always the result of conditions within the borders oi the country itself. World conditions usually account for prosperity or depression in a country to a greater extent perhaps than the conditions at home; it is international, rather than national. For instance, this country, our Conservative friends say, came through the great world war in as good a condition as or better than any other belligerent country that entered the war when Canada did and stayed in to the finish. I think that is true, and Canada can have a pride in that, but our Conservative friends say: We did it; it is the war-time administration that is responsible for the success of Canada in that war. That may be true, Mr. Speaker but on the other hand, if the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) would permit me to borrow an expression from his spech, it may be also true that our success was in spite of the war-time administration. But I feel that nobody upon reflection will deny that the great contributing cause to the success of Canada in that war was more due to pre-war administrations than to the war-time administration itself. Obviously, Mr. Speaker had Canada been governed by administrations weak and spineless, without courage and vision, the com ditions in the country which we would have had to turn over to the war-time administration would have reflected the character and

The Budget-Mr. Hatfield
quality of the governments that had governed for a decade, a decade and a half or even two decades before, and it is because Canada did possess governments and administrations with courage and vision and the genius to govern that they were able to turn over to that wartime administration a country strong, virile and potent in aid the essentials and in all those things which were vital to withstand the terrible onslaught of that war. Even a government of devils-and I would not suggest for a moment that the war-time administration was a government of devils-could not utterly destroy and wreck our country in the four years of actual warfare. Just so it is true, Mr. Speaker that, a government of angels could not have saved this country from the terrible strain and terrible effects of that awful conflict, and that is why it is, Sir, when we came into the post-war period, that Canada of necessity must have been weakened and broken well-nigh to the point of utter discouragement. That is why it is that when we came into the postwar period, the war-time administration of necessity turned over to the post-war administration a country very much weakened and a country not able to function as she would in peace time. That too, Sir, is why it is that our Canadian statesmen and those who are in the best position to judge did have grave douljts and grave concern in respect to the future of this country.
It is because the budget statement reveals the fact that we have now turned the corner of hard times and that we are now on the road to prosperity, that we must I think find common ground in that situation for great satisfaction and profound gratitude. Our friends opposite, Mr. Speaker, were quite willing apparently to admit that, for the hon. member for South Wellington, who was put up to answer the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) admitted that there was a return of prosperity in this country, but, he said, it was not due to anything this government had done; it was in spite of what it had done; it was all due to Providence, he said. To complete the parallel between the criticism of the present day opposition and the criticism of the old opposition in the Laurier-Fielding days, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the budget revision of 1897 there .were the same dire prophesies made as to what was going to happen to the industries of this country, and when those things did not happen, then was raised the question of the uncertainty; it was claimed that capital would not be invested, and importers would not import, because they did not know what was goinig to happen to the tariff. We have that same criticism to-day- 
tariff instability. Then, when all else failed, and the Finance ministers of those days were able to bring down budgets showing surpluses instead of deficits, they said the government was lucky. It is all there on the records, Mr. Speaker, and it compares almost word for word in many instances with the criticisms of the present day opposition. To complete the parallel, they said that this prosperity had come in spite of the government; it was due to Providence.
I think my hon. friend from South Wellington was hardly orthodox in his treatment of Providence in the remarks he made the other day. The hon. gentleman, it would seem, limited the scope, the power and the beneficence of Providence to certain years and certain times, and to crops rather than to men. For instance, he said that when there was prosperity in 1925 it was the result of good crops; and when there was depression in 1922 and 1923;, because of poor crops, he absolved Providence from all responsibility in the matter. In other words, when there were good crops and good times in 1925 it was a case of thank Providence; but when there were poor crops and depression in 1922 and 1923 it was a case of thank the Mackenzie King government and Robert Forke.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does not the
hon. gentleman know that there was a larger crop in 1923 than in 1925?
Mr. HATFIELD; The hon. member for South Wellington attributed the good crops to Providence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will admit this at once: My hon. friend is no more in error in this statement than he is in others.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Thank you, I am dealing with the speech of the hon. member for South Wellington in which he said that Providence was to be thanked, particularly for the good crops.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will find there was a heavier crop in 1923 than in 1925.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I hope the hon. gentleman is not as much astray in that statement as he is in other assertions which he makes to the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a good recovery but, unfortunately, it is a little late.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Budget-Mr. Hatfield
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Mr. Speaker, when the
House rose at six o'clock I was attempting to show the similarity of the criticism offered by the present day opposition to that offered by the opposition in the old days of the Laurier-Fielding administration. I had tried to show as best I could that they first talked of the sorrowful wails that were going up in respect to what was going to happen to the industries of Canada. Then they spoke of the uncertainties of the tariff; when better times came they spoke of good luck, and finally the comparison was made complete, I 'thought, when they said it was due not to this government but, in spite of it; and it was all due to Providence.
I had attempted to show that the years 1922 and 1923 were lean years as regards the wheat 'industry of this country. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) interrupted and advised me that the year 1923 was a good year in the wheat growing indus-'try. But I thought I could recall very vividly the remarks of hon. members representing wheat growing constituencies and I thought the substance of their remarks was that the wheat growing industry was not flourishing in 1922 and 1923. During the dinner hour I took occasion to speak to some hon. members from those western prairies, and they say that while it is true there was a comparatively good yield in 1923 the price was particularly low; that owing to the fact that they had had very lean years prior to 1923 they were not able to overtake their losses; that the wheat growing industry as such was languishing, and that there was no prosperity in the business.
' Our hon. friends opposite should put first things first in their criticism of Providence. They should first thank Providence that this country possesses what she has possessed since confederation and what we hope she always may possess under the guiding hand of an all-wise Providence, namely good administrations. We on this side of the House may be pardoned if we take ocoasion to thank Providence that that great army of wheat growers is represented in this parliament in no inconsiderable numbers, and that they find so much in common between the policies of this government and ihear own that they can give us their general support. We on this side may also be pardoned if we thank Providence that we have the opposition which we possess in this country to-day. May we not be permitted to couple with that a pious 14011-218
hope and wish that that opposition may be maintained for a good many years to come for the general good of Canada as we understand it?
That brings me to the question of Maritime rights. In casting about for some manner in which to give consideration to this subject in order that I may deal with it intelligently, regularly and in order, I have decided to follow the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) who made the first speech in this House for the Maritime righters so-called and who committed them to a general policy. In criticizing my hon. friends I do not wish them to think for one moment that I have any personal suggestions in what I have to say. Thfey are all worthy representatives and Nova Scotia at least has no occasion to feel anything but proud of the men she has sent here to represent her in this parliament. It is their attitude on the question of Maritime rights which I desire to criticize and I will do so as far as possible in a friendly way.
My hon. friend opened his remarks somewhat after this manner. He said: On two main, outstanding, salient points we are of one mind, namely, that we are to give strict adherence to the principles and policies of the Liberal-Conservative party as they have been enunciated in this House and out of it time and again by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), and unswerving loyalty to the leader of the Conservative party in Canada. As regards the last part of that I think there is no difference of opinion between us. It is generally considered that those of the Conservative candidates who would be elected in that election would sit in opposition behind the Conservative leader. But when my hon. friend says that the main, outstanding, salient points which are to govern his attitude and that of his colleagues in this House are that they are to give strict adherence to the principles and policies of the old Conservative party and loyal support to the Conservative leader, I feel I am entitled to take sharp issue with him and to say that as far as I understand the matter that is not the ticket on which they were elected.


Mr. SMITH:: Does my hon. friend suggest that the member to whom he is referring was not elected on the platform of those two salient points which have just been mentioned?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: That is my belief absolutely.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Then the hon. gentleman's belief is ill founded.

The Budget-Mr. Hatfield


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: We shall see. I know my hon. friends have always declared, at least they have done so during the past two years, that this was their policy. Let me hint, however, that what these hon. gentlemen do, makes so much noise that it is impossible for us to hear what they say. They are on record in relation to Maritime rights and I intend to inform this House just what reasons have forced me to the opinion I have formed on this subject. If hon. gentlemen will take up any pre-election issue of the Halifax Herald, the official organ of the Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia, they will find, in an advertisement covering practically half a page, two very excellent* pictures of the hon. members for Halifax. In the left hand corner there is a complimentary likeness of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) and in the right hand corner an equally good one of the junior member (Mr. Quinn). In the advertisement there is not very much typographical matter, but what there is stands out in bold relief, printed in large black letters. This is what one reads-and bear in mind that this was before the election:
Province above Party. The crisis in its affairs calls all citizens together whatever their party leanings, to act in concert on behalf of their native province. Divided we are destroyed-
May I ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether in their opinion so much of the advertisement as I have just read suggests for a moment that the salient grounds on which members from the Maritime provinces were elected were strict adherence to the old Conservative policy, and an uncompromising pledge of loyal support in this House to the leader of the Conservative party? Let hon. gentlemen turn to another page in the same paper and they will find a larger advertisement carrying, as I interpret it, a general appeal to all candidates in Nova Scotia representing the party opposite. I invite the attention of the House to the terms of this appeal:
Partisan politics has led to the betrayal of the Maritiines.
That, remember, was before the election. But after the election partisan politics evidently is to be the dominant characteristic of hon. gentlemen's attitude towards the question of Maritime rights. To proceed:-
-Partisan politics is dead, dead and dust as far as the people of the Maritime provinces are concerned. As a unit they are going to support the Maritime ticket which is pledged to work en bloc for Maritime interests. Vote as a people, not as a party. Support the Maritime ticket.
That, as I say, was before the election. After the election hon. gentlemen, being com-
fortably seated in this House, take the view that they are here to give strict adherence to the principles and policies of the old Liberal-Conservative party.


Mr. SHORT:: Have not the Conservative members sent here from the Maritime provinces all advocated in their speeches the interests of the Maritime provinces? Have we left undone anything that we ought to have done? Have we not done more than the "Sixteen" did during the p-ast four years?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: What my hon. friend and
his associates did prior to the election was to declare that they were going to break away from the old party lines.


An hon. MEMBER:: We did not do anything of the kind.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I know, of course, that hon. gentlemen do not like to be told this, and they do not admit it.


Finlay MacDonald: It is not so.


Harry Bernard Short: What we did say was-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: My hon. friend is a goodnatured fellow and I am willing to let him ask any question he likes.


Harry Bernard Short: I am merely saying-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: As I remarked before, hon. gentlemen's actions are so noisy that we cannot hear what they say. Let me proceed with this advertisement, however; I do not want the House to lose sight of it.
Vote as a people, not as a party. Support the Martime ticket
Suppose they had put right under that advertisement the declaration of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith), that the two salient planks of their platform were, in the first place, strict adherence to the principles and policies of the Conservative party-the old policies, not the new ones-and, secondly, unswerving loyalty to the Conservative leader; would not that advertisement have had a somewhat different complexion? Of course, I have no fault to find with hon. gentlemen for holding such a view of their responsibility; it is entirely a matter for themselves. But I do say that they are not treating with any degree of fairness, either the House or those who elected them when they declare in one breath that they were elected on a Maritime ticket to support a Maritime

The Budget-Mr. Hatfield
platform and calmly tell us in the next breath that they were elected as Conservatives to support the old policies of the Conservative party.


Robert James Manion: They are the same.


Mr.   MACODONALD@Richmond: To be
consistent with the policy upon which we were elected, would the hon. member suggest that we ought to sit behind the leader whom he is following at this moment?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: No.


Finlay MacDonald: Then,
logically, where is our place to-day?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: As my hon. friend
believes as he does his logical place is, I suppose, just where he is. Hon. gentlemen are Conservatives first, last and all the time. My complaint, however, is that they are more Conservative now than they were during the election, for they owe their election to the fact that the great body of independent electors in Nova Scotia took them at their word when they promised to put province above party and subordinate all party interests to the greater demands of the Mari-times. The people assumed that they would support the Maritime platform. But it is one thing to make professions before an election and quite another thing to face the music when responsibility is assumed.
Mr. hon. friend wants to know what, in my opinion. Conservative members from the Maritime provinces should do and what position they should hold. Well, I would expect them, if they wanted to keep faith with their electors, to do as they pro'mised and support the Maritime ticket.


Finlay MacDonald: Are we
not doing exactly what- we said we would do?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: If my hon. friend will
let me make my speech I will try to show that in my opinion he is not.


Finlay MacDonald: It is my hon. friend's opinion, not the opinion of the electors.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: That will be determined later on; that is just my point, Mr. Speaker. No, I would have thought had my hon. friend played fair with the people who elected him and with this House-because he has _ to come to this House for every bit of legislation that he hopes to get for the benefit of the Maritimcs-I would have supposed he would 14011-2181
have told us something about the history and the origin of this question of Maritime rights, and what the platform was upon which he was elected. Then if he had said what his position was in respect to that platform I would have no fault to find. But neither he nor his friends have referred to it, not in a single instance have they let us know there was a Maritime rights platform. But I would suggest, Sir, that there is a very clear-cut, specific and definite Maritime rights platform. I do not know that it is worth anything; some people suggest it is, others suggest it. is not. But there is such a thing, it is in existence, and the great body of independent electors, yes, and many of the Liberal electors, in the province of Nova Scotia supported my hon. friends opposite because they believed those hon. gentlemen were going to give strict adherence to the principles and policies of the Maritime rights p'atform.
Now, Mr. Speaker. I will try to give you a bit of the history of the origin of the Maritime rights party and the Maritime rights platform as I see it. I may be very far astray, for I ^am speaking as a Liberal from Nova Scotia and I could not be expected to see eye to eye with my hon. friends opposite. But this is what happened as I understand it. In 1920 and 1921 you will recall that we had two elections in that province; in 1920 a provincial election, and in 1921 a federal election. Both of these elections were fought out mainly on the old party lines, and the principles and policies to which my hon. friend now gives allegiance were very much discredited in those elections, so much so in the case of the federal contest that the Conservatives did not succeed in electing a single candidate. In the provincial election they did elect some, but they were hopelessly beaten. Subsequently there loomed on the horizon another provincial election, and my friends got together and said:	"What are
we going to do about it? It is no use to make an appeal on the old Conservative principles and policies, because they are utterly discredited in this province. What will we do?" Well, it is said necessity is the mother of invention. I want to congratulate my hon. friends on the fact that they must possess some person in their party who is endowed in large measure with this inventive genius. He said, "This is what we will do. The census of 1921 reveals the fact that we are the only province in the whole Dominion that is relatively losing population-we a,re the only province in the Dominion that is losing representation in the House of Commons. This all grows out of confederation. Now we will capitalize
The Budget-Mr. Hatfield

the discontent and the unrest that is abroad in our land and we will say that it is all due to the fact that Conservative and Liberal governments alike have utterly disregarded the solemn (pledges of the fathers of confederation in so far as this province is concerned. Repeatedly have we spoken about these pledges, but neither of the old parties has yet brought them to the attention of the federal parliament." And the provincial government, Mr. Speaker, which had been Liberal for nearly forty-three years, was charged with neglect in that they had made no appeal to the federal government to have those wrongs righted. So our Conservative friends in Nova Scotia said, "We will form a new party and call it the Maritime Rights party; we will announce a new platform in which we will incorporate the grievances of this province by reason of the lack of interest taken by the old parties to have those grievances redressed by the federal authorities." Now, that was accepted generally throughout Nova Scotia as a good'thing. It was not a party thing, as I understand it. The Armstrong government in its dying days passed a resolution in which they set forth what they' regarded as the rights of the Maritimes, or the rights of the province of Nova Scotia under confederation. In order that I may not be accused of making up this resolution I will read a copy of it. By the way this does not deal with the Intercolonial railway, it having been treated separately. This is what the resolution says:
Therefore be it resolved that it is the opinion of this House that, subject to section 121 of the aaid British North America Aot, the regulation and control of taxation, trade and the fisheries of this province should be relaxed and modified by the government and parliament of Canada in such a manner that the interest of Nova Scotia may be prejudiced no longer m such matters and that business and industry may be encouraged and stimulated within the province
And be it further resolved that it is also the opinion of this House that the Governor in Council should proceed with the least possible dday to prepare or cause to be prepared a statement of the particulars m which the interests of Nora Scotia have been prejud ced by the economic system of the Dominion ot Canada, and should make application to the government and parliament of Canada for appropriate redress and equitable remedies.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the Maritime rights programme as understood by a certain section of the people of Nova Scotia, namely, that we should come to this parliament and seek to have a modification and relaxation of control of our trade, our taxation and our fisheries, and that there should be an inquiry into the economic system of Canada as it affects the province, and that the status and utility of

the Intercolonial railway should be gone into; these things should all be made the subject of an independent, competent and authoritative commission, or committee or tribunal, or anything you like to call it; that the case of Nova Scotia should be stated before that tribunal, and should then be brought to this House for appropriate redress and equitable remedies. That resolution represents the views of one section of the people of Nova Scotia speaking through its representatives.
What was the attitude of our Conservative friends? Here is the platform, Mr. Speaker, as enunciated by the opposition in that provincial election. I should like hon. members to notice that virtually the same phrasing is used almost in every instance in the enunciation of their platform. This is how it reads:
A competent, independent, honest and authoritative inquiiy into:
(a)	The economic conditions of private and publio business.
(b)	The status and utility of the Intercolonial railway.
(c)	The merits, record and results had, and probably to be had, from the economic system of Canada, their effect upon business interests and prospects of Nova Scotia, including the cost of living and the cost of production.
(d)	Removal of the economic injustices and disabilities under which the province is found to be labouring, and in the event of failure to obtain redress, to submit the question directly ito the people of the province to obtain the will of the electors in regard to the injustices complained of, and in particular to mandate and empower the provincial administration to netition and request the Dominion government to modify or relax its arrangements on the subjects of taxation, trade and fisheries which may be found to prejudice the business and industrial interests of the people and the province of Nova Scotia.
(e)	If after such action the federal authorities will not meet our lair demands with respect to freight rates, trade adjustment and the fisheries, then we must carry our case to the Birtish government for such amendments to the British North America Act as may be necessary to ensure the welfare and existence of the people of this province.
There, Mr. Speaker, I submit is practically the same bill of rights-the same platform- which makes up the Maritime rights platform, the platform which the so-called Maritime rights ticket is pledged to support, namely, that a thorough and competent inquiry should be made into our trade and our fisheries and our taxation, into the economic system of Canada as it affects our province, and into the utility and status of the Intercolonial railway. That, to my knowledge, is the only thing that was ever suggested in connection with this Maritime rights problem as a policy or as a platform until we came to this House and found hon. gentlemen opposite saying they were sent here as Conservatives to support the old Conservative party and its leader.

The Budget-Mr. Hatfield


Mr. FOSTER:: Might I ask a question?
What was the hon. gentleman reading from?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I was reading first from a resolution passed by the Armstrong government near the end of its last session and then from the published platform of the Conservative opposition in that campaign, which appeared in all the papers of Nova Scotia.


George Eulas Foster: In the local campaign?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not heard of it before, and did not see it.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Perhaps that accounts
for the position my hon. friend and his friends are now prepared to take on this question. I am sorry to think that there is an hon. member in this House representing a Nova Scotia constituency who has nevei heard of the platform of. the party to which he belongs.


George Eulas Foster: That was not my platform.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Might I ask the
hon. member which of the two platforms he supported last June?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: It would not have made any difference, because they were both alike. As a matter of fact I was consistent, and voted for the Liberal candidates.


An hon. MEMBER:: Always!


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Always, because I believe the solution of Maritime difficulties is to be found in the policies of the Liberal party.


Mr. HANSON:: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell us-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think it is hardly fair
to the speaker to interrupt him continually. It is different if he allows the interruptions, of course, but during a debate it is not the proper thing to cross-examine the hon. member who has the floor.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: My hon. friend asked
me which policy I supported. I will tell him that I said in my platform and put in all my campaign literature that on two issues I asked for independence; first, on all issues which were strictly of a moral character, and secondly, all issues pertaining to the province of Nova Scotia. I said then, and on this ground I stand now, that if this government fails to bring down legislation which will assist in solving the problems of Nova Scotia I will use every legitimate means in this House of Commons to resist.


Mr. PRESTON:: My hon. friend had better get busy, then.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: If my hon. friend will
permit me to say so this government has done the only thing done by any government to help Nova Scotia. They have appointed a royal commission.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Another commission?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Yes, another commission. Do my hon. friends repudiate the policies of their own party, when they made that-the very foundation of the whole business? I have here an article taken from the Halifax Herald in respect to this matter of a commission. I was going to come to it a little later, but my hon. friends are impatient and will not wait. I have copies of articles appearing in the Halifax Herald over the signature of Hon. J. F. Cahan, who is now a member of the Rhodes government in Nova Scotia, and who I think, is the only minister of the crown enjoying the unique distinction of having special legislation passed to enable him to become an assistant minister. That was done in the province of Nova Scotia, and Mr. Cahan says:
The candidates who will oppose -the government in the coming election are pledged to obtain: "a thorough and reliable report on the natural resources and assets of the province" and ''a competent, independent and authoritative inquiry into the economic conditions of public and private business, the status and utility of the Intercolonial Railway; the merits, records and results had. and probably to be had, from the economic system of Canada; t-heir effects upon business interest; and prospects of Nova Scotia, including the cost of living and the cost of production."
Everything in connection with Maritime rights establishes that all these issues should be submitted to an independent committee, commission or inquiry, entirely free from partisanship and politics. My hon. friends have very quickly forgotten the position they occupied such a short time ago. They repudiate their own leaders; they repudiate their own platforms and say, " We don't know anything about it, we have forgotten so quickly." You cannot expect much, Mr. Speaker, from a representation in this House composed of men of that description. If my hon. friends will take it good naturedly I have still another evidence which may convince them that this is not a party question. The father of Maritime rights, Mr. W. L. Hall,-[DOT]" Laurie " Hall, as he is called in Nova Scotia-led the Conservative opposition all through the fight, until the going looked good and it was thought that there was a prospect of getting into power. Then a certain gentleman came from Ottawa and usurped the position held by Mr. The Budget-Mr. Hatfield

Hall, taking the throne himself. Both these gentlemen are on record in connection with their independence on this question, and with the permission of the House I would like to read what Mr. Hall said, speaking at Truro. Perhaps the hon. member for that constituency will recall the visit of Mr. Hall, who was on the platform with Mr. Rhodes. This is what he said about the affiliations of the candidates of his party:
It would be hard for him to say what would be the remedy, but if the Conservatives were returned to power they would appoint a commission to investigate-	[DOT]
Then he goes on to say more, and this is tragic:
He is not prepared to say just what fiscal policy is best suited for Nova Scotia, but he was ready to repudiate his stand on protection if, after being in office-
Do not forget that, because it is all conditional on their being in office.
-and ascertaining the needs of the province-
Which he admittedly does not know and will have to geit from this commission.
-he find free trade most beneficial.
Couple with that the declaration of my hon. friends here, who say that the main, outstanding and salient point which should govern our attitude here is strict adherence to the old Conservative policy; I think my hon. friends had better revise their conduct and have a get-together meeting to find out why they are here and what they are supposed to do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the plunge which my right hon. leader took when m Nova Scotia, and ask, "What are Maritime rights?" I am going to place myself in the judgment of this House when I say that, after listening to all the hon. gentlemen opposite from Nova Scotia expatiating and expounding on this question since they have been here, I do not believe a single independent member of this House can take pencil and paper and write down a clear-cut, concrete summary of what Maritime rights are. We have heard the hon. members from Cape Breton Island, and I have no fault to find with them. It is perfectly natural; since they do not know why they are here, I can quite understand why they do it. They say this is the whole trouble with the Maritime provinces:	We want a duty on coal and on
steel. Unquestionably that is what their people want them to say; therefore they say it. We come down to Pictou, and the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Cantley) made a similar statement, and his interests 
are that way. Then we come to the port and county of Halifax, and hon. members representing that constituency say:	No, the
big thing we want is Canadian trade through Canadian ports; that is why the province of Nova Scotia languishes; we have got to have the port of Halifax serve as a sort of sieve through which all through freight must pass. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have yet to be convinced that any policy which does nothing more for a province than to let freight originating in another province and destined , for another place pass through it is basically and fundamentally a sound policy on which you can build up industry in any province. What we must do, in my judgment, is to find policies that will originate freight in the province of Nova Scotia; then we have done something worth while.
There was another hon. gentleman who spoke. Oh, he says, that is not it at all. He was making a very weighty argument, and a good one from his point of view; he was on the question of freight rates, I think. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), and a more courteous member we have not in this House;-he never interrupts a speaker except to ask a very pertinent question, and he asks it always in a very gentlemanly way-rose in his place and said: "What would my hon. friend suggest as a remedy?" What was the answer? Unwittingly, I think, the hon. member told the truth. He said: If my hon. friend will induce those who occupy the treasury benches to come over on our side of the House, and let us over on that side, I will advise the government-meaning,
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the main, outstanding, salient point which is going to guide his conduct in this House is to get into office-like Mr. Hall, down in Nova Scotia, who said: Put us in office, and then we will do these things-notwithstanding that his colleagues had said: No, we are the committee to settle this question and we are going to settle it on the floor of this House, and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) said: "We will keep the House in session all night if necessary in order to get the pay for our cow." Yes, Mr. Speaker, it makes all the difference in the world whether you are on this side of the House or on that.
My hon. friend, however, went a little further, and I rather regret that he did. I think he should not have done it; I hope he will not do it again. He rather suggested what we as boys called dirt. He said: "And I will not ask for a portfolio either." He went out of his way to say that; it was not called for at all. Just out of the egotism, I suppose,

The Budget-Mr. Hatfield
that he possesses, he thought: That is the thing to say, and I will say it. But he said more than that. He said: I will be content to advise the government from the very fringes of my party. I want to say to hon. members that if they will take the records of this House and observe from them the conduct of my hon. friend when he had a seat in this House, they will appreciate what he means when he says: I will be content to hang on to the very outskirts of my party if they will only take me back. I regret that the hon. gentleman said that respecting the hon. member for Waterloo.
My hon. friend from Cumberland went further even than that. He said: So far as I know, my leader is the only leader of any political party who/ up to date has given us any tangible and specific remedy for the ills which afflict the Maritime provinces. Well, having expatiated and expounded on the ills of the Maritime provinces as he did, one would almost have thought that he would have taken the House into his confidence and told them what that policy was, but you can read his speech from Genesis to Revelations and you will not find another reference to it. He should at least have done his leader the honour and credit of stating what that policy was. But there is not a word about it. The fact is, his mind and his lips could not work fast enough to denounce the Prime Minister of this country. The Prime Minister came down to Nova Scotia, he said, and asked, what are Maritime rights?-or words to that effect. My observation has always been, Mr. Speaker, that the man who undertakes to bolster up his own case by pulling down his neighbour's has a mighty poor case of his own to bolster up. While I did not have the honour and privilege of listening to the right hon. leader of the opposition when he was in Nova Scotia, I did read the substance of what his remedy is, and I hope no one will repudiate it if I take occasion to recall it.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Oh, he was misquoted.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: In effect it was this. He said:	The trouble with Nova Scotia and the
Maritime provinces is that you are denied the markets of central Canada. The fathers of confederation intended that through the operation of the Intercolonial railway you should have those markets, but the freight rates have been made excessive, and you are denied the central markets of 'Canada for your production. My remedy, he says, is that we reduce those freight rates, and whatever loss comes to the railways in consequence the general treasury of Canada will make up.
That sounds pretty good, Mr. Speaker, until you look into it. I took occasion, just as an ordinary business man, not with any particular knowledge of these things-I cannot deal with these highfalutin things, freight rate structures and all the rest of these scientific terms-but as a man who has some production in the province of Nova Scotia for which he wants markets, I can consider this as a business man would have to consider it. So I said to myself:	What are the products for which we
want markets in the central provinces? Which of our products can be successfully marketed, say, in Ontario? Now the production of Nova Scotia runs to about $145,000,000 or $150,000,000 a year. Agriculture accounts for something like $22,000,000 to $25,000,000; coal, about $19,000,000 or $20,000,000; steel products, about $12,000,000; timber, about $12,000,000; and fisheries, about $10,000,000. Now let us take the products of the farm. Does anybody suggest for a moment that the dairy farmer of Nova Scotia can successfully find a market for his butter in Ontario? Why, the very competition he endures in Nova Scotia now is the competition from Ontario butter laid right down on the counters of the stores of Nova Scotia and sold in competition with our own butter. Does anybody suggest that we could successfully find a market for our beef animals or our beef in Ontario? Obviously that cannot 'be done, because the very competition we endure down in Nova Scotia in the beef proposition is Ontario beef. The price we get for our beef in Nova Scotia is what Ontario and western beef costs laid down at the vendors' stores. That is what determines our price. Could we successfully market our fruit, our apples, for instance, in Ontario, where they have millions of barrels for export? Could we find a market in Ontario for our smaller fruits, for strawberries? We ship from my county thousands of bushels of strawberries every year to the United States and go over the tariff, Mr, Speaker, to do it. The hon. member for Argenteuil, speaking the other day on this question of strawberries, said: What we need to do in order that our appetites may not become satiated with American strawberries is to jack up the tariff to a level with that of the United States. Then the hon. gentleman spoke of peaches. He said he was dining at the Chateau Laurier and enjoying a splendid1 dish of peaches until he found out the peaches were canned in the United States. Then, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman must have had a nauseating experience of some sort because he retained such a keen recollection Of the incident. Now, I have been interested in the
The Budget-Mr. Hatfield

export of strawberries in my day, and I took occasion to look up the tariff. I went to the Finance department and asked Mr. Russell if he would give me the duties on strawberries and fruits. I have the figures here in his own handwriting and these are the facts:	The
duty on strawberries coming into Canada is two cents a pound. The duty on strawberries going into the United States is one and a quarter cents a pound.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: So, Mr. Speaker, if we
were going to engage in a levelling up process with respect to the duties we would have to cut three-quarters of a cent off our duty. With respect to peaches this is what I found: The duty on peaches entering this country from the United States is one dollar per hundred pounds. The duty on peaches entering the United States is half a cent a pound. There again, Mr. Speaker, if a levelling up process takes place we will have to cut our tariff in two. I hope my 'hon. friend (Sir George Perley) will not experience that nauseating feeling again when he next purchases peaches at the Chateau Laurier.


Mr. GOTT:: Will the hon. gentleman go
a little further and give the duties on tomatoes?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I am not talking about tomatoes; the hon. member for Argenteuil said nothing about tomatoes. We do not grow tomatoes in the province of Nova Scotia to any great extent so far as I know, certainly not in my own section of the province. What I am talking about is the policy of the leader of the opposition who says that we must get markets up here for the products of Nova Scotia.


Eccles James Gott: Is the hon. gentleman not
aware that the United States customs officers can put -an embargo on peaches overnight?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not butt in.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Will my hon. friend tell me what that has to do with the getting of our products into central Chnada by the process of cheapening the freight rates?


Eccles James Gott: Give them their own markets.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about fish?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I will come to fish in a minute.


Eccles James Gott: I will answer your question
if you will permit me.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: You have made half
a dozen speeches of this kind already. Let me make one. This is my first speech in five years. Does anybody suggest for a moment that through the process of cheapening freight rates we can ever find a market in Ontario say for the timber and lumber we have in the province of Nova Scotia? It cannot be done. What about the products of the mines, the coal mines? Whatever solution you find for the difficulties of the coal mines-heaven knows I hope you will find one; I am depending on the royal commission to find a solution-you will never settle the situation there by the process of Cheapening the freight rates. No government ever did it, and no government ever will do it.
Now as to fish. Gan we, through the process of cheapening the freight rates, ever find a sufficiently large market in central -Canada for our fish so as to enable us to build up a great fish industry in the province of Nova Scotia? Hon. gentlemen must take this fact into account: The man who catches the fish gets from one to two cents a pound for it. Afterwards there is a shrinkage in the fish to the extent, perhaps of forty or fifty per cent. Finally it is sold up here for twenty-five cents a pound, and the -freight amounts to $1.80 per hundred pounds. You can see from these figures where you are going to get in, undertaking to create a big demand for fish in the central provinces through the process of cheapening the freight rates. If we are ever to have a market established here for our fish there must be a lessening of the spread between the price as paid to the producer and wh-at the consumer has to pay for his fish.	-
Will my hon. friends from the Maritime provinces suggest that we could find a good market up here for our live lobsters? Not at all, the thing is ridiculous. And so we might go on through the whole list of our products. There is nothing in the idea. We could not get profitable markets in central Canada for our products even if nearly every dollar of freight Charges was removed.
But there is another side to the question and that is that if you cheapen the freight rate to the central provinces you must also cheapen it on the way back. That will make it more difficult on our part to meet competition; we cannot get away from that fact. If you cheapen the freight rates to Nova Scotia our producers have got to accept lower prices. Let me relate to you a little incident that came to my notice during the election campaign last October. In a pine grove in a strictly rural section of the county of She)-

burne there was a hall dn which we held a meeting, and I noticed that the interior had just been sheathed with pine sheathing. Having been engaged in woodwork in my younger days I had some knowledge of the good milled woods. I saw at once that this wood was well milled and I said to one of the party, "From what mill does that sheathing come?" He replied "We did not buy it here". I asked "Where did you get it?" And what do you think he told me? He said "We bought it in Ontario". Every bit of that pine sheathing was bought in Ontario, the freight to Nova Scotia was paid on it, and it was taken up into that rural district into the very heart of a pine district. There was a stream near on which there were two saw mills, and there was a woodworking plant in the same county. But those mills could not compete with the Ontario product. That kind of thing cheapens the cost of articles produced1 in Nova Scotia, and makes competition that much more difficult for our producers. The "cure all" policy of my hon. friends 9 p.m. opposite will not work. Its effect will be the same as in the case of all Conservative policies as far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned; that is to say, it is all for central Canada and has nothing in it for the Maritime provinces. That is the way this policy will work.
Perhaps you will permit me to tell you a little story as a relief to the dry details I have been presenting. I do not know whether it is permissible under the rules to tell a story.


Robert Rogers: It all depends upon the
story.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: It seems, Mr. Speaker, that in a certain home there was an infant which, in spite of the fact that it was given plenty of good nourishing food, wasted away and did not thrive. A specialist was called in who made a careful examination of the infant and then said, "It is a perfect specimen. I cannot for the life of me see why this child does not thrive on the nourishment it is receiving." One day, by accident, the secret of why the infant did not thrive was discovered. The nurse having given the baby its bottle had gone out of the nursery to attend to some other duty. However, she had occasion to return almost immediately and then she made the discovery. It seems that in this home they had a pet monkey which had learned just about what time each day the baby was fed. Accordingly he secreted himself and on this particular day; when the nurse went out he slipped into the cradle,
fij ,	3437
The Budget-Mr. Hatfield
took the nourishment from the bottle, and in order to quiet the crying baby put the end of his tail into the infant's mouth. That is the effect of my hon. friend's policy. Ontario gets the cream and grows fat, and we get the monkey's tail and starve.
My hon. friend said that the Prime Minister came to Nova Scotia in all his ignorance, although he did not use that expression; and he said:	"What are Maritime rights?" It
was my good pleasure to listen to the Prime Minister when he made that speech, and even as politics are played in Nova Scotia our Conservative friends did not play the game. They divorced those words from the whole setting, the whole context of what the Prime Minister said. They singled out that one phrase: "What are Maritime rights?" and they said:	The
Prime Minister is ignorant on that subject.
I never listened to a better speech on Maritime rights than the one which the Prime Minister made on that occasion. He said: "What are these Maritime rights that our Conservative friends down here accuse us of absolutely disregarding? I recall perfectly that the Maritime provinces sent a delegation advertised as being one thousand strong to my government. Before they came to the government they got together and they said: 'We are going to centralize on one great big over-shadowing Maritime right. So great is it that the others are not worth mentioning. We are going to concentrate on that one question and put it up to the government?'" What was it? It was that the Mackenzie King government so frame their policy in regard to the British preference that all British goods coming into Canada would have to enter through Canadian ports direct in order to get the benefit of that preference. The Prime Minister said:	"When you got
to Ottawa you found that through the wisdom of our legislation we had already provided that very thing for you, with the exception of a fraction of one per cent-so much so that you did not make even half a fight in connection with that question." Let me say in passing that this budget proposal takes care of the fraction of one per cent and makes it a statutory measure. The Prime Minister went on to tell us what his conception of the Maritime rights are. This is it and I believe conscientiously and frankly he is basically and fundamentally right. He said, as we say: "I do not think you can depend on the central markets of Canada for your production in this province. What you require is the overseas markets. You must have the markets of the United States, the West Indies,
The Budget-Mr. Hatfield

Australia and the markets of the other dominions."
The other night we listened to a speech by the hon. member for Pictou who portrayed very vividly and correctly the great prosperity which prevailed in Nova Scotia in those old days when we were trading- where? In central Canada? No; we were trading with the nations of the world. My hon. friend said that Nova Scotia ships were to be found on every ocean trade route in the wide world and' he was right. What we need is a return to those conditions. I >am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the treaties which have been made; that is another argument; but I say that the Prime Minister is fundamentally and basically right when he says as regards Nova Scotia: You will have to get those international markets and your trade must- ibe international.
I am speaking longer than I had intended, but I want to make an illustration of just one commodity that we produce in Nova Scotia in order to show hon. members what can be done if we secure those overseas markets. Let us take the question of fish, about which my hon. friend opposite asked me. If you go to the Marine department under this government and ask the director of fisheries and his assistants what the prospect is for a market for our fish in England, you will be astounded at what they will tell you. They will tell you that the markets of England can easily take care of 1,000 tons of fish a day. We can start that market on 100 tons a day. The market is there ready for us; it is not a market that has to be built up. The fish merchants of England, I am told, will take care of their end of the business; the transportation between Halifax and England will also be taken care of, and what we must have is government assistance at this end- This government must step into the breach and help us in Nova Scotia to build up that great fish industry.
I was going to say that the hardy fisherman has altogether too few friends in this parliament; I am going to revise that and say that I do not believe there is a single member in this House of Commons who is not an absolute friend of the fisherman, but the difficulty is that we apparently have too few members who understand the fisherman's problems and who are in a position to promote his interest in this House. I understand the hon. member for Digby-Annaipolis (Mr. Short) made some reference to the fisherman the other night and made an appeal for him. This is a question on which we should not draw party

lines at all; we should be of one mind in regard to this great industry. But do hon. members know what is required? I am told that if we are to , develop that market we shall have to come to the government and ask for about SI,000,000 covering a period of a few years. If I were to come here and ask this government for $1,000,000 they would have me examined by a specialist, to see what peculiar form of insanity I was suffering from. True, we will spend millions over in the Old Country to bring settlers to Canada in order to settle them on the waste lands of Ontario and the west.


Finlay MacDonald: Maritime rights.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: If that is not Maritime
rights it is just about what I would expect my hon. friend would state.
M,r. MACDONALD (Richmond):	I am
agreeing with the hon. member.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Is it nothing to hon.
members opposite that the fishermen of Nova Scotia be helped to find a market of 1,000 tons a day for their product?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: In speaking about overseas
markets, what overseas market would the hon. member suggest that Nova Scotia sell its coal in?


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I told my hon. friend a moment ago that I am not going to be drawn into an argument on the merits or demerits of any policy. Fundamentally and basically the Prime Minister is right when he says that Nova Scotia must go overseas for its market.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Answer the question.


Charles A. Stewart: Tell him about the fish.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: We are more interested in Nova Scotia coal.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: The hon. member is, and that is why he comes here1 and swears allegiance to the protectionist policy. That is why he is where he is.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would like to inform the hon. member that I swore the same allegiance to my constituents.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member is out of order.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Unless the hon. member i3 rising to a point of order, he is out of order.

The Budget-Mr. Hatfield


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I am rising to a question of privilege. The hon. member suggests that I did something in this House that I did not do in the constituency from which I come. I deny that. I say that I proclaimed in my constituency the same policies that I proclaim in this House.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I am not going to enter into any argument with my hon. friend on that. I do not know what particular argument he made in his constituency. I have read to the House the documents.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The hon. gentleman has no documents of mine that he is reading from.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I said that is the policy to which the Maritime ticket is pledged, if we can believe the organ down there which is the mouthpiece of his party. I am not going to be drawn away from this question of fisheries. If my hon. friend has no interest in the fishermen, I have.


Harry Bernard Short: May I ask the hon. member
a question?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Hatfield) is always very courteous and I am sure he wants to be ' as generous as possible, but in the interests of orderly debate I cannot allow these numerous questions and all this cross-examination. It is not proper and it certainly is not conducive to satisfactory debaite. I must ask hon. members to allow the speaker to conclude.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I shall soon be through. To come back, however, to the fishermen, I am credibly advised-I am not giving you my own opinion-that without any difficulty whatever the production of the fishing industry of Nova Scotia can quite easily indeed be increased tenfold. We have in Nova Scotia a production of $10,000,000 in fisheries out of a total annual production from all sources of $145,000,000. Multiply that by ten and you get $100,000,000 of new wealth, as my hon. friend for Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster) suggested the other day. Again, we have a fishing population of 20,000, which multiplied by ten would give us an increase to 200,000 persons interested in the fishing industry in that province. I ask hon. gentlemen in all fairness whether that is not something to which we should give, fair unbiased and honest consideration without reference to party interest. When this question is properly Studied and the right course is pursued, and when we get a square deal from all sides of the House, the fishermen of Nova Scotia will come into their own.
Now, I had a good deal more to say, but I will not constitute myself a nuisance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: No, I will be brief. There are however, two or three things further which I feel it necessary to touch upon. My hon. friend made some reference to the fiscal policy of the country. Let me say quite frankly that I am not going to make any mere theoretical arguments in respect of the tariff, for I do not attach much importance to that sort of thing. I am not so foolish aa to suppose that under no circumstances whatever can there be any virtue at all in a protective tariff. And by the way, what do we mean by protection? One man who advocates protection himself may be apt to call the other fellow a protectionist also, but surely there is a dividing line. In my view, any tariff levied against imports of goods manufactured in this country is protection even though it be only a tariff of one per cent. It is protection to that extent, at any rate, and if it is 50 per cent, then obviously it is high protection. If you ask me whether I am a protectionist in the sense of affording a reasonable measure of preference, then I say absolutely I am; but if by the question you imply that I should endorse any tariff high enough to shut out all imports, to abolish competition, and to turn the great consuming public over to monopolies and combines, then unhesitatingly I declare I am not a protectionist. As I say, I do not hold the view for a moment that under no circumstances at all is there any virtue in a protective tariff, because when we turn to the country south of us we find a nation who are doing well under high protection. Neither, on the other hand, am I going to argue that there is nothing in free trade to recommend that policy. I do not say that there is no virtue in free trade as it is practiced in England. Indeed, we have only to study the economic history of that country to find that nation has been able to build up the most enormous trade and the most extensive commerce in the world under free trade. Holding these views, I am bound therefore, to conclude that somewhere between the two extremes we must find the remedy, and my conviction is that, in order to arrive at the most satisfactory policy we must take into account all the circumstances and the conditions under which the tariff must function. That is the point I want to make so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned. In that province we are so situated geographically that it is impossible for us to prosper under high protection, and in my judgment that is what is mainly responsible for our troubles. Take the automobile industry, for example. You could not establish an industry
The Budget-Mr. Hatfield

for the manufacture of automobiles in the Maritime provinces; you would be obliged to come to upper Canada, the centre of distribution and population. Competition alone would force you to select that field. Nor could we supply the market created by the new industry in Ontario with our production under competition. But, under present conditions, when we buy an automobile we are compelled to pay the tariff and all surcharges, and that is the tragedy of our situation in Nova Scotia. We have to buy from a highly protected market everything we require, and sell in competition with the wide world. The province of Nova Scotia simply cannot exist under such conditions.
My hon. friend referred to the royal commission on Maritime rights. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is that hon. gentlemen opposite do not hail the appointment of a royal commission as a great Maritime victory, to use the Halifax Herald's description. It is undoubtedly a great victory for the Maritime provinces. There has never at any time been an organization of any kind in the Maritime provinces that considered the question of Maritime rights on a wide scale, that did not preface everything it had to say with the opinion that an investigation must be made, and by an authoritative commission independent of party politics. And that is the basis of a proper investigation. My hon. friends' associates in Nova Scotia are not averse to commissions. What did Premier Rhodes do? Speaking as a Liberal I am going to concede a good deal and admit that he did a very wise thing when he went overseas and got Sir Andrew Duncan to come and investigate the coal strike. Sir Andrew was well received in the province of Nova Scotia, and his report was given careful consideration, and this because the public knew that he was not tied by political strings but was entirely free to investigate the matter as he thought fit. They therefore accepted his verdict. I say, therefore, that it is an earnest of good faith on the part of this government that they should select Sir Andrew Duncan as head of the commission to inquire into the Maritime situation from the national standpoint. Hon. gentlemen say that they want this to be an inquiry of the House of Commons; they want members of parliament on the investigation. Let me tell the House that the Rhodes government appointed a committee of members of the local legislature to inquire into certain questions affecting the agricultural industry in that province. These gentlemen came to my county and held an inquiry into agriculture there and the people pleaded with them to do something to put

our district under the restricted area, having it declared free from bovine tuberculosis. When the commission reported back they treated this request with silent contempt; it is not even mentioned in their report. I am told that what they did recommend in substitution was that every one of the farmers of Yarmouth and surrounding districts should keep a colt! That is the solution they offered the farmers there jfor their difficulties in connection with their troubles. The farmers in western Nova Scotia know very well that it costs twice as much to raise a colt to salable age as can be procured for it when sold, and that if they followed the advice of the commission, instead of making two blades of grass grow where one grew before they would simply be pulling up the one already there and leaving only a hole in the ground.
Now, is there anything in this budget that hon. members from Nova Scotia can vote against? Can they vote against the abolition of stamps on receipts, against the reduction of the sales tax, against the reduction of the income tax, against penny postage? Above all, can they vote against the provision in connection with the British preference with regard to the entry of goods into Canada from the United Kingdom direct through Canadian ocean or river ports? Can they do it, Mr. Speaker? If I would not be misunderstood, I should like to ask:	Dare
they do it? What will they do with the reduction of the duty on automobiles? We know what they did in the last parliament; almost to a man they stood up and voted for it. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black), who represented the Conservative party of Nova Scotia in that parliament, went out of his way to state his position. He said this, Mr. Speaker, and, mark you, the tariff on automobiles was not under discussion at that time. As I say, he went out of his way to make this statement:
I protest just now against the protection given to automobiles. It is beyond all reason that you can go across the line and (buy a machine for half what it costs when you have to buy it in Canada. That protection is not what it should be.
What is he going to do in this parliament with respect to this matter? I am told that some hon. gentlemen opposite made a canvass in their campaign and said-I cannot vouch for this-* that that was what they believed in and what they were going to support. If there is any single issue our hon. friends will be watched on-and I do not want to intimidate them-it is as to what they are going to do in regard to the reduction of the tariff on automobiles.

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
Now, my hon. friend mentioned confederation. I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to go into the history of confederation as respects Nova Scotia. Every hon. gentleman knows that we did not go into confederation voluntarily. We were not permitted to give an opinion on the question. Mr. Fielding said in this House in my hearing that we were booted and kicked and sold into confedera-. tion. Sir, we were not sold, because a sale always involves a consideration, and we received no consideration. WTe were simply given into confederation. But what happened then? The best thinking people of the province, once we had become a part of the Dominion, said, "We will undertake to build up a sound, sturdy Canadian sentiment in the province, we will try to make our people Canadian." And so they put it in their literature and taught it in their schools and then-press, and they succeeded. But just the same there is another sentiment in Nova Scotia. They are not satisfied with the way in which they came into confederation, they are not satisfied with the relative progress, I was going to say, but rather, lack of progress, which has taken place since. So there has grown up quite parallel with the one sentiment that other sentiment of unrest and discontent; and if a certain resolution moved in the local legislature a few years ago looking towards secession had been allowed to get its head above water, my conviction is that we would have been astounded at the result of the referendum which was proposed in that resolution. Not that I suggest for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that that would have been the sane, serious, sober, considered opinion of our people; I think it would not have been that; but, with the unrest down there and the propaganda that would have been used, our people would have been swept off their feet on this issue, and that is why that resolution was not allowed to be proceeded with.
But, Mr. Speaker, this question of confederation is one which I am sure, every hon member in this House and every hon. member in the Maritime provinces should take very seriously. Our people will never support secession unless every last resort has been exhausted. But should they do so it will not be with gladness; it will be with sorrow and very grave regret after every possible avenue of escape from such a grave step has been sought. But, Mr. Speaker, if the public men of Nova Scotia continue to play party politics with this grave issue, then the great union which forms confederation will always be threatened and in doubt. If the interests of the province are to be sacrificed upon the altars of political partisanship, then confederation can not and will not endure and, I go so far as to say, confederation should not endure. But if our public men will rise above their party prejudices and their party passions, and will earnestly seek for the light, I am sure a way will be found. When the province of Nova Scotia can march shoulder to shoulder and step to step-with the sister provinces on the road of national prosperity and national development which we all hope for, then and only then can we strike the word "secession" for all time from our vocabulary so far as Nova Scotia is concerned.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to say anything on the budget, having spoken at some length on the Address a few weeks ago. However, there are one or two points which I desire to bring to the attention of the House, and on looking over the resolutions which will come before us in committee a little later on I find I shall have no opportunity there to express myself, so I am compelled to take advantage of this occasion.
I was very much interested in the eloquent-address of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Hatfield). He stated that it was his first speech in five years. He certainly has done very well indeed. I was rather struck, however, by his remark that Nova Scotians were nurtured in their youth by sucking a monkey's tail. I glanced around the House and the first man I caught sight of was the Deputy Speaker, then I noticed the fine looking specimens from Nova Scotia on the government side, and also the equally fine specimens on our side, and I came to the conclusion that it must be a pretty good monkey.
The hon. gentleman's statement with regard to what was said during the election by the hon. gentlemen from his province who now occupy seats on this side of the House interested me too, because apparently what they had to say on that occasion was very successful indeed and was accepted by the people of Nova Scotia. So far, then, as to following the platform of our right hon. chief, I would say that he has declared himself quite clearly for Maritime rights, and therefore hon. gentlemen from the Maritrmes on this side of the House have every reason to follow the present leader of the Conservative party with the fullest possible confidence that he will give to Nova Scotia and other Maritime provinces their rights when opportunity offers.
I was astonished by one statement made by the hon. gentleman to the effect that the
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

solution of Maritime rights lay in the hands of the Liberal party. For a moment I was .staggered, because I was wondering what the Liberal party in Nova Sootia had been doing for the last forty-two years, and I thought that if they do not do any better in the next forty-two years all of us will have passed away and it will not matter very much.
Now, with regard to the budget, the government in preparing it has ridden absolutely true to form as far as keeping its promises is concerned. In 1919 at their great convention held in this city the Liberal party made promises which they failed to carry out when they obtained power. Then again on the hustings during the last election and on many occasions since, finally in the Speech from the Throne, the government made a clean-cut declaration to the effect that nothing drastic would be done with the tariff until the tariff board had given each specific case careful consideration and reported to the government. As hon. gentlemen are all aware, after making that clean-cut declaration in the Speech -from the Throne a tariff 'board was appointed in April, three or four months later, and eight days afterwards the government brought down the budget in which they took a directly opposite stand. Everyone knows that the Speech from the Throne is looked upon by the people of this country as being important; they consider that it carefully and thoughtfully outlines the policy of the government for the session, and in addition they make every effort to be present to hear this important declaration read. There is a fight for seats in the Senate, and you will notice that many members of the House of Commons appear here in their best bib and tucker, wearing their Sunday suits and with their hair done up a little differently from the day before. I remember a few years ago one man- thought this such an important occasion that he appeared here in the middle of the afternoon arrayed in all the glory of full evening dress, and made a tremendous impression. That is just an indication of how important the Speech from the Throne is. But now we find that it has been entirely forgotten by this government; they have cast it aside, utterly ignoring the tariff board which they appointed, and taken a directly opposite course. So long as this government is in office we will find that there will not be very much importance attached to the Speech from the Throne, and it will become no more noticeable than the announcement of a new guessing contest appearing in our daily papers. After all, under present conditions, it is nothing more or less than a guessing contest.


Another extraordinary statement was that the government had given the matter of the tariff on automobiles very careful consideration for a whole year. It is very remarkable that if they studied this for a whole year, in the month of January, after taking advice it is to be presumed from experts, they arrived at one conclusion, and in the month of April they completely changed around and came to another. The general understanding was that they had taken some advice, but they took it from the third group in this House, and it was offered in such a way that they could not refuse to listen. These conditions have a very serious aspect because that sort of thing breaks down the stability of business; there is an uncertainty prevailing among our business men; capital is afraid to invest here under these conditions because it is not known what sudden change is going to occur while this government is in office.
Some hon. members have tried to make us believe that the farmers of the United States, after giving careful consideration to the matter of the tariff, have come to the conclusion that they do not want any more protection. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), speaking on April 22, made the following statement:
I find now that the farmer bloc in the United States have turned against the high tariff and they are crying out against it. I believe they are appealing to congress to make a change.
Let us look into that statement for a moment to see if that is really the case. In connection with dairy produce we find that just a short time ago, when the large quantity of butter which had been held up in Australia and New Zealand through a seamen's strike was released and attempting to find a market all over the world, some of it was shipped into the United States. They promptly responded by placing a tariff of some twelve cents per pound against it, increasing their tariff from eight to twelve cents. That is just twelve times as much as our government think necessary in order to protect Canadian dairymen against the same butter, or three times as much as they think necessary to protect our farmers against American butter. In looking over the situation we find that practically everything the American farmer produces is under protection and that many of the articles he commonly purchases are absolutely free, with no tariff whatever.
There is one commodity, however, which has not been given protection; I am now referring to hides. We find that, when the Fordney tariff was introduced-and I may

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
say that the farmers took a very prominent part in putting that tariff through-some of the leading agriculturists objected to the tariff on hides because they thought it would raise the price of shoes. They did not realize that the price of hides has very little to do with the price of the finished product. It was also stated that the American, fanner complains that the tariff affords the dealers an opportunity to fix prices. We find that many of the articles on which prices are fixed in the United States have no tariff whatever. I might mention gasoline, and many agricultural implements which are sold . in zones according to the location of the market. If it is in Montana or the central western states there is a certain price set by the implement dealers at which the implements are sold, and on many of these articles there is no protection whatever. In the matter of rough lumber prices are fixed by the dealers and there is no tariff, while the same thing applies to shoes.
We find that after all the cost of distribution has more to do with the final price than has the tariff. According to the United States Department of Labour, out of every dollar's worth of bread sold in the United States-I am speaking now of wheat bread, and there is a protective tariff of 42 cents per bushel on wheat-the farmer gets 16.8 cents; the transportation companies get 4.4 cents; the elevator companies 0.8 cents; the miller 6.1 cents; the baker 57.4 cents and the retailer 14.5 cents. Accordingly it will be seen that the baker receives nearly four times as much as the farmer, the retailer gets almost as much as the fanner, and those two together receive 71.9 cents, or nearly three quarters of every dollar. It will therefore be plain that the cost of distribution is one of the reasons for the fixing of prices, and we find that there has been a tremendous increase in that cost. Rents are higher; taxes of all kinds have increased, and wages are very much higher also.
Now let us see whether the United States really wants a lower tariff. I mentioned the matter of butter a few moments ago, and I may say that the dairying interest of the United States is perhaps one of the largest branches of agriculture, owning 25,000.000 milch cows valued at $1,287,000,000. Then look at another section of the cattle business, that of beef cattle breeding, and see what they think of the tariff. On December 11, 1925, the annual convention of the California Cattlemen's Association was held in San Francisco, and a resolution was passed requesting congress to pass a bill imposing an
import duty of 6 cents per pound on green hides and 15 cents per pound on dry hides. In the same month the Nevada Land and Live Stock Association held its annual meeting at Reno, when a resolution was passed favouring a tariff on hides and non-edible fats, two by-products of the packing house. Then the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers' Association held its annual meeting at Fort Worth and passed a resolution demanding the imposition of an import duty of 6 cents per pound on green hides and 15 cents per pound on dry hides. To give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of what that proposed tariff really means, let me say that green hides were selling in Calgary last week for 5 and 5| cents a pound.
The New Mexico Cattle and Horse Growers' Association, at their meeting held on March 15 and 16 last, at Albuquerque, passed a resolution demanding an adequate duty on the importation of bides and canned meats. The Colorado Stock Men's Association, at their meeting held on June 13 of last year, emphasized that a tariff on hides was necessary, and made a protest against the continued purchase of foreign meats for the army and navy. I have here also a resolution passed by the Colorado Republican Association, asking for the same tiling.
Here is a portion of a letter I shall quote to you, appearing in the Producer, the official organ of the American National Live Stock Association, published in Denver. This correspondent says:
Nothing is realty the matter with the hide market at this moment but the fact that the United States, by reason of free trade, is a dumping ground for the surplus hides and skins of (the wide, wide world. The Can.ad an pucker peels a hide from a steer, and sends it to this market free, that would have been taxed two cents n pound had it entered on the animal's bark. During the nine-month period ending with September we imported hides and skins to the value of $77,581,000, compared with $54,551,000 during the corresponding period last year, which is one reason why the market collapsed.
A reduced take-off may improve the situation, but, with South America, Australasia, Africa, and Asia dumping hides into this market, the prospect is anything but luminous. Consumers are paying war prices for footgear, and the shoe industry is bragging about prosperity. But for the fact that hides are a byproduct of. the cattle industry, the present situation would be intolerable. It is in striking contrast to the stout prop inserted under the sheep market by rising pelt prices.
These beef men that I have been quoting from have about forty million head of cattle under their control in the United States, valued at $1,052,000,000, indicating that they are a very important factor in the agriculture of that country.
The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

No protests are received from the sheep men. They are enjoying great prosperity to the south of the line at the present time, and this was brought about toy very heavy tariffs ranging from 50 to 100 per cent on wool. In addition to that, shortly after the war, when Australia and the Argentine were shipping lamb and mutton carcasses into San Francisco on the one side and into Atlantic ports on the other, the American people took hold of the matter promptly-they did not put off or argue about it or ask the advice of any third party; they promptly put on a tariff to keep out that mutton and lamb, and the sheep industry in that country is in consequence in a very fine condition to-day.
This matter of hides has an interest to the Canadian people. It shows the absolute folly of leaving a market wide open to be dumped into by all parts of the world. Just imagine $77,000,000 worth of hides being dumped into that country when these people already possess 65,000,000 or 70,000,000 head of cattle.
There is one other factor by which we can judge farming conditions on both sides of the line. With these two countries lying alongside each other, both speaking the same language, and living under practically the same conditions, we shall always find a certain amount of travel from one side to the other. If times are better in the United States, then our people will flock over there and settle on the land or go into business there. If times are b'etter on the Canadian side, then we find our American friends coming north to locate on this side of the line. What have been the figures during the last four years regarding our immigration and emigration across the line ? During the four years ending 1925, 46,218 more people left Canada and crossed the line than arrived from the United States and settled in this country, indicating that our people were going to the country wuth the high tariffs, where things were protected, where the markets of the farmers were protected and taken care of by the government on that side of the line, as against wide open markets and low tariffs in this country, where we have to compete with Chinese, Japanese and low wage countries all over the world.
You will see by the figures that I have given that the American farmer, instead of wanting his tariff lowered or removed altogether as has been indicated by some of the speakers in this debate, is clamouring for an even higher tariff on many of the products of the farm.

There is one other point, Mr. Speaker, that has interested me in this debate. I have been rather surprised to hear the home market sneered at in some parts of this House. Let us take a brief glance at our market situation. In Canada we have large areas of agricultural land, but we find that we cannot consume all that we produce here. We must find an export market for our surplus products. We have two opportunities on a large scale that are open to us, the one market lying to the south of the line in the United States and the other across the water in Great Britain. We find that the market to the south of us, the most convenient market, the one most easily and cheaply reached, is barred to us to a very great extent owing to the high tariffs prevailing in that country since 1922. We find, on the other hand, that to ship to the Mother Country necessitates in some cases, from such points as Calgary, for instance, the shipment of our live stock and other products many thousands of miles by land and many more thousands of miles by water before they reach that market in Great Britain. We must realize, too, at the very inception that this cost of transportation to market is charged in the sale of the product; that is, a deduction i3 made when the product is first purchased to cover that cost. Anyone would imagine that under those conditions in this country of large distances, with a sparse population, with more railroads than we can properly maintain at present, and with other costs existing in this country, our people would value at once the importance of developing a home market here which would give us the opportunity to sell many of our products within our own country without going to the cost of paying very 'heavy freight rates on our products to outside markets. Canada in my opinion is not going to thrive to the greatest extent by developing agriculture alone, although I have been connected with 'agriculture all my life and am a farmet yet. Canada is not going to thrive by the development of industry and manufacturing alone. But when we get these two working in combination, we have the one creating a very important market for the other, and in that way we can bring about a prosperity in this country that has never prevailed here before. I think the most fortunate farmer is the man who can look out of his window and see five or six smoke stacks in active operation within easy distance of his farm, guaranteeing to him a ready market night at hand for all of his products. Under those conditions he saves all

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie
the extra freight that the man has to pay who finds it necessary to export his goods to market.
In the exportation of our surplus products there are three or four things to which we have to give careful attention if we are going to meet the competition in other lands. One is to see that we furnish in these markets our product in such a way as these markets demand. We must see that the quality is first-class in every respect. We must take care that the products are always of a uniform quality, being the same to-day as to-morrow and a year from now. Another point we must take care of is to see that we ship in sufficient quantities to meet the demands of the market, so as to maintain the sale of our products there, and be able to fill any further demand that the market may require from time to time.
The other day I was struck with a statement that was made here about the sale of our steers across the line. One hon. gentleman stated that we must have access to the United States if we were to get rid of a certain quantity of our cattle, because they were not acceptable in the British market. I admit that a large number of our cattle would sell better in the United States than in Great Britain, but there is one thing that we must not lose sight of, and that is that the farmers of the United States took a very active part in putting this Fordney tariff into effect and in placing this duty on live stock and other products, and they are going to keep those duties there just so long as they think they are going to benefit the American farmer. They are not going to lower the duty as the result of any appeals we may make to them. We would have to show them that they could make more money by lowering the tariff than by maintaining the present duty. These cheaper steers being barred from the United States-and they are not acceptable in the Old Country-the problem remains very largely in the hands of the Canadian farmer himself. His object then must be to improve the quality of these steers, first, by better breeding and then by better feeding. I want to emphasize the necessity for better feeding, for the reason that it matters not how well you breed a steer, if you starve him during his growing years you will find that you have only got a scrub steer. By good breeding and good feeding you can furnish a steer that will meet the market requirements in any part of the world. Let me point out too that the farmer is suffering a very heavy loss by producing animals of scrub quality and starving them in addition. In the first
place he loses when it comes to marketing his cattle. During the months of September, October and November a large number of cattle are sent to market and their value will run from a cent and a half a pound to six and seven and even eight cents for animals of first-class quality at that time. In the first place the farmer loses in price on account of the poor quality of his stock, and in the second place he suffers an additional loss by reason of lack of weight, a result of having starved the animal.
There is one other point I should like particularly to refer to. I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) had to say with regard to the manufacture of our raw products at home as far as possible. We all realize that this cannot be done in a day. We all appreciate the fact that a good many of our raw products will have to find an outlet in other markets for many years -to come; but we can begin and manufacture as many of these products at home as we possibly can. Keep your dollar at home and get another chance at it is a very excellent slogan .to follow. A dollar sent out of the country is gone forever, but spend a dollar with your neighbour across the street and you find that you will get that dollar back after a while. I was much impressed during the early Klondike days when Seattle was making a very strong effort to get much of the trade in the Yukon country. If a man went in there to outfit they never let go of him. If the store he went into could not furnish him with the goods he needed they phoned over to their rival across the street so that, 'he could supply whatever was necessary. In that way they kept their dollars in Seattle, and Seattle to-day is one of the largest and most prosperous cities on the Pacific coast.
There is one other matter I wish to refer to, and that is the matter of cement. We have on the Pacific coast two large cement factories near the city of Victoria. One is located at Tod Inlet and the other at Bamberton. These plants, which are about two miles apart, are located .about fifteen or seventeen miles northwest of the city of Victoria. Both were built up by Canadian and British capital; they are entirely British in their capital. They represent a total investment of about $3,500,000. The plant at Tod Inlet has been closed for a period of five years because they could not find a market for its product. The plant at Bamberton is running about three-quarters time, grinding up six hundred tons a day of lime rock and shale and manufacturing this into cement. Last year this

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

one factory spent $600,000 on wages and materials required in the process of manufacture, as well as in meeting taxation.
Now I wish to outline very briefly the process of the manufacture of cement so as to make my point clear when I reach it in a moment or two. These two kinds of rock, shale and limestone, are first blasted out of the bluff and the ground three times under what is known as the wet process. It is ground down until it is practically as fine as flour. It is now known as slurry. Then this material in its wet condition is put into large tanks. It there undergoes a thorough mixing and three or four per cent of gypsum is added for the purpose of preventing the cement from setting too soon when it is put into place. This mixing process is very thorough indeed. At this particular point the chemists make an analysis of the mixture in order to see that it is uniform in every possible respect. Then this material is pumped into long kilns that revolve very slowly, these kilns being about one hundred and eighty-five feet long and nine feet in diameter. The slurry goes in at one end of the kiln, which is slightly tilted. At the other end finely powdered coal is used as a fuel for firing, and a temperature of 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit is developed. The slurry passes down through the kiln and when it reaches the heated area the moisture is given off. When it is exposed for a period of about three hours to this high temperature it assumes what is known as the clinker stage.
That represents seventy-five per 10 p.m. cent of the process of manufacturing. All that is necessary afterwards is to grind the material into powder, and sack it. What we are dealing with just now is the fact that this material is being shipped from Japan in Japanese ships at a ballast rate which is merely nominal. It crosses the Pacific and comes into competition with the cement produced on this side. To give you an idea of what the competition is like let me say that the machinery required in the manufacture of cement in British Columbia is very expensive; heavy taxation federal and provincial, has also to be met. As to labour, white men are paid from $4 to $6 a day for a day of eight hours. The price paid for Japanese labour in cement factories in Japan averages only 98 cents per day and the workmen work from ten to twelve hours. The cost of production in Japan, therefore, is only a very small portion of the costs of the manufacture of this material in Canada, f Mr. Tolmie.] '
Now, there is no chance for any of our humourists in the House to indulge in any of the old, stale jokes with respect to infant industries. This industry is not an infant industry at all. However, I wish to approach the consideration of this question from the broad principles that we want Canada to be a country in which we can pay decent wages, and where we can maintain a fairly high standard of living for our working people. One of the greatest attractions which this Dominion of ours presents is the fact that a man can come here, can work for reasonable wages, and if he is thrifty and will take care of his earnings-if he is a Scotchman there is no possibility that he will fail in that particular respect-he can very soon improve his conditions and surroundings, and by the time he has reached middle age or a little over he will be able to retire in comparative comfort. That is one of the attractions of Canada, and if we can only continue that attraction by maintaining a proper standard of living for our working people and paying them decent wages we shall not only be able to retain our own people but also attract desirable immigrants from outside. I do not want for a moment to hold up the idea that Canada should be known as a cheap country. I never saw a cheap mining camp that was any good; when it got to be a cheap community everybody left it. Neither have I ever known a cheap country that amounted to very much. If there are any persons in Canada who want to live in a cheap country let them cross to the other side of the Pacific where they can be accommodated at any point. We want to maintain Canada as a decent living country, where decent wages will be paid, where we shall have a reasonable standard of living and where we shall not experience oriental competition. The desirability of the last-named condition was recognized long ago in British Columbia where we have gone to the extent of passing certain legislation in order to exclude oriental competition from Canada. If that has been necessary in the case of orientals themselves, is it not more necessary to keep out the cheap products of oriental countries when they are brought into competition with the products of our own country? Why should we pay for the building up of homes in Japan? Would it not be far better to help Canada by building homes in our own country and furthering its development by having our natural products manufactured by our own people? Is there anything more ridiculous than the spectacle of a ship entering the ports of British Columbia

The Budget-Mr. Euler
with manufactured rocks when there are three huge ranges of mountains extending from the far north to the American boundary containing enough shale and limestone to supply this whole continent with cement if it were necessary? Our inability to meet the situation is certainly no reflection on our workmen or on the people who own those industries in that part of the country. The matter is simply one of low standards of living and low wages, as I have tried to make clear in my previous outline of the subject. These are the things which make it possible for those countries to place their goods on our market at such a price that we cannot compete.
Just in closing I should like to call the attention of (the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to this particular situation and ask him to take such steps as are necessary to protect our working people and those who have money invested in this industry on this side to such an extent as to enable us to hold our own in this market. If necesary I would ask him to invoke the dumping clause if an opportunity is found of doing so.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: the best authority in Canada, that $100,000,000 could be saved by a combination of the two railway systems. The hon. member for South York a few weeks ago raised that to the huge sum of $200,000,000, and last week he increased it to $300,000,000. I desire to dissociate myself from any such hopeful prediction as that. Indeed, I do not press the question at all at this time. The railways have been very prosperous in the last year, and for that reason some of their difficulties have been removed and the question is not a live one. I can however conceive of a situation when conditions may not be so good as last year when this may become a live issue. I think I am expressing the wish of the great majority of the Canadian people when I say that whenever and if an amalgamation comes about, it will be under public and not private ownership. If the discussion we had last year had no other effect, it did at least something to destroy the propaganda which was so active and which looked to the amalgamation of the National railways with the Canadian Pacific under the control of a private corporation.
I should like to make reference to a report issued by a committee of the upper house-a report to which no attention whatever has been paid, and quite rightly so. I am referring now to a report of a committee appointed by the Senate last year to investigate the railway situation. That committee made a superficial investigation in camera and issued a report in which various methods of dealing with the situation were outlined. One method was favoured above others, and it was to the effect that the two great railway systems should be combined under one management; that the shareholders and bondholders of the Canadian Pacific should be guaranteed a fixed dividend in perpetuity, and that after all other obligations had been met, the resulting profit, which must be very great, should be divided equally between the security holders of the Canadian Pacific and the government of Canada. I was not surprised that the people of Canada paid very little attention to it. Such an arrangement would be a jug-handled bargain indeed. The people of Canada were expected to guarantee dividends thus giving an absolutely safe investment to the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway and further allowing them, without taking any risk whatever, the risk being taken by the Canadian people, to share equally with the government any remaining profits. Such a suggestion was no compliment either to the Canadian people or to the Canadian parliament.

May I refer briefly to a recommendation made by the committee on the National railways during the last two sessions? That recommendation had to do with the writing down of the capitalization of the Canadian National Railways, something which I think the government should consider most seriously as soon as possible. The National railways are burdened with a much higher capitalization than they should carry as a business proposition under public ownership. That tremendous capitalization or, rather, over-capitalization, is the direct result of the failure of private ownership. It is therefore unfair to the Canadian National Railways as a public system that they should be burdened in perpetuity with a load which was left to them as a heritage from the failure of private ownership. The amount of indebtedness owing by the railways to the general public, the bondholders, is about $913,000,000. My figures may be a little astray, as they are not quite up to date, but I do not think that they are far out. The interest on that" debt amounts to some $38,000,000. Besides this, there is owing to the government of Canada a sum of $690,000,000 upon which there is interest amounting to $31,000,000. It has been suggested that it would be fair, to write off the amount of indebtedness owing by the National railways to the Canadian government and to confine the capital on which the railways might be expected to earn a fair return to the amount of indebtedness owing to the general public of some $900,000,000.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: What good would that
do?


William Daum Euler: It would at least rob the
opponents of public ownership of an argument which they have used altogether unfairly for the past five or six years. I am not contending that it would save one dollar to the Canadian people; it would not. But it would put the National railways of Canada on a fair business basis, as would have been done if the system had been reorganized by a private company. Had the National railways been taken over by a private concern, they would have been reorganized and the capitalization would have been fixed on such a basis as would make it possible to earn a fair return on the investment.


William Garland McQuarrie: Just a matter of
bookkeeping.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend is repeating
something he has heard but which he does not understand. I apologize; I do not mean any offence.

The Budget-Mr. Euler


William Garland McQuarrie: I suppose the hon.
member thinks he knows all about it.


William Daum Euler: I do not. I apologize to my hon. friend for the remark.


William Garland McQuarrie: Don't bother.


William Daum Euler: If that suggestion were
adopted, I would point out that in the year just passed, with an operating profit of 332,000,000, the railways would have come within six or eight million dollars of paying their way, and next year you would find that the difference would be entirely wiped out.
I want to deal briefly now with two or three outstanding features of the budget. It has been described as a Robb budget, as a popular budget, and as the people's budget. I believe it is a popular budget, and I imagine that my hon. friends opposite believe this also, although they might not ascribe the same reasons for its popularity as do hon. members on this side. It is a popular budget because for one thing it immediately touches the packets df everyone in Canada, and that is always a cogent argument everywhere.


Robert James Manion: When the hon. member
says that it touches the pockets of nearly all of the people, what does he mean?


William Daum Euler: Well, it does not take so
much out of their pockets as was taken before. What I have reference to is the reduction -in taxation. I shall come to that later. I presume it is not possible for a government to bring down a budget that would be entirely satisfactory to everyone, even if there were no such thing as party politics. I approve strongly of a good many things that are in the budget-and I have not always approved of budgets brought down in this House. Ever since the introduction of the stamp taxes I have opposed them. The stamp taxes have been properly described as nuisance taxes, and last year when the Minister of Finance abolished the stamp tax on cheques on sums of $5 and under, he took a step in the right direction, which was appreciated. This year he has wiped out the tax on receipts and that is a further step towards a better condition. I hope that he will continue the good work, and in another budget wipe out these taxes entirely.
The people are glad to see a reduction in postage to two cents. A good many of our friends opposite seek to minimize the importance of that reduction by suggesting that the cost of ordinary postage might well have remained at three cents and that the additional *revenue might have been applied to the
extension of" rural delivery. Now I should not like to put any obstacle in the way of serving the farmers and rural residents better in the matter of mail delivery, but I want to caution the government that this is perhaps one of the most costly services we have in Canada, a service the cost of which probably is perfectly justifiable. In my opinion, however, the rates charged for a public service ought to bear some definite relationship to the cost of that service, and I would no more blindly recommend a suggestion of the kind made than I would the granting of a subsidy by way of giving lower freight rates to any one section of the country at the expense of another.


Mr. JACOBS:: Unless you wanted their support.


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman is perhaps more interested in that than I am. I would also compliment the minister upon having simplified the income tax and, more than that, UPon the reduction he has made in that tax. He has not reduced the income tax as a whole, but he has done one meritorious thing on which we are all agreed. He has so modified the tax that no man with a moderate income will pay any income tax whatever That is as it should be. I find myself, however in accord with some of the criticism made with regard to one phase of the income tax proposals. I do not believe in the principle of double taxation of incomes. The minister, perhaps inadvertently, has applied a principle the effects of which possibly were not entirely appreciated. The proposals in the budget in relation to income tax are a direct, if an unintentional blow, at the theory of joint stock organizations. Under the budget proposals, every joint stock company in Canada will pay an income tax of 9 per cent on its profits. If the remaining profit be then disbursed by way of dividends, the individual recipient of such dividends will again pay a tax, thus paying a double tax, first through the company, and then as an individual. As I say, I do not believe the principle of double taxation is sound, I do not believe it is just. I realize that no man will popularize himself by apparently defending the wealthy or the well-to-do; but it seems to me that justice ought to be impartial, whether it applies to the well-to-do or to the poor, and it is for that reason I am mentioning the matter now. A joint stock company after all is a perfectly legitimate way of doing business, and I think no obstacle Should be placed in its way. I am not now particularly referring to large corporations-they usually can take pretty good care of themselves-although I think the principle
The Budget-Mr. Euler

is sound all the way through. I am referring to the thousands of smaller corporations. I suppose that in my own city of Kitchener there are probably a hundred small corporations in mercantile, manufacturing and other lines of business organized as joint stock companies, for them there is double taxation all along the line. I might perhaps give, an example to illustrate how unfair it is. We will say we have a dry goods business on one side of the main business street in my town trading as Brown Brothers with a capitalization of $100,000, and organized as a joint stock company. The principal owner of the stock is one man, with sufficient stock held by a few other individuals, possibly members of his own family, so that the business may be organized as a joint stock company. Across the street is his competitor Smith, who conducts the same kind of business with the same amount of capital. Both concerns make the same profit, say $10,000. The joint stock company is assessed 9 per cent on its profits, less the exemption of $3,000, or $630; the individual tax afterwards paid by Brown upon the dividend will amount to $345.90, or a total of $875.90. Smith pays only his individual tax on the profits he takes out of his business and transfers to his own pocket; in other words, he will pay an income tax of $290. That is surely unfair discrimination.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Would the hon. gentleman kindly elucidate what happens in the case of the joint stock company that is com-' polled to retain the profits in the business?


William Daum Euler: The individual shareholder in that case would get no dividend and therefore would pay no tax on it.


George Brecken Nicholson: But is it not a fact that the proposed legislation taxes the increment whether it is distributed or not?


William Daum Euler: It taxes the profits of the joint stock company.


George Brecken Nicholson: Whether distributed or not.


William Daum Euler: Correct. I merely want to point out this discrimination, which it seems to me should not exist. I have taken the liberty of discussing it with the Minister of Finance, and while he is very reticent, as most ministers are, I have some hope that he will modify his proposals in such a way that the injustice will be removed.
I wish to discuss briefly the reduction of the tariff on automobiles. I should like to make my position clear because I think most hon. members who were in the last parliament know my attitude on tariff matters.
[Mr. Euler.l
My attitude in the House as well as during election has always been that of a moderate protectionist. I hope the word "protection" does not offend the ears of my good friends of the Progressive group. Indeed I think during this session I heard the hon. leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) say he would stand for a little protection because he wanted to see our industries grow, and 1 admired him for his candour. I have always believed in a tariff that will enable our legitimate industries to live and prosper and grow. It is also fair to say that I have always contended against a tariff so high that it enables the taking of undue profits from the consumer. Now, the ordinary member of parliament-and I suppose we are all ordinary members-


Samuel William Jacobs: No, no, speak for yourself.


William Daum Euler: I will except the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). He is far above the average. But members of parliament generally have not the information which would enable them to say what a tariff should be in order to serve the purpose which I have just stated. I have not that information. I doubt very much whether the Minister of Finance himself, able as he may be. is in a position to say just what the rate should be on every commodity in the tariff. For that reason in previous sessions I have urged repeatedly, as have other members, that a tariff board should be appointed clothed with the necessary power to make investigation and submit recommendations upon which an intelligent rate of duty could be established.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would the hon.
member define a little more closely what he means by "an intelligent rate of duty?"


William Daum Euler: I would say such a rate of duty as would serve the purpose I spoke of-to enable industries to live and continue in this country. I should have thought this explanation hardly necessary after I had stated my position with regard to the tariff. We have had a tariff board appointed, and I want to congratulate the government on its action in that respect. I hope the members of that board will work absolutely without prejudice and to the satisfaction of all concerned. I say quite frankly that I would have preferred to see the reduction of the duty on automobiles referred to the tariff board. Certain reasons have been given why that was not done. For example, that the automobile business had been demoralized for some time because of rumours that the tariff would be reduced, and it was not felt

The Budget-Mr. Euler
desirable therefore to refer the matter to the tariff board and so continue that demoralization for another year. I give the reason for what it is worth.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend suggest that the government wanted to put the automobile manufacturers out of their misery at once?


William Daum Euler: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is reading something into my remarks that I never intended. But I also desire to say that for some time I have held the view, in common I believe with every member of this House, that the tariff on automobiles was higher than it should be, and that there was a greater spread between the price the United States purchaser paid for his automobile and the price paid by the Canadian for a similar car. I know that is the truth. We had a debate on the subject last year, and on that occasion a good many of my Conservative friends opposite, some of whom are not now present, including hon. members from the Maritime provinces, voted for the resolution in favour of a reduction of the tariff on automobiles. I believe that the cost of the Canadian car has been higher than it should be; I believe that of some of that cost has been on account of the tariff, and I am satisfied that the cut from 35 per cent to 27i per cent will still enable our automobile industries to survive and to progress. I do not pretend to know a great deal about the automobile business, but I have made some inquiries since the budget was brought down, and I believe that the cut to 27i per cent is quite justifiable. I say quite as frankly that I am not so sure about the cut to 20 per cent, and for my part I would play safe to ensure that the automobile industry will survive. I am quite certain the minister intends to do that.^ I do not know what plans he has in mind, I do not know that he is going to make any modification in his budget, but I have sufficient confidence in him to believe that he will not deliberately destroy the automobile industry or any other Canadian industry and that matters will be adjusted to the satisfaction of all concerned, consumer, manufacturer of cars and makers of parts. Having this conviction, and believing that the automobile tariff is higher than it should be when placed at 35 per cent, I am faced with this: Which is the more important, the thing itself or the method by which it is done? So far as I am concerned I think one can quite justify his action in supporting the thing which is right even though he does not entirely approve of the method by which it
is done. I say so knowing that possibly my statement is open to criticism. I am quite certain however that there are many members opposite who, though they are going to vote against the reduction in tariff on automobiles, would like to vote for it, and they are doing so contrary to their own convictions. In making that statement I am making no improper insinuations, because I know what the exigencies of party politics demand. If I were satisfied that ruin would follow the reduction in tariff on automobiles I would vote against the budget. I do not believe that, but I do hope that we will find, either in committee or in some other manner, that such an adjustment will be made as to enable the automobile industry to survive and that the condition, following the passing of the budget and the budget resolutions, will be such as to enable the manufacturers of automobiles, the makers of parts and the consumers to be reasonably well satisfied.
Now Sir, I am going to make the one statement which I think is of greater importance than anything else I have to say. The tariff is, I believe, a very important factor in the industrial life of Canada. Believing that, I also believe that we should have a reasonable stability of tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: By that I do not mean that there should be no changes from time to time, but I would invite the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance to make some declaration that we might henceforth hope for reasonable stability of tariff, except in so far as changes may be considered advisable after careful examination and recommendation by the tariff board.


Mr. EVANS:: May I ask a question? Does
the hon. gentleman realize that the tariff is borne entirely by the basic industries or by the lowering of the standard of living of the working people?


William Daum Euler: I am sorry I cannot follow my hon. friend at the moment into a discussion of the tariff in all its bearings. I think he understands the attitude I have taken, and I suppose the only conclusion we can reach at the moment is to agree to disagree.
In conclusion, Sir, I may say that I must take the budget as I find it, just as must every other member of the House. I have to either accept it in whole or reject it in whole, and, as I see it, the preponderance of merit in the budget, in the things I have enumerated and which I strongly favour, is so much greater than the demerits which I
The Budget-Mr. Euler

hope to see corrected in due course, that I will support the budget.


Robert James Manion: Before my hon. friend resumes his seat I would like to point out that he said he would later show how the budget was going to benefit the people as a whole. Would my hon. friend elaborate that remark?


William Daum Euler: I would refer, for instance, to the great mass of people who will find relief in the reduction of income tax. The people will be able to buy automobiles a little cheaper, and are doing so right now. They will get the reduction in postage.


Robert James Manion: Where do the ordinary working man and the small farmer come in?


William Daum Euler: Is my hon. friend now showing special consideration for the farmer?


Robert James Manion: I have always shown special consideration for the farmer, and so has my party. They have shown just as much consideration as has my hon. friend, but I am asking a fair question. My hon. friend said that this budget would relieve the great mass of the people. I asked him in all sincerity, to elaborate a little. He speaks of the income tax and cheaper automobiles, but how about the ordinary working man and small farmer, who never earn $3,000 a year?


William Daum Euler: I should say the small farmer and the working man benefit by the reduction in duty on automobiles.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn) :: How about the duty on electric lighting equipment?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no
change, is there?


Edward James Young: Yes, 25 per cent.


Mr. A. C. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dun-das):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the younger
members of this House I have taken very little part in the discussions which have been carried on, but I feel that I cannot let the opportunity pass to make some observations on the budget. After doing that, and before concluding my remarks, I wish to take up certain matters which are of particular interest not only to the county which I have the honour to represent but to the Dominion as a whole.
I do not intend to follow the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) very closely in my remarks, but I would like to make a few comments upon his speech. In attempting to do so I realize that in making my first
[Mr. Filler.i
speech in this House I am in a very disadvantageous position. The hon. member is an old parliamentarian with a great deal of experience, and is recognized, I think, as one of the smartest men on the government side, if that were not so we would not have heard that he could have had a portfolio in this government. On various occasions in the past the hon. member has criticized the government-much more strenuously than in his remarks to-night

for their nibbling tactics with regard to the tariff. I wonder if the reason that he is not so strong in his criticism to-night is because this time they have taken a whole bite instead of a nibble.
He says this is a popular budget. I believe the hon. member was elected as an Independent Liberal, and to me the addition of the word "Independent" must mean something. I do not know whether he has always been elected as such, but I do know that the riding whidh he represents is one of the most highly developed industrial districts of Canada, and I wonder if that has anything to do with the use of the word "Independent." If his constituents should be here when the budget vote is taken I wonder what they would think, seeing him vote directly against something which materially affects them. I am sure they would not support him in the next election.


William Daum Euler: Does not the hon. gentleman believe that my constituents will know exactly how I vote?


Arza Clair Casselman: I realize that, but I
also realize that before we have another election possibly three or four years will have passed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arza Clair Casselman: I mean exactly what I said. In that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) may adopt the suggestion advanced to-night by the hon. member and show by his actions that the tariff is going to be stable and that industry can go along unafraid of the changes which may be brought down in the next budget. As this is the first speech that I have attempted to make in this House, I promise hon. members, if they will grant me their indulgence, that I shall get through as quickly as possible.
My first statement must be that I am dumbfounded at the action of the government in claiming office in the face of the adverse vote at the polls. When one considers the platform on -which the election was fought, I could not believe that those members forming the government were the same individuals who pledged themselves to Senate reform, reduc-

The Budget-Mr. Casselman
tion of taxation, and above all, that there should be no changes in the tariff that would be detrimental to industry until after full investigation had been made by that much talked of tariff board. As a result of this, I must state that so far as this government is Concerned their first object seems to be to keep themselves in power, and secondly, to do nothing that will in any way injure their prospects at the polls, if any they have. The only conclusion, therefore, that I can draw is that this government is looking after them-,selves first, and the interests of the country second, provided that in looking after the interests of the country they do nothing which will in any way affect their political prospects.
The Minister of Finance, when he laid his budget proposals before the House on the 15th day of April, drew the attention of the House to the remarkable development that had taken place in our trade. He further pointed out that the favourable trade balance of over $402,000,000 was the greatest in the history of the country with the exception of the war years. From the discussion which has taken place since that day-and may I refer particularly to the address that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) made some days ago-I think that the opinion of the majority of the members of this House is that that favourable balance of trade is not in the interests of this country. The hon. member excepted the war years. I presume that he did this in fairness, knowing that during the war years there were more reasons for certain industries being developed than there were at any other time. But I do not think he should have done so because to me there is a great similarity betweeen the balance of our trade in the war years and our balance of last year. In the war years our balance of trade was caused largely by the fact that we were shipping ammunition out of this country. Ammunition in itself is deadly to man. Last year our balance of trade was caused by the fact that we were shipping out of this country large quantities of raw materials, materials upon which we should have done the finer work. Although their shipment was not deadly to man, it was deadly to industry in this country. I am favourable to action which increases our trade, but, on the other hand, I feel that the policy which we must pursue to build up this country is to retain these raw materials and work into the finished product as far as possible these great resources with which a beneficent Providence has so bountifully blessed us. Unless we do this, I do not see how it is possible for us to secure the one thing which will solve many of our various
problems, particularly our railroad problem, namely population.
Having mentioned population, I would like to place on Hansard certain figures _ which I have just received from the Department of Labour of the United States. Before doing so, I would like to remind hon. gentlemen that in the last five years there have gone from this country to the United States over 600,000 of our very best citizens. Why did they leave this country? They did not leave because of their dislike for Canada. They left here for the simple reason that it was not possible for them to get any' work in this country. I do not see before me at the moment the letter to which I have just referred, but if I remember the figures correctly they showed that in the year 1925, 123,000 or 128,000 Canadians went to the United States. During the fiscal year, which runs until the first of March, that had decreased to a certain extent, but I do not think there is any decrease at the present. As a matter of fact, from my' own personal observation-and I am in a position to make personal observation-I think there are more people going to the United States at the present time than have ever gone before. It is my privilege, due to the fact that my home town is Prescott, directly across the river from Ogdensburg, where the American consular office is situated, to see the workings of that office. I am also privileged to be in my own office on Saturdays and as a rule for a few hours on Monday morning, and I do not think on any day' since the session opened I have been in my office when I have not drawn affidavits for some Canadian citizen who was going to the United States. I would draw the atteqtion of hon. members to the effect that the requirements that one must meet in order to go to the United States are now well known, and it is only through some technicality that these people come to a law office. I had occasion this morning to go to the American consular office at ten o'clock. I found there ten Canadians waiting their turn to get vises to go to the United States. Those ten Canadians come out of a population of approximately 100,000, and if the exodus from Canada to the United States to-day is in the same proportion all over the Dominion as it is in this particular consular district to which I refer, hon. gentlemen can see that in the neighbourhood of at least a thousand Canadians have gone to the United States to-day.
I have before me an article written by Mr. Herman Kull. Any one who is familiar with the district at Ogdensburg will know that Mr. Kull is chief immigration inspector at Ogdens-

The Budget-Mr. Casselman
burg. This letter is dated Ogdensburg, New York, September 10, 1925, and reads as follows:
August immigration frotm Canada at this point broke all records if or the month. The figures Show a gain of 7,367 over August, 1924.
It is all very well, Mr. Speaker, for members of the government or for those who are suporting the government to say that people have always gone from this country to the United States. I am willing to grant that, but never in the history of this country have people gone to the United States to the extent to which they are going at the present time, and the figures which can 'be obtained from any official source only show those who go through the legal channels. If hon. members were familiar with the schemes which are used to get into the United States, they would know that -those official figures in no way give a proper idea of the exodus.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to be as complimentary as I can to the hon. Minister of Finance, but I regret that it is not possible for me to be as complimentary as were some hon. members who have preceded me. There are some changes in the budget which I -think are commendable, possibly not as commendable as they might have been, because I do not think that they should ever have been made law in the first place. Take the receipt tax, for instance. I think the Minister of Finance himself will admit that this tax has always been a failure. I do not think there was ever a law passed that was observed as little as this law. The removal of the receipt tax gives relief to certain corporations and certain classes of business, but it does not give any relief to the -farmer or to the man who really requires relief.	*
The Minister of Finance has been complimented very highly for reducing the sales tax. I am willing to compliment him for that as well. My compliments may be more or less left handed because of this fact: Before making the reduction the tax was raised, thus getting us 'back to the position in which we were before.
Great credit has also been -given the Finance minister for the reduction of the income tax. In this respect I feel very much like the hon. member for North Waterloo, who preceded me, but in my statement I will not go as far as that hon. gentleman did. I grant you that certain -people who previously paid taxes have received a reduction, but I venture to assert that when one year has passed and we find out the amount of money that is received from income tax, it will be found that instead of there being a great reduction the taxpayers of this country will pay just as much money as the}7

did before the so-called reduction went into effect. I say that -for this reason: After the budget was brought down I was at home and some nine or ten people came to me with their income tax returns. One of them was a man who last year had paid something less -than $3, but who under the new tax will not pay anything. Almost every other individual in the group was a person who had received a certain income from stocks which previously were exempt from taxation, the taxation being paid by the corporation. Now, although most of those people were strong supporters of the government they were greatly surprised and aggrieved, in view of the announcement as to the reduction in taxation which they had seen in the newspapers, that their taxation had doubled and in some cases trebled.
The Minister of Finance has also been given great credit for the reduction in the postal rates. In that respect there is very little actual saving to the country. There is a reduction in the -three cent rate but not in the local rate. If it were possible to secure statistics showing the proportion of local letters that pass through the mail as compared with the number of three cent letters you would find, I think that there are as many of the former as there are of the latter. The reduction in the postage rate amounts to one cent. The farmer will not derive any great advantage from this. If any hon. member holds a view to the contrary let him go out to the country and- interview every farmer he meets as to how many letters he writes. I think it will be found that if a farmer benefits to the extent of fifty cents per year by this reduction he is one of the biggest correspondents among the farming class.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter into any discussion in regard to the tariff, but I shall place on Hansard an article which appeared in the Toronto Mail and Empire of April 28th. The article in question deals in a general way with the advantages of industry, but alludes more particularly -to the manufacture of motor cars. The article starts out by saying:
The great majority of Canadians who can afford to have motor cars already have them. Every man who owns a car is poorer to-day than he was the day before the Mackenzie King government reduced the tariff, because his car is worth less. If for any reason he wants to sell hiis car without buying a new one he will feel the full effect of the reduced value. If he desires to buy a new car the price quoted will be lower, but when he offers his old car in part payment he will get so much less for it that he will receive very little advantage from the lower price of the new car, and in many cases no advantage.

The Budget-Mr. Casselman
I am told that in ninety per cent of the cases where people buy cars they have an old car to dispose of. If that be the case, and the statements in the foregoing paragraph are correct, only ten per cent of the people who buy motor cars at the present time are going to receive any advantage because of the reduction of duty. I am speaking only of the purchasers of cars. I make no reference to those men who, because of the change in duty, will 'have to follow the million Canadians who have already crossed the border into the country to the south in order to seek employment. The article continues:
Will the man who never had a oar because he could not afford it be any better able ito buy one if the money now put into circulation in Canada by the automotive industries is sent to the United States instead? If he is out of employment will the shutting down of many Canadian plants help him to get rwork or if he has employment will his salary or wages be increased by the wrecking of a great Canadian industry ?
The output of the Canadian motor car factories for ithe last fiscal year was valued over $110,000,000. Will the sending of a large proportion of that amount to the United States add to the prosperity of Canada? Will at help men employed in other Canadian industries, of farms and factories or those engaged in mercantile business and the professions?
An .answer may be found in the result of an experiment of a manufacturer in a small New England town in the days when the manufacturers of the United States had a struggle for existence and were in constant danger owing to the attacks of free trade theorists who wished to take away their protection. This manufacturer decided to mark all the money paid out in wages to his employees and ask the merchants and the banks of this little town to let -him know how many hands the money passed through within three weeks after it was paid out in wages to his employee. Careful records were kept and it was found that on the average every dollar paid out in wages had passed through the hands of eight different persons.
For instance a workman paid his doctor five dollars; the doctor used the five dollars to pay a grocer's bill; the grocer paid it to a baker; the baker paid it to a miller for flour; the miller paid it to a farmer for wheat; the farmet bought groceries with it; the grocer paid dit to a carpenter who made some alterations in his store; the carpenter spent it at a hardware store; the hardware merchant paid his butcher's bill with it; the butcher paid it out to a farmer's wife for butter and eggs; the farmer's wife bought dress materials at a dry goods store; the dry goods merchant gave it to his daughter to pay her music teacher; the musdc teacher used it to pay her dentist. If the money had been followed for a year instead *of for a few weeks the record of circulation would have been even more surprising. Consider the effect upon Canadian trade if even half the money now paid out in Canada by motor car manufacturers in wages and for materials is sent to the United States to pass from hand to hand in that country instead of in Canada.
It is not my intention to follow this subject further. I shall content myself by saying that the arguments advanced in the foregoing article are absolutely irrefutable.
The next subject I wish to take up, and which is of particular interest to the locality in which I reside, is the development of power on the St. Lawrence river, and I trust I shall be pardoned if I adhere rather closely to my notes in discussing it. As the question of power development has already been discussed in the House this year in connection with the resolution moved by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), I will take up this branch of the subject first.
For years an agitation has been carried on in eastern Ontario to have the great sources of power on the St. Lawrence river developed, due to the fact that eastern Ontario could not compete with the western 11 p.m. part of the province industrially because of the excessive cost of power. Industry has attempted to get a foothold in eastern Ontario, but whenever an application for power would be made to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, the body which to a large extent controls power in Ontario, the estimated cost was such that invariably the industry in question settled in the western districts where power could be secured at a fraction of the cost. The transportation advantages which we enjoy in the east were of no avail because of the high cost of power. Steps were taken to remedy this situation, one of the reasons being that the sources of supply in western Ontario were nearing the verge of exhaustion. The St. Lawrence being an international waterway it was necessary for the federal government to make arrangements with our neighbour to the south for the required development. Applications have been made by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the Ontario government for the right to develop power at Morrisburg, this being the desirable location agreed upon by the experts of the department, but in spite of the fact that these applications are of long standing no progress has been made in - the matter. I am informed that no reply has ever been given to the Ontario government or the Hydro-Electric Power Commission. The International Joint Commission was capable of arranging the scheme, but rather than use this existing organization the government has seen fit to appoint various commissions or bodies, and although these bodies have been in existence for several years they are apparently no nearer their goal than they were a year ago. We have been told by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that that body is due to report during the month of June. If they report favourably I assume from what the minister has said that the

The Budget-Mr. Casselman
province will be authorized to commence the development. But what will be the result if we receive an unfavourable report?
I am under the impression that the report will not be favourable owing to the fact that as a rule United States interests are unfavourable to this kind of development as a public ownership project. I have also had an opportunity of talking to various members of the United States body and unless the have changed their ideas, or unless their ideas have been misinterpreted by me, I feel the development will be delayed for many years. Another very important point is that along the United States shore during late years, and since this agitation for power development has become more acute, water rights have been secured by large private interests, and as there are no powers of expropriation in the state, this in itself will delay the development in the event of the United States members of the commission being favourable to the development.
I wish to compliment the Minister of the Interior upon his statement that this government admits the right of the province to carry on the development. I was greatly surprised at this admission because of a previous experience. Some two years ago I had the pleasure of hearing Sir Adam Beck address a large mass meeting at Prescott where he made the statement that the former Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Graham, had admitted that afternoon to him the right of the province to carry out the development. That statement was received by those present with great satisfaction, but that satisfaction was turned into consternation a couple of days later when there appeared in the press an article in which Mr. Graham denied making such an admission.
The eastern part of Ontario is sorely in need of power development. With this development we can go forward and carry our share of the immense burden under which the people of this country rest. Without it we must continue as we are now in a more or less dormant state. For this reason, as well as the fact that the development of industry will result in advantages to all classes of the community, I urge the government to use as much pressure as they reasonably can to have the development carried through and to free themselves from being dependent on various commissions except for the technical advice which they will give.
The other subject which I wish to take up and which I think is of greater outside than local interest is the development of navigation. May I make reference to a development
	/
which, in my estimation will do more than possibly any other scheme to assist both those in the west who are interested in the transportation question and the Maritimes which, in my opinion, have not procured what they reasonably expected when they entered confederation? In opening this subject, as one of the younger members of this House I feel chat I am voicing the sentiments of the younger element of the central provinces when I say that we realize the great difficulties under which both the east and1 the west are suffering. It is the desire of the central provinces to look at these difficulties from a national standpoint rather than from the selfish standpoint of their own interest, and to do everything that can be done to assist those parts of the country which require assistance owing to their geographical position or from other causes. But on the other hand we expect that in turn you will realize that we who furnish the large proportion of revenue to the country Shall have assistance from you in those things which make for our economic wellbeing. During the last decade an amount of money verging on $100,000,000 has been spent on the new Welland canal. Although that money is being spent in the central part of the Dominion, that development is bound to result in great benefit to the west by way of reducing rates, and if the proper policy is put into effect by the management of our National railways the eastern provinces will also benefit greatly. Their benefit will come about through decreased freight rates, reduction of debt on the National railways, and above all, through the return of empty Cars there will be car space that can look after the carriage of their coal and other products.
When the Welland canal is completed I feel that although a great benefit will be derived from the development, a small further expenditure would almost double the benefit. When the Welland canal is completed deep water navigation will be open to the foot of lake Ontario. From there eadt to a distance of over sixty miles a very small expenditure, which I am told the federal government of the United States are willing to be responsible for, will open the river for boats which will be running in and out of the lake ports. This would make the town of Prescott the eastern terminus of the deep waterways system. Although the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is not in the House now I would like to compliment him upon an address he delivered or an interview he gave in Toronto, I believe, in October of last year, when he favoured carrying on this development as far

The Budget-Mr. Robinson
as it could be carried on without too great an expenditure being required, and in which he favoured Prescott as the eastern terminus of the deep waterways system.
Any one who is familiar with conditions with respect to both our railway facilities at Prescott and our harbour there will at once realize that this undertaking would be* the only logical one to carry out. Lack of grade on the railways from Prescott east is such that a maximum load can be carried. This statement could not be made to apply if Prescott were situate even fifteen miles west because as soon as one goes west of this point grades are encountered which diminish to a large extent the carrying capacity of a railway engine. The only expenditure that would be required is an elevator at Prescott of reasonable capacity to look after the late shipments of grain which cannot get through to Montreal, and as the harbour is kept clear of ice in the winter it would be possible for boats to be laid up with cargo for storage until such time as it is needed for transshipment. By carrying through .this proposal, which I strongly urge should be taken up by the government of the day in time to ensure that it will be a reality when the Welland canal reaches completion, a step will be taken which will result in an advantage in price of several cents per bushel upon all western grain carried in this way. This is estimated by various parties who have gone into the rates at from four to eight cents per bushel. It will also result in traffic which is not now going over our National railways being routed in that way and this would mean a greater use being made of our own ports and a consequent increase in railway revenue. The Halifax elevator would then become more than a monument to the present senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black). There would also be the advantage of return cargo being available for the products of the Maritimes, which are now labouring under railway rates that they cannot reasonably overcome under present conditions.
In closing I would draw the attention of hon. members to a resolution passed at the annual meeting of .the Associated Boards of Trade of Ontario, held at Kingston last fall. I believe copies of this resolution are in the hands of the Prime Minister and various members of the government, but I would like to put it on record. It states:
That the Ontario Associated Boards of Trade are clearly in accord with the Domimion Marine Association in the opinion that the progress which has been made in the construction of the new Welland ship canal, and the heavy investment in the Canadian
canals system demand that the preparation of a transshipping port on the Canadian side at /the foot of deep water navigation be no longer deferred; and that the Dominion government be urged to announce the selection of the trans-shipping port at the point considered to be in the best interests of the citizens of Canada, and to hasten the steps necessary to ensure the erection of transfer and storage elevators for the first grain cargoes to come down through the enlarged canal.


Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: Mr. Speaker, if it is the wi^h of hon. members and the understanding of the whips that I should go on to-night I will take only half an hour of the time of the House. I would not speak at this late date were it not for the fact that I represent so important a constituency as West Essex.
The most important item in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is the reduction in the duty on automobiles, which will affect the main industry and some 280 manufacturers of parts. This is a serious matter to my riding and one which was not contemplated after the speech from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at Richmond Hill on September 5 last and the further promises made in the Speech from the Throne, all to the effect that there would be neither increases nor decreases in the tariff until a thorough investigation had been made by a commission. The people of the country now realize that the promises and pledges of the _ Prime Minister only amount to a scrap of paper. The effect of this reduction on the industrial and building operations will be serious indeed. I am informed by the manager of the Chrysler corporation that they had a building programme which would take three j^ears to carry out and it was their intention if possible to do all their export business from Windsor instead of from the United States. As a result of the budget announcement, however, this building programme has been held up indefinitely. The Ford, Ontario, mentor plant had a programme to manufacture closed bodies in Canada. It was to be the first plant of its kind and was to cost some $500,000, while the equipment and machinery would cost some $3S0,0O0 more. This programme also will be held up indefinitely. They were to employ 1,000 men in this branch of their business. It seems ithat the policy of this government is to penalize industry wherever it is successful. We find another example of this in the woollen industry. I think it only fair that the government should announce beforehand the next - industry to be attacked so that those engaged in that industry may be prepared for the worst. Rumour has it that next year it will be either cottons, furniture, or the boot and shoe industry.
The Budget-Mr. Robinson

As regards the income tax, we are all pleased to note the reduction- in so far as the exemption up to S3,000 in the case of married men is concerned, but instead of referring to it as a reduction, the minister should have described it as a transfer of income -tax. What is really taking place is the transfer of the tax from one class to another. It is being placed upon those who derive tlheir incomes from dividends and who will suffer from the system of double taxation. Had it not been for the extravagance of the present government, reductions could have been made in this direction some two years ago. I trust that the reduction in postage will not be seized upon as an excuse to cancel the order in council of October last directing the Civil Service Commission to regard favourably the application made by employees of the postal service for an upward revision of their salaries. This is badly needed by the postal service employees in the cities, owing to the fact that rent and living expenses are much higher in these centres than in rural Canada.
In the election of 1921, in the by-elections of 1923, and again in the general election of October last, the main issue of the compaign was the tariff, and to illustrate the change of sentiment among the people I may point out that whereas in 1921 the late Hon. W. C. Kennedy carried what is now East and West Essex by a majority of 7,195 votes, that majority in the by-election of March 1, 1923, for the same territory, was out down to 1,072, while in the recent election held on October 29 West Essex was carried by a majority of 2,521 in favour of the Conservative candidate, the other two Essexes also voting in support of the Conservative policy.
The border cities, and especially the city of Windsor, have grown more rapidly in the past ten years than any other part of the Dominion, but I regret to say that this growth has been at the expense of the rest df Canada. There are coming to Windsor every day hundreds from the prairie provinces and the west and from the Maritimes, and these people either acquire homes or rent their houses. If therefore they cannot find employment in Windsor and vicinity they are obliged to go to the other side, especially their sons and daughters. So that it is only a matter of time in most cases until whole families drift over to the United States.
Referring to the want of sufficient tariff protection, Messrs R. G. Dun and Company last year reported that fifty-four industries in the border cities had either closed their doors or failed in business. Let me mention a few instances to show how the border cities have suffered for the want of adequate tariff protection.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Did R. G. Dun and
Company report that it was for want of tariff protection.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I did not say that.


Robert McKenzie: I understood you to say that.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: ables and fruits from the United, States, especially those who grow under glass. When their product is ready for the market they have to compete with the surplus from the more southern districts of the United States. I maintain that they are entitled to protection, especially during the season when the better quality of Canadian products is ready for the market.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me make some reference to what Australia and the United States have done under a protective tariff. During the last four years the United States has experienced unprecedented prosperity. Heretofore in my memory Canada has always shared in that prosperity. We may have been six months later in getting it, but we were always six months later when a depression came along, as well. President Coolidge in his message to congress on December 6, 1923, said:
The present tariff law has accomplished its two main objects; it has secured an abundant revenue and been productive of an abounding prosperity. Under it the country has had a very large export and import trade. A constant revision of the tariff by the congress is disturbing and harmful. The present law contains an elastic provision authorizing the president to increase or -decrease present schedules not in excess of 50 per centum to meet the difference in cost of production at home and abroad. This does not, to my mind, warrant a rewriting of the whole law, but does mean, and will be so administered, that whenever the required investigation shows that inequalities of sufficient importance exist in any schedule, the power is authorized to make adjustments.
I have the report of a speech made by Sir James Elder, before the board of directors of the Canadian National Exhibition last September. This is what he has to say regarding the tariff in Australia:
"Australia is now riding on the crest of a phenomenal wave of prosperity, and the wheels of industry are spinning as never before, so much so that the people of Australia are fast being relieved of the heavy burdens of taxation. Protection has been the one cause of Australia's wonderful success in the interchange of trade with the other countries."
Sir James declared that during the past three years Australia had reduced her war debt by over $110,000,000, while the aggregate federal debt had been decreased to the extent of $200,000,000. Australia had not only reduced her public debt, but the government was seized of the importance of relieving the peopJe of heavy income taxation and four reductions had been made since 1914, the present tax being on the basis of pre-war days, plus 20 per cent, and further reductions were contemplated in the very near future.
I claim that if protection and an increase in the tariff has done so much for the United States and Australia, Canada should adopt the same principle and we would experience unprecedented prosperity.
I would just like to touch on the question *f taxation. As everyone knows, this country [Mr. Robinson. 1
is overburdened with taxation, and under the present government there seems small chance for relief. In Ontario we have municipal, provincial, and Dominion taxes, twenty in all as follows:
Real estate.
Business tax (Corporation).
City income tax.
Federal income tax.
Cheque tax.
Gasoline tax.
Automobile tax, sales and license.
Sales tax.
Real estate transfer.
Amusement tax.
Stock transfer.
Excise tax on beer.
Sleeping and parlour car tax.
Business tax to province, to provincial secretary.
Manufacturing license to Ottawa.
Tax on notes and overdrafts.
Matches.
Playing cards.
Tobacco.
Workmen's compensation tax.
I claim that if Canada had raised her tariff instead of reducing it as she has done five times in as many years, we would have been able to reduce our taxation the same as the other English-speaking countries have done. President Coolidge says:
There is a limit to the taxing power of a state beyond which increased rates produce decreased revenue. If that be exceeded, intangible securities and other personal property became driven out of its jurisdiction, industry cannot meet its less burdened competitors, and no capital will be found for enlarging old or starting new enterprises. Such a condition means first stagnation, then decay and dissolution. There is before us a danger that our resources may be taxed out of existence and our .prosperity destroyed.
Just a word or two in connection with immigration. It is almost universally agreed in this country that instead of spending millions of money to bring immigrants to this country, such money would be better spent in the application of some scheme to keep farmers' sons at home. I have this suggestion to make, that where there is no room on the farm for the sons when they grow up, they should be assisted in establishing themselves as farmers, under a scheme such as that which was employed in connection with soldiers' civil re-establishment.
I have been several times in the United States consul's office in Windsor, which office has had to take larger quarters to enable them to take care of the rush for vises to enter the United States. A large majority of these applicants are from the farms or the small towns in Canada, and, I am sure they would welcome some encouragement to establish ,themiselves in this country as farmers. There seems to be no let up to the

The Budget-Mr. Robinson
emigration from Canada if one is to judge by the birth certificates required from the Ontario government and the crowds at the United States consul's offices. The number of vises issued at Windsor to native bom Canadian citizens during the peiiod from January 1 to April 30, 1926, with similar figures for the same period of 1925 given for the purpose of comparison, is as follows:
	1925	1926
January	
260	262February	
219	295March	
294	540April 1 to 30	
235	5141,008	1,611
The London Free Press of April 17 of this year states as follows:
A ilarger number of Canadians have been passed through tbe office of <the American consul in London this week than in any previous week since the beginning of the vise regulations on July 1, 1924. This week 170 Canadian-born people have left London and the six counties of this consular district for the United States. The week previous the figure was 114.
Unemployment and .the lack of a satisfactory guarantee of steady employment is said by the consul, G. R. Taggart, to be the reason generally given by the applicants if or vises. Another reason is said to be the lack of diversity of employment.
I have been asked many times why a car made in Canada costs so much more than one made in United States. From the Dodge factory in Toronto I have secured a statement showing how each hundred dollars of the increase is apportioned. The statement is as follows:
1.	Duty paid Canadian government on import of raw materials, $35.05.
2.	Increase in Canadian dealer's commission over United States dealers, due to increased investments and lessened sales field, $24.
3.	Increased cost of materials purchased from Canadian vendors over and above the replacement of same from the United States due to Canadian increased cost of producing, $17.02.
4.	Entering our purchase price on parts supplied by parent plant is a charge enforced by Canadian government in establishing a fair market value, $8.65.
5.	Increase in Canadian direct labour cost, occas-sioned by smaller production, which production does not warrant the installation of improved labour-saving devices, $2.08.
6.	Overhead expense, which can only be reduced to the United States overhead minimum by volume of production, which is at present impossible in Canada, $6.51.
7.	Selling and commercial expenses which are occas-sioned by a lessened prospect ratio of sales, $6.69.
The Minister of Finance, at page 1647 of Hansard says:
While we all admit that Canada has more taxes than we would like to have, and more taxes than we had prior to the entry of Canada and of the whole world inito the war, nevertheless Canada is not taxed to a degree that would induce any of our
citizens to leave Canada and go and live in some other country.
This is not in accordance with the facts. A British subject whose income is earned and whose business is in the United States, while residing with his family in the border cities, where this whole American income is spent, is penalized for doing so. As an example, take a man who is a large owner and the general manager of a business, and who purchases and maintains a motor car for his use in the conduct of his business. Such a car is listed as an asset on the books of the corporation, and its operation is charged to the expense account so that its ownership can be very easily proved. Through an arbitrary and inflexible ruling of the Customs department many such persons have been forced over a period of years to pay customs tariff on cars so owned for the privilege of expediting passage from one's office to his residence. On the other hand to avoid paying such duty these persons could have an office boy

an American-drive them back and forth by bonding the car, as many Americans do, thus contributing not one penny in the shape of taxes, part of which would go towards helping to build and maintain these roads. Further, while spending no part of their income in Canada, they can drive their cars twenty-four hours a day for six months in the year, which is the period of the bonding limit. This is the grossly unfair feature of the regulation.
For the privilege of residing and spending one's whole American income in Canada, one is further forced to pay tribute in the shape of taxation, which, by comparison with the present rate in the United States, is excessive, the Canadian tax being approximately four or five times as large as one would pay to the United States government. From my personal knowledge, I could name dozens of well-to-do Canadian citizens who have moved to the United States owing to the comparatively heavy taxes in Canada.
The recent departmental ruling in regard to the stamp tax on cheques drawn on American banks is very unpopular with the banks in the border cities, and I presume it is the same at other international boundary points. Border cities bank managers positively know of Canadian firms, as well as American branch companies located in the border cities, who maintain accounts in Detroit banks on account of the stamp tax on cheques in general, and particularly because of the stamp tax on cheques drawn on American banks.
I would like to point out another fact that has developed, and which has been found to

Power Development

be most irritating to customers of the border cities banks, and that is that very frequently American cheques deposited by bank customers in the border cities, after stamps were affixed and the cheques forwarded to Detroit for collection, were returned for various reasons unpaid, and the stamps detached before reaching the Canadian banks who had forwarded them. The result is that if Canadian banks are requested to reforward these cheques the customer is obliged to pay again the stamp tax, because the stamps must reasonably be affixed. I was told by one bank manager that a concern in Detroit had a deposit of quarter of a million dollars in a Canadian bank, and that the whole amount was withdrawn on account of this tax.
Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your reappointment to the high office you have held since 1922. I am a new member of this House, and for that reason I am not much versed in the intricacies of parliamentary procedure, but since the session began I have been greatly impressed with the fairness and impartiality which at all times Your Honour has exhibited.
On motion of Mr. Eraser the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
Tuesday, May 18, 1926