1927-02-17

PRIVATE BILLS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That whereas petitions for private bills could not be received nor private bills presented between December 15, 1926, and February 8, 1927, owing to adjournment of the House during that period, resolved that the period of time limited by the rules for such purposes be so extended as to give such petitions and bills the same period of time for presentation as if the adjournment had not taken place.
Mr. LEON J. LADNER (Vancouver South): May I ask the Prime Minister if this motion will likewise afford us days on which private bills may be brought forward?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My motion applies to all private bills.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion is based on
the report of the chief clerk of the Committees and Private Bills branch as follows:
If some such motion is not made private bills legislation will be entirely held up this session as,-
Time for filing private bills expired December 1;
Time for receiving petitions for private bills expired January 19;
Time for presenting private bills expired February 3.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved:: That five hundred copies in the English language and four hundred copies in the French
Questions

language of the memorandum from the Dominion Fuel Board in connection with an all Canadian and British fuel supply laid on the table of the House on February 16, be printed forthwith, and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Has a survey been made of a proposed telegraph line from, (a) Athabaska to Fort Vermilion, (b) Grouard to Fort Vermilion, (c) Peace River to Fort Vermilion?
2.	If so, what is the estimated	cost and
mileage of each of these lines?


Hon. Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	(a), (b) and (c)-Yes.
2.	Estimated cost	Mileage(a)	$200,000	389	miles(b)	135,300	316	miles(c)	125,000	295	miles


POSTMASTER AT RATHBTJRN
Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	Was one J. J. Morris, postmaster at Rath-burn, dismissed by the present government?
2.	XL so, who recommended dismissal, " and on what charge?
3.	Were there any charges against the said Mr. Morris, (a) of business incompetence; (b) political activities?
4.	If so, by whom were they made?
5.	What was the salary of said postmaster?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Government candidate for constituency, (a) Political partisanship. (b) Unfavourable site.
3.	(a) No. (b) Yes.
4.	Government candidate for constituency.
5.	Salary $85.-Allowance $20.


THE CHINESE SITUATION
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Is Canada contributing to the expense of protecting Canadians in China during the present disturbances?
2.	If so, how is Canada so contributing and to whom is the contribution made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Yukon asked a very similar question to this a day or two ago, and I replied to it in a careful statement which 
appears in Hansard of February 10, 1927. That statement contains the only answer that I think I should make to his present question.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The answer to
which the Prime Minister refers is in no sense of the word an answer to the question now on the order paper. That statement was general in its nature, covering Canadian policy on certain foreign affairs, but there was nothing in it that could be considered a reply to numbers one and two of question 12, which seem to be perfectly reasonable questions capable of being answered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Both questions relate to the present situation in China. I have given to the House the answer, which in the opinion of the government, should be made to all such questions, and I intend to adhere to that answer in respect to this particular question or any other of a similar character which may be asked regarding the Chinese situation.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: These are questions which are very definite and distinct in regard to a matter of the gravest importance. The first question can be answered simply yes or no; while the second is dependent upon the answer given to the first. Surely my right hon. friend will see the reasonableness of the request. The [statement which he read to the House a day or two ago does not cover either of these-questions. If for any. special reason the Prime Minister desires not to be interrogated upon these points he should inform the House what that reason is, but the questions are so pertinent and so easy of answer that I cannot understand why the government should hesitate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have made
the answer which I desire to have recorded in reply to this question.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Has the Hudson Bay Company acquired land from the Dominion of Canada in the Peace River or Grande Prairie land districts?
2.	If so, (a) what lands; (b) under what authority or right have such lands been acquired; (c) what was the date or dates of the transaction or transactions?


GOVERNMENT SALES TAX-.ARREARS
Mr. ROWE:: 1. How many individuals or companies are in arrears of more than one month in the payment of sales tax to the government?

Chinese Situation
2.	What is the largest amount owing to the government by any of these firms?
3.	How long has this amount or a portion of this amount been overdue?
4.	In how many eases has the government accepted less than the amount owing in settlement of claims for sales tax, through the winding up, financial difficulties or disappearance of firms and individuals in arrears in their sales tax payments ?
5.	What is the largest amount of such loss to the government, and what is the total amount of revenue so lost?



ONIONS FROM HOLLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I desire
to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) certain questions in reference to a telegram I have received from Leamington under date February 17:
You are probably aware that there was a fair amount of onions carried over from last year in storage here in a warehouse erected by the present government. You may also, be interested to know that there is a shipment of onions on the way to Montreal from Holland which is supposed to arrive some time the end of this week. Will you please give us some detail relative to this or any other shipment en route or contemplated in the near future of which parliament is aware.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:	1. Is there a shipment of onions on the way to Montreal or any other part of Canada from Holland, Bermuda, Spain or elsewhere, and which is expected to arrive in the near future? 2. What amount of onions was carried over from last year in storage at the new government warehouse at Leamington, erected under the administration of the present Minister of Agriculture? 3. Was it not the intention of the Department of Agriculture in erecting this warehouse to protect the onion growers from such importations?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member should put his question on the order paper.



NATIONAL COAL POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I
wish to direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) to a heading in the Ottawa Journal with reference to the address he gave in the House yesterday in the course of which he read the report of the fuel board. In that report there occurred the following words:
Summing up, the total cost of replacementof coal industrial as well as domestic in the central provinces, would mean-
-an annual extra cost to the public of $56,000,000.
The heading in the newspaper reads:
Would involve extra expense of 56 millions.
Is there any suggestion that the movement of Alberta domestic coal would cost this sum, or is it not true to say that the figures given by the fuel board refer to the increase in price of the fuel as a result of an increased duty in order to keep out importations of all coal?


Charles A. Stewart: The report refers distinctly to the prohibition of the entry into Canada of coal of all kinds.


Edward Joseph Garland: And has
no reference whatever to the shipping of Alberta coal?


Charles A. Stewart: No.



MANITOBA PAPER COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Has the government made a contract with the Manitoba Paper Company for the sale of pulpwood in the province of Manitoba and, it so, does the contract contain a clause with regard to the selecting of wood? Further, if such a contract has been made, will the papers be tabled?


Charles A. Stewart: I can answer the first question by saying yes. As regards the other request I would advise my hon. friend to ask for a return in order to have the contract laid on the table. Full particulars could then be given.



THE CHINESE SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. North reads:
J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg Centre): A despatch from Geneva
Geneva Feb 16,-The Chinese delegation announced tmnight that it had sent a note to Secretary General Sir Eric Drummond, of the League of Nations on instructions from the Peking foreign office, demanding withdrawal of the British order to send troops to China.
The note included a copy of Peking's earlier protest to Great Britain against the despatch of the British defence force as a violation of the Washington agreement and of article 10 of the covenant of the league, binding members of the league to protect the territorial integrity and political independence of fellow members.
[Stage Direction]


Canadian Minister at Washington
The note insisted that the Chinese forces were capable of maintaining order in Shanghai, and asserted that the presence of troops would lead to complications.
Under article 11 of the treaty of Peace has the government of Canada made any representations to the assembly or to the council of the League of Nations with regard to the despatch of British troops to China?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: No representations of the character my hon. friend mentions have been made by the government.



NATURAL RESOURCES-ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: Can the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) give the House any information as to when we may expect the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to section 17 of the Alberta Act, and whether, in the event of that judgment being handed down in the near future, it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation in relation thereto this year?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: All I can say to my hon. friend is that I have been informed that the argument will take place on March 7. So far as the judgment of the court is concerned, I am afraid it is beyond my knowledge when the judges will have made up their minds.



REFERENCE TO ALBERTA LEGISLATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles A. Stewart: In the course of a debate in the House a statement was made reflecting on the action of a member of the Alberta legislature who has wired me asking that I correct the impression. I will read the telegram-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. STEVENS:: This is out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I fear the minister is out of order.


Charles A. Stewart: Is a citizen to have a reflection cast upon him in this House without his having any means of obtaining redress? This happened, not in the legislature of Alberta, but in this House.


Hewitt Bostock: I have not before me the debate in question, but it is not in order for an outsider to get any member of the House

to rise to a question of privilege in his behalf. The privilege is reserved to members of this House; otherwise many persons outside might seek to make this chamber a forum in which to settle their difficulties.



CANADIAN MINISTER AT WASHINGTON

Mr. F. W. HAY (North Perth):: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the office of the Canadian minister at Washington is or is not yet open for business; and if not, why not? I am prompted to ask this question by reason of a telegram I have received from a business concern in Stratford in the county of Perth where the people are always active. They naturally want to be able to get in touch with our minister there without any undue delay.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might tell my hon.
friend that the Canadian minister arrived in Washington on Tuesday of this week and called upon the Secretary of State yesterday. I understand that to-morrow he presents the letter of credence from His Majesty the King to the President of the United States, and when these formalities are concluded I think it may be understood that the office has been duly opened. The premises have been obtained and the staff will be located in a building within a block or two of the British embassy.



EXTENSION OF FISHING SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if it is the intention of his department to grant an extension of the fishing season in Manitoba?-


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: The government have received requests both for and against the granting of an extension of the fishing season in Manitoba, and after careful consideration we have decided not to grant an extension. The reason is that the fishing season has been good from the beginning; it is true that an extension has been requested because of the low prices, and it may be true that the prices will be higher in March, but if the market is flooded as a result of extending the season, prices might decrease at the same time. I have taken the advice of the technical advisers of the department, and we have decided that in order to preserve these fisheries it is preferable not to grant an extension this year.

The Budget-Mr. Robb



THE BUDGET


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of ways and means.
He said: In presenting to parliament my fourth annual budget to-day, may I recall that when in April, 1924, I had the honour of first delivering a budget, the post war depression so evident in 1920 and in 1921, was then moderating. Each succeeding year the annual budget has indicated gradual improvements in our trade and in our national finances.
The Dominion enters its diamond jubilee year with a happy outlook. Our farmers have, in general, enjoyed bountiful harvests; our industries are active and working well up to capacity, many indeed are working overtime; employment is at a high level and our transportation companies report a large volume of business; retail trade is brisk, money is plentiful and a buoyant spirit prevails. As individuals, Canadians have much to be thankful for, and as government financing is easier when times are good, the report I present today will, I am sure, be a source of gratification and satisfaction to the country at large.
The large increases of debt registered in each of the fiscal years from 1913-14 to 192223 inclusive, are in striking contrast with the gradual and substantial reductions, aggregating some $64,000,000, made during the fiscal years 1923-24 to 1925-26. We are again in the happy position of being able to report a continued story of progress for the current fiscal year which closes on the 31st of the coming month.
We estimate that at the close of this year there will be a further reduction of some $31,000,000, in our net debt. Thus, in four years whilst we have been reducing taxation we will also have reduced our net debt by some $95,000,000.
Public Accounts 1925-26
The public accounts for the financial year 1925-26 were tabled on the 10th December last. In presenting the budget speech on the 15th of April, last, the outcome for the fiscal year 1925-26 was necessarily based on estimates of our revenues and expenditures for the year. It was estimated that the reduction in our net debt would be $22,353,000. The final results for the year show that this estimate was more than justified in that the actual reduction in our net debt was $27,706,586.
Fiscal Year 1926-27 Revenue
Coming now to the fiscal year 1926-27, we estimate that our ordinary revenue for the current fiscal year will be $393,100,000 which, with special receipts from reparations payments of $1,700,000, will give a total revenue for the year of about $394,800,000. This is an increase of some $11,900,000 over the revenues for the year 1925-26.
Certain revenue services will show increases as follows: Customs duties $14,100,000; excise duties $4,500,000; excise taxes-that is, sales, stamps, etc.-$5,900,000; interest on investments $600,000, and from miscellaneous sources $500,000, making a total increase from these sources of some $25,600,000.
Other sources of revenue will show decreases as follows: Income tax $8,600,000; delayed business profits tax $500,000; post office receipts $3,300,000; and from miscellaneous sources $1,300,000; making total decreases from these sources of over $13,700,000. The net increase in revenues will therefore be some $11,900,000.
Expenditures
The estimated expenditures for the year are: Ordinary expenditures $324,500,000; special expenditures $5,300,000; capital expenditures $20,100,000; loans to Canadian National Railways $10,000,000 and loang to the Quebec Harbour Commission $700,000; a total of $360,600,000; being an increase of $5,400,000 over expenditures for the previous year.
Our estimated total expenditures of $360,600,000 deducted from our estimated revenues of $394,800,000 will leave a surplus of $34,200,000 of revenues over expenditures. To arrive, however, at the iprobable reduction of over $31,000,000 in our net debt it will be necessary to deduct from this surplus $2,900,000 representing a reduction in the value of soldier settlement loans which at the dose of our previous year appeared in the balance sheet as a live asset.
Chapter 53 of the statutes of 1925 amended the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919 and provided for the revaluation of live stock purchased for settlers by the Soldier Settlement Board. The act provided that a reduction of 40 ,per cent on the purchase price be allowed to soldier settlers for whom live stock was purchased prior to October 1, 1920 and a reduction of 20 per cent to soldier settlers for whom purchases were made between October 1, 1920 and October 1, 1921. Calculations have now been made which will reduce our assets, subject to minor amendments, by some $2,900,000.
The Budget-Mr. Robb

With the permission of the House I shall place on Hansard a comparative summary setting ou't the actual revenues and expenditures by services for 1925-26 and the corresponding estimated revenues and expenditures for the present fiscal year.
There are other statements which, with the approval of the House, I shall also place on Hansard:-
First.-Statement of our estimated ordinary revenues, by services, amounting to $393,150,000, together with the percentages of such services to the total of the ordinary revenues as estimated.
Second.-Statement	of the estimated
expenditures by services for the present fiscal year showing the various amounts and their percentages to the total expenditures.



REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
Ordinary Revenue
Taxation revenue-
Customs duties	
Excise duties	
War tax revenue-
Excise taxes (sales, stamps, etc.)....
Income tax	
Business profits tax	
Miscellaneous taxes	
Total taxes	
Interest on investments	
Post office	
Dominion lands	
Canada Grain Act	
Miscellaneous	
Total ordinary revenue	
Special receipts and credits on consolidated fund	
Total	
Actual,
$ cts.
127,355,143 50 42,923,549 03
98,097,105 81 55,571,961 57 1,173,448 55 2,453,803 60
327,575,012 06
8,535 30,334 2,803 2,685 8,811
085 77 575 02 513 22 592 39 727 12
380,745,
2,147,
505 58 503 48
382,893,009 06
Estimated,
$ cts.
141,500,000 00
47.500.000	00
104,000,000 00
46.900.000	00 650,000 00
2,450,000 00
343,000,000 00
9.200.000	00 27,000,000 00
3.300.000	00
2.700.000	00
7.950.000	00
393,150,000 00 1,720,000 00
394,870,000 00
Increase
$ cts.
14,144,856 50 4,576,450 97
5,902,894 19
24,624,201 66 664,914 23
496,486 78 14,407 61
25,800,010 28
25,800,020 28 13,823,019 34
11,976,990 94
Decrease
$ cts.
8,671,961 57 523,448 55 3,803 60
9,199,213 72
3,334,575 02
861,727 12
13,395,515 86 427,503 48
13,823,019 34
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Robb
Ordinary Expenditure
Interest on public debt	
Pensions	
Subsidies to provinces	
Soldier land settlement	
Soldiers' civil re-establishment	
Customs and excise	
Post office	
National defence	
Agriculture	
Public works, chargeable to income...
Dominion lands and parks	
Trade and commerce	
Civil government	
All other expenditure	
Total ordinary expenditure	
Special expenditure-
Adjustment of war claims	
Discount and expenses of loan
flotations	
Miscellaneous charges to consolidated fund	
Capital expenditure-
Public works	
Railways and canals	
Loans and advances non-active-
Loans to Canadian National Railways	
Loans to Canadian Government
Merchant Marine	 [DOT]
Loans to Quebec Harbour Commission	
Miscellaneous non-active accounts..
Grand total expenditure	
Surplus of revenues over expenditures.. Less reductions in assets due to revaluation of soldier land settle-men t loans for purchase of live stock authorized as by Chap. 53, Acts of 1925. Amount written off to consolidated fund
[Stage Direction]
Net decrease of debt	
Actual, 1925-26	Estimated, 1926-27	Increase	Decrease$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.130,691,493	21	129,500,000 00	1,191,493 2137,203,699	65	37,790,000 00	586,300 35	12,375,128	50	12,516,740 00	141,611 50	1,237,420	87	1,300,000 00	62,579 13	7,705,584	26	7,200,000 00	505,584 269,717,919	54	10,450,000 00	732,080 46	30,499,685	74	30,820,000 00	320,314 26	12,649,203	29	12,700,000 00	50,796 71	5,771,475	71	5,900,000 00	128,524 29	13,416,044	76	13,400,000 00	16,044 763,638,536	86	4,328,000 00	689,463 14	4,569,706	97	4,800,000 00	230,293 03	10,779,338	25	11,000,000 00	220,661 75	40,405,241	53	42,773,000 00	2,367,758 47	320,660,479	14	324,477,740 00	5,530,383 09	1,713,122 23191,392	79	155,000 00	36,392 793,523,925	13	3,290,000 00	233,925 132,806,166	96	1,840,000 00	966,166 964,805,949	43	3,298,000 00	1,507,949 4311,992,599	49	16,840,000 00	4,847,400 51	m non nnn	00	10,000,000 00	fifis nnn	00	668,000 00511,000	00	700,000 00	189,000 00	26,909	95	26,909 95355.186.422 89	360,600,740 00	10,566,783 60	5,152,466 495,152,466 49	5,414,317 11	27,706,586 17	34,269,260 00	2,903,000 00	27,706,586 17	31,366,260 00

[Stage Direction]
Special war tax revenue-
Excise taxes (sales, stamps, etc.).
Income tax	
Delayed business profits tax	
Miscellaneous war taxes	
Total special war tax revenues,
Customs import duties	
Excise duties	
Total revenue from taxation...
Interest on investments	
Post office revenue	
Miscellaneous receipts	
Total ordinary revenue	
Estimated Revenue	Percentage of total Ordinary Revenue
S cts.	
104,000,000	26-45
46,900,000	11-93
650,000	[DOT]17
2,450,000	[DOT]62
154,000,000	39 17
141,500,000	35-99
47,500,000	12-08
343,000,000	87-24
9,200,000	2-34
27,000,000	6-87
13,950,000	3-55
393,150,000	100-
The Budget-Mr. Robb

[Stage Direction]
Principal Expenditure Attributable to the War
Interest on public debt (increase over 1914)	
War pensions	
Soldiers' civil re-establishment	
Soldier land settlement (administration)	
Imperial War Graves Commission	
Battlefields memorials	
Adjustment of war claims	
Other Fixed and Public Debt Charges
Interest on public debt (as of 1914)	
Other pensions	
Superannuation	
Subsidies tc provinces	
Discount and expenses of loans	
Premium, discount and exchange	
General Expenditure
Charges of management	
Civil government	
Administration of justice	
Legislation	
Elections	
Penitentiaries	
Agriculture	
Immigration and colonization	
Health	
National Defence	
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	
Public Works-chargeable to income	
Railways and canals-chargeable to income	
Canada highways	
Mail subsidies	
Ocean and river	
Lighthouse and coast	
Steamboat inspection	
Fisheries	
Mines and geological surveys	
Scientific institutions	'
Indians	
Government of the Northwest Territories	
Remission of excise taxes on automobiles	
Miscellaneous	
Government of the Yukon Territory	
Customs and excise (outside service)	
Post office (outside service)	
Public works-collection of revenue	
Railways and canals-collection of revenue	
Dominion lands and parks	
Trade and commerce	
Labour	
Public printing and stationery	
Miscellaneous consolidated fund charges	
Capital expenditure-
Public works-including marine department...
Railways and canals	
Welland ship canal	
Total estimated expenditure on government services Other Expenditures
Loans to Canadian National Railway	
Loans to Quebec Harbour Commissioners	
Home Bank Creditors' Relief Act	
Grand Total	
Amount	Percentage of total Expenditure
$ cts.	
116,607,000 00	32-34
36,650,000 00	10-16
7,200,000 00	2-00
1,300,000 00	[DOT]36
810,000 00	*22
200,000 00	*06
155,000 00	[DOT]04
162,922,000 00	45-18
12,893,000 00	3-58
1,140,000 00	[DOT]32
1,500,000 00	[DOT]41
12,516,740 00	3-47
3,290 000 00	[DOT]91
25,000 00	*01
31,364,740 00	8-70
1,000,000 00	[DOT]28
11,000,000 00	3-05
2,187,000 00	[DOT]60
2,466,000 00	[DOT]68
1,950,000-00	[DOT]54
1,765,000 00	[DOT]49
5,900,000 00	1-64
2,523,000 00	*70
680,000 00	[DOT]19
12,700,000 00	3-52
2,200,000 00	[DOT]61
13,400,000 00	3-72
1,540,000 00	[DOT]43
1,100,000 00	[DOT]30
1,120,000 00	[DOT]31
2,600,000 00	[DOT]72
2,550,000 00	*71
133,000 00	[DOT]04
1,470,000 00	[DOT]41
630,000 00	[DOT]17
960,000 00	*27
3,843,000 00	1-06
374,000 00	[DOT]10
1,690,000 00	[DOT]47
2,300,000 00	[DOT]64
187,000 00	[DOT]05
10,450,000 00	2-90
30,820,000 00	8-55
1,000,000 00	*28
2,400,000 00	[DOT]66
4,328,000 00	1-20
4,800,000 00	1-33
1,400,000 00	[DOT]39
170,000 00	[DOT]05
1,361,100 00	[DOT]38
3,298,000 00	*91
2,840,000 00	[DOT]79
14,000,000 00	3-88
155,135,100 00	43-02
349,421,840 00	96-90
10,000,000 00	2-77
700,000 00	[DOT]20
478,900 00	[DOT]13
360,600,740 00	100-00
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Robb
Redemption of Debt
On the 1st of October and the 15th November, 1926, the two-year 4 per cent notes amounting to $35,000,000 and $8,000,000 respectively, or a total of $43,000,000, matured and were redeemed. The withdrawal of this $43,000,000 of interest bearing bonds in the hands of the public will result in the saving to Canada of an annual interest charge of $1,720,000.
Hon. members who were in the last parliament will recall that on the 7th of June last when the bill giving borrowing powers to meet loans maturing in 1926-27 was before the House, in reply to a question asked in this connection, I stated that we hoped out of current cash resources to take care of the loans maturing during 1926, amounting to $43,000,-
000.	I made this statement knowing that at the close of the fiscal year 1925-26 we had on hand assets in cash of $27,068,121.38, which with accruing surpluses would enable us to retire these maturities.
Maturities 1927
On the 15th November, 1927, the three-year 4 per cent notes amounting to $8,000,000 will mature. We hope to be able to redeem this loan in cash, thereby making a further saving in annual interest of $320,000.
On the 1st November, 1927, the 5i per cent renewal loan of 1922, amounting to $29,068,400, will also mature. If our finances permit we will redeem at least a portion of this loan in cash, the balance, if any, will be redeemed by the flotation of a new loan at a reduced rate of interest.
On the 1st December, 1927, a portion of the 1917 Victory loan, 5i per cent tax-free, amounting to $63,437,250, will mature. This loan will be redeemed by the flotation of a new loan at a reduced rate of interest. Such refinancing will result in a further annual saving in our interest charges of approximately $1,000,000.
Expenditures by means of Governor General's Warrants
May I now say a few words on the method employed to carry on financial obligations by way of expenditures during the present year. There seems to be a general belief that owing to the method of obtaining supply by governor general's warrants, considerable saving in our usual expenditures was effected. Examination of the expenditures during this period does not show such a result.
On the 28th June last the then Prime Minister resigned. The following day the leader
of the opposition took office. On the 2nd July the members on arriving for the purpose of attending the sitting of the House found that dissolution had taken place. The Right Hon. Mr. Meighen was faced with the problem of insufficient supply until a duly elected House could assemble. Before dissolution one-quarter of the main estimates, or supply sufficient for the months of April, May and June, had been authorized by interim supply. The new government had recourse to the issue of governor general's warrants. Warrants were obtained during the months of July, August and September, amounting to $48,708,473.11. Examination of the records shows that for the most part these warrants were issued for services contained in the mam estimates, one-quarter of which had been voted by parliament by way of interim supply.
In addition these warrants covered a number of services set out in the supplementary estimates which were tabled but no portion of which had been voted. As stated, the total amount of governor general's warrants issued under the brief administration of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen was $48,708,473.11.
Expenditures for the corresponding period of the previous year were $49,000,000, practically the same amount as covered by the warrants issued by the Meighen administration. It will thus be seen that practically no savings in expenditures under governor general's warrants were made in that period.
The present Prime Minister resumed office on September 25, 1926. The duly elected members of the new House were summoned for the 9th of December. In the meantime, pending the meeting of the House, it was necessary for the present administration to supplement the previous governor general's warrants by amounts necessary to meet requirements for the months of October and November for the salaries of public officials and for the financing of contracts, works, and so forth, which it found the country obligated to carry on. To meet such expenditures warrants were issued in October for $15,612,796.74, and in November for $16,350,712.97, or a total of $31,963,509.71. Expenditures for the corresponding months of the previous year were $30,497,921.52. Thus, the total amount of governor general's warrants issued during the year amounted to $80,671,982.82, while the total expenditures for _ similar services-as covered by the governor general's warrants -for the corresponding period of the year before was $79,500,000, or a million less than the total warrants.
The Budget-Mr. Robb
[Stage Direction]
Probable Revenues and Expenditures for the coming Fiscal Year
The revenues which we will receive during the financial year 1927-28 may be lessened as compared with the estimated revenues for the present fiscal year by the amount of $27,000,000, representing the remission to the public of taxes which we intend in this budget to submit for the approval of parliament. But there is every prospect of increasing business activities. I, therefore, anticipate that our revenues, notwithstanding our further reductions in taxation, will be equal to the revenue we will receive during the present year, and I hope that we may have a slight increase.
On the expenditure side we have obligations slightly in excess of those for the present fiscal year. Having due regard to the maintenance of efficiency in the public services we will endeavour to keep our actual expenditures to the lowest possible amount. I believe that we should bend all our energies towards reducing burdensome taxation as rapidly as our revenues will permit; but we should also continue the practice of the present and preceding year of retiring in part, or in whole, at maturing dates, outstanding bonded indebtedness in the hands of the public. In other words, the refinancing of any maturing loans should be for a reduced amount.
Trade
I am sure the House and the country will be interested in a statement of our trade. The fiscal year does not end until the 31st March, so the trade statement is limited to the nine months period ending December 31. In that period our imports increased over those of the same nine months in 1925 by $81,000,000, while our exports decreased $44,000,000. Our international trade for the nine months totalled $1,762,000,000, of which our imports represented $766,763,000, and our exports $995,286,000, leaving a favourable balance of trade for the nine months of $228,523,000. Preliminary calculations for the month of January increase this favourable balance and it is anticipated that at the close of the fiscal year the favourable trade balance may approximate $250,000,000.
But when we are comparing trade statistics, quotations in dollars are not always conclusive tests. Exports of farm products form an important portion of our exports, the production and marketing of these products are affected in various ways: sometimes crops fail, the prices of commodities fluctuate, conditions in other lands entirely beyond our control expand or restrict the purchasing capacity of our customers. For example, in the period under review we exported oats to the value of 18,000,000, which, owing to a small crop in Canada, ocean transportation difficulties and the British strike troubles, was $14,000,000 less than in the same period of the previous year. Canadian climatic conditions in the month of December interfered with the export of wheat, there being a decrease in that month alone of $26,000,000 of wheat exports. A third item showing a pronounced decrease in the export columns is gold bullion and quartz.	In the nine
months period of 1925 we exported $23,600,000 of this precious metal; in 1926 we exported but 15,000,000 worth. This was not in consequence of any curtailment in the production, but simply because the gold was refined and held in Canada.
The products of Canadian factories continue to go farther afield and in increasing quantities. The export of rubber goods, chiefly tires for vehicles, increased from $13,800,000 to $19,000,000. We exported
7.596.000	barrels of flour as compared with
7.224.000	barrels in the period of the year before. Another increase is in newsprint, our exports for nine months increasing to $85,700,000, thus exceeding the nine months of 1925 by over $12,000,000.
A detailed classification of the imports is published in the monthly reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but, broadly speaking, it may be said that commodities imported for further manufacture show the most pronounced increases. The following table gives the quantities imported of certain goods, classified for statistical purposes as goods imported for further manufacture:
fMr. Robb.]

The Budget-Mr. Robb IMPORTS FOR CANADIAN INDUSTRIES
Crude petroleum	
Raw cotton	
Raw hides	
Auto engines	
Raw tobacco	
Lumber	
Raw wool	
Noils and tops	
Raw sugar	
Manila and sisal grass	
Copper bars and rods	
Raw silk	
Hemp	
Alumina	
Oil for soap industry	
Sulphur	
Cotton seed oil, crude	
Iron ore	
Raw cocoa	
Rubber, hard, recovered, etc..
Raw rubber	
Peanut oil, crude	
Rolling mill products	
Manganese, oxide of	
Grease for soap and leather__
Tin in blocks, ingots, etc...
Pigs and ingots of iron	
Auto parts, n.o.p	
Raw furs	
Axles for vehicles	
Silk cloth to be dyed	
Celluloid in lumps, sheets, etc
Gums and resins	
Silver in bars, etc	
Leather unmanufactured	
(9 MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31)
. Gal.
[Stage Direction]
. No.
. Lb. .M. ft. . Lb.
tf
ft
ft
ft
if
'. Gal.
. Lb.
ft
. Tons . Lb.
!! Cwt
L£-ft tt
s
.. $ .. $ .. $ .. $ .. s .. s
1921	1925
328,636,451	434,101,839
63,083,139	83,070,113
22,100,681	37,097,685
7,710	53,315
15,364,513	11,592,721
95,262	103,472
7,784,980	9,121,504
4,779,893	4,304,670
583,799,882	941,480,573
12,148,500	27,187,800
7,856,900	20,924,300
255,072	368,427
5,780,200	19,494,500
13,774,300	90,439,700
821,094	1,711,331
136,181,466	266,821,707
28,922,150	18,184,195
643,043	1,031,752
11,691,000	11,050,000
1,972,522	10,354,382
13,205,683	33,216,396
	13,340,319
4,289,497	10,532,622
543,886	114,253,720
12,808,347	9,390,184
1,904,000	3,218,400
47,641,400	82,160,000
6,610,4-42	15,922,965
3,038,935	4,787,180
1,133,157	2,579,949
	1,451,588
389,233	1,052,520
1,459,757	2,094,155
499,169	784,289
3,269,973	2,876,705
531,069,795
89,199,961
42,092,035
59,037
12,749,190
134,434
11,049,723
5,728,795
902,030,400
30,941,700
13.201.900 459,974
10.004.800 103,270,700
2,501,074
346,389,800
13,795,422
1,443,874
9,765,900
11,838,886
31,596,542
37,446,039
13,780,928
41.444.800 14,510,268
3,885,400
81.012.900 20,277,498
5,942,424
1,866,048
2,450,719
1,244,888
2,476,503
714,458
3,909,334
The nine months' imports thus classified had a value of $128,000,000 in 1921 and $224,000,000 m 1926. A prosperous and busy Canada permits its citizens to be more generous in their purchases, thus taking more of the products of our factories, and Canadian factories working full time require larger supplies of raw and semi-manufactured materials, part of which is necessarily imported from other lands.
The policy of the government has been to promote friendly trade relations with other countries, and particularly to strengthen our trade ties within the empire. Canada introduced the policy of preferential tariffs within the British Empire and the extent of our empire trade fully justifies the expectations of those who originated the British preference. Bearing in mind the industrial difficulties of the mother .country during the past year, our trade with the empire during the period under review was satisfactory.
The following summary divides the trade into three classes: trade with the United Kingdom, trade with other parts of the empire, and trade with foreign countries:
Trade with the United Kingdom
(Nine months ending December 31.)
Year	Imports	Exports1924.. .	. .. $111,952,954	$332,422,5361925.. .	. .. 122.987,713	428,468,2491926.. .	. .. 123,965,458	379,658,793Trade	with other parts of the Empire	(Nine	months ending December 31.)	Year	Imports	Exports1924.. ,	.. $ 33,346,904	$ 60,205,3101925..	31.359,564	65,394,2841926.. .	. .. 36,603,035	70,838,840
Trade with Foreign Countries (Nine months ending December 31.)
Year	Imports	Exports1924.. ..	.. 447,189,194	$445,681,9591925	. 531,402,586	546,184,4241926	. 606,194,549	544,788,509Of special interest to every	citizen is the
amount of taxation that he is called upon to
pay. The flourishing condition cjf our finances again enables us to substantially reduce taxation. This we promised the electors we would do, and to-day we implement that promise.
The Budget-Mr. Robb
[Stage Direction]
It is proposed to make a reduction of 10 per cent in all rates of the income tax.
It is proposed that a general cut of 20 per cent be made in the sales tax.
The excise tax on matches will be cut 25 per cent.
It is proposed that a flat rate of two cents, irrespective of the value involved, be set on all cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes and similar documents exceeding ten dollars in value, thus substantially reducing the tax and at the same time removing the complications of a graduated scale. The stamp tax on overdrafts and advances will be abolished. The exemption from stamp tax on cheques, bills, etc., is increased from five dollars to ten dollars. These reductions amount to practically seventy per cent of the stamp taxation and so practically abolish what the man in the street terms the "nuisance taxes."	,
Representations have been made seeking total or partial exemption from taxation of money gifts to hospitals and higher educational institutions, but difficulties of administration thus involved might prove insurmountable. It is felt that the same worthy end is attained by the general reduction now being made in the amount of income tax payable.
The proposed reductions in the income tax will be applicable to assessments falling due shortly.
The reductions in the sales tax become effective to-morrow.
The proposed reductions in the tax on matches and in the stamp taxes will become effective on the diamond jubilee of confederation.
In April last an advisory board on tariff and taxation was created. Since then the board has been instructed to investigate and report on 52 applications for tariff changes. Of these applications, one was sent by my immediate predecessor in office, the balance by myself. The board has proven to be a popular tribunal, but has only been operat-.ing a few months. The holding of numerous public hearings and the making of intensive investigations have taken much time, and, as certain of the applications are inter-locking, inquiries are not yet completed. Everything considered, it has appeared to my colleagues and myself the part of wisdom to propose no changes in the customs tariff at the present session of parliament.
To-day, as already mentioned, it has been my privilege to present my fourth annual statement of the Dominion of Canada. Each year the expenditures have been less than our revenues, enabling us to make reductions in 
most of the taxation rates. Readjustments and reduction of customs duty resulted, as predicted, in greater and more profitable production to manufacturers, and users of implements so essential to all engaged in the basic industries of our country. From a long and varied list of articles the sales tax has been materially reduced. Each year we have been able to lighten the burden and relieve Canadians from some of the war or "nuisance" taxes. From year to year income tax exemptions were made; last year increased exemptions and substantial reductions in rates were announced. Penny postage was restored and the receipt tax abolished. The estimated combined decreases in revenues totalled many millions of dollars, yet the financial condition of the treasury was never better than it is to-day-proof conclusive of the solid prosperity of Canada and of the Canadian people, and may I be permitted to add, of economical and prudent administration of their affairs.
The reductions in our sources of revenue this year are equally substantial and will lighten taxation, it is estimated, to the extent of $27,000,000. In arriving at the nature of these reductions, this year, as in those which lie behind, the aim has been to lighten the burden of every taxpayer, rather than to afford relief to special groups, provinces or sections of the country. Thus, moneys which otherwise would come into the public coffers are released for the use of the individual; the development of	the	country	is	encouraged; the cost of	production in	our	industries is reduced	and	avenues	for	anincrease of business	are	created.	As	an
etxample, (may (the (transportation facilities of the Dominion be cited. In a country so vast as Canada the charges for the carrying of goods are of primary importance both in the development of our natural resources and in the cost of living; consequently, appeals are frequently made for reductions in the freight rates. Yet we must not forget that the credit of Canada, as well as the successful operation of the railways, whether private or public-owned, depends upon the companies being able to show a margin of profit over expenditures. A reduction of taxation means a saving in the operating expenses to them; a relief of taxation encourages the producer to increase his yield of supplies to be carried, and enables the consumer to increase his purchasing power; thus, side by side, we have a saving in operating charges and at the same time a larger volume of business, bringing closer the natural solution of our transportation problem.

The Budget-Mr. Bennett
Four years ago when I presented my first budget, Canada was still suffering from the effects of the post-war depression. To-day all traces of that depression have disappeared; a spirit of optimism is general and our domestic and international trade is flourishing. Let us continue to build solidly; let us shun extravagance and waste; let us have faith in our future. We can have no higher resolve in this the diamond jubilee year of our confederation than as Canadians to remain forever united, and work for the lasting prosperity and progress of this our glorious land-Canada.
I beg to give notice that when the House resolves itself into committee, I shall move the following resolutions:
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, and to provide:-
1.	(i) That the stamp tax on cheques, bills and notes, receipts for money paid by a bank, bills of exchange drawn upon persons outside of Canada according to the tenor of the bills, money orders and travellers' cheques, and post office money orders, shall on and after the first day of July, 1927, be
two cents in respect of each such instrument for an amount in excess of ten dollars.
(ii)	That on and after the first day of July, 1927, the stamp tax on matches shall be as follows:-
On each package of matches manufactured or sold: three-fourths of one cent for each one hundred matches or fraction of one hundred matches;
On each package containing not more than sixty and not less than thirty matches: three-eighths of one per cent package;
On each package containing less than thirty matches: three sixteenths of one cent per package.
(iii) That from and after the sixth day of July, 1927, the following stamp taxes be abolished, namely,
On advances made by a bank as imposed by paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of subsection three of section twelve of the said Act;
On overdrafts, as imposed by paragraphs (f) and (g) of said subsection three;
On advances by any person not being a bank, as imposed by subsection 19 of said section twelve.
2.	That the rate of consumption or sales tax be reduced to four per cent and that any enactment which may be founded on this resolution number two shall be deemed to have come into force on the eighteenth day of Frebruary, 1927, and to have applied to goods imported or taken out of warehouse on and after that date, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.
3.	That said section nineteen BBB be further amended by providing that, for the purposes of the said section, printers, publishers, lithographers and engravers shall be regarded as producers or manufacturers, and that any enactment which may be founded on this resolution number three shall be deemed to have come into force on the eighteenth day of February, 1927.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Income War Tax Act, 1917, to provide that the rates of tax be reduced by ten per centum.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: I confess, Sir, that I approach the task of replying to the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) with some diffidence. I have not in a busy life been able to give that measure of attention to the business of the country during the last few weeks that its importance demands. But my first words must be words of compliment to the minister upon tire excellent presentation of the statement that he has made. It is a statement made with great dearness, with great fairness, and if now and then he lapsed into purely party laudation, one must expect that from the very nature of the circumstances in which he finds himself. I am sure that I voice the opinion of all those on this side of the House when I hope that if the budget statement is to be presented in the future as it has been during the last few years by the Liberal party, that the hon. the present Minister of Finance may be the gentleman to present it.
The hon. gentleman at once proceeded to point out the amazing prosperity of this country. I am sure that no one rejoices more in the continued prosperity of Canada than those who sit to the Speaker's left. But when we analyse the causes that have brought about prosperity, I think perhaps we might differ. The real truth is that the prosperity of this country depends upon the fortunate circumstance that we have had amazing crops during the last few years. The crop last year was the third largest in the history of Canada, and it amounted to such a volume as made possible the exportation of many millions of bushels of wheat and grain, thereby increasing the purchasing power of the people, and that is reflected in the prosperity to which the minister has referred.
It might be important to observe that we have during the last few years been exporting very largely from this country our natural resources, and the money that has come back from the sale of these resources has increased the purchasing power of the country. For instance, we produce enormous quantities of grain and grain products, and their export from this country constitutes a very substantial item in our trade balance. The same may be said with respect to mineral production. During the last year, for instance, we had the highest figure that we have ever had in mineral production in Canada, the total reaching in
The Budget-Mr. Bennett

round figures, $242,800,00. That is an enormous sum of money which cannot be replaced. That is the exhaustion of a capital asset; that means that the minerals thus taken from the ground and shipped out of this country in large quantities will not be replaced by any effort that may be made by the sons of men. For instance, with respect to asbestos, with respect to nickel, with respect to gold and gold quartz, to which the minister referred, it is impossible, Sir, that at any time these capital assets so taken from the country can be replaced. It means the exhaustion of our national wealth to that extent. With respect to the quantities of grain taken from our soil, it is only fair to point out that to some extent we are exhausting our soil. With respect to the vast quantities of pulpwood and pulp shipped abroad, and with respect to newsprint, these can only be replaced in the lifetime of two or three generations, certainly not in the lifetime of the present generation. To that extent-and the figures are interesting-we are exhausting capital assets of this country which cannot in the very nature of tilings be replaced by any means that can, be devised by the wit of man. It is therefore important to realize that a very large proportion of the money that is now available for the purchasing power of our people comes by reason of the exhaustion of our capital assets, and it seems to me that it is a matter worthy of very serious consideration by this House and 'by the country. I point this out because when my hon. friend the minister draws attention to the fact that we have produced very large quantities of new wealth in this land, it is well to remember that that new wealth has been produced under the circumstances to which I have referred.
Now, increased purchasing power means increased trade, and yet if that trade be hampered or restricted by excessive taxation, it follows that the measure of profit which may accrue to those engaged in it is correspondingly less, and that the cost of living to the individual becomes correspondingly more. I ventured to send to-day for the report of the Department of Labour with respect to the cost of living represented by the weekly budget of a family of five. That budget covers the staple foods, fuel and lighting and rent, in terms of the average retail prices in sixty cities in Canada. I find that with the exception of January, February, March and April, a higher figure was reached in 1926, namely $21.41 per week for the month of December, than had been reached at any time since the month of January, 1922. If there had been this great reduction in taxation to which the minister has referred, if

there had been a cheapening of the services under which men live, then why was it that the cost of living was higher in December, 1926, than it had been, with the exception of tlje months I have mentioned, since January, 1922? That, I think is worthy of consideration, for it is the inevitable reaction of the circumstances to which I have drawn attention.
But let us go a step further, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance referred to the tax reductions in his last budget, and he said, that he promised the people of this country on the election platform that if his party was returned to power he would make another substantial reduction in taxation. Let us analyze these figures, and see whether or not there has been any substantial reduction in taxation as he mentioned-whether a single dollar in taxation has been taken off. In 1925 the government of this country extracted from the people by taxation, as shown by the reports issued by the Department of Finance, a sum of $327,575,000; during the year ending March 31, 1927, the sum extracted from the pockets of the people was $343,000,000

an increase of $15,425,000, which is equivalent, Mr. Speaker, on the figures supplied by the statistical bureau of this country, to an average of $1.64 more per head taken from the taxpayers during the year just ending than was taken during the preceding year. That is reduction in taxation! It means that every fmaily of five in Canada paid last year $8.20 more taxes than they paid during the preceding year. That is the position.
But that is not all. Let us take the figures and consider them in the light of the statements made by the minister himself. In 1925-26, the Department of Finance shows that there was taken in customs duties as taxes from the people of this country the sum of $127,355,000 in round figures; this year the amount is $141,500,000-an increase of $14,144,000, or $1.50 for every man, woman and child in this country, which represents, Mr. Speaker, an average of $7.50 for every Canadian family. That is the reduction in taxation enunciated by the hon. Minister of Finance!
But that is not all. With respect to excise duties as distinguished from excise taxes, we find that for the year ended March 31 last there was taken from the Canadian people for these duties $42,923,549.03, and this year there has been taken from them $47,500,000 -an increase of $4,576,450.97, equivalent to practically 48 cents a head for every man, woman and child in Canada. That is reduction in taxation!

The Budget-Mr. Bennett
Then let us go a step further to the so-called war taxes, the excise war taxes-revenue, sales and stamp taxes. These were accountable for 898.097,105.81 last year; this year the sum total is $104,000,000-an increase of $5,902,894, equivalent to 62 cents for every man, woman and child in Canada, or a total of $3.10 per family. And that sales tax is the poor man's income tax-the tax upon his clothes, the tax upon the commodities that enter into his everyday life-and notwithstanding the statements made by the minister on platform after platform, the fact is that he took in the form of sales tax and other taxes from the people of this country last year 62 cents more from every man, woman and child than he did during the preceding year. All I can say is that it reminds me of the victory of that great general, Pyrrhus, and paraphrasing what was said of him I may well exclaim, Another such reduction of taxation and indeed we are undone! Another such victory for the reduction of taxation, and the taxes imposed upon the poor man will be indeed very much higher than they were before.
I shall come presently to the minister's proposals, but with respect to the income tax, it is true there was a reduction of some $8,000,000, equivalent to 92 cents per head or $4.60 for every family of five in Canada. Setting this against the increase leaves, as I have said, $1.64 as the amount of taxation taken from every man, woman and child in Canada during the year ending March 31, 1927, more than was extracted from them for the year ending March 31, 1926. Let there be no misunderstanding Mr. Speaker, with respect to that. Whether you say the people are better able to pay, or whether they have more money to pay is not the problem, for the same number of people paid these respective amounts of taxation. It means that in the ultimate analysis, $1.64 more was taken by this government from every man, woman and child of this country in "reducing" our taxation than was extracted during the preceding year. There is the record, Mr. Speaker, and it speaks for itself.
But my friend the hon. Minister of Finance did more, he referred to the magnificent achievements in the Post Office Department. Let us look at what he did there in reducing the taxation, or postage, by one cent-not on drop letters. In the year ending March 31, 1926, we had a revenue in the Post Office Department of $30,334,575.02, and we had an expenditure of $30,499,685.74. This year we have a revenue of $27,000,000 and we have expended $30,820,000, a deficit of $3,820,000 in
the Post Office Department as a result of having reduced the postal rate by one cent from July 1 last. And who received the benefit of it? How much does that amount to? Does the Minister of Finance realize that in the matter of taxation it means for every man, woman and child substantially thirty cents per annum, or $1.50 per family? Does the government appreciate the fact that the effect of reducing the postage-something which was not asked for, and which was paid largely by the business institutions of the country-was to place upon the people of Canada a burden of $3,200,000 in the way of extra taxation, an increase to the extent of $1.50 per family?
So much for the Post Office Department. Nothing is clearer than that the net result of last year's budget was to extract from the people more money than they paid the year before, to the extent of $55,000,000 or $8.20 for every family. Nothing is clearer still thaD that the effect of reducing the postage from three to two cents from the first day of July last-and we have a record of only six months-was to place on the people of Canada a per capita burden of thirty cents in order that relief might be afforded to the large business institutions.
Now I proceed to show that last year's budget, which was widely heralded as promising a great remission of taxation, as the minister described it, did not mean so considerable a reduction for the reasons I have explained. It is so clear as to require no argument. If ten people in one year paid $10, they paid a dollar a head, and if the next year they paid $12, they paid $1.20 each. That is the real fact with relation to the so-called Robb prosperity budget of 1926. It is quite easy to brush the matter aside, but after all we cannot afford to treat it so lightly. The government cannot smile and allege that it is disposed of merely by asserting that what I now say is not so. There are the figures which the minister himself read this afternoon; and I took the trouble to get the population figures from the statistical department. Let us for a moment look at the question of trade which is wrapped up in the matter of taxation. The party on this side of the Speaker, that is to say, the Conservative party, believe that the development of the domestic market is of first importance to the Dominion of Canada. They believe that for two very certain reasons. One is that the domestic market is assured and cannot be destroyed by the caprice of an economic or commercial competitor. They understand that. In the second place, we over here realize that the develop-
The Budget-Mr. Bennett

ment of the domestic market is the only means by which we can give employment to those people coming to the country who are not seeking employment in agriculture. Further, it is the only means by which we are able to build up the industrial life of Canada and bring to our shores a consuming population for our own products.
Let us see what has occurred in this country. The Liberal party has endeavoured by a system of treaties to extend the foreign trade of Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that this is highly desirable. We on the other hand regard it as desirable, first, by every means in our power, to develop our domestic trade. Let us analyse these two propositions. A series of treaties were entered into providing for favoured treatment in our markets of the products of the foreigner, who in turn is supposed to afford some more favoured treatment to us than he gives to other countries. If that arrangement worked out satisfactorily it might well indeed be said that it was worthy of consideration. But what are the facts? We must be guided by the facts and not by fancies with respect to this matter. I shall therefore read to the House a few figures that bear upon the question.
Take Australia. Last year we purchased from Australia 155 per cent more goods than we did the preceding year, but we sold them only 30 per cent more than we did the year before. Take the British West Indies.


Mr. DUNNING:: What about the values?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Values are not the
factors of comparison, but the increase in the percentage of trade. I hope the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) does not conduct his business in that way. If he does, he shows how unfit he is to discharge the obligations and responsibilities of his office. Volume of business is not the factor that makes for the determination of the question whether there has been an increase or a decrease in a country's trade; what determines that question is the comparison of percentages as between this year and the preceding year. Last year, as I have pointed out, we bought from Australia 155 per cent more than we did the year before, and we sold them only 30 per cent more than we did before the treaty.


Charles Avery Dunning: I merely asked my hon.
friend for the values.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not keep the figures after preparing the percentages. Apparently the minister has them. However, they are here and can be referred to. They are issued 
by the Department of Trade and Commerce and 1 commend the report to the intellectual curiosity of my hon. friend. Let me proceed. From the British West Indies we purchased last year 23 per cent more than we did the year before while we sold to them
20	per cent more. These are favoured treaty countries, mark you, Mr. Speaker. From British South Africa last year we purchased 884 per cent more than we did the year before and lost in sales to them, compared with the preceding year, 2 per cent. That is to say, we sold to that country less goods by over 2 per cent during the last year than we did the year before. Take Belgium: I find that we purchased this year, compared with last year, over 38 per cent more goods while we sold to Belgium only 4 per cent more goods than we did the preceding year. And this is a community with which the hon. gentleman's predecessor contracted a trade treaty.


James Alexander Robb: I take the responsibility for
it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: commerce to foreign lands, we pla'ce ourselves in a position where it may be possible for a foreign legislature to destroy that channel over night, with untold injury to the Canadian people. One example of that arose in western Canada a few short years ago. Everyone remembers when we had free access to the United States markets with our cattle, our wheat and our flour, under the Wilson tariff. When the Republican party came into power, however, at one stroke of the pen they destroyed that free access of our raw products to their markets and brought ruin and disaster to the Canadian rancher and stockman. I assert with certainty that any trade treaty which is subject to destruction at the caprice of a commercial enemy is fraught with grave danger to this Dominion. I ask hon. gentlemen to consider that, and I ask if they do not find it so. Can we afford to disregard the call of our domestic markets; can we afford to increase our imports from the United States and decrease our domestic production in order to establish a channel of trade say between Switzerland and Canada? Have hon. gentlemen looked at the figure with respect to little Switzerland, up in the mountains? I was very much amazed when I considered them the other day; I found that from Switzerland alone we imported last year goods amounting to $9,170,000, while we sold that country goods amounting to only $1,310,000. Can we afford to establish a channel of trade with that community? One may say that they run the risk of being shut out by us, but can we afford to establish any great channels of trade and commerce between the countries of the world and our own under treaties that may be destroyed in a single moment by a stroke of a pen, which will result in the dislocation of the whole commercial fabric of the country? That is the whole problem. We on this side of the House, rightly or wrongly, believe that every legislative weapon available to the hands of parliament should be utilized at all times for the preservation of the Canadian market for the Canadian people.
Furthermore, and it is on that point that there is an essential difference between us: My hon. friends opposite are more concerned with foreign trade; we are more concerned about domestic trade. They are concerned about developing channels of trade that take our ships, they say, to the seven seas; we are concerned with bringing people to Canada and giving them work to do in the development of our country and at a proper living standard of wages. These are the problems that concern this country, and on an analysis of the 
budget submitted together with the figures prepared by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) it must be apparent that every effort is being made to send our products to foreign lands and buy products produced by cheaper labour under less decent conditions from other countries in the world. Mr. Speaker, nothing is clearer than what that means to this democracy, nothing is clearer than what it means to this Dominion in the end. How can the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forlie) invite people to these shores if they cannot find employment? The hon. member for Comox Alberni (Mr. Neill) the other day rose in his place and read from a paper that $3,330 had been spent in twelve days by Vancouver. For what? For food for the starving and unemployed. Why? Because there is no industrial life and there is no work for them to do, and there being no work for them to do the municipality had to expend $3,330 in twelve days, or about $300 a day, in providing food for the unemployed. And what is so in Vancouver is so in other communities, and yet the Minister of Finance talks about busy Canada. About busy Canada! He thinks of busy Canada importing manufactured products made in Switzerland and the United States of America.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: What would my hon. friend do with our surplus products in Canada while he was filling up the home market?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sell them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Where?


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what is more, speaking for myself personally, I would develop the markets that are imposed upon the country by the necessity of those who have to buy, as distinct from those who do it from choice. For those who seek Canada as a market from which to buy by choice are men who buy because they think they will get more favourable terms here than elsewhere, and the moment they do not they will go elsewhere. But I desire, in the future as in the past, to develop those markets with countries that seek our products from necessity, and Great Britain at the moment is one of them. Great Britain has to buy our wheat from necessity. She buys from the Argentine from necessity; she buys from India from necessity. Germany is buying to-day from us from necessity, but the day will come when Germany will have the choice between Russia and

The Budget-Mr. Bennett
Canada and then the market that has been established for our goods will be destroyed with dire results to this country. That is the answer which I make to my hon. friend. I say further that there is such a thing as making haste too quickly. I admit that we are living side by side with the most powerful republic in the world, side by side with a people who are the richest in the world for the moment, and the great influence that they exercise upon our economic and commercial life is apparent to every thinking man. We all know that. But, sir, we have survived. Hostile tariffs we have met, hostile legislation we have met, and we have continued a free people making a name for ourselves among the nations of the world; and when they speak here about our status as a nation,, I should like to think of our economic status as well. I should like to think it is possible-and this is a digression-that the combined wisdom and the genius for statecraft of the eminent men who guide the destinies of the British Empire are equal to the task of bringing about an economic union of the states of the British Empire that will more than compare with the United States of America. Such a policy may be premature at -the moment, but I have had the idea in my mind for generations-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course not generations, but many years. At any rate I do think that the development of our home market and the building up of this country is a matter that we well may consider to be the work, not of a moment or a day, not of a month or a year, but the work of a generation or two if need be. Why, I remember-


James Alexander Robb: Before the hon. member passes from that subject. I agree with him to a great extent regarding empire trade but how would his present argument harmonize with his previous argument with respect to trade with Australia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pointing out that
the difficulty of our situation in the case of Australia was that there was nothing to trade with, and my hon. friend understood that better than anybody else. He desired to trade with them and they would not have it. That is the position with respect to that matter. When I speak with relation to the empire I realize at once the magnitude of the difficulties that have to be encountered, just as the Prime Minister pointed out the difficulties that had to be met in dealing with our constitutional status. So that with relation to the economic status of this Dominion and other parts of the empire, it is not a matter
that can be solved in a single day, by this legislature or that of any other .part of the empire. It is a matter that can only be solved by the common consent of all the parties affected and that would be brought about by a conference such as I suggested. I remember that the late Lord Long gave the better part of the last years of his life to dealing with that problem. He had gone into the detail of every article that was manufactured or produced in every part of the British Empire, and he had dreamed that there might one day be a self-contained empire between the different units of which there might be preferences and defy hostile foreign tariffs. But it is not a matter that can be realized, as I say, in a single day or in a year. It is a matter which must be considered by men of thought, vision and wisdom from every standpoint. Because, as I have said before, this country may endeavour to make progress too quickly. We have much to learn from the old land, much to learn from Great Britain, much to learn from the early pioneers. They did not make the British Empire in a day, and we cannot make this country a self-contained country in a single hour. I answer my hon. friend's question with respect to Australia in that sense. These matters must be dealt with as a whole and not as an isolated question, and the argument I made was the best argument in the world. Because if the British Empire had a tariff with which to deal with other nations then we could make a self-contained unit of it, and found a United States within the British Empire, even as the United States of America has been founded.
I have endeavoured with respect to trade to point out the real, essential difference between us but I want to go a step further and point out the conditions under which we are now trading. Do hon. gentlemen observe that the trade figures indicate the falling off in our exports? Do they realize that the figures for the last fiscal year showed that our exports had diminished as compared with the preceding year, and the trade figures brought down the day before yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicate still further shrinkage in our exports to the world? That, I think, is important, it is signficant. The export trade of the United States has been falling. The export trade of Canada is falling. Why? Because the nations of Europe, the war-battered nations of Europe, are getting back to normal conditions, and as they get back to normal conditions and cultivate their

The Budget-Mr. Bennett

soil, they are going to grow more and more of their food requirements and buy less and less from us, and we all know, whether we like it or not, that they are endeavouring at this moment to do it by every means in their power. Russia is once more coming back as a producing country with respect to grains and cereals. For that reason I view with the greatest apprehension, as a danger very serious in its consequences to this country, the diminution in our export trade. Let us look at the figures for January as submitted by the minister a few minutes ago. Those figures indicate a still further shrinkage in our export trade, and with a still further shrinkage in our export trade taking place as it is with the United States, what must be the result? We find the grand total of the export trade of this country for last January was $84,094,694 as against $84,718,819 in January, 1926. For the ten months ended in January the diminution is not a very large amount, it is true, but it is important. For that period our total export trade diminished from $1,115,416,734 to $1,106,018,792. What happens? If these nations in Europe that are buying our goods and those of other countries, find themselves in a position to supply their food and other requirements by their own efforts, it follows beyond all question that that will be a serious interference with the business of this country, and to the extent to which that trade is diminished, to that extent does it work a hardship upon the Canadian people. That hardship can be overcome only by the means which I have suggested, and I know of no other. None other has been suggested. That is the position with respect to the matter.
The minister next dealt with the question of reductions in taxation and I compliment him upon endeavouring to reduce taxation. A 10 per cent reduction in the income tax will undoubtedly effect some benefit, but I ask him whether the 10 per cent is applicable to the total tax the individual pays on the total schedule, or whether each percentage is to be reduced by 10 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: The total.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the benefit will not be as great as it would otherwise be, because the schedule varies with the extent of the income. A 10 per cent reduction on the different percentages would effect a greater benefit than a 10 per cent reduction on the total.


James Alexander Robb: My understanding is that when the statement is made out, the amount of the tax is calculated and then 10 per cent is taken off.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure that that will
bring some measure of satisfaction to all the people of this country. I hope the income tax will be entirely abolished for reasons which I will presently give.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand, because I
have seen the resolutions of bodies of agriculturists in western Canada, and I propose to refer to those resolutions later, but for the moment I desire to congratulate the government on having made this reduction in the income tax.
With respect to the sales tax I can only point out that it has been a very difficult tax to administer, in the sense that it requires expert assistance and help for the purpose of determining in many instances what the tax should be. For example, I think nothing could be worse than to have goods brought in from England with a case containing them, upon which a duty is imposed, and then to have sales tax added to the value of the goods and case and the duty computed upon the total of the sales tax and the value of the goods and case. It .smot sound to tax a tax, and under the present tariff regulations the sales tax is added to the cost of the article and the duty computed upon the sales tax and that cost. That is the present position. It would be in the interest of trade and the development of commerce that that should be removed if at all possible.
I regret t'he minister has not seen fit to afford any relief to those people who desire to make large contributions to deserving charitable objects. Mr. Gladstone in one of his great budgets discussed the question of freeing the income of charities from income tax, but that is not the situation here. In this new country where hospitals have to depend largely upon benefactions obtained from well-minded people, where, in cities like Montreal or Toronto, they maintain efficient hospitals, not at the expense of the public, but by reason of contributions made by their public-spirited citizens, this government might have well considered the idea of freeing from income tax contributions made for that purpose. I had hoped that the minister would do so, because after all the hospital deals with the poor, with the indigent, with the man unable to care for himself, and as regards these facilities that are now seeking millions of dollars in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and other places, how are men going to make contributions if it costs $3,000 to give $10,000? That position is one of great seriousness, and while it may be too late now, I had hoped

The Budget-Mr. Bennett
the minister would give it his favourable consideration. It is important in this country that men of wealth be philanthropic, but how can they be philanthropic if to give away $100,000 it costs them $35,000 or $40,000? The minister might have placed restrictions upon it, made it subject to his approval, or the approval of the government.
The same in the case with respect to education. There are men taking their place in this House to-day who have been able to get their education through the benefaction of one of the greatest and most illustrious statesmen of his age. What would have happened if his benefactions had been subject to an enormous imposition of income tax in South Africa? The subject is one of such a serious character that it might well have been given favourable consideration by the minister.
I leave that; but I now desire to proceed to a discussion of the general problem of taxation as I see it, because it is of the utmost importance that we should arrive at a clear understanding of the matter. This is only my personal view. Had I been differently situated I should have endeavoured to induce my colleagues to consider favourably the views which I now present to the House. The problem of taxation has been a difficult one in all ages and among all peoples. In the early days when votes were limited to men who had property, property only was taxed. The franchise was not held by all the people; it was held only by men of large incomes and of large estates. In some instances the landed people only had votes, and they only, you might say, paid taxes, their property paid taxes. But since the Great war there has been a tendency to increase taxation and to select everything possible for the purpose of imposing taxation upon it. No longer are we taxing thrift as we used to do; we are taxing what is to be. We are taxing turn-over and sales; we are imposing taxes upon business which we expect to come to us.
More than a century ago Adam Smith laid down certain principles with respect to taxation. At that time the franchise was held by a limited number of people. It is now held by all men of twenty-one years of age and women too of that age in Canada and the United States, and therefore the four principles he laid down are no longer entirely applicable to our condition, but they must be added to. He laid down four principles:
1.	Equality of taxation.
2.	Certainty of taxation.
3.	Convenience of taxation.
4.	Economy of taxation.
Those are the four principles which Adam Smith declared should be considered by all
32649-26J
tax-levying bodies. But it seems to me that the time has come when a new principle must be added. I have followed with some interest in the days that are past the arguments advanced by leading tax experts in this country with respect to this matter, and I think the suggestion that has been made that universality is another principle to be applied, is a correct and proper one. In other words, if every man or woman has a right to vote in this country, we should if possible provide, as they did in the days of Adam Smith, that every person who votes to determine what form of government we shall have should also pay some tax. I do not care how little it is, they should make some contribution to the maintenance of our country's institutions.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Do I understand
that the hon. gentleman is suggesting that everyone over twenty-one years of age under our present system of taxation does not pay a tax?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that in
just one moment. If my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) will hear the rest of it, he will realize what I have in mind. Not only should they be taxed, but, if possible, it should be a visible tax. The next principle is visibility. Universality and visibility.
Are there any hon. members in this House who do not realize that there are thousands of their constituents who have no realization of the taxation problem. How many men and women realize that they are paying taxes? How many elections have been run in this country on the question of taxation pure and simple? It is true that in England that is the case, but how many times in this country have the electors been asked to deal with the problem of taxation pure and simple? If you have a tax that is felt .and known as a tax by every man and woman over twenty-one, a tax .that is universal in its application, I am certain that it would do much to improve conditions in this democracy, and to improve the conditions under which we labour.
My idea is this. It is not original at all. You may have seen it presented by the late Sir Edmund Walker in addresses he made to the shareholders of his bank from time to time. He believed in a universal turn-over tax, a tax by which every man who buys something will be able to make some contribution, a known contribution, a percentage levy. It is simple, it is universal, it is convenient, it is equal, it is easily collected -it has all the qualifications that were mentioned by the late Adam Smith, and in
The Budget-Mr. Bennett

addition to that it meets with modern conditions, and will help solve many of the difficulties that we have in this country today. Until men and women have a realization of the money that the state is spending, and where the money comes from, there will not be that intelligent appreciation of the difficulties and responsibilities of government that is so essential for the maintenance of this Dominion, and I do suggest that the Minister of Finance would be well advised to consider whether or not-there is still time- he could not devise some tax along those lines that would not have the objectionable features that attach to the so-called nuisance taxes or to the sales tax as such. As between the sales tax and a tax upon turn-over, which includes a tax upon everything that men buy, you would be able to get revenue more readily by a turn-over tax, and in larger quantities, and you would be able to make a decrease in the income tax without any difficulty in the world, because it is all a mistake, I say to my friends from the west, to think for a single moment when politicians go about the country and tell the people that taxation is all imposed on the rich man and none on the poor, that such is the case. It is not so. Every man makes a contribution to the state; everyone knows that is so. But if we impose a tax based upon the expenditures of the people, then, as the poor man has less to spend than the rich man, his contribution will be correspondingly less, but because he exercises the franchise he will make some contribution to the life of the state in the form of taxation.
I do say that it is a wholly erroneous proposition to say to the people of this country that the poor man should pay no taxes, and then say that he should vote. No man should vote who does not pay taxes, and every man who votes should pay taxes, and, as a corollary, every man who pays taxes should vote. I make that suggestion to my hon. friend, because it seems to me that this sixtieth anniversary of our confederation might be a reasonable time to consider the whole problem of taxation. Sir Edmund Walker urged it on the people of this country until he grew weary of so doing. We were more concerned ini taxing people by methods and means that they could not see, than in providing taxation that they could see and understand, and to the extent to which the people are self-deceived in this matter, it is injurious to the country. I am certain of that. While it might seem to work a hard-

ship with respect to some individuals, I am sure that in the end it would be found attractive, and would solve many of the difficulties that now confront us.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon.
gentleman suggest that the extent of such a tax as he proposes would be visible?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure my friend from Winnipeg North Centre will realize the soundness of the observation of the late Mr. Gladstone-"I cannot prescribe till I am called in." That is the only answer that I can make. I cannot say to what extent it would be made, because that would depend upon the necessities of the occasion. The revenue requirements of the country, with expenditures cut down to the limit, would determine what percentage of turn-over taxation should be imposed.
Let me proceed to the other question, one that is wrapped up in this whole problem, the question of our national debt. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could not devise a better means than he has suggested of dealing with this problem. I am going to offer to the House a suggestion as to the solution of the problem of our national debt, and I will ask the Minister of Finance to give it his most careful, I cannot say necessarily favourable, consideration.
We have in this country coming due this year, in 1927, a total debt of $100,505,650. Here let me say that the observations made by the Minister of Finance with respect to reduction in the national debt are hardly correct statements. They have been made by successive ministers of finance; they are found in the official gazette, but the truth is that the deadweight debt of this country was reduced last year by $43,000,000. The deadweight debt was reduced to the extent of $8,000,000 in treasury notes, and $35,000,000 of bonds, which were retired out of surplus earnings of the country-a total of $43,000,000. That $43,000,000 was a reduction in the deadweight debt of the country, but in the report that appears in the Canada Gazette, and in the statements made from time to time, we have reduction in debt, and increase in debt, that takes into account not only the deadweight debt of the country, but also the bank balances and the adjustments that take place from time to time in the department. Except as to the retirement of the $43,000,000, there has been no reduction in the deadweight debt of the country, because none of it came due, and the department has purchased none of the debentures or bonds in anticipation of their maturity. So I think it might be desirable

The Budget-Mr. Bennett
in the future to show in the Canada Gazette the changes in the deadweight debt of the country. Every chancellor of the exchequer in England differentiates between deadweight debt and other obligations, and if we placed in the Canada Gazette a statement showing that the deadweight debt is the same to-day as it was on the 1st of January, that would be a correct statement because the deadweight debt has been reduced only by the retirement of $35,000,000 of bonds on November 1st, and a further $8,000,000 of treasury notes, making a total of $43,000,000.
I have an observation to offer to the House. I have given this matter considerable attention, but perhaps my solution will not commend itself at all to the House. We have $100,000,000 coming due this year. How are you going to meet that? Some we will pay out of surplus. How is the rest to be paid, and what rate of interest are the new obligations to carry? I propose, first, that the Minister of Finance should submit to parliament a bill to create a consolidated four per cent security of the Dominion of Canada, and I propose that the Canadian people should pay off that debt without being conscious of so doing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about visibility?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is going to be very
visible to the people who pay it, but the Canadian people themselves at the moment will not have to pay it. The visibility will come in, in a moment. First, has this House considered who are the great custodians of the wealth of this country? There are two great custodians-the chartered banks and the life insurance companies. The chartered banks to-day have money assets of approximately $2,900,000,000. The insurance companies doing business in Canada are custodians of assets of the Canadian people to the extent of $1,250,000,000. Do you realize, Sir, that the Canadian people have outstanding at this moment insurance on their lives aggregating $5,000,000,000? Do you realize that the revenue derived from the insurance on the lives of Canadians in Canadian companies will this year amount roughly to $215,000,000, and that the income of British and foreign companies operating in this country will amount approximately to $70,000,000; that the disbursements to be made by the Canadian companies will amount roughly to $130,000,000 and by the other companies, British and foreign, to approximately $40,000,000? So that this year we may say that the surplus money derived by the insurance companies from premiums upon the lives of Canadian citizens will amount to over $110,000,000. Those insurance companies really hold this money as trustees for their policyholders, because the law imposes upon the insurance companies the obligations of management and investment under such conditions as will ensure the return of between three and three and a half per cent.
Therefore I propose that the Minister of Finance should, after creating bis four cent consolidated Canadian securities, provide by legislation that a percentage, to be hereafter determined, of the revenue of the insurance companies, amounting to a net total of over $110,000,000 this year, and from the deposits of the Canadian people in our savings banks, amounting approximately to at least another billion and three quarters, should be utilized for the purpose of paying off this $100,000,000. This four per cent security I would maintain at all times at par-a very simple process. Under our Finanoe Act, our Department of Finance operates practically as a federal reserve board and all that the insurance companies would have to do if they required additional money would be to deposit, either through their banks or with the Minister of Finance, the four per cent consolidated securities and receive the money from the federal reserve board. All that the banks would have to do would be what they have already been doing, as you will observe from the returns brought down by the Minister of Finance, deposit these securities with the Minister of Finance and obtain for them the money which enables them to carry on their business.
Now, Sir, if we adopted some such plan as this by which the savings of the people would be made available to take care of the obligations that mature this year, we will have done two things; first of all, we will have provided for those who have policies-of insurance an unquestioned and stable security; secondly, we will have enabled the banks, who pay three per cent on their deposits, by purchasing a small quantity more in addition to the securities they now hold to add a measure of stability to their own assets. In addition to all that we will have provided that the interest upon that part of our loan which is not met out of surplus will be paid to Canadian people and not to foreigners. That I consider to be a matter of vast importance at this time. Lastly, we will have saved, not a million dollars as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance asserts, but by adopting such a plan we will have saved for the people of this country next year and the years following not less than $1,700,000.
The Budget-Mr. Bennett

I submit, Sir, that the time has come, for this parliament in the exercise of its unquestioned authority and power, to say that these deposits of the people should be utilized to the extent necessary to provide for the maturing obligations not met out of surplus. At the same time we would have created a security that would rank with the consols of England, a consolidated four per cent Canadian security that could be issued from time to time. Mark you, we have over a billion dollars of the national debt maturing before the end of 1937. If we took care of these maturing obligations in the manner I have suggested we would save to the Canadian people 815,000,000 per annum, which saving if utilized as an amortization fund would, within the period that England has fixed for the payment of her debt to the United States, retire the national debt of this country and leave us a country free of obligations.
Now, mark you, Mr. Speaker, I submit this not as embodying the views of my colleagues behind me, but merely as representing the views that I have arrived at after giving the matter some consideration and attention over a period of years, believing that if I had an opportunity I might be able to convince my colleagues of the soundness of such a measure, which, properly worked out, would assure, as I have said, stability to the savings of the people of this country, placing their security upon an unquestioned level of safety, and at the same time giving to the people the opportunity of having their resources utilized in reducing our national obligations incurred by reason of the war and its after effects.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend
permit a question before he leaves that subject? The percentage figure would, I take it, be rather vital in any such scheme. He has given a great deal of thought to the question, and I should like to have his view as to what percentage it would be necessary to levy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the turnover tax?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, this security. My
hon. friend mentioned a percentage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways has asked a very pertinent question. I say the life insurance companies have to make deposits, and those deposits are increased from year to year by reason of the increased business they transact, as my hon. 'friend knows. There is in force in Canada at the moment life insurance of not less than 85,000,000,000, and the assets of the life insurance companies amount to not less than a billion and a quarter dollars, and the surplus

premiums available for investment by the life insurance companies during the year amount to not less than 8110,000,000. The banks have not less than a billion and three-quarter dollars saving deposits, probably more, and if you take the loan companies and the provincial savings banks the total deposits probably amount to at least 82,000,000,000. Now, the only problem is the problem of an adjustment. I propose that each of the insurance companies and each of the banks should make up the balance of the hundred million dollars to be provided for this year after taking into account the surplus which I understand the Minister of Finance hopes will amount to about twenty million dollars. That would leave $75,000,000 to 880,000,000 to be distributed between the banks and insurance companies in consolidated four per cent securities. The banks and the insurance companies would suffer no loss, except a possible interestearning power, because my friend the Minister of Railways must have observed from the last return of the Finance department with respect to the banks the vast unemployed sums of savings that they have in their hands. These would be available for that purpose. I would not deprive the banks of their earning power because they are paying three per cent on their deposits and would be getting four from this security. If they require more money to maintain the equilibrium between demand loans and demand deposits and between time loans and time deposits the federal reserve board-the Finance department-would provide for their requirements. It would be a continually revolving credit scheme. That is the conclusion at which I have arrived.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the scheme
involve setting up something of the nature of a federal reserve bank?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, because we already have it-the Finance department to-day is a federal reserve bank. I suppose my friend studies the bank returns in the Canada Gazette. If so, he will have observed that the banks from time to time are borrowing from the Finance department sums of money on deposit of bonds of the Dominion of Canada and other securities.


Mr. MANION:: Under the Finance Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. That information
was contained in an answer by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to a question asked the other day by the hon. member for We-taskiwin (Mr. Irvine).

The Budget-Mr. Bennett


James Alexander Robb: I wonder if I understood my
hon. friend clearly. Under his plan would we pass legislation to compel insurance companies to loan a certain amount of money at four per cent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Alexander Robb: And if so, to that extent would it not reduce the profits to the policy holders?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have endeavoured to
point out that the object is not to compel the lending of money but to do in amplified form what we have now done, to make it compulsory that part of their investments shall be made in four per cent consolidated bonds of Canada. Undoubtedly, to the extent to which they utilized these four per cent securities, there would be a diminution in the interest rate, because the average rate earned by Canadian companies to-day is roughly over six per cent while that earned by American companies is approximately over five per cent. But we should select the form of investment.
I did not bring into the chamber with me from my room the insurance returns, but if hon. gentlemen are interested enough to examine the investments of the insurance companies they will find that they have a large number of just such securities-guaranteed Canadian Northern, guaranteed Grand Trunk Pacific, and some of our own securities. If we deal with the matter in the manner I have indicated it would only be doing what we did during the war; it would compel them to make investments of certain kinds. The government has already proposed in this session to increase the deposits made by these insurance companies. If my suggestion were carried out there would be some diminution in interest profits, but in view of the fact that there are such vast profits earned over and above the money necessary to take rare of reserves at three and three and a half per cent, no hardship would be imposed upon the Canadian people, who would realize that their savings, although the profits of the life insurance companies might be affected-and as my hon. friend knows, life insurance is intended for protection rather than for profit-would be available for the whole of the people, while the trusteeship obligation imposed on the companies would be better discharged by reason of the stability and certainty of the securities.


Mr. MILLAR:: Many of these insurance
companies are also large mortgage loan companies. If I rightly understand the hon. member's suggestion, it would open up another field of investment. Would that not leave a shortage of money for business in other directions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would work no hardship on anyone with respect to this year, because we have only $100,000,000 coming due this year. Does my hon. friend realize that it coat us $3,000,000 for the flotation of loans last year? That amounts to three per cent on $100,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Merely for purposes of
clarification, and summarizing my hon. friend's scheme, is it not really compelling the insurance companies and the banks to loan money to the government at four per cent regardless of the current rate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has not
correctly stated it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I just want to have it
put correctly; I am not indulging in any captious criticism. -


Richard Bedford Bennett: By putting a question
you think you expose a fallacy. I know you well enough.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was making an observation to the Minister of Railways which he quite understood; it was not necessary for the rest of the House to hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not compelling the banks nor the life insurance companies to lend their money; it is merely providing a trustee security that would prevent the occurrence of another Home Bank failure, for instance, or the breaking up of an insurance company as happened many years ago, because the rate reserved for interest on life insurance investments in this country is fixed by statute at less than four per cent, and it would leave a substantial profit, both to life insurance companies and to the banks, if my proposal were put into effect. I repeat, it is not compelling them to lend, but merely providing a compulsory trustee investment, which is but an amplification of the present provisions of the Life Insurance Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: But a controlled rate
of interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just as Goschen carried
through his great conversion scheme, and just as two chancellors prior to him were compelled to convert securities in England, so this country in the present moment of stress and strain should utilize the savings of the people in the interests of the whole population.
The Budget-Mr. Bennett


Mr. BROWN:: I understood the hon.
member to say that one effect would be to reduce the profits of the companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: Is a further effect not likely to be an increase in the premium charged policy holders?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am, of course, only
elaborating a plan that has grown in my mind after some consideration, and it does not follow that the plan is at all sound in detail, for I have not worked out the details. ' However, replying to my hon. friend, let me point out that the premium rates now charged, with the present rate of interest reservation as provided by statute, yield an ample surplus which results in large profits; and the effect of the diminution of profits could not possibly work a hardship upon Anybody while it would be to the advantage of the Canadian people. We did it during the war. We imposed that restriction then with respect to deposits of life insurance companies and their investments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have trespassed a considerable time on the attention of the House, and while I have covered a good deal of ground there are many matters to which, in detail, I shall find it necessary to devote some attention when the resolutions are before us in committee. May I before concluding point out that although there have been fifty-two references to the tariff advisory board there are no recommendations from that board before the House for consideration. A year has gone by and no provision of any kind is forthcoming with respect to the deliberations and the findings of the board. Why was the budget introduced nine days after the reassembling of parliament? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Pressure on the part of those people who are vitally interested in the tariff was so strong that the Minister of Finance had either to yield or to deliver his budget and get away from the agony. He chose to deliver his budget and so obtain some relief, as of course he had a right to do. Now, while budget speeches in days gone by have been delivered early in the session-a reference to the dates will show this-I can recall no session in w'hich the budget has been delivered virtually nine days after parliament has met. And the only reason the minister can have for bringing down his statement so hastily this year must be his desire to escape embarrassment in relation to the tariff advisory board. The board can, of course, take no action; it can but state the facts, and when the facts are made known it is for the minister to act. And the minister, with his high 
regard for Canadian industry, with busy Canada ever in his mind, thought it better to avoid dealing with those complex problems that have been submitted, fifty-two in number, for the consideration of the board, of which references, I learned this morning, thirteen had been disposed of. Returns have been made in respect of thirteen of the fifty-two, but of these we have none before the House now for study. In the absence of any information on the subject we are now told that the tariff continues.
How rests it with the Minister of Immigration? I wonder whether in the dark recesses of his mind he ever reflects upon those halcyon days gone by, when from this side of the House he unburdened his logic and free trade sentiments upon an admiring House? I wonder how my well known protectionist friend, the Minister of Finance, is able now to induce the Minister of Immigration to believe that, after all, all is well in Israel. There are no changes; the status quo must continue. Where then are the tales of that ancient past, that long ago when vituperation and the thun-derings of the Minister of Immigration and some of his friends reverberated through this chamber? What has become of it all? Gone, forgotten, remembered no more. And why? Because the hon. gentleman has been taken into camp and all is well in Israel. At any rate, it does occur to me that we see therein an excellent reason why this budget is being introduced at this early stage. I congratulate the Minister of Finance upon his decision to make no further attacks upon Canadian industry. I congratulate him upon the courage he has shown in retaining the one legislative weapon whereby he may protect the Canadian workman and see to it that he gets something to do. I congratulate him upon his desire to see that Canadians shall be occupied instead of being idle. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that this country must have more people; otherwise it cannot continue to function as a nation. You can only get more people in this country by making it more desirable for men to live in, and you can only make it more desirable to live in by providing work for the men who come to live here. Why do not my hon. friends cheer now?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did. It is your
method I do not like.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My friends emulate it so often that they must indeed admire it. But in all seriousness let me ask how we can hope to get people into Canada; how does the minister hope to get additional people into Canada?


Mr. FORKE:: They are coming.

Diamond Jubilee of Confederation


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and in a consul's
office the other day I saw a list of those who desired to leave; when my hon. friend says they are coming, they are coming to go. We are becoming a community where these people seek an abiding place until they may find a home to our south. That, Sir, we must stop, and we can only stop it by giving employment to our people, and we can only give employment to them if industry is profitable and productive. I fully respect the opinions of others in this matter, but I do know that the reading of those figures during the last two days has convinced me that we are buying millions and millions of dollars worth of goods, in fact hundreds of millions of dollars worth, from foreign countries, giving employment to foreigners and in many instances to Canadians who have left this country when we should be giving employment to our own industrial workers.
I am satisfied that the minister will not be able to keep people in this country unless we make a determined effort to develop our great natural resources rather than export them in the raw state. Rather than do that we must manufacture and fabricate them ourselves and so give employment to our citizens so that they will be able to become Canadians and make their homes here. I know the difficulty of that problem; I have not lived in western Canada for all these years for nothing. I have heard the farmer declare time after time that he has to sell his wheat in the open market and he should buy his goods there. But we must realize now that we must so adjust our commercial and financial system as to meet successfully the competition of the world in our markets, unless we are to become hewers of wood and drawers of water and send our raw material out of this country to give employment to the workmen of other lands.
The fact remains, Sir, that this country has made progress under just such a system, and to the extent that we have interfered with it the country has gone back, as the population shows. The greatest indictment that can ibe brought against the Canadian people and Canadian governments is that we have not been able to retain the people we have brought here, let alone take care of our own natural increase. But in my judgment we have made the greatest contribution to history, in one sense, that the world has ever known. There has never been a people so few in number, inhabiting a country so vast, who have accomplished so much. We have provided facilities by railways and canals for 25,000,000 people; we have envisioned a future of hope and faith, yet the fact remains that the great years of our struggle are now upon us.
The courage, the enterprise, the resourcefulness and fortitude of the Canadian people have made possible this Dominion. For sixty years we have grown in stature, in power and in position in the world, but reading the figures of to-day in the light of world history we must determine one of two things. We must decide whether from choice we will permit our resources to be diverted into foreign channels or whether, with courage and fortitude, we will continue to plough our furrow and go our appointed way, building slowly but surely, knowing-aye, knowing- that the day is not far distant when the very people whose high tariffs and offensive legislation have kept us out of their markets will have to come to us for the raw materials on which to subsist. That is one great vision before the Canadian people,
I congratulate my friend the Minister of Finance to-day; he has yielded to no importunities and to no pressure; he has at least maintained his faith in the fiscal system under which this country has grown great, and on the maintenance of which its future integrity depends.
On motion of Mr. Coote the debate was adjourned.


James Alexander Robb: I desire now to move that on and after Monday, February 21, the order for the consideration of the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the House to go again into committee of ways and means have precedence over all other business except the introduction of bills, government orders, questions and notices of motion for the production of papers, until disposed of.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Do I understand now
that the debate is adjourned until Monday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



DIAMOND JUBILEE OF CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 65, to incorporate a national committee for the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
410	COMMONS
Diamond Jubilee of Confederation
On section 2-incorporation:
James Shaver Woodsworth: When the motion on which this bill is based was before the House I took some exception to the activities as outlined of this proposed committee, as well ias with its personnel. It seems to me in the first place that this is an excessively large amount for a celebration which, as far as we can determine, will consist very largely of flag-waving, especially when we do not have, as at the present moment, a distinctly Canadian flag to wave. It seems to me that if the people of Canada wish to celebrate a great event such as this, a considerable number of voluntary contributions might be available, and then all the money would not be taken directly out of the pockets of the people. I am quite well aware that in the budget speech a good deal has been said, as usual, about the prosperity of the country, but I also remember that we have at present absolutely no provision for the very considerable number of people unemployed at this particular time in Canada, and whenever fwe introduce a measure calling for social legislation to meet needs of this character we are told that the finances of Canada are not in ia position to stand the strain. I sribmit that as long as there is a single person in need in this country we ought not to go into an extravagant expenditure of this character. We have just passed through the Christmas season, when the most pathetic appeals were made in almost every city of this country by charitable institutions of all kinds for the relief of the poor and the distressed. I take it, Mr. Chairman, that these considerations ought to 'be in our minds before we accede to the suggestion that has been made by the government in regard to this matter.
We read that in the olden days when the Jews wanted to celebrate a jubilee, they allowed the debtors and the slaves to go free. I would suggest that something of that kind might very well mark a celebration of nature. We have an enormous national debt. If we could in some way get rid of a proportion of that debt it would permit of a great deal more rejoicing than we would have under a scheme of this character. In the days of feudalism when there was a great celebration we are informed that they roasted a whole ox and allowed everybody to come to the feast. In this instance we are preparing for very elaborate and somewhat exclusive celebrations. It is something like asking a few people to a turkey dinner who quite habitually dine on chicken. As I read the long list of dignitaries and functionaries, with the exception of the hon. member for Southeast

Grey (Miss Macphail) of course, I notice there are a very large number who occupy official positions, and I submit that the great majority of the people of Canada will have very small opportunity to participate in these festivities. We are inviting outside visitors, accustomed to very frequent celebrations, and will provide very elaborate entertainment for them, but what about the mass of the people across the countiy who will pay the bills? The Prime Minister told 119 the other day that the committee was generally representative. I observe that there is a long list of names, but I am not sure that the committee is representative of the rank and file of the people. The Prime Minister also told us that it would not do .to put any representative of labour, for example, on the committee as that would amount to class representation. I note, however, that the names of the president of the Canadian National railway and the president of the Canadian Pacific railway appear in the list. Mr. E. W. Beatty, the president of the latter organization, said the other day in a pamphlet which was published by the Canadian Pacific Company that the Canadian Pacific was Canada's first citizen. If that statement goes unchallenged -and I had rather thought the Prime Minister himself might be considered Canada's first citizen-and if the Canadian Pacific is Canada's first citizen it is quite fitting that the president should be on this committee. But if the president of a private corporation is to be on this board there is no reason why the president or other officials of leading public organizations should not be there also. If the celebration is to foe truly educational in its character, and I have gathered from the public announcement that such is to be the intention, it is quite fitting that there should be representatives of the organized teachers on the committee. I observe that there is to be a representative of the Canadian Battlefields Memorial Association. Looking to the future of the Canadian people I fancy that the presence on the board of some of the teachers of the country would be of immensely greater importance than that of the president of the Canadian Battlefields Memorial Association. On the committee there are also to be representatives of several women's organizations, among them the Imperial Order of Daughters of the Empire. I have no particular objection to this society being represented, but I would submit that whilst this organization numbers a membership of a few thousand, there are other groups of people in this country who number hundreds of thousands. I think of some of our newer citizens, hundreds of thousands of whom have

Diamond Jubilee of Confederation
located in this country-for example the Ukrainians. Perhaps eastern people hardly realize the extent to which our immigration policy has brought to this country, for good or bad, a large alien population. These people are now located in Canada and playing the part of good citizens. I am glad to note that we have one representative of the Ukrainians sitting in this very corner of the House. He is simply the forerunner of scores of others who will foe here very soon, and other nationalities will have their representatives. What about these people in connection with such a celebration as this? I submit that if it is right to have a representative of the Imperial Order of Daughters of the Empire, we might also, looking to the future unification of the peoples of this country, have a representative from the newer Canadians who are locating in such great numbers in western Canada.
I do not want to labour the matter, but if we are to have a celebration I would urge .that it be made distinctly educational in character, and instead of consisting largely in the glorification of what our forefathers did sixty years ago it might be made a means for binding together the different parts of this Dominion and for remedying some of the weaknesses and evils which exist even under the system of confederation.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I had not the slightest idea that labour had been refused a place on this committee. Nor did I know, until one of the hon. members in this corner mentioned the fact to me, that my name is on the committee. I love Canada. There is nothing odd about that because it is my native land. I have never lived in any other country, and I do not intend to, I would like very much to have Canada happy and merry at this diamond jubilee, but I would also wash it to take stock of itself. If we could have a celebration free from these crazy military parades I should like it very much. The visitors who are coming to us for the celebration should be impressed with the importance of the work we are doing-I do not mean the people here but the people back home; and if the visitors are in a position to learn something of our industries, something about the fine work our people have done, something of our possibilities for the future, I should be very glad indeed to be identified with such a celebration. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Woodsworth) was quite right when he said that we are asking people to a banquet who have too many banquets, whereas those who, possibly, have not even enough food, certainly not enough of beauty or culture or the more delectable things of life, will not
have any part in this celebration. I want to protest against the using of my name without my consent because I am the representative of a class group. I represent agriculture. If I do not, I represent nothing at all, and if I cannot go on the committee as the representative of a class, I will not go on at all, because that is the whole philosophy of my political life. If labour has no place on the committee, then I say agriculture will have no place either, and I ask that my name be withdrawn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I say to my hon. friend (Miss Macphail) that in proposing that her name be inserted as one of the national committee, I did so because she holds a distinguished and historic place in this country as the first woman to be a member of the parliament of Canada, and it is as a member of the parliament of Canada, which represents all classes, all creeds, and all the people of this Dominion, that I hope she will allow her name to remain. I did not ask 'her permission; I have not asked the permission of any one whose name is on this list. I refer to myself because I have a certain special responsibility in presenting the names of the national committee. Some beginning has to be made with the organization of a celebration if there is to be a national one. The government might have taken the matter in hand and dealt with it departmentally. The Department of Trade and Commerce or my own office-that of Prime Minister-might have undertaken, so far as the government was concerned, the carrying out of the celebration. We felt, however, that it would be more in accord with the wishes of the people of Canada generally if the matter were treated, not as a departmental or party matter, but as broadly national in character and we therefore are seeking to have a national committee organized.
As I explained the other night, to get a representative committee of any size organized, some group of individuals have to be brought together to undertake the preliminary work of organization. The government was faced with the alternative of having a committee that would be chosen because of the representative character of the persons who are on it, having regard to what we refer to as an official list, or of seeking to embrace in one committee all the societies and organizations that might wish to have representation on a body of the kind. When one began to go over the lists of the different organizations, one was confronted immediately with a variety of considerations. Education, for example, comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces; if the educational institutions
412	COMMONS
Diamond Jubilee of Confederation
of one. province were to be put on the provisional committee then we would have to have on the committee representation from the educational organizations of every province.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Because al!
that kind of representation will be worked out by the executive committee that will have the actual celebration in hand. I am coming to that phase. I am seeking now to explain that the purpose of the government in putting the names it did on the list is simply to form an incorporated' body that will have authority to form an executive, which executive will be charged with the duty of carrying out whatever arrangements may be thought best to make the celebration all that my hon. friends opposite would wish it to be.
Let me come to the next consideration, the matter of religious organizations. I assume that religious organizations will wish to take part in the celebration of the diamond jubilee. If we begin on a provisional committee to include one religious organization, then we shall have to include the others. I have at the moment before me a letter received from the Catholic Women's League of Canada, a very important organization, requesting that the name of the president of that organization should be added. I have no objection; in fact I would like very much to see the name of that lady added to the list. But if her name is added, immediately there will be some Protestant organization that will feel that it should be represented, and the name of its president will have to be included. All denominations will be demanding representation on religious grounds.. If we take the patriotic societies, there are the St. Andrew^ society, the St. Patrick's society, the St. George's society, the St. Jean Baptiste society, and other organizations that will undoubtedly be participating when the week of celebration arrives. If we are to have the heads of all these organizations on a provisional committee to form an executive, one can see in a moment that the numbers will be unwieldy. What the government has done is to take for the personnel of the national committee those whom the citizens of this Dominion themselves have so to speak decided should be, in this particular year, the representative citizens of the Dominion. Their Excellencies the Governor General and Lady Willingdon are here in a representative capacity. The lieutenant governors who are at present in office happen to be the lieutenant governors of this year and their names have been included without regard to who they are or

from what party they may have come. The premiers of the different provinces are included, not because they belong to any particular party or are interested in any political group, but because they happen in this year, 1927, to be the premiers of the different provinces. A certain number of members have been chosen who are privy councillors, in some cases because they are members of the present government; in others because of membership in previous administrations. In two or three cases in particular names have been inserted because they are those of the oldest members of the Canadian parliament. The names are chosen from different political parties so that no one party will be in a position to control the situation. The presidents of the railways have been chosen for the reason that in the matter of preliminary organization probably no advice will be more helpful to a committee than that which can be given by the executives of our great railway organizations. Moreover, we may have occasion during this celebration to expect a good deal of the two great railway systems, and I think the recognition of their presidents on this provisional committee is one that will commend itself pretty generally to the country.
May I make it perfectly clear that there has been no desire to exclude anyone? The idea as regards names has been simply to find a representative group which will comend itself to the country at large because of its representative character as a group that can be entrusted with the duty of selecting an executive. The executive will then begin to discover all of the organizations in Canada that wish to participate in the celebration and will seek to make the celebration what public opinion undoubtedly will expect it to be. There is no question that the educational side of the celebration will be the first and main feature of it, and that every effort will be made by the executive committee to link up every Canadian organization that should be included. But that is a task which an executive committee is much better able to carry out than a very large committee. I repeat that it would be extremely difficult to suggest any committee from which a very large number of most appropriate names would not be excluded. I wish to emphasize to the committee the fact that the only purpose of the government is to secure a representative body that can be entrusted with the expenditure of whatever money there may be in connection with the national celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation in a manner that will be likely to accord with the desires and wishes of the people of Canada as a whole.

Diamond Jubilee of Confederation


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is it true that no person who really represents the ranks of labour is on this committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has just told us that she does, and her name is on.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I represent agriculture.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that not labour?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I mean industrial labour. I represent agriculture. I understood the Prime Minister to say that it was not because of that I was on the committee but because I was the first woman member in the House of Commons. While parliament does represent all classes of the people, I am here as a result of organized agriculture and I must represent them on the committee or not represent anything. If it is true that the ranks of industrial labour, indeed all classes of labour, are not represented on the committee in any official capacity, I do not feel that I can allow my name to remain. I do not like to say that, but the great difficulty of the labour classes, including agriculture, has been that too many of the people who represent them, on the first agreeable opportunity, get out of their class into a more comfortable one, and so, even at the expense of seeming foolish to the House of Commons, I would not appear to do so. Looking over the names here, I see they do not belong to my class, and unless I can go in as one of my own people I would not care to go in at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I suggest to the hon. member, as it is now nearly six o'clock, that perhaps between six and eight she would have a word with some of those who are associated with her at the moment in discussing this matter, and give me the names of two or three persons who would be representative of the classes they would wish to have represented. I shall then be happy to move in committee that those names be added.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, when the
committee rose at six o'clock it was considering a bill to incorporate a national committee for the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation, to cost 1250,000. I fail to see that there is any demand from the people of Canada for a celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation. Why
should we spend $250,000 of the taxpayers' money for such a celebration when several hundred thousands of our citizens over in the United States will celebrate the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on the fourth of July? Probably the Liberal party feel the need of celebrating their great victory of last September. We on this side of the House have not much to celebrate, but we hope to have in the years to come. We are not a practical people.
We cannot solve our most common economic problems. Talk about spending $250,000 on a diamond jubilee celebration! Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that there are over 160,000 returned men in the United States to-day who fought for their country on the battlefields of France and Flanders-a country that they have had to get out of. More than 50.000 of those gallant men lie buried where they fell fighting for France. Six thousand men from Toronto, many of them Orangemen, lie dead there. They fought for France and the French language, a land that expelled the Huguenots, and as I say, many of them were from Tory and Orange Toronto.
The only demand for this celebration is from a lot of Canadian clubs that are no more Canadian than Empire clubs are imperial. If this $250,000 is intended to celebrate the brilliant dream of empire under the principle of separatism, to emphasize our new status, all very well and good, let the Prime Minister put it in the preamble of the bill. But why celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of confederation? Confederation has not been such a shining success that we should desire to spend $250,000 on its celebration. With the economic problems now confronting this country I see no occasion to shout from the housetops about our status and our diamond jubilee.
I hold in my hand, Mr. Chairman, a book containing an attack on Sir John Macdonald, one of the pillars and founders of confederation, written by W. Stewart Wallace, librarian of the university of Toronto. This is the kind of textbook that is used in the university of Toronto, a textbook attacking the great founder of confederation. Perhaps to be fair to the professor I should read his actual words:
There are few figures in Canadian history on whom the historian finds it more difficult to pass judgment than on Sir John Macdonald. In his lifetime he was either loved or execrated; and to this day opinion is divided with regard to him.
Those who contend that his was a pernicious influence in Canadian history are not without reasons for their belief. He had some grave faults. He was for many years addicted to
414	COMMONS
Diamond Jubilee of Confederation
the heavy drinking habits of his day and generation, and his behaviour was not always such as befitted the prime minister of a great dominion. He did very little to raise the moral tone of political life in Canada during his lifetime, or afterwards. He studied human nature, as Gold win Smith said, "perhaps too much on the weak side". If he was a past master in the management of men, it was by playing on their foibles and weaknesses, rather than by appealing to their better natures. Though himself above the acceptance of a bribe, he was not above the indirect bribery of other men. There was, indeed, in the rough-and-tumble of political warfare, hardly a weapon in his armoury which he would not use. The ' Pacific Scandal", the gerrymander of 1882, the Dominion Franchise Act of 1885-these are only illustrations of the lengths to which he was prepared to go.
That is a straight libel on the great founder of confederation, the man who made this country what it is to-day, the man who put protection on the statute books. And we are asked to pay $250,000 of the people's money on a celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation when one of its principal founders is thus libelled by an employee of the Ontario government, a professor in the university of Toronto! If the Canadian clubs and the Empire clubs want to have such a celebration let them pay for it. As I say, we on this side have not much cause to indulge in a celebration. And I admit that our United Farmers of Ontario friends are pretty much in the same position in view of the two last general elections in the province of Ontario; they have nothing to celebrate. But if they do wish to celebrate, let them hold forth banners with such inscriptions as. " Platforms are to get in on, not to stand on." " Free trade for Canada." Free trade for Canada, Mr. Chairman, has driven hundred of thousands of our men to the United States where on the next fourth of July they will help celebrate the Declaration of Independence.
I am not a bigoted Conservative; I am a very moderate party man, because there is a lot of good on the other side of the House as well as here. Our friends opposite secured a majority at the last election, and we have to be good enough sports to congratulate them on their victory, we have to be good enough sports to admit that they are a pretty good looking body of men, from the young Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice -a handsome young man-to their humblest member. We admit over here that we have not much to celebrate. We put our party in the cemetery last September, and once you get in a cemetery, whether you are an individual or a political pairty, nothing but a miracle will get you out.

Here is another textbook which is put into the hands of the school children of the province. Let us see what it has to say:
After the election of 1887, Mr. Blake retired from the leadership of the Liberals, and then they chose a man destined to play a part in Canada second only to that of Macdonald. Perhaps the most striking characteristic of Wilfrid Laurier was his courtly manners. Politics in Canada had lacked the graces of life. Such terms as "trickster", "imbecile", "traitor", were too often heard; Macdonald himself once called an opponent in parliament a pup and threatened to "slap his chops." Laurier, however, bore himself with stately dignity. He was never off his guard, and liis sternest denunciations were always on a high level of refinement. Men were, indeed, tempted to think him a dreamy scholar, while, in fact, he could, as need arose, be stern and strong. It was something that, at a time when racial and religious feeling was acute over the Riel question, a French-Canadian and a Roman Catholic should be chosen as sole leader of the Liberal party. In earlier days a French leader like Cartier had had to share authority with an English-speaking colleague; but national unity in Canada had grown, and now, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the Liberals followed Laurier and in the end carried him into power.
I have nothing whatever to say against the Liberal party. They will be welcomed in Toronto at any time, and I may tell hon. gentlemen that that city has no bigotry. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was popular in Ontario among the Conservatives as well as the Liberals and he gave the country what he thought was good government. But it will be seen from this quotation what sort of literature is put into the hands of the school children.
Now, I fail to see what we have to celebrate. We are not practical people. Here we are proposing to celebrate confederation and the government apparently fails to consider the situation of the returned men. What room is there for rejoicing when you think of the position of these men and when you reflect upon the hundreds of thousands of our Canadians who have been driven across the border into the United States to look for jobs as a result of the free trade policy of the government? About the only people who are getting any really good jobs are the members of the committee of ambassadors which this government has appointed, ambassadors to all the countries in the seven seas, one of whom has just gone to Washington. I say, there is nothing for us to celebrate, and the Canadian people are not given to that sort of thing. The only occasion on which you can get a decent parade in Toronto is the twelfth of July, not the first. Then you can muster from twelve to fifteen thousand people in the parade. Strange as it may seem, many of those who view the great

Diamond Jubilee oj Confederation
walkout and attend the picnic at Exhibition park are Catholics. But apart from that, parades generally are a flat failure. And in any case the first of July is not by any means an ideal time for any great demonstration. The weather is too hot.
I have nothing to say against the men and women who are selected for this committee. But there are thousands of our citizens in the United States who will look with mixed feelings upon this celebration. It seems to me that we ought to make some attempt to settle our economic problems with a view to preventing the further exodus of Canadians to the United States, and let those who want to celebrate pay for it. The money could be spent to far better purpose in giving employment to needy men generally, and particularly to our returned soldiers. Many of our returned men sacrificed all they had in the interests of the country and now they are getting a raw deal. The Canadian clubs which are behind this movement are no more Canadian than the imperial clubs are imperial. This $250,000 will be spent on a few banquets, the playing of a few party tunes, and generally the raising of a great hullaballoo, and everybody will be saying what a huge success confederation has been. That is all very well; but has confederation been such a success when you come to think of it? Does the Duncan report lead us to think so? Are all these various problems which are pressing for a solution likely to be settled in such a way as they would be if confederation were so successful as to warrant the celebration contemplated? I know a lot of people who will celebrate the confederation of Canada. They are the American millionaires who have come over here and seized our waterpowers to exploit the products of our forests, mines, and other resources. Canada is the happy hunting ground of such people and these American millionaires will certainly shout loud hurrahs, for they have reason to do so. I do not blame the Dominion government for having given away the resources of the country which we Canadians ought to develop for ourselves. The provincial premiers are in many instances to blame. In Ontario, at any rate, various premiers have surrendered to the American millionaires more territory than was given away to favoured people in the time of George III.
I have said before, and I repeat it on this occasion; what this country needs is a Mussolini who will stand up firmly for the rights of the people and protect our interests in various directions, in lumbering, fishing, mining, agriculture and so forth against encroachment from outside. What has Mussolini done for
his country? Let me quote one very significant statement of his: "We have translated into action what we promised in words." Have we ever heard of any prime minister here translating into action what he promised in words? Mussolini says:
A recent example of how the spirit of silent work has thoroughly saturated our people is shown in the construction of the new railroad along the Ionian sea in Calabra. The work of constructing this railroad has gone on silently and laboriously for many months. Thirteen new and extensive bridges have been built, and yet not in a single case was there a speech delivered, whereas formerly such events were accompanied by orations and the blare of trumpets, the clapping of hands and great shouts of joy. The joy was there and the events popular, but no speeches overdid it with useless words.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I
rise to a point of order. Just what bearing has this discussion?


Thomas Langton Church: They don't celebrate in
Italy. They do things. I am referring to the way they do things in Italy. Even if there were a constituency of Long Lake there, they would not spend money in it for a celebration like this. Actions speak louder than words.


The CHAIRMAN:: I was just going to ask my friend to address his remarks a little more closely to the matter before the committee.


Thomas Langton Church: I think I am quite in
order, Mr. Chairman, and if necessary I can cite the authorities. When we come to that particular section I would like to make a motion that the amount to be spent be reduced to $1,000, because the people are opposed to such extravagance by the government. We are spending $250,000 on a celebration when we have nothing to celebrate. Are we to celebrate the exodus or our new status, this new dream of empire under which we are a separate country and can make our own treaties, under which we have an ambassador going down to Washington? Are we to spend $250,000 of the taxpayers' money to celebrate our becoming the Mexico of the north?
I could go on almost indefinitely, but I would suggest to the Prime Minister that during the celebration a portrait of the board of strategy, accompanied by a portrait of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) should be unveiled and would probably be suitable for presentation to the museum. I might also suggest that a portrait of Sir Henry Thornton, who, according to the subsidized press of this country, was the real discoverer of this country instead of Christopher Columbus, should be unveiled at the same time. With the rate of
416	COMMONS
Diamond Jubilee of Confederation
taxation in Canada going up by leaps and bounds, with the income tax and sales tax as high as they are, we should postpone the celebration until such time as we can solve our own problems and prevent this country from becoming the happy hunting ground of a lot of American millionaires who are picking up timber limits, water power, mines and pulpwood areas, and in doing so driving hundreds of thousands of men from Canada to another country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At six o'clock
1	mentioned to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) that if she and the hon. members who sit around her would give me the names of two or three representative personages to be added to the committee I would be pleased to do so provided they were of a character which would make the committee more acceptable to all parties in the House. The names handed me were those of Mr. Tom Moore, President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Mr. M. J. Cold-well, President of the Canadian Teachers' Association; Mr. Henry Wise Wood, President of the United Farmers of Alberta and Mr. Michael Luchkovich, one of the hon. members of this House. I might say that Mr. Luchkovich is one of the first members to come into the House representing a large number of citizens from foreign lands who have become naturalized Canadians, and it was thought that his name on the committee would appeal to many of our naturalized citizens. To those names I would suggest that we add the names of Mr. George F. Edwards, President of the Canadian Council of Agriculture and Hon. Cyrille F. Delage, President of the Council of Public Instruction of the province of Quebec. Those names will make the committee more representative and I hope hon. members will feel that with these additions the committee will be sufficiently representative to commend itself to the House generally. I therefore beg to make the following motion:
That the following words be inserted in clause
2	after the word "Canada" in the fortieth line of page 2 of the bill:
Tom Moore, Esquire, President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada;
Michael Luchkovich, Esquire, M.P.
Mr. J. Coldwell, Esquire, President of the Canadian Teachers' Federation.
Hon. Cyrille F. Delage, President of the Council of Public Instruction of the province of Quebec.
Henry Wise Wood, Esquire, President of the United Farmers of Alberta.
George F. Edwards, Esquire, President of the Canadian Council of Agriculture.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I have not the least objection to the motion nor have I any objection to the names mentioned, but I do think the Prime Minister has demeaned himself and his position after the statement he made before six o'clock, when he said that it was not his intention to have on this committee the representative of any class; now he comes into the House and moves for such representation. I might point out to him, if I so desired, that on this list there are no names representing the men who served overseas. I am not suggesting that such names should be added; I think the Prime Minister was right in his contention that this should be a committee representative of Canadians, not of class, and I much deprecate the change in 'his attitude.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As far as demeaning myself is concerned, I may say to the hon. member who has just spoken that I am quite prepared to do that again if I can help to bring about unanimity in this House in a matter that seems simple justice. Hon. members looking over the names originally presented will recognize the fact that the two old political parties, so-called, are very largely and in fact almost exclusively represented therein. In this House are others belonging to a group representing a considerable portion of this country, and from that group I have received certain of these names not as representatives of class but as the representatives of many of those of our fellow citizens who, in the opinion of that particular group, will thereby be given an added interest in the work of the committee. With regard to the returned soldiers, I think if the hon. member will read over the names he would find among them that of Lieutenant General Sir Percy Lake, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., President of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. This organization, I understand, embraces the various returned soldiers' organizations and it is in that representative capacity that the name of Sir Percy Lake has been inserted. There are also the names of Major General Mewburn, and one or two others who will be quickly recognized as representative of the men who served overseas. In addition my hon. friend will find among those who are named a very considerable number who were quite as active in the war as we all know he himself was. I think, therefore, the interests of all have been carefully taken care of.


Peter McGibbon: These appointees were
asked for as class representatives. That is what I object to.
4X7

Diamond Jubilee oj Confederation


Agnes Campbell Macphail: May I voice my appreciation of the kindness of the Prime Minister? When I said, possibly quite shortly, this afternoon that 1 did not know who had used my name without asking my consent, I may have appeared somewhat unkind but I had no such intention. However, so much was said in the budget as to the whole prosperity of Canada depending upon agriculture and industry that one could not help thinking that a committee to be representative of the whole Dominion must include some of these people. I appreciate very much what has been done, which I think is only fair, and if we use this opportunity to help other people in other parts of the world to understand Canada and at the same time use this movement to arouse in Canadians a pride in their own country and a national spirit-a spirit that will help us to go on and meet the troubles or the problems of the future-we surely can do much for our country. I hope that as one of the committee I may be of some slight assistance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Objects.
Mr. ADSHEAD:: May I point out to the
Prime Minister that among the objects of the corporation is the administration and distribution of the grant mentioned and any further grant or grants hereafter made. Clause 14 provides that a sum not exceeding $250,000 is to be paid towards defraying the expenses of the corporation. Does the reference to grants hereafter made contemplate grants to be made by this parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The last clause to which my hon. friend referred indicates the amount that parliament is appropriating by this bill. It is possible that at some future date parliament may appropriate an additional amount.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It will be parliament that will do that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. As far
as public moneys are concerned, no addition will be made to the amount named except with the consent of parliament.


Edward Joseph Garland: Even should parliament not be sitting when the requisition is made? Supposing parliament has adjourned and the committee believes it requires more money-it may not really need the money but believes it does-will there be an order in council authorizing an additional expenditure?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The committee will be given to understand that the wish of parliament is that it should keep the expenditure within the amount appropriated. If the committee when it meets finds that the amount is not going to be sufficient it will be its duty so to advise parliament at a very early date.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Executive committee.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: It does not seem
quite advisable that the expenditure of $250,000 should be left to an executive committee of six persons, yet that is what we are doing. This number out of a membership of sixty-nine can go ahead, make the necessary arrangements, and expend this money. Such a quorum seems unusually small out of a total membership of sixty-nine. Seeing that quite a number of members are within easy reach of the capital, it seems only reasonable that the quorum of six should be larger.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I point out to my hon. friend that the clause to which he refers reads:
Until otherwise provided by by-law or regulation made by the executive committee, six members of the executive committee shall be a quorum.
If, when this large body assembles, it has any reason to feel that this particular clause does not provide the necessary number it can pass a by-law immediately requiring a larger number to be present when certain expenditures are being authorized. The Canadian patriotic fund, as I recall it, ran into an expenditure of millions of dollars. The original committee was a large one, but it was found necessary to have a small executive to administer the fund. I think the language here is taken from the act that, established the Canadian patriotic fund. I think my hon. friend will find that is the way most large corporations find it advisable to transact their business.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I was not objecting to the size of the executive committee. I was pointing out the possibility of a small number being entrusted with the carrying out of very important work.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: This is a very large committee, and a great many of the members live at a long distance from this city. Is it contemplated that the expenses of this committee should come out of the fund? Because if you take the expenses of nearly a



Diamond Jubilee oj Confederation
hundred people the amount is going to run into a lot of money. We are not going to be through with the expense when we spend $250,000. That is evident. Is it worth the money? For my part I do not think it is.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: In view of the fact that a number of names were mentioned to-night 'as well as the other evening of persons whom it would be desirable to have on the committee, would it not be wise to provide that the executive committee should have power to add to their number?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So they have.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The members
of various associations might be omitted although it might be important that their names should be added. I see no provision in clause 5 or clause 6 for making that addition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is some such provision in the bill.


Mr. ERNST:: There is nothing to prevent any six members of the committee constituting themselves an executive and no provision in case they fail to attend meetings for notifying others. It would be quite possible for the Prime Minister to have a coterie of his own in such a case as that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can assure
my hon. friend that the Prime Minister has no intention of doing anything of the kind. I confess I am rather surprised that he should make that 'particular remark. If he has any amendment he wishes to move to this clause, I am sure the committee would be pleased to receive it.


William Gordon Ernst: I do not want to move an
amendment. I simply want all the members of the committee to be. notified, and not only six.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a little defect
in this clause and I think the point is well taken. Subclause 2 reads:
The persons whose names are mentioned in section 2 shall constitute the provisional executive committee, and provided that six of the said persons are present at the meetings, the corporation may be organized and the executive committee may be elected by them.
There is no provision for the calling of the meetings. If six members of the committee saw fit to meet at Ottawa, I do not know who could take objection to their doing so. There is no provision in this clause for notice. A meeting of the committee should be called and provision should be made for notice. Then if some members do not attend, let six do the work.
[Mr. Chaplin.!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure my hon. friend must realize that any notice sent out for the calling of a meeting of the committee would be sent to every member of the committee in plenty of time for every member to be present. One of the officers of state will be charged with the duty of notifying all the members to come to Ottawa on a particular date. The press of the country will have ample notice of the particular date on which they will be assembled. If there was the slightest danger of members not being notified, I would say; Certainly add more clauses to the bill. May I draw my hon. friend's attention to this point? The government of which he was a member drew up a bill to administer the Canadian patriotic fund. This bill, as I mentioned to the House the other day, is modelled on that bill, clause for clause. I so directed when the bill was being drafted. I do not think anyone would have presumed that the Prime Minister of that day was seeking to gather a few favourites around him to administer the Canadian patriotic fund. Surely we can discuss these things with each other as gentlemen.


Hugh Guthrie: I quite agree with that,
but the bill goes into some formal matters and this is a simple question that could be settled now by way of amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Move the
amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: Just insert the words:
The persons whose names are mentioned in section 2 shall be duly called together for the first meeting of the said committee.
And state that six are a quorum as provided in the bill. Supposing they were not called together, supposing half a dozen were omitted in the notice and they felt offended or affronted or legal action resulted, that would be very unpleasant. I am only suggesting a difficulty might arise. I am quite willing to take the word of the Prime Minister that no difficulty will arise, but it is quite easy to have provision made for notice of the first meeting.


John Livingstone Brown: As there is no provision for notice, can not it be taken for granted that the first names on the committee will be the conveners?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First of all,
might I answer the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie)? Without knowing what amendment he will propose, I will say in advance that I shall be pleased to accept it. This is not a party measure in any way, and

Diamond Jubilee oj Confederation
I am anxious to meet the wishes of the committee as a whole. If my hon. friend (Mr. Brown) wishes to insert the name of any individual to call the committee, I am sure it would also be a pleasure to insert it. The same method of calling together this committee will be adopted as was adopted in calling together the Canadian patriotic fund committee.


John Livingstone Brown: What was that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
the Under-Secretary of State or some permanent official of the government sent communications to all the parties whose names were mentioned, asking them to meet at Ottawa on a particular date. I do not think it will strengthen the matter to name any particular, official to call the committee, but if that is the desire of hon. members, we shall have that inserted.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Is it the purpose to have a series of celebrations or simply to have one big celebration at Ottawa?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has no desire to dictate what form this celebration shall take, whether it shall be one celehration at Ottawa, whether it shall be celebrations in the different provinces, whether it shall be along educational lines or along the lines of display in one form or another. The purpose of calling the committee is to let the committee decide all that. Once the committee is chosen, it will be the body that makes that decision.


Mr HOCKEN:: If there is to be one
celehration in the capital city, probably the amount that is being appropriated will be sufficient; but if, as one of my hon, friends has suggested, there is going to be a series of celebrations, one in each provincial capital for example, then the amount that is being appropriated will not be sufficient. That must be clear to any person. I presume before this parliament prorogues, we shall have some idea as to the scope of the general celebrations from one end of the country to the other. Is that the expectation of the Prime Minister?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If this debate does not continue too long, it is.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am just trying to get
this thing right because I am strongly in favour of this celebration. The sixtieth anniversary of our birth as a nation is a great event in Canada, and it should be celebrated with all proper dignity and enthusiasm. My idea would be that this committee might go even further- than have a series of celebrations in the different provinces, and might encourage local celebrations wherever they can be organized so as to make the day one of general observance from coast to coast. That would be my idea of a great observance of the sixtieth anniversary qf our confederation. I want to see enough money appropriated to carry out the thing properly, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that before the House rises, some effort should be made to ascertain from any executive committee that may be formed the extent of their plan so that sufficient money may be provided to carry it out in a proper and dignified fashion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can assure my hon, friend that is in all probability exactly what the executive committee will do, namely, to announce at as early a date as possible the plans proposed, and I hope that will be done before parliament rises.


Peter McGibbon: Has there been any communication from the provincical governments as to whether they will assist in the financial undertaking? I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) that the amount appropriated in this bill is absolutely inadequate. If the sixtieth anniversary of the birth of the Canadian nation, as we are now called, is going to be fittingly celebrated, it seems to me we shall need many times that amount of money. We all know that as a general rule the government or party that will lead in expenditure will be allowed to do the paying. It would be right and proper that the provincial governments should be first sounded out to discover what contributions they will make.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The expectation I should think would be that the provinces would wish to have provincial celebrations and to make appropriations therefor. Once this committee is formed, one of its functions will be to get immediately into touch with the provinces in order to ascertain what they are prepared to do.


Peter McGibbon: Will the committee
work in conjunction with the provinces or separately?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is in the bill a clause which indicates that one of the purposes is to coordinate the work between the provinces and the Dominion.


Edward Joseph Garland: The remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. McGibbon) are of course his personal opinion and 'he is welcome to it. In my opinion this sum is ample; it is indeed too much. I wish to register a protest against any effort on the part of any hon. member to increase the amount to 'be voted. If any provinces are
420	COMMONS
Diamond Jubilee of Confederation
so very anxious to enter into a celebration at the same time, let it vote its own money. I think an appropriation of $250,000 or a quarter of a million for a celebration, when, as the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) said, there were so many soldiers and others out of work, anxious to get jobs and earn something, is extraordinary and ridiculous.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: We heard a story this
afternoon of a bounding prosperity. There is nobody out of work.


Edward Joseph Garland: To which
the hon. member's party did not agree.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: We have heard this afternoon that prosperity in this country is so great that everybody is at work. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the particular responsibility for this celebration rests upon this parliament. This is the parliament of confederation. It represents every province in Canada, and why should not the national treasury stand the whole cost of a proper celebration of that day, giving proper consideration to each province that desires to take part in it? I do not know; I may be a different kind of Canadian from my hon. friend from Bow River.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I was born here, and I am a real Canadian. I am not one of the imported variety, and perhaps I have a different feeling towards this Dominion than my hon. friend has.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I too am a real Canadian, a real Canadian for three or four generations, and I protest against language of that kind being used against any member duly elected to this House.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: As usual, my hon. friend from Winnipeg messes in where he has no right to get, and raises a point of order that is not a point of order at all. If there is any man in the House to *whose speeches objections can be made upon this ground, it is my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. I am urging, Mr. Chairman, for a dignified and suitable celebration of our natal day. I do that. as a Canadian born, and if there are any people in this country who are imported Canadians and who do not see the thing as I do, of course, they are entitled to their own opinion, but I have a seat in this House and I stand for Canada and Canadians, and I want Canadians on this occasion to show the world that they are capable of appreciating the [Mr. E. J. Garland.1
wonderful heritage they have and the privileges they enjoy, and mark in a befitting manner the progress we have made in this country in the past six decades. We could go further than that, and in this celebration not only draw attention to our past accomplishments, but do a great deal perhaps to inspire the young men of this country to a greater love and a higher respect for their own nation, and if that is part of the result it will be money well spent no matter how much it costs.


Hugh Guthrie: The amendment which I propose, Mr. Chairman, and which may get us over a difficulty in the future, reads as follows:
That subsection 2 of section 5 be amended by inserting after the word "committee' in line 24 the following words:
The said committee shall hold its first meeting at the city of Ottawa. The Secretary of State for Canada shall convene the first meeting of said committee by notice in writing sent by post to the members thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Co-operation with other bodies.
Mr. KAISER:: I am not clear as to just what is meant by a celebration. It is not the intention, I take it, to permit all this money to be expended upon a demonstration. I understand that the committee will be permitted to expend money in any direction they see fit in order to bring home to the people the significance of this great event. The anniversary of the confederation of Canada is one of the outstanding events in our whole history, and from the time it was first mentioned in the speech from the throne, I have endeavoured to induce my own constituency to centre upon this historic event. I think that is giving a proper lead to the people. As to the expenditure of money, I have asked our county council to do one or two things. I have asked them to gather together photographs of the men who sat in this first parliament and passed the confederation act. This they are undertaking to do at their own expense, and in other ways they are preparing to mark this great event. Am I right in my impression that some of the money under the control of the committee will be used in directing affairs of that kind? Would that come within the scope of the .committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend is entirely right, and that what he has just described would come within the

Diamond Jubilee of Confederation
scope of the committee's activities. TheTe have been a great many proposals made as to how the diamond jubilee should be commemorated; I will use that word instead of " celebrated," as it perhaps will explain away the idea of a mere spectacle. Some of these suggestions have related to educational aspects, others to pageants and the like. There have been no end of suggestions come to the government in one form and another from persons throughout the country as to what would be the most appropriate thing to do. The government intends to hand over to this committee every suggestion that has .been submitted, and allow the committee to adopt or reject as it sees fit, in other words to draw up a program of its own.
I might make mention of another feature. The government is being asked to contribute advertisements to publications with respect to Canada in the sixtieth year of confederation. We have felt that unless some committee is placed in charge of that work, there will be no control of expenditure on such advertising and publicity, and our purpose is to turn over to this committee that phase also of the celebration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Head office.
Mr. HARRIS:: Inasmuch as the committee seems to be open to suggestions, it might be well to put on record this idea. Throughout the Dominion a great many community affairs, some political, some non-political, are held on the first of July, and the theme of the addresses on this particular day might well centre around this great event that we are commemorating. I think the suggestion might well be passed on to the committee that each of these constituencies be given SI ,000 of this $250,000 fund in order that they may celebrate in a proper manner the sixtieth birthday of confederation and so arouse the whole country to a realization of the significance of this great event in our national life.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-July 2 a public holiday.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might explain to the House that as July 1 this year comes on Friday the government thought it would be the wish of parliament to have Saturday declared a public holiday as well. There would thus be three consecutive holidays for the celebration.


Mr. WHITE (London):: Does this mean
that July 1 will also be a public holiday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, July 1 is a statutory holiday.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-$250,000 granted to the corporation.
Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Chairman, the
Prime Minister has intimated that once this corporation meets it may approach the government and parliament for further sums of money. Whether parliament will be able to control the granting of such further sums will depend on its being in session. Therefore I would ask the Prime Minister to give an undertaking to this House that no further sums of money will be granted for the celebration unless passed by parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to give an undertaking in those specific words. I will inform the executive committee of what I have said in the House; indeed my first duty will be to give to the committee a copy of the debate which has taken place on this very subject. But I am unable to say what may take place after this parliament adjourns and before it meets again. Conceivably some expenditure might have to be made in the interim, for example, in connection with the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. A certain amount might be required in addition to what is here proposed which could not be foreseen and which it would be essential to grant. I should not like to bind the government in such a manner that we would1 not be able to carry out the celebration on a scale befitting the occasion. In saying that, however, let me state to my hon. friend that the executive committee will be advised of what I gather to be the view of this parliament, that they should seek to confine their expenditure to the amount here set forth. If the expenditure runs beyond the $250,000, there will have to be good and sufficient reasons furnished-reasons that at least in the opinion of the government would meet with the approval of parliament.


Mr. EVANS:: Mr. Chairman, while I am
not altogether opposed to this bill, I do think that $250,000 is an ample amount for the city of Ottawa to celebrate our diamond jubilee, seeing that other places will have to stand their own expenditure for this purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me correct my hon. friend. This is not an expenditure for the city of Ottawa alone. This fund will

Montreal Harbour Commission
be handled by a national committee. It is to cover the expense of what that committee may decide to do from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Undoubtedly certain features of the celebration will take place in Ottawa, but it may be assumed that a large proportion of this money will go to meet expenses incidental to much that will be done outside the capital.


John Evans: I think $250,000 should be
the limit, and therefore I propose the following amendment to section 14:
That after the word "Act" the following words be added, "and that it shall be understood that no further grant from this parliament shall be made".


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman, I hope
the Prime Minister will not accept the amendment. This celebration should be held in a manner in keeping with the dignity of the nation, and to tie the hands of the committee to an expenditure that is after all only an average of $1,000 for each riding in the whole Dominion is to my mind cutting the expenditure down very low indeed. I hope the Prime Minister and his government if they are going to proceed with this celebration will not so tie the hands of the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, the government cannot suppport the amendment of my hon. friend, and I hope the committee will not accept it.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 60, to provide for a loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 2-Loan of $12,000,000 to the corporation.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I purposely refrained from saying anything on the second reading of the bill, because I did not wish it to appear that I intended delaying the minister. There is however a very serious question which I wish to direct to the attention of the committee and to have discussed at this point. It is rather difficult for one to determine precisely the right moment to bring this matter up,

but I am inclined to think it should be done on this section. I refer to the absence from this bill of a section which appears in acts of a similar character and which in the present measure should be numbered 6, providing for the repayment of the loan. The minister may have a complete and satisfactory explanation to offer, but I think the committee ought to be made aware of all the facts before proceeding with the bill. What may be described as the original act in legislation of this character was passed in the year 1896, and similar bills went through this House in 1922 and*1923. In 1922 a bill almost identical in terms with the present one was adopted, the only difference being that it contained the following:
The principal and interest of the sums advanced to the corporation under the authority of this act shall be paid by the corporation out of its revenue mentioned in section 8 of chapter 10 of the Statutes of 1896 (first session) and shall be charged upon the said revenue in the same manner and to the same extent as if the sum so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under the said chapter 10.
In 1923 a similar bill was passed for the same purpose of advancing moneys to the Montreal harbour board and a similar section was incorporated in it. I shall read precisely the provision made in that case; it varies slightly from the first:
The principal and interest of the sums advanced to the corporation under the authority of this act shall be paid by the corporation out of all its property and assets, and out of all its tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income whatsoever, and shall rank as a charge thereon, and have precedence in regard to payment next after the- payments provided for in section 8, of chapter 10 of the Statutes of 1896.
In the statute of 1896 the section 8 referred to in these two acts provides:
The principal and interest of the sums of money which may be borrowed .... shall be paid out of the revenue arising from the rates and penalties-
And so forth. Then it sets forth the standing of 'the various charges against such revenues:
(a)	Payment of all expenses incurred in the collection of the said revenue, and other indispensable charges;
(b)	The defraying of the expenses attendant on keeping the harbour clean, and on keeping the wharfs and other works therein in a thorough state of repair;
(e) The payment of interest due on all sums of money borrowed under this act or under any of the acts repealed by The Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1894, without priority or preference;
(d) The paying off of the principal of such sums.

Montreal Harbour Commission
I want the committee to note that in the original bill provision is made for the repayment of principal and interest out of the earnings of the harbour. In the two acts to which I have referred, passed in 1922 and 1923, measures similar in every respect to this bill, provision is made for precisely the same thing, mention of which is made in the section of the act of 1896 to which I have alluded, namely, that the principal and interest shall be repaid out of the earnings of 'the harbour, out of dues, collections and so forth.
Last year, when this bill was first brought to the attention of parliament, a notice of motion was given by the minister. That notice of motion, given on June 7, 1926, provided :
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal in an amount not exceeding $12,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan

The committee would do well to note this particularly:
-and further, to establish a sinking fund to be applied to the reduction of the debenture indebtedness of the corporation to His Majesty.
On June 9, two days afterwards, when the resolution of which notice had been given appeared on the order paper, these significant words to which I have just referred were found to have been omitted. In the first place the resolution ought not to have been changed; it ought, not to have appeared on the order paper except in the form of which notice had been given. The words to which I have referred, namely :
And further, the establishment of a sinking fund to be applied to the reduction of the debenture indebtedness of the corporation to His Majesty-
-were omitted from the resolution appearing on the order paper of June 9, 1926.
After this somewhat lengthy preamble I come to the bill now before the House. In every particular it follows the acts of 1922 and 1923 with the one exception that section 6 is left out. I have already intimated that this section 6 is the clause under which provision is made for the repayment of the sums advanced. Let me read from the bill of 1923, in order to remind the committee of what has been dropped:
The principal and interest of the sums advanced to the corporation under the authority of this act shall be paid by the corporation out of all its property and assets, and out of all its tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources
of revenue and income whatsoever, and shall rank as a charge thereon, and have precedence in regard to payment next after the payments provided for in section 8 of chapter 10 of the Statutes of 1896, first session.
I submit in the first place that the minister should make a very clear explanation of the rather strange disappearance of this important clause; and I wish to emphasize that in connection with the harbour board of Montreal, which I have had reason both to compliment and to criticise in this House, that corporation has provided for the repayment of these loans out of its earnings and has carefully prej served the practice of paying the interest. It has done that because of these sections to which I have referred, which make it obligatory upon the harbour commissioners to provide out of their earnings for repayment of both principal and interest. I am going to listen to what the minister has to say in explanation, and unless he can give me complete assurance that the practice so well established is to be followed in this case, I will later move for the addition of this clause. It is passing strange, however, that this clause, which has appeared in all the other acts to which I have referred, is now dropped. I made inquiry from the law officers of this House as to why this bill was different from the preceding bills, because the minister himself told us the other day that this bill was the same as that passed last year, and was similar to those passed on previous occasions. I was rather inclined to accept the bill as merely a routine measure, the main question being whether we should grant the $12,000,000, but as a matter of fact it is very much different from the others.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am sure I will have no difficulty in relieving my hon. friend of his anxiety in this connection. If he had waited until we reached the proper section of the bill it would not have been necessary for him to make his remarks, because I have already prepared as an amendment to be added as Clause 6 the very clause which can be found in all the previous bills covering advances to the harbour board of Montreal. This question does not properly come under section 2, but I have no hesitation in saying that if this clause has been dropped it is only an oversight.
My hon. friend referred a moment ago to the resolution which was introduced last year providing for this very Clause. There was an addition in that resolution which had been placed there by an overzealous employee of the department, no doubt with good intentions, providing for a sinking fund of one and one-half per cent. This was absolutely new; in

Montreal Harbour Commission
no bill which has been presented to this House has there been anything providing for a sinking fund as set out in the resolution, and I thought it unfair to impose such a thing and make it obligatory. My bon. friend will notice that the resolution made it compulsory not only in connection with the $12,000,000 in question but also in connection with all previous loans, and I thought that most unfair. The money loaned to the port of Montreal in 1923, as well as that loaned in 1896, should not be subject to any new condition which might have presented itself to the officials of the department in 1925 or 1926. This money was loaned to the harbour commission on certain conditions, which are found in the bill. There was no sinking fund mentioned in the bill of 1896 and none in the bills of 1923 and 1924.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister .permit an interruption? While no specific mention was made of a sinking fund, is it not implied in the language of the act, which in that of 1896 was as follows:
The principal and interest of the sums of money which may be borrowed under this act, as well as all sums already borrowed. . . . shall be paid out of the revenue arising from the rates and penalties imposed by or under the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1894, for and on account of the said harbour.
Then it outlines the priority of charge against that revenue, and in subsection (d) goes on to Say:
The paying off of the principal of said sums...
Then in the act of 1923 it refers to this section and says that the commission shall provide for the payment of principal and interest. How can the commission provide for the payment of principal alone, leaving the interest out of it for the moment, unless it sets up a sinking fund out of the earnings of the harbour? While it is not specifically mentioned that a sinking fund shall be established, it is certainly a duty imposed upon the commissioners by this act. I ask my hon. friend if that is not correct.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am free to admit that
this clause has been so interpreted by the harbour commissioners themselves, because they have established a sinking fund of one per cent on all the loans. At present they have over $1,000,000 in the sinking fund ready to meet an obligation of $1,000,000 maturing next July. What I objected to last year was the creation of another sinking fund of not one per cent but one and a half per cent, to which I could not agree.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not say that here. It says:
And further to establish a sinking fund to be applied to the reduction of the debentude indebtedness of the corporation to His Majesty the King.
No amount is mentioned.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Tut in the documents
placed in my hands by the officers of the department a sinking fund of one and one-half per cent was provided for and I thought that most unfair. I desired to keep the bill in the same form 'as the previous bills; I decided to drop that clause, but due to an oversight we have dropped this other clause which existed in every other bill. The point was not raised then, but this year I observed that this clause had been omitted and I prepared an amendment which will be clause 6, containing exactly the same words found in the bills Of 1896, 1923 and 1924. The clause will read as follows:
The principal and interest of the sums advanced to the corporation under the authority of this act shall be paid by the corporation out of its revenue mentioned in section 8 of chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896, first session, and shall be charged upon the said revenue in the same manner and to the same extent as if the sums so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under the said chapter 10.
With this clause added the bill will provide for the same needs that were provided for in the previous bill.


Mr. CAHAN:: Does the minister intend to add that clause to the bill?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, I intend to propose
that it be added to clause 5.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Deposit of debentures to cover loan.
Henry Herbert Stevens: We had a discussion in
connection with this phase of the bill, and I am not directing the attention now to the Montreal harbour commission but speaking in a general sense. I believe that in this bill, and in all similar bills dealing with other harbours, there should be inserted, as a subsection of section 5, a provision making the Auditor General of Canada the auditor of the accounts of all harbour commissions. This is a principle that I think should be accepted. We discussed it last year in a very friendly spirit and received from the minister a good deal of encouragement, the idea expressed then being that our views were not repugnant

Montreal Harbour Commission
to his own. The other evening we had a discussion also on the same subject. Mr. Chairman, the minister ought to provide for such a subsection in connection with this section. I have not one drafted; in fact I would prefer that it should be drafted by an able lawyer like the minister himself rather than by a poor benighted layman.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Do not exaggerate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The principle that the
Auditor General should be auditor of these harbour commissions should now be established, and this is a good opportunity for the minister to do it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I would not have any very serious objection to my hon. friend's suggestion as a general prinGiple, but I do not think it would be fair to single out the port of Montreal for exceptional treatment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was very careful to
explain that that was not my idea.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has been admitted by
everyone, even by my hon. friend himself, that the port of Montreal has been well administered, and the country has been fortunate, under all governments, on account of the excellence of that administration. Possibly the port of Montreal is the only one which is paying interest on its loans. That in itself is sufficient reason why the port should not be singled out for exceptional treatment and further responsibilities imposed on the commissioners. The suggestion my hon. friend has made is already covered by the Audit Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Under the Audit Act the
Minister of Finance as empowered to have an audit made at any time into the affairs of all the harbour commissions. I think the public is amply protected by that provision in the law. If any hon. member desires to have an investigation made into the affairs of the port of Montreal I will say promptly, go on and make it. As a matter of fact investigations were made last year and the previous year also into the accounts of the harbour of Montreal by direction of the audit board. That audit board has been created precisely for that purpose-to make an audit of -the accounts of all the public corporations to which the government has made or is making loans. Why then insist upon greater safeguards in the case of the only corporation which has provided a sinking fund to meet its obligations when they mature? It seems to me that it is rather severe treatment
to extend to the harbour commission of Montreal when it has made such a good showing. If it would suit my hon. friend I would be willing to take into consideration the matter of applying the principle which he suggests. We are going to incorporate certain other harbours an Canada before very long, we are going to deal generally with the harbours. When that time comes it may be opportune to make the principle of such an audit applicable generally; I do not think we should introduce the principle into a bill providing for a loan of $12,000,(MX) to the harbour commission of Montreal. I hope my hon. friend will consider the suggestion I have made a reasonable and proper one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has not responded at all to the spirit in which I advanced my suggestion. He now takes refuge behind a statement that the suggestion is directed at Montreal. I stated in the most clear and precise terms, after paying a compliment to the port of Montreal, that I did not direct my observations to that port. I said that other ports ought also to be brought in, but I did say that this was a good time to begin to enforce the principle.
I cannot allow another statement by the minister to go unchallenged. He says that Montreal is the only port which has erected a sinking fund'. Why, the next greatest port, the port of Vancouver, erected a sinking fund many years ago, and I am informed by the officers of the department that it is being properly administered. I also asked, and have asked before, that the accounts of the port of Montreal should be brought under the audit of the Auditor General. I will say here that there have been expenditures in both these ports-I am not desirous of bringing up the subject now but I have been forced to do so by the minister's observations-in the port of Vancouver as well as the port of Montreal in times gone by that were rather reckless and greatly exceeded any estimate. I recall one particularly that ran into $3,000,000, although $900,000 was the estimate of the minister. I could cite three or four cases at Vancouver, aggregating I think over a million dollars, of what I consider to be needless expenditures of the money granted by this parliament that could never have been made had the Auditor General been in charge of the accounts of that port. It is for the purpose of safeguarding not only the port of Vancouver, the port of Montreal, the port of Quebec and other ports that have harbour commissioners, but also other ports in which commissions are to be created in future, that I am making my
Montreal Harbour Commission

present appeal. If the minister would give the committee the assurance that he will bring in an amendment to some general act, or such amendments to specific acts, as may bring about the placing of these commissions under the direct audit of the Auditor General; if he will assure us that such a measure will be brought in this session, I will not press the matter further.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Clause 5, to which an amendment is now suggested, simply deals with the deposit of debentures of the Montreal harbour commission to cover loans made from time to time. Such being the case it does not seem to me to be a proper clause in which to deal with the matter of an audit of all the accounts of the Montreal harbour commission. There was an opinion expressed in this House during the only session of the last parliament that all the expenditures of these commissions should be subject to an audit by the Auditor General. Under the Board of Audit Act, as I remember it-I looked it up at the time-the Minister of Finance can -call at any time for a complete audit of the expenditures of each of these commissions. It was stated last session, if I remember correctly, that if anyone wished to see an audit which had been obtained within a few weeks or months, it would be open to any lion, member who made the request. If I remember aright, it was the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) who made tire request. It was offered to him for hi3 inspection and for the inspection in a confidential way of other members of the House.
There is a great deal to be said in favour of an audit by the Auditor General, but I am clear in my opinion that if such a provision is to be adopted, it should be by way of amendment to the Board of Audit Act, and it should be brought in so that it may be clearly understood that it is a general law applicable to each and all of the harbour commissions. If that general amendment is to be proposed, there are ini connection with each of those harbour commissions certain matters which must be regarded as more or less confidential, and when that general amendment is brought in I should like to discuss it from that point of view. The harbour commissioners of Montreal are competing with several United States companies, transportation companies as well as storage companies, and there are certain matters relating to that competition which should not be generally disclosed. Such an audit should not only be open to the minister, but it should be open to my hon. friend if he thinks there is any fraud or trickery or misfeasance of office in connection with the administration of the harbour commissioners. 
When we come to deal with a general amendment, I for one would like to discuss it from the point of view that the general audit of all these harbour commissions should not be made a public report in all its particulars, because I think it would be very injurious to those various ports to have certain matters, which are more or less confidential, and which enable them to compete with United States ports, freely exposed to the public.


Hugh Guthrie: The manifest advantage to this House of having an audit by the Auditor General is, I think, *well known to every hon. member. The audit provided by the Audit Act may be sufficient for the Minister of Finance, but it affords little information for hon. members and we have no opportunity of going behind it or of making inquiries into it. It was pointed out pretty fully last session that an audit by the Auditor General is a different matter. An audit by the Auditor General would give an opportunity in this House of bringing the matter before the public accounts committee of parliament and of summoning any members of the harbour commission or any of -the staff of that commission to appear, produce papers and submit to examination. That is the advantage to this House of an audit under the Auditor General. I understand the minister to say that he is not opposed to that proposal, but he thinks it should be introduced in the form of some general enactment. I am inclined to the same opinion. I realize that we have several great -harbours in Canada operated under boards of harbour commissioners, and it is quite likely that we shall have more in the near future. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, '(Mr. Stevens), who brought the matter before the committee this evening, stated very clearly that he would be satisfied if the minister would introduce a general act for this purpose. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) also acquiesces in the proposal, and if the government would introduce a general act applicable to all these boards of harbour commissioners, with any necessary reservations as to secrecy of -proceedings or the like as suggested by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, that would be quite acceptable on this side of the House. For my part I do not desire to interfere particularly with the Board of Harbour Commissioners of the city of Montreal, and if the minister will grant us an assurance that the matter will receive consideration in the near future, we -can let the matter drop.

Montreal Harbour Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no hesitation in saying that I am ready to give the best consideration to the suggestion that has been made, but really there is no doubt that the public is absolutely protected. In the Audit Act power is given to make an investigation into all the affairs of such commissions. These auditors are empowered with the same authority as that of commissioners under the Inquiries Act. Their report is made to the Minister of Finance, and section 7 of the act reads:
Each report of the board shall be laid before both Houses of parliament within twenty-one days of the date of its receipt by the minister, or if parliament be not then in session, within the first twenty-one days of the session then nest following.
What greater protection can we ask? If on the production of this report any hon. member, after reading it when it has become one of our public documents, wants some details, some information, wants a more thorough investigation into the affairs of the port, he has the power of asking for a more complete investigation into all the affairs of the port.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nonsense.
Mir. GUTHRIE':	He would if it were in
the Auditor General's report, but he cannot under the report from the board of audit.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can give my hon. friend the assurance that if he asks for an inquiry into that port of Montreal, as long as I am Minister of Marine and Fisheries he will get it. I shall have no hesitation in granting an investigation of that kind.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not refer to the
port of Montreal.	I am speaking of the
general principle.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall be glad to give the assurance as regards all other ports.


Hugh Guthrie: When the suggestion was
made it seemed to impress the minister favourably >and he promised to give it consideration, but nothing of course has since been done. The advantage to the House and to hon. members is that we can take the matter before the public accounts committee and investigate it to our hearts' content. I do not say that we need to do so. The occasion might not arise, but it might arise, That is the usual way of treating matters which are audited by the Auditor General and which appear in his report. It is a privilege accorded to this House. When the report is made under the Audit Act and the report comes back to the Minister of Finance,
it is laid on the table in due course, but so far as hon. members are concerned that is the end of it. The Minister of Finance might pursue the matter further, but this House could not do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hesitate to delay the committee, but the minister is surely not serious in the suggestion that if an hon. member rises in his place and says: I would like to have an audit of the port of Montreal, the minister would immediately grant it. Why, on the very face of it-I hesitate to use the word, but it is absurd. The first thing the minister would say to me if I rose in my place and made such a request would be:	Will t'he hon. member please bring such
charges as he desires to make, and we will then have them investigated. You would have to have some charge. Certainly a member rising in his place and simply asking for an audit here or an audit there-why, the Minister of Finance will not say that it would be granted. In fact I do not think it would be sensible to ask it.
I will give the minister and the committee two or three very cogent reasons why I think this should be done, and I shall not, in doing so, refer to the port of Montreal, for the simple reason that the minister persists in returning every argument as if it were particularly directed against the port of Montreal. I just as steadily persist that that is not my objective. It is the general principle I am fighting for, and that I fought for last year and the other night. This House from time to time grants sums running into the millions. To-night it is $12,000,000-I think this has been preceded by some $40,000,000 to this particular port, and Vancouver I believe has received some $15,000,000 or more-by way of loan on the debentures of these ports for general investment, and this House and the members of this House have no more right to scrutinize the expenditure of these moneys than has any person outside the House. Now that is wrong in principle. You ask me to give some reason. I will give you a oouple of good reasons.
This House granted the harbour commissioners of Vancouver a loan of $5,000,000, similar to this, for the purpose of improving that harbour. Now I am going to tell the House how a couple of million dollars of that loan was expended. In one instance the harbour commissioners bought a piece of land from a certain company controlled by a gentleman by the name of Mr. Gale, who, by the way, was a political candidate-I am just stating the facts-for the purpose of
42,S

Montreal Harbour Commission
constellating a jetty to carry grain carriers out for the delivery of grain to be loaded on ships. That jetty was constructed for the purpose of serving an elevator owned by a company owned by Mr. Gale and his associates. On that jetty, out of the moneys granted by this parliament, was spent the sum of approximately $1,000,000. The fixed charges, interest and sinking fund, against that amounted to $112,000 a year; I am now quoting from returns that have been laid on the table of the House. In the first year of its construction the harbour commissioners secured a revenue of $12,000, and laid out in fixed charges $112,000. The next year they got a revenue of I think $23,000 or $27,000, and they paid out $112,000 in fixed charges. The point there is this; In the first place, the harbour commissioners should never have made the expenditure. In the second place the money was spent extravagantly; the construction was very extravagant, and there has been no control over that expenditure except by auditors appointed by the commissioners themselves.
I will give another illustration. The harbour commissioners in Vancouver, out of one of these votes supplied them by the House, bought an elevator known as the Woodward elevator. A gentleman by the name of Woodward went to Vancouver some years ago, about 1921, and went into the elevator business. He went broke in the undertaking; he did not have sufficient capital, and he went to the commissioners and asked them to take it over. I heard that they had done so, as did the business people of Vancouver. I wrote a letter to the chairman of the harbour board and pointed out to him that if he took over that project it would probably cost him upwards of half a million dollars to put the institution in good shape, and that he would only lose money very heavily as a result. When he was in Ottawa attending the minister I warned the chairman again, and I warned the department against entering into that project. However, they went on. The commissioners bought the property, and it now stands a cost to the harbour commissioners of some $960,000 or $970,000. It is leased today, I think, at a rental of about $30,000 a year. An arithmetical calculation will show to what an extent this country has profited by that. What was the trouble? The expenditures were extravagantly made. Has there been any check on that expenditure? No. Why? Because this House has no control over it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, an attempt was made a session or two ago to have these matters investigated, and what 
were we told? That we had no right to bring these accounts before the public account.3 committee for the simple reason that they were not under the Auditor General and did not come within that category. If we accept the minister's suggestion, or the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and leave these matters to be dealt with by the audit board, we members of the House have no means of investigating, none whatever. All that will happen is this: I can stand in my place and make charges and all that sort of thing, and then we get an audit board appointed. The audit board reports to the government, and there is no committee of this House investigating. The public accounts committee have no chance to investigate, nor has anyone connected with this parliament any right to investigate, no more right than any man outside the House.
What I have been trying to argue for the last three sessions-last session in particular I emphasized it, and previously in this session, and again I emphasize it now-is not that we should harrass these harbour boards. I am wholeheartedly behind the harbour boards of this country, such as are run in a proper manner, and I want to help them in every possible way. I will vote for this expenditure, but I do ask, as a matter of right to this House and as a matter of reasonable safeguard to the harbour commissioners themselves, that the Auditor General shall be placed in charge. These harbour boards appoint their own auditors. I submit now to any trained business man or accountant in this House, is it a sound thing to have the management of a concern appoint its own auditors? It is not sound; it is contrary to every business principle. I will admit that in many institutions the shareholders are indifferent to their rights and allow the management sometimes to nominate the auditors; but that is private business, and here we are dealing with public moneys. The principle which is sound in private and in public business is that tlie shareholders concerned-and this parliament represent the shareholders in this case-should appoint the auditors of the management, and not the management appoint the auditors to audit their own affairs. All we ask of the minister and of the government is that we, representing the people whose moneys are being expended, should have our auditor, the Auditor General, audit these accounts.
In regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, I wholly agree with him in this, that there are certain matters that must be kept private,

Montreal Harbour Commission
but there is not a sensible auditor in the country who does not know exactly what should be kept private and what should be made public. That is what they are trained for; that is their business, and there will be no difficulty whatever about that. I will assure the minister from my own knowledge of the auditing game, which has extended over a great many years, that I would never think of asking that secret, confidential information, or information that would harrass the board, be made public. But in the interest of the harbour boards themselves-and goodness knows they are harrassed enough politically and in other ways for advantages here and advantages there-in the interest of inspiring confidence in public affairs, and in the name of what is right ana fair, I ask on behalf of this House and the people of this country that the Auditor General should be put in charge of these harbour commissions, expending as they are millions of the people's money-$12,000,000 this year-and I hope the Vancouver harbour commissioners may later, perhaps not this session but next, get a further advance; and the same with other harbour commissioners. But let us put these expenditures under the eye of the Auditor General, and so give to this House and to committees of this House an opportunity to scrutinize everything fairly and frankly.


Robert Gardiner: The hon. member has
explained certain expenditures in the harbour of Vancouver. Would he care to suggest that the manner in which the . funds have been expended made it necessary for the harbour commission to ask for increased charges on grain going through that port?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely not. I say
the increase in the charges at the port of Vancouver are unjustifiable. I have always said so. They never should have been increased. The old charges were quite sufficient for their needs.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I would
remind the minister that some years ago one of the most important harbours in the maritime provinces, then under a commission, was defrauded of a very considerable portion of its revenue through the defalcations of its treasurer. The only audit was a local audit. Had we had an audit such as that referred to by various speakers on this side of the House, I am satisfied that those defalcations would not have occurred. The irregularities, I may say, extended over a period of years. As probably two important harbours in the maritime provinces will soon come under some form of commission or
government control, I think it highly important that we should have some sort of official governmental audit. There is not much use in locking the door after the horse is gone. The mere fact that such an audit would be held would undoubtedly have a deterrent effect on any official who might be inclined towards or tempted to dishonesty.
I think in the interests of all concerned, not only the members of the House but the various harbours, and the sections of country which they serve, that it is highly important to apply one general principle to bodies controlling our harbours or receiving public money and administering large harbour revenues.


Robert Gardiner: Has the audit board
ever audited the accounts of the Vancouver commission or any of the other harbour commissions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, last year and the year before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who on behalf of the
audit board audited the Vancouver harbour accounts last year and the year before?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Edwards, of Toronto,
chairman of the board.


Mr. SPENCER:: Was the report satisfactory to the Minister of Finance?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, it was a most satisfactory report. It was tabled and is available to hon. members.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, the government has spent $44,000,000 on this harbour, and we are now asked to spend another $12,000,000. In addition to that we are liable for the cost of a bridge, which at first we were told would run to $6,000,000, but now we may have to face an expenditure of $15,000,000 on this account. Up to a few years ago this particular harbour was under the control of 'the Department of Public Works, then it was transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Last session it was charged in this House by two hon. members -that the Montreal harbour board was in politics. I do not like to think that this is so. We have -been told that there is as much politics in the port of Montreal as in the Canadian National Railways, and if that is so it is going pretty far. As I say, I do not like to hear it, and I do not think it is true, but if there is any foundation for the statement the quicker the port is taken out of politics the better. The port of Montreal is the largest grain exporting port in the world, and in the value of its total commerce is second only to New York and Liverpool.

Montreal Harbour Commission
Every good Canadian admires the port and wants to build it up. But with all due respect to the minister, the time has come when the accounts of this port and all its contracts and other business transactions should, like those of the national railways, be placed before the public accounts committee of this parliament.
Although this government has contributed not a cent to the Toronto harbour commission, and although no charges were made against its administration, the minister ordered an inquiry, and the Central Liberal Association of Toronto asked the government to appoint a board of politicians to take charge of the inquiry, although the city council had appointed Sir Thomas White to conduct the proceedings. It seems to me that so many of our judges have little or nothing to do that half their time is spent on these political commissions, contrary to the Judges Act. Now, as the minister ordered an inquiry into the affairs of the Toronto harbour, what about his own harbour, what about his own bailiwick? In the city of Vancouver the other day the government dismissed all the commissioners and appointed a new board, whose members seem to know nothing about harbour affairs but were appointed largely because they were Liberals. To be consistent, the minister should appoint a commission of inquiry into the affairs of the port of Montreal, in connection with which certain charges have been made, when he did so in relation to the Toronto harbour commission, against which no charges whatsoever were made. Let the minister ascertain whether the port of Montreal is run from a commercial aspect or not, and whether politics has entered into its administration. As I say, I do not like to think so, but it is his duty to the House and to the country to make a declaration of policy with respect to this matter.
All these ports at Montreal, Halifax, St. John, Vancouver, Quebec are in the public interest, and they will always have my support. I know the chairman of this particular port, and I am sure he is an honest man and a brilliant young Canadian. This is a national port and it should be properly administered, but I do not believe the minister was wise in accepting the advice of a few Liberal ward politicians and paying fifteen to twenty thousand dollars to a Liberal lawyer in Toronto to provide him with a job. The commissioners there have worked for nothing, having devoted years of their life to the service of the public. I admit that the commission in Montreal has done good work, but it seems to me that the minister owes the committee some further explanation. [DOT]


Mr. MacLAREN:: Substantial reasons have been given why there should be a general application of the Audit Act to harbour commissions. The minister has been urged to give an assurance that an amendment will be made to the act to provide for an audit under the Auditor General in the case of this commission. He does not seem willing to give that assurance. Will he state to the committee the objections he has to accepting what seems to me a very reasonable and a valuable suggestion which has been offered from this side of the House?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think there is some misunderstanding regarding the relative positions of the various harbour commissions in Canada. It is not for the mere pleasure of appointing harbour commissions that these boards are established. They were established because it was felt at the time that the affairs of the ports could be better administered by that means than from the department in Ottawa through the ordinary officers of the government, and it was decided by those who first created the commissions -that it would be preferable to have reliable men of experience, familiar with the local conditions, dead with the affairs of the ports concerned, rather than leave their administration to the department. We must have confidence in the men we appoint, and if we are to drag the harbour commissioners before the public accounts committee every year and compel them to answer questions in detail with reference to the smallest transactions they superintend, it will be very hard indeed to find men of reputable standing who will be ready to undertake -the duties of harbour commissioners and expose themselves to all the criticism to which they might -be liable. This departure was made by previous governments and approved by this one because it was thought that the affairs of a port could be best administered in this manner. Of course, if we have no confidence in the commissioners, that is a different matter; but if we trust them sufficiently to appoint them to this responsible position we should be satisfied with the guarantees and the securities which are provided in the law as it stands.
These harbour commissions are becoming more general: witness -the Duncan report in its recommendation as to the advisability of having harbour commissions at Halifax and St. John. I maintain -that there exist already, in -the law as it stands, all the safeguards which we can reasonably require in a matter of this kind. I mentioned a moment ago one of the provisions of the Audit Act; there is another which is well worth considering. Sec-

Montreal Harbour Commission
tion 8 of the Audit Act provides that nothing contained therein shall impair the authority given by the Consolidated Revenue Act and Audit Act to the Auditor General of Canada. And if you refer to chapter 24 of the revised statutes of Canada, Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, section 63 you will find, with reference to the powers of the Auditor General, the following:
Besides the appropriation accounts of the grants of parliament, the Auditor General shall examine and audit, if required so to do by the Minister of Finance, and in accordance with any regulations which are prescribed for his guidance in that behalf by the Treasury board. . .
(g) any other public accounts which, though not relating directly to the receipts or expenditure of the Dominion of Canada, the Treasury board directs him to examine and audit.
So that section 63 of that act provides a safeguard, the Auditor General having power to audit "any other public accounts which, though not relating directly to the receipts or expenditure of the Dominion of Canada", and so forth. I contend that the harbour boards through the assistance which they are receiving come under subsection (g) of section 63 of chapter 24 of the act in question. "Any other public accounts" may be taken as including the accounts of harbour commissions, and I do not consider it fair to ask that all the affairs of the harbour boards in general should be submitted to the public accounts committee to be discussed in detail a year after the expenditure has been made. This is not going to prevent any expenditure; the public accounts committee does not deal with prospective expenditures but with 'those already made, and only by way of criticism can the government be checked if we are not as strict as some gentlemen think we should be. So even through the public accounts committee the safeguard would not be greater because the expenditures would be considered after they had been made. In view of the safeguards we already enjoy I think it only fair that the bill should go through in. its present form, which leaves matters in exactly the same position. The matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and supported by others is one which is worth consideration and I am ready to give it the best of my judgment. I will consult the Minister of Finance, by whom the Audit Act is administered, and if anything can properly be done to improve the control we may exercise over these boards, I am quite ready to do it provided we do not embarrass them or complicate their affairs.


Robert James Manion: I would like to say a word on this question, because I 'believe it to be very important. In a general way I would like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre; I did not hear his speech, but he has explained the gist of it to me. On different occasions and in different parts of Canada I have heard criticisms of certain harbour boards, criticisms certainly not complimentary to those boards.
I am not saying anything against the Montreal harbour board or any other particular board, but I have received letters, some of which are on my files at present, charging some of these boards with taking part in politics and with using funds for political purposes which should be used for the harbours. I do not say that these statements are correct, although I have received them from most responsible citizens, but under the circumstances and while there is danger that these boards may be charged by some people at least with misconduct, would it not be in the interest of the boards themselves to have the Auditor General look into their accounts? It seems to me a most fair proposition. I am not charging any board with misconduct, but it certainly seems to me that the minister will be doing more justice even to the men who compose these boards, and these men should feel that they are receiving more justice, by having the Auditor General look through their accounts and clear them of the charges of misconduct which are being made rather freely in ordinary conversation throughout the country to-day. I believe the minister should promise to make it a general rule that all these harbour boards be put under the control, so far as expenditures are concerned, of the Auditor General.
Probably the minister has very good reasons for saying that it would not be fair to insist that these accounts be brought before the public accounts committee, and the members of the boards interlocuted lay >11 the members of that committee. We all know that outstanding men have taken positions on these boards; I can look back at members of the Montreal harbour board whom I have met in the past; they were outstanding men just as there are outstanding men on that board today. But I should think these men would also welcome this proposition, and I think the minister would be well advised in saying tonight that all these boards should have their accounts investigated by the Auditor General. If the boards have nothing of which to be ashamed, as the minister says he is confident they have not, they should welcome the investigation. I believe the minister should take the attitude that the Auditor General of Canada will investigate every one of these boards annually and report to this House.

Montreal Harbour Commission


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In looking into this matter
I find that there are two acts, first the Board of Audit Act of 1925, and then the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, which is chapter 24 of the revised statutes. I find that in 1925 this parliament decided upon a certain policy with respect to the investigation of the accounts of certain public bodies such as the Canadian National Railway Company, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited and other undertakings which are owned or carried on by the government of Canada, as well as any commission or other public body the operations [DOT] of which are carried on by appropriations from the treasury of Canada. This harbour commission therefore comes under the Board of Audit Act, section 4 of which provides:
It shall be the duty of the board to act in an advisory capacity to the Treasury Board and under its direction to inquire into and report with regard to any matters entrusted to it by the Treasury Board including the following:
Then it proceeds to provide for an inquiry into the accounts of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited and any harbour commission in Canada. This places it entirely within the discretion of the Treasury board as to whether any such public audit of the Montreal harbour commission or other commissions shall be made, and only when the Treasury board gives such direction is an audit of the accounts of such a commission made. It seems to me reasonable to suggest to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) who has charge of this bill, and also to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), that this Board of Audit Act might be so amended as to provide for annual audits of such commissions as the Montreal harbour commission, so as to not leave it entirely within the discretion of the Treasury board as to whether or not such audit should be 'hiade. If such annual audits are made, section 7 of the act applies, which sections says:
Each report of the board shall be laid before both houses of parliament within twenty-one days from the date of its receipt by the minister, or if parliament be not then in session, within the first twenty-one days of the session then next following.
I am inclined to agree with the minister that when such a report is laid before this House it is quite competent for any hon. member to move that it be referred for further consideration to the public accounts committee. If there is any doubt about it, however, the doubt might be set at rest by a further amendment, in case the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should con-

sider such an amendment necessary. It might be clearly stated in clauses 6 and 7 that the report should be laid not only before the House but before the public accounts committee as well for its consideration. I can see no objection to that. Therefore we come back to the question as to whether the audit board is the proper authority to audit these accounts. I am subject to correction, but I do not understand that the Auditor General of Canada has anything to do with the accounts of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, or the accounts of the Canadian National Railways; I understand they have their own audit but come so far as public audit is concerned, under the Board of Audit Act of 1925? Is not that correct? I understand it to be so. Therefore I can see no reason why the harbour commission should be dealt with in any different way, in the matter of audit, from that in which the accounts of the (Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine- two corporations which are receiving and expending very large grants of public money- are dealt with. But I do see a reason why those reports should not-be made at the mere suggestion of the Minister of Finance. The report of the Board of Audit should be made annually; it should be compulsory for the board to 'make an annual investigation of the harbour commission's accounts and annually report upon them. Then the report should be placed before parliament, as now provided in section 7 of the act, and made available to the public accounts committee for further consideration. I can see no real objection- to following such a course as that. The contention is that these audits should be made by the Auditor General. I do not know that there is any virtue in an audit by that official which may not be found in an audit under the Board of Audit Act of 1925. I do not think that we should demand an explicit undertaking from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries tonight. But I think that he and the Minister of Finance should consider the whole matter and give it their careful attention, so that later on, when the estimates for the current year are under consideration, they might give us some assurance that either under the Board of Audit Act of 1925, or under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, which is chapter 24 of the revised statutes, an audit and report should be compulsory in each and every year, and that the report made as the result of such audit should not only be laid before parliament as now provided, but should go before the public accounts committee for such consideration as that body may deem necessary to give to it.

Montreal Harbour Commission


Robert Gardiner: I
heartily support the attitude of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I have nothing at all to say in criticism of the Board of Harbour Commissioners of the port of Montreal. I have had the privilege on several occasions of looking over that port and examining the conditions very closely and as far as I could see the port is well run, and conducted in a manner that is in the interests of this country. But I want to remind the minister that some three years ago we considered and discussed in this House the affairs of the harbour commission of Vancouver. Let me remind hon. gentlemen of the important fact that had it not been for the action of the provincial government of Alberta in appearing before the grain commission inquiry and laying its case before that body we should not have discovered what was brought to light at that particular time. The revelations then made were of sufficient, importance to bring to the attention of parliament, and we had a long discussion of the situation disclosed. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has cited to-night two cases in connection with the harbour commission of Vancouver which are detrimental to the interests of that port and of the people of Vancouver, as well as detrimental to the interests of the nation as a whole. We hear statements in this House, and we see long articles printed in the public press from time to time, as to the reasons why the Canadian products do not go through Canadian ports, and propaganda has been directed against the western Canadian farmer because much of his grain passes through ports in the United States. Now there are reasons why Canadian grain goes through those ports. I am not going to say that the only reason is that some Canadian ports are not as well managed as they should be, but undoubtedly that fact enters into the situation. Last season less grain was shipped out through the port of Vancouver than for many years previously. This was not because of the charges made and the conditions brought to light, because there are other factors to be considered. Nevertheless the disclosures made had a certain influence. But it must be borne in mind that the ports on the west coast of the United States are to-day making a great bid for the grain business of Alberta. They are trying to get the grain of that province diverted to their ports instead of being shipped through the port of Vancouver. Now we farmers of the west desire to see the most of our grain go through our own ports, because we feel there is then less danger of 32649-28
admixture than when our grain goes through United States ports. Let me remind the minister that only a short time ago the Vancouver harbour commission raised the rates on grain going through that port, and we had mo opportunity to contest their action, at least that is what we were assured by the government of Alberta, and there was no one to speak on our behalf. The situation therefore seems to be this: If harbour commissions were subject to an audit that would be reported to the House and thoroughly considered here, I am satisfied it would increase the efficiency of our ports and would give them a much larger business than they handle now. I hope the minister will see to it, if he possibly can, that the harbour commissions shall be brought under some audit which will be reported to the House, and, if necessary, the commissioners themselves summoned before a parliamentary committee to give explanations.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no hesitation in
saying that I would be inclined to favour an annual audit by the audit board such as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has suggested. I am quite willing to take the matter up with the Minister of Finance, who is in charge of the -two acts to which allusion has been made, and1 to discuss matters with him along the lines suggested by my hon. friend. If we have an annual audit the report made with respect to it will be tabled according to law. I think this assurance ought to be satisfactory to everyone interested. I understand that the leader of the Progressive party objected the other day because the audit the Minister of Finance might decide upon was merely optional. I shall be prepared to make it compulsory and to have it every year.


Robert Gardiner: The hon. member for
St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) brought to the minister's attention another matter, namely, that if the audit takes place under the audit board, while the report must be tabled in the House, no provision is made that any committee of this House will look into that report if it is found necessary to do so. That is the weakness of the situation. If the minister will promise to provide ways and means to overcome that difficulty, that will probably be satisfactory.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend will surely
remember that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George expressed the opinion that according to the law as it stands, the report can be referred to the public accounts committee.	I



Montreal Harbour Commission


Robert Gardiner: Yes, but the minister must remember that that is only a lawyer's opinion and we have 'heard a good deal about lawyers' opinions. What we want is to be secured to the extent that the report shall go before the committee if any member or members of this House shall deem it desirable to have the report so considered by the committee.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no objection to
taking the matter up with the Minister of Finance and discussing the suggestion with him.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister be
prepared to move an amendment to this bill in accordance with the extent to which he has said he is willing to go? I cannot understand why he has hesitated so Long to-night before agreeing to meet the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) half way. It seems to me that he has protested too much. When anyone protests too much, naturally people begin to make inquiries and to wonder why the protests are made. I am glad the minister has at last appreciated the fact that members of this House .want to know more about these harbour boards. I would be glad if an amendment could be inserted in this measure.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It should be an amendment to the Audit Aot.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If the minister can assure the House that an amendment will be brought down to cover all ports, I shall be content.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: There is a little information I should like to get as to the method provided for meeting maturing obligations, a somewhat important matter in this House. I understood the minister to say- and he will correct me if I am misquoting him-that the Montreal harbour commission were already providing a sinking fund of one per cent per annum for that purpose; but as this loan obligation which the commission is now securing will mature in twenty-five years it is obvious that a sinking fund of one per cent will not be sufficient to meet it when it matures at the end of that period, even with the accrued interest on the amounts that are retained. What other provision is made, or will the large percentage of that maturing obligation have to be met by further loans? Because if further loans are required, [DOT] that might mean a continuous increase of the total obligation beyond the point of security.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Of course a sinking fund
of one per cent per annum is not sufficient to meet the total amount of the loan, but it would certainly go a long way towards paying a substantial amount on account of the loan and it would be easy to renew the balance. We must not forget that we are practically making a deal between the right and the left pocket. These commissioners are not proprietors of the things which they are administering. They are administering only the affairs of the state, and the money which is expended by them is for building wharves, elevators and so on, which are the property of the government, and in taking guarantees and all sorts of protection we are practically taking a mortgage on the left pocket for the benefit of the right. By this method it is easier to keep accounts; but we should not forget that we are dealing with our own affairs, our. own property; we are lending money to a corporation which represents the government and the state. We should not be too severe in establishing the sinking fund because we are dealing with our own property. I am not objecting to any safeguards. My hon. friend (Mr. Spencer) said that he was surprised that I did not agree to that at first. I have no objection to state the reason. I thought at first that this bill was not the proper place to establish a general principle, as it would apply only to Montreal harbour and would not cover the other harbours that we have. The proper place to make this amendment is in the Audit Act. Secondly, according to my poor judgment and my short experience as a lawyer, I contend that practically all that is being asked for to-night is already in the statutes as they exist.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is discretionary in the
present statute and we wish to make it compulsory.


George Reginald Geary: Is it the practice of the
Montreal harbour board or any other harbour board to set up a depreciation reserve to take care of property used up in the service of the board?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think so.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What has the country
invested in the port of Montreal, including this $12,000,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount is $44,000,000
prior to this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Agricultural Winter Fair
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I beg to move that the following clause be added as section 6:
6. The principal and interest of the sums advanced to the corporation under the authority of this act shall be paid by the corporation out of its revenue mentioned in section eight of chapter ten of the statutes of 1896 (first session) and shall be charged upon the said revenue in the same manner and to the same extent as if the sum so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under the said chapter ten.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This, of course, largely
meets the objection which I raised at the opening of the proceedings to-night in regard to this bill; but the statement made by the minister some time ago to the effect that no sinking funds were established sufficient to take care of these loans as they matured is somewhat disturbing. I do not wish to delay the committee, but I would point out that the minister's statement of a moment ago, namely, that this is merely a transition of funds from one pocket to the other and that these commissioners are administering our affairs and so on, is scarcely a fair one. These commissioners are corporate bodies created by this parliament. They are carrying on business in competition with private concerns. For instance, in the ports of Montreal and Vancouver in particular they are carrying on a great grain conveying business in competition with other persons in the grain trade. It is unfair to general business, private business, that corporate bodies of this character should have huge loans from the government of Canada without their being compelled to operate these facilities in such a businesslike manner that they can fairly compete with the others. For instance, the question of fees enters into the matter. This is a board, we will say, not setting aside a sinking fund to take care of its principal investment. By statute and by regulation of the grain board under the Grain Act the private concern is kept down to the same fees that the public concern charges, but the private concern must take care of its principal and interest. So it is an unfair competition unless the harbour commissioners are compelled so to conduct their business that out of their revenues they shall take care of both principal and interest.
I submit therefore, in conclusion, that it is contrary to the original act of 1896, where it is specifically laid down that the principal and interest shall be taken care of, and which deals exactly with, first, the charges against making the loan; next keeping the harbour
and so on clean; and lastly, principal and interest. I submit to the minister that parliament should insist that these boards set up a sinking fund sufficient to take care of these loans as they mature.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The last criticism of my
hon. friend is not well founded. There is no difference between this clause and the one which exists in the bill of 1896. The three last lines state "and shall be a charge upon the said revenue in the same manner and to the same extent as if tlhe sum so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under the said chapter 10.'' So the loan is under the same restrictions as are provided in the bill of 1896.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My criticism was that the harbour commission is not carrying out the spirit of these statutes, and my criticism is based on the minister's own statement of a moment ago and his statement of some time ago. At some future time, when we have the estimates before us and can discuss the question generally without being constantly reminded that we are attacking the port of Montreal, I intend to discuss this question of providing sinking fund and the question of adequate protection in the way of audits.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 64, for the granting of assistance to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair Association of Canada at Toronto, Ontario.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Grant for building at Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Toronto.
Robert Gardiner: Of what value is it to
spread these payments over twenty years? I understand that they propose to put up the building now. Is this merely an instalment?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The bill makes
provision for annual instalments of $35,000 for twenty years. That carries with it the interest charges as well.
Private Bills


Robert Gardiner: Will bonds be issued
for the payment of this building, and be redeemed in part annually?


William Richard Motherwell: I think so. I
understand that the city of Toronto will issue bonds.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 11.02 p.m.
Friday, February 18, 1927