1928-03-06

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 58, to incorporate the London and Port Burwell Railway Company-Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 59, to incorporate The Federal Loan Company.-Mr. Lang.
Bill No. 60, respecting the Canadian Surety Company.-Mr. Hocken.

[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization. -Mr. Kay.
First report of the select standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville).


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker I
desire to lay on the table a preliminary statement of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1927.

Mr. DUNNING moved:: That standing order 63, of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of select standing committees of the house, be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session a select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the present session, for consideration and for report to the house, provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to

curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply; and that the said committee consist of Messrs. Bell (St. Antoine), Cantley, Chaplin, Drayton, Duff, Dunning, Fiset, Goodison, Harris, Jelliff, Jenkins, McLean (Melfort), Milne, Power ai*l Stevens.
He said: The resolution is identical with resolutions of former years in this regard.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: The statement tabled by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), purports to be a preliminary report, and I think we should have the final report if we are to deal with the matter effectively. In addition to that, the motion refers the estimate to the committee, as in previous years, and I think it might also be desirable to refer the report to the committee. Otherwise there may be some difficulty in dealing with it, and I think it was so intended in the first instance.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is so intended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The motion does not
say so.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I indicated last week, the government requested the Canadian National Railways to supply the accounts as soon as possible, and this preliminary statement merely lacks the certificate; some of the checking is not finished as yet, but I hope by the time the committee gets to work next week the final audited statement will be ready together with the estimates. As my hon. friend has suggested, both these documents are submitted to the committee, and I must confess that I adopted precisely the form of previous years without scrutinizing it at all closely in that regard. The intention certainly is to submit the report as well as the estimates to the special committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, perhaps, the
motion ought to read that the report of the company and the estimates for the current year be referred to the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: The motion certainly
ought to read that way.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the motion pass
subject to this understanding?


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Motions similar to this have been made every year for the past three years and the Minister of Railways, whoever he happened to be, has always offered a plausible excuse for adopting that plan, namely, that an opportunity would be afforded for discussion when the report of the committee was presented later on. But that is not the way the matter works out in practice. There is no more reason why a select committee should be appointed to consider the estimates of the

C.N.R.-Railways and Shipping Committee
Department of Railways, or of the Canadian National Railways, than there is for pursuing a similar qourse in regard to the estimates of the Post Office Department, the Department of National Revenue or any other branch of the public service. The proper way to consider the estimates as a whole is to appoint a number of estimate committees to supervise the estimates of the various departments, then summon the officials before those committees and ask for detailed explanations of the public expenditures. The present system of trying to audit the estimates in oommittee of the whole is an inefficient and antiquated one and is only a post mortem method. One of my reasons for objecting to the present motion is that when the course which it recommends is adopted the report of that committee does not come back to the house until an advanced hour in the morning of the day of prorogation, when there is not the faintest possibility of intelligent discussion. The committee is just a whitewashing one. When it is appointed and is carrying on its sittings you cannot get any information there of real value in regard to this great public undertaking known as the Canadian National Railways. Not only should the capital expenditures of the system be thoroughly investigated, but the entire administration of the railway, and the operation of those deficit-producing lines in the United States with which it is affiliated, should be brought under review. But nothing of that kind occurs. Really it seems that the president of this system, Sir Henry Thornton, has very little to do. Recently he took a month's holiday in Mexico. Tomorrow he may be on a mission to Peru, or to Bogota. In the course of time he will have visited the seven seas and whatever capitals are located on them. It is useless for a member of parliament, acting in the interests of his constituents, to try to get any information with respect to the operation and administration of this railway. In the Ontario legislature, where the estimates of that great public undertaking the Hydro Electric Power Commission are under review, they would not think of passing any such resolution as this and shunting it all off on a committee on whitewash. The functions of this committee are purely and simply of a whitewashing character. Its report will be brought down in the dying hours of the session and no opportunity whatever will be afforded of criticizing the railway policy of the government. In connection with the administration of the Canadian National Railways one would think that if any appointments needed to be made Canadians would 56103-66i
be chosen but they have been ignored. The graduate of a law school in connection with Yale university, Mr. Gaston, was brought over to fill an important position which could have been filled just as efficiently by some one of the many returned soldiers affiliated with Canadian law firms. If you pass this resolution you might just as well pass the whole of the estimates without any inquiry at all. The people of this country are not satisfied with the entire administration of this so-called publicly owned road. It is not a publicly owned road at all, and the head of the system makes a political football of the fuel question in the interest of coal barons in the United States. It has become a popular method on the part of this government to refer embarrassing questions to special committees and courts. And what is the result? You cannot get information from ministers in the house, and you cannot get it when you attend these committees. The St. Lawrence waterways question is also being made a political football. That question has been referred to the run of the law courts, and the Lord knows when it will come back; perhaps two or three months before the next general election which will likely take place two or three years hence. In France and in the United States the estimates of the public departments are considered by certain special estimate committees, and as a result those estimates are carefully scrutinized. The estimates of the national railway are referred to a special committee, and nothing further is heard about them. The report is brought down within an hour or two of prorogration when intelligent consideration or discussion is out of the question. Personally I prefer the system followed in France and the United States and it should be made to apply to all departments generally. The practice we follow is simply to hold a post mortem after the money has been spent. Parliament, under the plan followed here, has no control whatever of the estimates of the Canadian National Railways. We want to overhaul our methods of considering estimates and adopt the committee system as a whole brought up to date as in France where the officials can appear before these committees and give information and not single out the Canadian National Railways for this special treatment.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: With regard to the hon. gentleman's objection to the estimates of the Canadian National Railways going to this committee I have nothing to say, but I do resent on behalf of my constituents his continued attacks upon the administration of that railway. I can
1044	COMMONS
C.N.R.-Railways and Shipping Committee
tell the house that the many speeches my hon. friend has made against the national railway do not represent the sentiment of one .per .cent of the people of the city from which he comes. I can state without hesitation that the people of Toronto, to the extent of 99 per cent, are favourable to the national railway. When, my hon. friend gets up and denounces the administration of the railways, as he has done not only to-day but on former occasions, I feel that it is my duty to inform the house as to the real sentiments of the city from which we both come. He can curse Sir Henry Thornton as much as he likes; that may be his opinion of him; but I do not want to sit, and I do not think I should, sit here quietly, and let it go abroad that the opinions he expresses are those of the people of the city of Toronto. To me it comes as a surprise that my hon. friend who has represented himself as the great protagonist of the public operation of utilities, who on almost eveiy occasion that he stands in this house praises the great work of Sir Adam Beck-and I entirely agree with his sentiments in that regard;-should attempt to belittle and discredit the operation of the greatest national utility we have in the Dominion of Canada. If there is under public ownership and management any organization that should receive the support of the people of Canada, it is the national railways. We have over a billion dollars invested in that enterprise, and it is our duty, as I see it-and I know many manufacturers and freight shippers in Toronto feel it to be their duty-to do what we can to make this railway a success. I think it will be found on examination of the freight traffic from Toronto that that city has contributed as much if not more than any other part of the Dominion of Canada to the success of this railway. I am not speaking of the west which has enormous quantities of traffic, great bulk cargoes of grain to ship, but I am speaking of a city where there are innumerable men shipping freight and travelling as passengers on this railway. If the people of our city were not sympathetic to this enterprise; if they did not really desire its success, they would not patronize it to the extent they do. That very fact refutes the attacks which my hon. friend makes upon the management of the national railways. I have no brief for the railways, but I have a brief for the city of Toronto and I do not want it to go abroad uncontradicted that the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend are held by any considerable number of the people of Toronto.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker-
| Mr. Hocken.]


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has already spoken on, this motion. He can speak only once.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hewitt Bostock: It is understood that a new motion will be presented with the estimates. Is that the agreement?



STANDING ORDERS

Mr. L. S. R. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) moved:: That the first report of the select standing committee on standing orders be concurred in


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi):: With the unanimous consent of the house I beg to move:
That the third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization presented this day be concurred in.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRIVILEGE-MR. EDWARDS (Frontenac)
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I rise to a question of privilege. One week ago to-day in the course of my remarks on the budget I made certain statements which were vigorously repudiated by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke). Certain comments which have been made by the press with regard to that statement, I think, place me in an entirely wrong light and I desire in a few words to justify the statement I made. On the 28th day of June, 1926, Premier King tendered to His Excellency the Governor General his resignation which was accepted, and the Governor General called on the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who signified his willingness to attempt to form an administration. The next morning, Tuesday, June 29, the Progressives met in caucus and passed this resolution:
Motion agreed to by Progressive group:
That we assist the new administration in completing the business of the session;
That we are in agreement of the necessity of continuing the investigation into the Customs and Excise department by a judicial commission ;
We believe it advisable that no dissolution should take place until the judicial commission has finished its investigation in the Customs and Excise department and that parliament be summoned to deal with the report.
The present Minister of Immigration and Colonization stated, as reported in the Globe

Privilege-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
of July 5, 1926, that the1 above resolution was passed by the Prqgressives and given to him for his guidance. I make the statement that he conveyed to His Excellency the Governor General the attitude of the Progressives as indicated in that resolution and, what is of more importance, since it appeared in the press, was the fact that it was conveyed to the people of Canada generally. That is my warrant and that is the pledge to which I refer. You can call it pledge, contract, undertaking, or whatever you like; I do not wish to quibble on terms. That is the pledge to which I refer and which I regard as a pledge. It was written and, therefore, a written pledge. It was endorsed by all the Progressives including the leader of the Progressives and, therefore, by the minister himself.


Charles Avery Dunning: How does the hon. member know?


John Wesley Edwards: I have the assurance of the hon. gentleman himself and also of other members of the party to that effect. In support of my second statement that that pledge was violated, I say that all you have to do is to scrutinize the votes taken on June 29, June 30 and July 1, which show conclusively that not once in any of those votes-


Hewitt Bostock: I think the hon. gentleman is going further than a question of privilege.


John Wesley Edwards: I respectfully submit that I was charged with making a misstatement in saying that a pledge had been violated. Surely I have a right to say in what respect I was warranted in making that statement and then letting the people judge of the facts. I say that the votes taken on June 29, June 30 and July 1, clearly indicate that not only did the leader of the Progressives at that time not assist the new administration in advancing the business of the session, but on every occasion he did all he could to prevent that administration from carrying on.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. If the hon.
gentleman will allow me, he made a statement in the course of his remarks, and the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) also made a statement in reply to the hon. gentleman. According to parliamentary authorities, when a statement is made in the house it is bound to be accepted by every membeT of the house. I cannot allow explanations of the meaning of all the words and declarations used to be brought up on questions of privilege. It would create a
vicious circle which could not settle the question in any event. The hon. gentleman made a clear-cut statement; the hon. Minister of Immigration has also made a clear-cut statement, and in my judgment the incident is closed.


John Wesley Edwards: I just want-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: I presume
the Speaker is presiding. I quite agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that I must accept the statement of any hon. gentlemen in this house, but I would call your attention to the fact that I do not have to accept the statements made by a newspaper, and I was replying to the newspaper's misrepresentation of my attitude.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Sir, you overlook the fact that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization rose to a question of privilege and denied a certain statement. The document that authenticated the statement made by the hon. member for Frontonac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) was then produced by him to show that the memory of the minister was at fault. That is the story.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: My hon. friend is not
serious.


Mr. FORKE:: As a matter of privilege, I rise to ask if this is to be the last word on the subject. Have I no right to reply to the statements made by the hon. gentleman?


Hewitt Bostock: There is no debate on
a question of privilege, but, of course, if the hon. gentleman rises to a question of privilege he can be heard at any time.


Robert Forke: I repeat again on a question of privilege that the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington has made a complete
mis-statement of the facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He read from the document you took.


Robert Forke: Shall I say the statements
are true-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly they are true.
Mr. FORKE -when I know they are a mis-statement of the facts? I cannot see where I am wrong. My character to a certain extent is at stake in regard to the statements that have been made. My friends in the other corner of the house know exactly what took place and I put it to them -to any member over there, to get on his
Privilege-Mr. Church

feet and say that a resolution was passed instructing me to take certain proceedings with the Governor General.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was
said.


Robert Forke: I hope my hon. friend the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) wants to see justice done in this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: I 'hope he is not holding a
brief for anybody. I may say that during the last election a four-page pamphlet was published headed, "Forke double-crosses Mr. Meighen. He double-crossed1 the Governor General."


John Wesley Edwards: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: If you want it, you can have it. You are not going to have it all your own way.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The name of the
Governor General must not be introduced into the debate. We have had personal explanations from both hon. members, and the house can judge of the matter. I regard the incident as closed.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CHURCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a question of privilege. I wish to call the attention of the house to an editorial in the Orange Sentinel of March 1st on the Mexican question, stating that I was ill-advised to press a vote. I do not know whether anyone ever reads that paper or not-I do not very much-but this editorial, which I am not allowed to read, refers to my motion regarding the Mexico question. Might I say in reply that I had one motion on the order paper, and had I put my other motion on the order paper it would have gone to the bottom of the list, with thirty-seven others ahead of it, and would not have come up again this session. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) is an expert at the hit-and-run game-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. On no question
of privilege and on no other question is an hon. gentleman allowed to attack another hon. gentleman.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker, in regard to certain

remarks that were made this afternoon upon another question by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. If the hon. gentleman refers to the question which came up this afternoon on the motion to refer the estimates of the Canadian National Railways to a special committee, the hon. gentleman objected to that motion. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) was in favour of the motion and made certain remarks, but there was nothing in them which I heard which could give rise to a question of privilege. I would say to the hon. gentleman that if we are to conduct the affairs of the house in a sane way, we should not prolong these rambles about remarks made by another speaker.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I contend that our parliamentary text books on procedure and also your rulings from the dead text books of the past, have been very largely abolished by our new status. I think it is a very proper question of privilege that I am raising. The statement has been made that I attacked the railway. What I was attacking was the method of appointing the committee.


Hewitt Bostock: There is no question of
privilege there. There would be a question of privilege if the hon. gentleman's character had been attacked, but there was nothing of the kind in the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GOTT

Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for West Elgin, speaking in this debate, said at page 960 of Hansard:
The hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott), stretched the point somewhat finely, but the fact remains that these two plants are being prepared for production and the company have announced that production will begin shortly.


Hewitt Bostock: There is no question of
privilege there.	*


Eccles James Gott: Just a moment.


Hewitt Bostock: It is a question of fact;
that is all.


Eccles James Gott: I want a correction to be
made.


Hewitt Bostock: That is not a question of privilege.

The Budget-Mr. Barber


Eccles James Gott: The Hansard report goes on:
Mr. Gott:	The company says that there is
no production; that is the wire.
Mr. Hepburn:	They are about to begin
production.
Mr. Gott:	They say not.
I want it understood that if this utterance was made from this section of the house it was not made by the member for South Essex, because there is nine million dollars invested there, and the hon. member for South Essex knows as well as the residents of Windsor that they will proceed only when a duty on steel is established.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



NEWFOUNDLAND DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question, based on an article that appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of Saturday last, headed, "Movement is Reported to Have Newfoundland Enter Confederation." One paragraph reads as follows:
A delegation of Newfoundland citizens, bearing with them the tacit authority of the government to express its views, is expected to reach Ottawa shortly in order to discuss this matter.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if there is any authority for this report, and if so, when the delegation comes, will he give it a sympathetic hearing.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING <Prime Minister): I have heard nothing from any source, other than that which my hon. friend has just quoted, which would indicate that a deputation is coming. If any deputation does come, it will receive the same consideration and courtesy that is extended to every deputation.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 5, *consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb, (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Cahan, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Fansher (East Lambton).
Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in a somewhat tense atmosphere to resume the debate on the budget. But first of all let me say that the proposed amendment of the rule limiting speeches to forty minutes
appeals very much to me. Those of us who sat in this house during the session of 1926 will, I am sure, agree that this would be a welcome change.
The budget has been termed by some a shadow budget; by others a shift budget. My sympathy immediately goes out to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), for whom personally we all have the greatest admiration. Consider for a moment the trouble he has had in framing this budget, for he had to try to satisfy the different viewpoints of the supporters of the government:	the free-trade
section-those who have continued to sound the "death knell of protection;" the wing that calls for a tariff for revenue only, and the other section demanding adequate protection along certain lines. In his endeavour to conciliate these conflicting views he has produced a budget that in my opinion will confer no particular benefit on the Canadian people.
It is not my intention to go fully into the budget proposals, as I wish to deal with a matter that has not been taken into consideration by the government, but before doing so I purpose to devote a few minutes to the subject of tax reduction. There is no doubt that the reduction of the income tax and corporation tax has been well received by some of our people. We are all acquainted with the history of the sales tax, and it was dealt with yesterday by some hon. gentlemen. This tax was raised from three to six cents by the government when it took office. Shortly afterwards our friends opposite began to claim credit for what they termed great reductions in the sales tax; first it was reduced 165 per cent, then 20 per cent, and this year a further reduction of 25 per cent has been heralded throughout the country. But after all these so-called great reductions we find that to-day the sales tax is at 3 per cent-exactly where it stood six years ago when the Liberal party succeeded to power. I think we all agree that the sales tax bears very heavily on the great masses of the people, and if the burden of taxation is to be lightened, as the government promised some time ago, then I think this tax should be completely wiped out.
The Minister of Finance tells us that of course we must expect a continuance of certain taxes as long as we have a war debt. As to this, I agree with my friends to the left that the one tax that should be continued is the income tax. But I will go further; I say that the proceeds of this tax should be earmarked and applied to reducing the war debt. We are told by the minister that the general debt has been decreased this year by some thirty-eight million dollars. At the same time the estimated collections of income tax
The Budget-Mr. Barber

he places at fifty-five million dollars. I think it very unfair that the revenue raised through the income tax should be expended on public works and the establishing of embassies in foreign countries.
As to the reduction of the national debt, a subject that has been discussed pro and con throughout this debate, I think the fairest statement in regard to it was given by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), whidh will be found at page 617 of Hansard:
The net debt of Canada on March 31, 1927, was $2,726,298,717, showing on the face of the accounts a reduction of $41,896,729.33 in the net debt over that of the preceding year. And Vet the national railway indebtedness to the public onlj', increased in 1927 by $46,000,000.
The reply to the claim that the government has reduced taxation is given by the Minister of Finance himself when he states that the increase in the amount of taxes collected amounts to $10,426,728 over last year, or a little over $1.10 per capita. In this connection I am reminded of the remarks of an hon. member the other day, and I think the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) would agree that he is not a Tory. He reminded us that in 1921-22 under the Conservative administration the total taxation collected amounted to $317,000,000. The Minister of Finance estimates that for the year 1927-28, $357,000,000 will be collected. In other words, this year the government expects to collect $40,000,000 more from the people than the Conservative administration did in their last year of office.
The Minister of Finance has termed this a thrift budget. The government have been talking thrift and economy for some time, but they continue to increase expenditures each year. I would refer the house to his statement as set out at page 535 of unrevised Hansard, where under the heading of ordinary^ expenditures it will be seen that there is an increase over last year of $14,181,827, under special expenditure, an increase of $2,156,600, and under capital expenditure an increase of $1,846,308, the total under these three headings being $18,184,735-representing in the neighbourhood of two dollars increased expenditure per head of our population. The estimates for the coming year show similar increases, and during this fiscal year, 1928-29, the government will expend every day no less than $1,095,000.
I find that the tariff changes in this as in all other budgets of this government are calculated to encourage importations, curtail opportunities for employment in home industries, and lessen the importance of the home

market to Canadian producers. This continual tinkering with the tariff has done more to disorganize industry and discourage capital than has anything else. It is a policy of uncertainty. I think the time has long since come when there should be marked in red on our calendar another day, the day when the budget speech is brought down. The people of this country look forward with great anxiety to that date. I might liken it to a man up on a charge of murder. He looks forward with dreadful anticipation to the conclusion of his trial and the return of the verdict, awaiting either the passing of sentence or release. In the meantime he does not know whether he is to be discharged or sentenced to prison for life or to hang by the neck until he is dead.
There is nothing in this budget calculated to encourage our great primary industries. In this regard I was interested in the simile offered by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) the other day, when she compared the well being of a country to a tree, agriculture and the other primary industries forming the roots and the secondary industries the branches. If the roots are injured then of course the tree withers and dies. I fear that some of the branches of our national tree are withering to-day. For a few minutes I propose to discuss some of the branches, but first I would refer to one of the roots, the great industry of agriculture. Let us take dairying, which is one of the most important. The dairymen of this country, I want to point out, have no eight hour law; they work from early morning until late at night. Nor have they any weeks of holidays; they cannot put their cattle in cold storage and elevators and travel south; they must be on the job all the time. The total investment in this business is some $900,000,000 and it gives employment to half a million people. We have in this Dominion over three million producing dairy cows and the total dairy production amounts to $250,000,000, being greater than that of the mining industry of which we are so proud. One would naturally expect such an important industry to-receive every encouragement at the hands of the government, but the greatest blow it has been given has been the Australian treaty which was entered into by our friends opposite in 1925. We have an excellent illustration of the effect of reduced tariffs when in this instance we find that the treaty not only resulted in a lowering of the duty against Australian and New Zealand products from four cents to one cent, but also forced the Americans, in order to protect themselves, .

The Budget-Mr. Barber
to raise their tariff from eight to twelve cents, thus excluding us from their market.
Prior to this trade arrangement we exported considerable quantities of butter to the United States. In the year 1925 we exported 24,553,000 pounds, importing in that same year 193,341 pounds, leaving a net surplus for export of over 24,000,000 pounds. Since the coming into force of the treaty our exports have gradually diminished while our imports have increased. According to the statement issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, December 31 last, we exported $1,068,610 worth of butter, chiefly on consignment to Great Britain, and imported $3,892,640 in 1927. In other words, we imported over three times as much butter as we exported. As to production, I have been unable to secure the figures for 1927 but I am advised that they are in course of preparation. I fear they will show a great decrease in production. Monthly bulletin No. 232, giving agricultural statistics, shows that we produced 272,000,000 pounds of butter in 1926 and further, as between the two years 1925 and 1926, a decrease of 5,000,000 pounds in production of daily butter and an increase in creamery butter of 7,700,000 pounds, or a total increase of 1.01 per cent. It has been argued that the price of butter retailed in Canada has been higher since the coming into effect of the treaty. This is an unfair way to look at the question; we should consider, not the retail price, but what the dairymen receive for their product in this country. In this connection I desire again to refer to this bulletin on agricultural statistics. We find that the dairymen of Canada received in the year 1925 $95,136,896 for their butter, while in 1926 they received $90,006,167; with an increased production of 1.01 per cent they received $5,130,729 less for their butter in 1926 than they did the previous year.
Under this agreement thousands of pounds of butter from New Zealand and Australia have reached the Vancouver and British Columbia markets. At the same time I feel that British Columbia has not been so hard hit as other portions of the country, particularly the prairie provinces. The dairymen of the Fraser valley market their product principally in the form of fresh milk. During the year 1927 they produced in the district 12,500,000 gallons. Of this volume 7,000,000 gallons took the form of fluid milk while 5,500,000 gallons were disposed of as products manufactured from milk, chiefly butter. The returns received from milk sold in fluid form were considerably higher than the returns received from milk sold in the form of butter, the relative returns being 24 cents per gallon and 16 cents per gallon respectively.
The great problem facing the organization of the Fraser valley to-day is the loss through surplus which must be marketed in the form of butter, cheese and other products. Under present conditions, if the dairymen of Fraser valley had to depend on butter prices for their product they would all go out of business.
A few years ago, I remember, a large quantity of Alberta butter was sold on the British Columbia markets, and I may say a very popular brand it was. Now it is replaced by New Zealand and Australian butter. No part of this country has been harder hit by this Australian treaty than the prairie provinces. The farmers of those provinces have been urged for some years to go into mixed farming and they were making rapid strides in dairying. Two years ago in the province of Saskatchewan there was more butter made every week during the winter months than was consumed. At the present time that province is producing less than 50,000 pounds per week, with a weekly consumption of 200,000 pounds. Twenty butter factories which have been in operation for years have been closed. These conditions, I believe, apply generally to Alberta as well. We find that Calgary has had to import fresh cream from Vancouver for table use. It is said that thousands of prairie farmers let their hired help go in the fall owing to the fact that they are not milking their cows. This is a serious state of affairs in this industry, and it has all been brought about by the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite.
I have here some resolutions of protest submitted to this government and as I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in his seat I wish to bring them to his attention. First there is the National Dairy Council, whose views are on record. This organization met the Minister of Agriculture and other members of the government on November 29 last and presented the following resolution:
That the order in council applying schedule 2 of the Australian trade agreement to New Zealand be rescinded at once;	_
That the dumping clause be immedately applied on all butter sent from Australia to Canada on consignment as well as on direct
That the Australian trade agreement be terminated as provided in the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1925.
A similar resolution was forwarded by the British Columbia Dairymen's Association, which met in Nanaimo on February 22, and we have also received protests from a meeting of western dairymen which took place at Regina on February 10. Now I turn to the Minister of Agriculture; I say to him that the dairymen of this country want to know
The Budget-Mr. Barber

what he is going to do about this question; he can no longer turn a deaf ear to these protests. I would ask the minister if he can give us some assurance that the wishes of the dairymen will be carried out. He does not reply. I am sorry the Minister of Finance is not in his seat, because I believe he was the father of this child, and his usual comeback is, "What about paper, salmon, and other products of British Columbia?" I can only say that I do not consider even those products safe under this treaty, because it appears that under this agreement Australia has certain powers which we do not have; their preferential and intermediate tariffs are subject to change from time to time without reference to the wishes of this country. Recently the Australian government made a change with regard to the tariff on automobiles, by revising that part of the agreement dealing with those items. They increased the preferred rate and the general rate b}' 5 per cent and 7i per cent respectively, and the manager of General Motors Corporation says that any benefit they received from that treaty has been taken away.
The trouble is that when this agreement was entered into, so far as agricultural products were concerned we had nothing to trade. As you all know, under that agreement Australia was allowed a preference of 3 cents under our general tariff; if our general tariff had been raised to what it should have been and the tariff on butter increased to 8 cents or 9 cents there would have been no trouble. When the tariff was left at 4 cents, however, the 3 cent preference only allowed a protection of one cent per pound, and our markets have been flooded with Australian and New Zealand butter.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: May I ask a question?
Can my hon. friend tell me who is the greatest importer of New Zealand butter and also the difference in the tariff on butter as between Australia and New Zealand?


Harry James Barber: In my forty minutes I
have not time to go into that, but my hon. friend is one who would refuse to raise that butter tariff. At the same time, this government raised the tariff on currants and raisins from a half cent to three cents, in order to protect the growers of Australia.
Now let us look at this industry from another angle. To-day we are assisting other industries throughout this country, so would it not be only fair to assist this industry which is working under altogether different conditions? We should give them at least sufficient protection to meet the difference in the cost of production which is due to

climatic conditions in other countries. Just think what it would mean; under the one cent tariff we imported last year 11,208,819 pounds of butter, or 1,348,167 pounds more than we imported during the previous year. If this butter were produced in Canada it would mean 125,000 more dairy cows with an increased production totalling about 83,500,000; it would mean stabilizing the market and would result in the employment of about 15,000 more people. The home market would be increased and our own good Canadian money would be kept in circulation in this country.
Then there is another important industry to which I wish to refer, and that is the poultry industry. That is a very important branch of agriculture and one which should receive every consideration and assistance at the hands of the government. During the last few years Canadian poultrymen have established world records of performance, and they made an excellent showing at the great poultry congress which was held in this city last year. To-day they are greatly handicapped not only through the lack of protection but also because of the uncertainty which exists under the policy of this government. I have here a wire which was sent to an hon. member of this house under date of February 29, which will illustrate how this uncertainty handicaps our poultry-men. This wire was sent from Duncan, British Columbia, addressed to Mr. C. H. Dickie, M.P.:
We are advised effort being made to reduce tariff on American eggs but have received no definite information. Please investigate and advise us promptly. We are opposed to a reduction.
That is signed by the Cowichan Creamery. The poultrymen to the south of the line have the advantage of climatic conditions, lower feed and labour costs and a tariff which protects them from unfair competition, while a low Canadian tariff permits them to invade our market with their surplus stocks. We imported from the United States last year under the three cent tariff over 3,000,000 dozen eggs in shell. In addition to that we imported 1,691,359 pounds of eggs from the orient and other countries, mostly canned, which would equal about 1,130,000 dozen eggs in shell. This makes a total of 4,248,513 dozen eggs which were pushed on the Canadian market last year to compete with our own good Canadian product. According to the Bureau of Statistics we have a poultry population of over 46,000,000, with a commercial production of about 237,000,000 dozen eggs. Let us consider this industry as we consider the dairying industry; if we produced in Canada, the number of

The Budget-Mr. Barber
eggs imported last year it would mean 850,000 more poultry, and if we allow 1,000 to a farm this would mean 850 additional farms and employment for perhaps 2,000 more people.
Another branch to which I widi to refer is the production of young fruit trees, rose bushes, shrubs, fruits and vegetables which will grow in Canada. I think we will all agree that this is a business which can readily be carried on in this country and which should be encouraged. This is an industry which would add to the future prosperity of this country; we have the climate, the soil, the knowledge and the desire and the government have it within their power to make this business a success. Those engaged in this business have to meet very unfair competition due to large importations from foreign countries. If we consider nursery stock we find that about 75 per cent of the cost of production is labour, and our labour cost is about two and a half times that of our competitors in foreign countries. Here is an industry which might profitably employ hundreds of people if we had sufficient protection to compensate for the difference in labour cost. For instance, 75 per cent of the cost Of growing a rose bush is in the labour; skilled labourers in Holland get from twelve to fifteen cents per hour, while in Canada the same labour is paid from thirty cent to fifty cents per hour, so it is easy to figure out the difference in cost. As a result of this wide difference we imported 1,129,918 rose bushes from Holland in 1926, in addition, shrubs valued at $159,530 and 272,390 fruit trees. These fruit trees came from the United States almost exclusively, and there again we have unfair labour competition. The price of these trees is largely fixed by the cost of negro labour in the south, where living conditions are the very cheapest and where the standards of living are not to be compared with those in Canada.
Last year we imported into this country fresh fruits to the value of $24,685,221, of which about one-fifth could have been produced in Canada. During the same year we imported fresh vegetables to the value of $5,685,221, of which $4,682,259 worth, could have produced in this country. That gives us a total importation of fresh fruits and vegetables valued at about $9,550,000 which can be and are being produced in this country. It is estimated that we have over 90,000 fruit and vegetable farms which produced in Canada last year in a commercial way about $47,718,000 worth of fruit and vegetables. Think of what it would mean to Canada if our imports of these products, corresponding to 20 per cent of our total production, were produced in this country. Suppose the average production per farm is $1,000, which I believe is a high figure, it would mean
9,550 more farms and a considerable increase in employment in Canada.
Last year we imported $857,583 worth of apples. Why should this be necessary? No finer apple is produced than the Canadian apple. Over $500,000 worth of peaches were imported into Canada. Why is this necessary? Where do you get a finer flavoured peach than that of the Niagara peninsula? The only place I know is British Columbia. The same thing applies to pears, of which the imports amounted to $855,274; strawberries, with imports of $668,417; cherries, with imports to the amount of $120,912; and plums of which $475,226 worth were imported.
In vegetables we find the same thing occurring. Large quantities of new potatoes are usually imported early in the spring at a very high price, with the result that the Canadian crop, which is of even higher food value than the imported product cannot be sold or only at a very low figure. This government does not recognize this industry even to the extent of a seasonal tariff. The vegetable and fruit growers express themselves as deeply disappointed that no steps have beeen taken to protect them against the inrush of earlier products from the United States. Many representations were made to the tariff board and the government on behalf of the growers in the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.
In dealing with the dairy, poultry, fruit and nursery industries I have tried to make it plain that under the present policy these industries are hampered-that in order to ensure their growth and development they must be protected to the extent at least of the difference between Canadian and foreign conditions and especially foreign labour costs. I do not say that protection is a panacea for all our ills, but I am convinced that under reasonable protection it is quite feasible to produce in this country, for domestic consumption, a large amount of the commodities which we now import from foreign lands. I say " reasonable " protection because that is exactly what the Conservative party stands for. This party has been misrepresented throughout this country as a party of high protection, of sky-high protection. We remember the campaign which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) and his lieutenants carried on through the prairie provinces in the last two elections. "Vote for the Conservative candidate ", he said, " if you want still higher protection and everything that goes with it." The result was that in that campaign he was very successful, but he was not as successful when he crossed the Rocky mountains.

The Budget-Mr. Barber
In connection with the matter of protection I wish to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell). I do not think that hon. gentleman can be accused of being a protectionist, or of belonging to our party. However, on page 810 of Hansard the 'hon. gentleman is reported as having spoken as follows:
For the five years from 1917 to 1921 inclusive the average rate of duty on dutiable imports was 21.9, while for the five years from 1922 to 1926 inclusive, under this administration, the average rate of duty collected on dutiable imports was 24.06, or a difference under the late Conservative administration of 2.16 lower.
So, according to the hon. member for Mackenzie, our record does not show that we are a high tariff party. Stability is what we need in this country, and under the system we are pursuing to-day we are giving employment to thousands of workers in foreign countries instead of providing work for our own people at a fair wage. Under the present system we are denuding this country of its raw material, and we are driving our own people to other countries. We all admit that immigration is our great problem. Is there any better solution of that problem than to make Canada a better country to live in, create conditions such as will encourage the investment of capital and the development of our natural resources, thus providing more work for our own people and building up a home market for Canadian producers. I say that people do not as a rule leave their homeland simply for a change of air and scenery; they leave in order to better their condition. Make Canada more attractive, make Canada a country that will appeal to these people, and instead of haying to spend millions every year to bring immigrants to this country, we shall have them knocking at our doors clamouring for admittance.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to attend all the sittings of the house since this debate began. In a way it was a sort of professional duty but it was very interesting in many respects. I am more than ever convinced of the truth of the saying of a great English parliamentarian, that the House of Commons is the most tolerant institution in the world. I only wish the people of Canada could have been present during the course of the debate and have listened, as I have listened, to the extremely opposite and contradictory arguments which have been presented by both parties opposite with respect to the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). All hon. gentlemen criticizing the budget agree on one point. It is that [Mr Barber.]
there is no constructive policy displayed by the government. The difficulty is that what is constructive in one part of the house is regarded as destructive in another quarter of the chamber. If the people of the country could have, as I have said, listened to everything that has been uttered here it would be easy for them to draw their own conclusions.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment and the subamendment are innocent looking creatures deserving of very little attention. The amendment, like its big brother the tariff resolution of the Winnipeg conference, is an emasculated political instrument disowning the very word of protection, deprived of all strength, virility, and even significant meaning. It is such a mild and soft expression of policy that one is amazed at the bitterness and violence of the speeches which have been made in support of it. Of course violent arguments and violent speeches from each end of that side of the chamber defeated the purposes of the respective parties. While sitting here quietly, with not much to do, I took the trouble to gather up some of the shrapnel which was launched against the administration, and I want to exhibit this shrapnel to the people of the country in order to illustrate the conditions as they exist in the house. As we say in French, "A tout seigneur tout honneur." I will begin with my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion). The hon. gentleman is a fine speaker, I am always fond of listening to him. Perhaps he is a little bitter. For some time it was my impression that he was trying to make his new associates forget that he was ever a Liberal. That was long ago.


Mr. MANION:: They have forgotten it
long ago.


Ernest Lapointe: Here are the words of
my hon. friend, taken from page 656 of Hansard:
While the tariff changes may seem minor when one looks at them first, already from reports coming in to members of this house who have in their constituencies mills which are affected by these tariff changes, it looks as if serious injury was once again going to be done by this government to the industrial life of this country.
Further on he says:
As time goes on, the government and the people of this country will find that the reductions in the present tariff, though minor in appearance will do more injury to the industrial life of our country and drive still greater numbers of our people to the country to the south of us to earn their living which they are denied here at home.


Eccles James Gott: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad my hon
friend over there cheers. Immediately after-

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
wards the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fanslher) said, as reported on. page 673 of Hansard:
So far as I have been able to ascertain from the closest scrutiny of the budget, particularly as it affects the customs tariff, there is practically no reduction that will benefit the great mass of consumers and the producers of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Now my hon. friends
are cheering on the other side. The hon. member says later on:
Hon. gentlemen from Manitoba are the doorkeepers, as it were, of western Canada. Are they going to assist us, or are they going to be instrumental in opening the doors to further burdens and to the laying of greater stress and strain on the agricultural industry? I hope not.
Then came a violent offensive on the part of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). He had many chapters and I am going to select only a few of them. He said:
Woe be it to the maritime provinces when they deal with some of their industries! Woe be it to the industries of the province of Quebec! ....
The main tariff changes in this magnificent budget with its twelve pages of schedules affect the cotton and woollen industry. I have no doubt that one reason for these twelve pages of tinkering is due to the fact that the government. in anticipation of a general election two or three years hence are making a nice little gesture to the gentlemen on our left in anticipation of a larger vote west of the great lakes. ...
It is just digging up material for the free traders. The tariff board to-day, in my opinion, is composed of nothing but a lot of spade and shovel men who are digging up a lot of facts about free trade for the government to destroy protection and trying to foist free trade on the people. The farmers of this country do not believe in the policy of free trade, and yet the government are going to destroy every industry in Ontario and Quebec before they get through with this Yankee fad, the tariff board. .	.	.
To-day this government with its free trade gesture * is in effect telling our youth:	"Go
south, young men." ....
The expulsion of the Acadians was nothing to the expulsion of 600,000 Canadians by this tariff policy.
There are many others of the same kind but I am afraid time will not permit me to quote my friend from Toronto at greater length. To that the hon. gentleman for East Lambton (Mr. Pansher) says:
As I say, the government appealed to the country saying:	Why divide the low tariff
element? But in this budget they have simply tinkered up the old tariff wall, taking off a stone here and replacing it somewhere else, and taking one from there and putting it in the place of the one they took away. They have
given the old tariff wall a coat of whitewash and they have still kept the old barbed wire entanglement known as the dumping clause on top of the tariff wall.
Then the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon)-and I am pleased to call him my friend-comes along and says this as reported on page 698 of Hansard:
There we see again the baneful influence of this government, and how its policy is going to strangle the woollen industry and possibly drive more mills out of business. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I ask any man of intelligence and common sense, why do we crucify our Canadian industries that are giving work to our own people? For the life of me I cannot understand it.
Very fortunately the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) came to the rescue and he says, 'as reported on page 737:
Taking it altogether, this budget is a rich man's feast. The money cost to the public through trade penalties has not been at all lessened, and the moral hazard has not been abated in any way. ...	_	_
The parliament of Canada is the highest court in the land, the place from which one would suppose justice would emanate for all alike, but the present government^ after having taken every possible means to inform themselves on the evil system of trade penalties, now come forth with a budget in defiance of that knowledge. This has given a direct challenge to the primary producers and workers of this nation; it has challenged the farmers to organize for political action, and it is even an invitation to the workers to strike for justice. ...
Again, the farming class of Canada has been farmed by the capitalistic class of this Dominion for the last forty years, and all governments of Canada for the last forty years, irrespective of party, have done the same thing. In this respect the present budget is no different from the budgets winch have been presented in former years, but it does stamp this government as being composed of men who are willing to continue the sweated labour on the farms of Canada of our women and children, to say nothing of our men, to swell the profits of those who, through their henchmen in this house, proclaim their indolence-
Pardon me for not finishing the sentence. Immediately after that speech the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) rose and, before starting to discuss the budget, he could not help saying this out of the kindness of his heart:
Having listened to the last two speakers, I rather sympathize with the Minister of Finance. They attacked him from entirely different angles, but I do not think he should have very much trouble in deciding which of the two criticisms is deserving of consideration.
His sympathy was not very practical because he started to do the same thing and abused the Minister of Finance. Then the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe)
said, as reported on page 830:

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
The people of this Dominion have been viewing with alarm the attitude of the government towards the manufacturing industries of this country. . . .
The budget may be pleasing to those who are interested in a low tariff: the Minister of Finance calls it a reclassification, but whether you describe it thus, or whether you call it a ratification or a modification or a lowering of the tariff or tariff tinkering, the effect will be the same; it will be felt just as injuriously by industries throughout the Dominion.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) then came forward and said:
The more I examine the budget the more I realize that the tariff is not reduced at all; it is actually raised.
He continued:
To-day I no longer wonder; I am quite convinced from these figures that as between the two old parties the low tariff party sits to our right while the high tariff party occupies the benches opposite, including in their ranks the hon. members from Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: He said:
To-day I no longer wonder.
So far as I am concerned I do not wonder any longer why he was not opposed by the Conservative party at election time. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke), as reported
on page 834 of Hansard, said:
If it differs at all, the system of the present government is worse than the Soviet system. As I understand the Soviet system, they con-nscate, but do not destroy; they leave facilities for production practically unimpaired, and production still goes on, while by the system adopted by this government capital is entirely destroyed. This government will be known to posterity as bolshevists or worse. No name can more accurately describe it.
Then my good, kind friend, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) comes to our help and says:
There is no real reduction in the tariff. No one knows that better than the Minister of Finance.
Shall I quote the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Ryerson), who said that all the industries were going to be ruined? I am afraid my time is slipping by and I want to say something else. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) said immediately afterwards :
Taking it all in all, a study of the tariff discloses that whatever benefit is to flow from this tinkering will be to the advantage of the manufacturers rather than the consumers of this country.
The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) said this:
Every time this government change the tariff they stimulate the importation of foreign goods into Canada and thus injure our own industry, 
while every reduction in taxation is followed by a flow of emigrants from Canada to some other country, in search of work.
This government appear to be implementing their tariff policy of 1919

Listen to that, my friends over there I
-in which they said they believed in a reduction of the British preference to 50 per cent of the general tariff; I believe the Minister of Finance is at that point now, and in some instances is below the 50 per cent level. I believe he is going still further in the direction of the Progressive policy of free trade with England; at any rate, he is nearing the point where we shall have a tariff for revenue only, which appears to be the Liberal policy to-day. Not only is the minister making reductions in the general tariff; he is also going around to the back door and giving preferential treatment to certain favoured nations something of which the people are scarcely aware.
Then my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), speaking in this debate a day or so ago, said:
The tariff schedules as proposed by the minister are planned, in my judgment, to help a few large manufacturers at the expense of the general public, and the smaller manufacturers, especially those manufacturing hats and caps.
He said something else, but I have to proceed. I could not catch all that was said yesterday by my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), and I must ask his pardon for that. I know that some of my friends here were alarmed at the reductions in the tariff, but my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin last night said that such a refusal on the part of the government to do what they should do in the matter of reductions in the tariff was conducive to a bloody revolution of some kind or other. My hon. friend said at the time, I remember, that the charges made by the Conservative party during the last election campaign against the Liberals, and the charges made by the Liberals against the Conservatives, were both true. I may say to my hon. friend that obviously the two contradictory expressions of opinion that I have just read, coming from different parts of the house, cannot both be true. As a matter of fact, I think they are both untrue. We have reduced the tariff, and we have not ruined any industry.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that an offensive carried on by such opposing forces can only be of a negative and destructive character, and if they could succeed, what would be the result? If they could paralyze the government of the country at the present time, what could take its place? Such methods of warfare, if victorious, would transform parliament into what I might call a crystallized deadlock. We are attacked from both sides in that contradictory manner because we are

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
here representing the whole of the people of Canada. We are entrusted with the duty of considering and dealing with the interests of the whole people at large, and not of any one class or of any one section of the community.
I would not like to say anything unpleasant to my friends in the extreme comer of the house. Reference has been made to the session of 1926. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall always cherish the memory of that session of 1926. It began well; it proceeded well; and it ended well; and the election that followed also ended well. We had co-operation with hon. gentlemen over there which was above-board, and I can only say that, so far as I was concerned, I was always pleased with the relations that we had with those hon. gentlemen. I have more in common with them, so far as big policies are concerned, than I have with my hon. friends immediately opposite, and if we had to run this country on the basis of groups, I think I would try to qualify in the farming community in order to be with them rather than with other hon. gentlemen in this house. But 1 do not believe in that form of government.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have it over
there now.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend the
alarm clock over there might perhaps listen to me. I do not believe in class or group government. You cannot represent the mind of the nation as a great world entity on the basis of functions or occupations. A member of parliament must impress upon himself or herself first the duty of thinking in the interests of the community as a whole, and then of his or her trade or class interest as it is not inconsistent with the interests of the whole nation. Mere class or occupational representation, as advocated by my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), is the reverse of such principle, and impresses upon a member that his or her trade is his or her politics. It is organized selfishness.
May I add that when members of a party or of a group are not in power, and in fact are not likely ever to be in power-I do not mean this offensively at all because they themselves have said that they would not like to be in power-it is easy to propound all sorts of cures for every evil, real or imaginary, without any risk of having to apply the prescription. They preach knowing that they will never be called upon to practise. They may score occasionally, but they will forgive me for saying that there is no great glory in the success achieved by that method. As those of us who speak the French language
say, "La critique est aisee, Fart est difficile." We have a huge country. We have sectional interests which are not identical, which, in fact, in many cases are widely different. Those who are entrusted with public functions are trustees, not for one class, not for one section of the country, but for the whole people and the country at large, and it is their duty to try to find what are the causes of divergence of opinions and even of interests, and try to find, if possible, the concessions which it may be desirable to give or to obtain.
Some members have said that they are sick of the word compromise. Mr. Speaker, compromise has been the policy upon which this country was built. The confederation of Canada is based upon compromise; it could not continue without compromise. The British Empire is founded upon a compromise. The peace of the world is based upon compromise. It is impossible for any group or for any association, nay, even for any country, to get its own way in all matters. There must be compromise with others. That is the only way to achieve success.
Now I come to my hon. friends directly opposite. I have made allusion to the Winnipeg convention. With many of the resolutions adopted there I would not agree, but one act of the convention I commend-the choice of the party leader. They selected a fine leader, a man of courage and strong convictions, and well able to express those convictions. He is an excellent type of Canadian manhood. Having said that, he will forgive me if I express my disappointment that he did not as a first assertion of strong Canadian leadership put an end to the campaign carried on by his party during the last few years against Canada, Canadians and conditions generally in this country. I was hoping that he would discountenance hijs followers in their campaign of belittling and misrepresenting Canada in the eyes of the world. Why glorify the United States at the expense of Canada? Why should hon. gentlemen describe the United States as a land where young Canadians can find gold and honey while here they meet taxes, unemployment and starvation? Sir, we do not ask from them fair play for the government, we do not ask for even elementary justice; let them ascribe the progress and prosperity of the Dominion to Providence if they prefer to do so; but we do ask them not to say anything that may hurt the name and the credit of Canada. It might not be out of place for the committee which is going to study immigration to make a recommendation in that respect.
The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not true that Canada has any cause to envy other countries, and certainly it is not true that Canada has any reason to envy the United States. I need only remind you, sir, that it was not until the United States had a population of seventy-five million that their total trade was equal to that of Canada's to-day. Recently I came across an article in the organ of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, Industrial Canada, written by Mr. Alex. Marshall, who is manager of the Commercial Intelligence Department of the association, in which he deplores this tendency. I should like to quote the whole article, but my time is vanishing rapidly and I must content myself with these few words:
Just take a look at the other side of the picture for a minute. In leather, United States exports forty-one cents per capita, Canada ninety-seven cents. In meats, United States exports eighty-two cents, Canada $2.77. In wheat and flour, United States exports $2.36, Canada $39.97. The Canadian gross total is fifty per cent greater than the United States gross total. In copper and its manufactures United States exports $1.17, and Canada $1.46.
Here is another extract:
The total per capita exports of all lines from the United States is $39.62, from Canada, $122.57.
If you want the gross totals for all industries I have them in this article:
$4,771,000,000 for United States, $1,225,000,000 for Canada. Canada is one-twelfth in population as compared with the United States, and one-fourth in exports.
I have an editorial before me which appeared in The Chronicle, a publication by banking, insurance and finance of Montreal deploring this campaign, but I have no time to read it. I also have under my hand Bradstreet's of last week as to the conditions of unemployment in the United States, confirming the reports of widespread unemployment made by state labour bureaus, unemployment agencies and relief organizations at various places. The employment index compiled by the Bureau of Labour Statistics of the Department of Labour for January fell to the lowest point for any month since April, 1922. The index number was given as 84.2, a drop of 1.1 per cent from December and of 5.5 per cent from January a year ago. The Bureau of Labour Statistics' index of payroll totals for January was 85.8, a decrease of 3.9 per cent from the preceding month and of 5.5 per cent from the like month a year ago. This was the lowest point reached by the payroll index since August, 1924.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the United States.


Ernest Lapointe: In the United States.
But my friends over there say: We are carrying on this campaign for the purpose of attacking the fiscal policy of this government. One of their arguments to which I wish to address myself is that Canada is the only country in the world that has reduced its tariff since the war. They are right. And we are proud of it. They claim that eighty countries have raised their tariff-they may be right-and that Canada has adopted what they call "the foolish policy of tariff reduction." I repeat, we are proud of it. But is that a foolish policy? Mr. Speaker, the League of Nations at its assembly of 1926 decided to summon an economic conference of all the nations of the world. The reason given, as I read it, was:
The assembly of the League of Nations declared itself "firmly resolved to seek all possible means of establishing peace throughout the world" and affirmed its conviction that "economic peace will largely contribute to security among the nations."
In the economic conference at Geneva in the spring of 1927 fifty nations were represented. They discussed economic world conditions, and here is what I find in the report of the conference. I will read only a couple of sentences.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You might read that on the stability of tariffs.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend will read it
all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend complained
the other day that the documents concerning the League of Nations are not sufficiently published in Canada. I wish this report might reach every Canadian home.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Let me quote the report :
The evidence before the conference, which is contained in the documentation or in the statements made by the members of the conference, shows that the recovery from the effects of the war has been unduly delayed and that the foreign commerce of all nations is in greater or less degree seriously hampered by existing obstacles to trade.
The conference notes with satisfaction that some of the most injurious forms of obstruction that prevailed immediately after the war have been removed. To this fact must be attributed in part the recovery of world trade which has so far been achieved.
Tariffs, on the other hand, which in recent years have shown a tendency to rise, are for the most part higher than before the war, and are at present one of the chief barriers to trade. The increase in most countries is almost wholly due to higher duties on manufactured articles.

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
Further, the report states:
The conference recognize that the removal or substantial reduction of customs barriers cannot be brought about suddenly without causing dislocation but it is of opinion that governments should immediately prepare plans for removing or diminishing by successive stages those barriers that gravely hamper trade, starting with those duties which have been imposed to counteract the effect of disturbances that are now past.
In conclusion the conference recommends:
(1)	That nations should take steps forthwith to remove or diminish those tariff barriers that gravely hamper trade, starting with those which have been imposed to counteract the effects of disturbances raising out of the War.
(2)	That states should proceed to the conclusion of commercial treaties on lines and Tinder conditions calculated to ensure the attainment of the aims mentioned herein.
I read the speech of one of the German delegates who stated emphatically that economic troubles have been the cause of wars in many instances and that blood has been shed throughout the world because gentlemen wanted to have their high dividends kept and preserved.


Mr. CAHAN:: That has always been the German excuse for war.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I will refer to him in a moment. The recommendation of the conference was submitted at the last assembly of the League of Nations in 1927 and unanimously adopted, and there the Canadian delegate could rise proudly and declare that Canada was the only nation that had anticipated that report.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman has never had the courage to-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: I have so much affection for my hon. friend that I should be sorry to excite his ire in any way whatever.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -to submit these things to parliament for its consideration, instead of concealing them behind the back of parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend desires to make a speech, if he thinks it will conduce to proper parliamentary procedure, let him do so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was merely replying to the hon. gentleman's comment upon my assertion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I say, he has never had the courage to submit to parliament the findings [DOT]of the conference.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased at this manifestation on the part of my hon. friend. Let me tell him that in this, as in other matters, Canada has taken the leadership and we are not ashamed of the fact.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You never-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: Canada has taken the leadership, I say, in many directions-for instance, in instituting the International Joint Waterways Commission, where the grievances and the troubles arising between two neighbouring countries can be adjusted peaceably. Canada has taken the leadership in many other ways. There are hon. gentlemen who think that we should be riveted to the past. My hon. friend said the other day that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) were intellectually incapable of seizing his point. Well, I know that my hon. friend has great intellectual ability and I admire him. But unfortunately on some questions he is a Tory of the worst kind, rooted in the past, and if I could be instrumental in uprooting him I would feel that I had rendered valuable service to my country. Speaking on the address the hon. gentleman referred to certain imperial legislation with reference to the merchant marine, the Admiralty Act and other laws, and he said: " Gentlemen on the other side want this legislation removed; but what will take the place of these laws?" Mr. Speaker, let me tell my hon. friend that their place will be taken by Canadian legislation, by Canadian laws enacted by Canadian public men and carried out by Canadian public officials for the protection of Canadians.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the Canadian navy,
I suppose.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend, too, is
interrupting me. I am sorry my time is drawing to a close, but my hon. friend made certain remarks in a speech in Montreal on Saturday and I should like to discuss them for a moment. He stated, as reported in the Montreal Standard:
Take iron and steel with the vast deposits in this country. When this present government came into power we bought only 37 per cent of our iron and steel. Now plants were closed down and men who should be employed were workless because we bought elsewhere. In agricultural implements Canadians who should be working making them here were working elsewhere and we were importing more and more of these implements. What should be done?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the first thing that should be done should be to relate


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

the facts as they are. The Conservatives went out of power in 1921. The first Liberal budget came down in May 1922. The fiscal year, ending March 31st of that year, was the last year in which Conservative fiscal policies were enforced. My hon. friend ought to give statistics to these Conservative women in Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will give them in this house.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: He paid them compliments.


Ernest Lapointe: Take the iron and steel industry of Canada. In 1922 there were 77,077 employees and in 1926 103,510-in 1926, when all these plants were closed, according to my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


Ernest Lapointe: The wages in 1921 were $98,363,983 and in 1926, when conditions were so bad that our people had to go to the United States, they amounted to $137,640,065. My hon. friend referred also to the agricultural implement industry. In 1922-


Hewitt Bostock: Time.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry; perhaps I
shall have another opportunity to give the figures.


Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: This is the second time I have had the great privilege and honour in this house of following the eloquent hon. minister (Mr. Lapointe), who has just spoken. I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the first twenty minutes of his remarks-and they were the best part of his speech-in which he quoted extracts from speeches delivered by hon. members on this side of the house. I waited patiently and very attentively to see whether the minister would quote the speech on the budget by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) either of this year or last. That speech was not quoted and will not likely be quoted by any hon. member opposite because he refuses to speak on these budgets.
I would not undertake to follow in detail the speech of the Minister of Justice, but I might say this with respect to his criticisms of us on our attitude towards the so-called prosperity of this Dominion. I often wonder whether the government of the country, by threats and by attempted ridicule, seeks to gag the members of the opposition for their attacks on its administration of the Dominion's affairs and the country's general condition. I should like to turn back the pages of Hansard-I have never done so, but I am sure I should not be disappointed-and find out

just what the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite was towards the then government when they themselves were in opposition. I am sure it will be found that they were just as energetic and just as strong in their criticism of the Conservative party as we are critical of the government to-day.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in a very humble way I am going to endeavour to answer as best I can some of the statements made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and in so doing I should like it to be understood that what I have to say will be said in the very best spirit and with every mark of friendliness and respect for the high position which he now holds, remembering the brilliant lawyer he is and the gallant soldier he was. The minister commenced his speech by a reference to the bounty on steel in Canada, and I would base my comments on the reference, which will be found in yesterday's Hansard. The minister said:
It is suggested that the steel industry has one to the demnition bow-wows because of the act that there was a drawback put on the duty on agricultural implements. I want to remind my hon. friend-
Referring to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley).

that the steel industry in Nova Scotia never got its real foundation until the legislation of 1897. which was introduced by the Hon. Mr. Fielding in this house, and I think he will also agree with me that from that time on the Bteel industry in Nova Scotia prospered. Mr. Fielding gave assistance to the industry first in 1897 for a period of five years. In 1899 this assistance was made continuous for another five years, but at a diminishing rate.
I want to say that Mr. Fielding did not give the first assistance to the steel industry in the province of Nova 'Scotia in 1897. The first assistance to the steel industry by way of bounty was given in 1883 by the then Conservative government, and these were further extended in 1894 and, I believe, in 1895. It is quite true that after the Liberal party came into power in 1896 there were more generous increases made in connection with these bounties in the budget of 1897, but that was only after a slashing cut had been made in the tariff on iron and steel-as one hon. member says, a cut of 50 per cent. These bounties were to take the place of that cut, as was explained at the time by the then Minister of Finance, but they were to last only for five years, starting at a certain level and gradually diminishing. The tariff was always sure and dependable, and the steel industry knew exactly where they stood, but under these bounties they could not be certain of their protection. It is true that the bounties were

The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
renewed from time to time by the Liberal government, but, in 1911 the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding, stated that the steel industry of this country had reached the point where bounties were no longer necessary, and that as they expired they would be abolished. I find that in the session of 1911 a question was asked by a member of the house in this connection, to which an answer was given by Mr. Fielding. This will be found at page 6614 of volume 4 of the debates of the House of Commons for the session of 1910-11, and is as follows:
I would like the Minister of Finance to make some plain statement with regard to the renewal of the bounties on iron and steel wire, rods, et cetera. I listened with a great deal of interest to his utterance this afternoon upon that question. Rumour has it, and one cannot turn a deaf ear altogether to rumour, that the minister has under consideration the renewal of these bounties. I would ask him, as he did not make himself very plain upon that subject this afternoon, and did not even mention that he had under consideration the renewal of these bounties, if he would make a plain statement as to whether he is considering the renewal of the bounties on iron and steel and if so when he proposes to make a statement to the house upon that subject.
To that question Mr. Fielding replied as follows:
The bounties on a number of articles of iron and steel expired on the 31st of December last past. The bounties on iron rods will expire on the 1st of July ensuing. There is no intention on the part of the government of renewing them.
Mr. Fielding also stated that the bonusing of the steel industry had not cost the Dominion treasury one dlollar through these bounties; the extra duties which were collected more than offset the amount the government paid out in bounties, and I think he mentioned two places in particular, New Glasgow and Sydney where these duties were collected which substantiated this statement. I should like the house to know that these bounties were not inaugurated by the Liberal party at all, also that in 1911, as stated by Mr. Fielding, the policy of that party was to abolish the bounties. The steel industry in Nova Scotia received its start and commenced to grow under the Conservative policy. It is true that it expanded later on, as all other industries usually do in course of time, but the real credit for giving this industry a chance to start must be given to the Conservative party. If any hon. member of the house is particularly interested in the question of the bounties on steel, I would refer them to a question answered most fully in the senate debates'of February 27, 1912, in which is included a complete table of the 56103-67i
bounties granted, to whom the money was paid and how long they were continued.
The Minister of National Defence also made reference to the fact that the maritime provinces lost their best chance when they turned down the reciprocity pact of 1911, and I am speaking now with particular reference to coal, because other hon. members on this side of the house will deal with the fisheries and other matters. Coal is an important and basic industry in the province of Nova Scotia, as you all know, and is on the free list in the United States under the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922. As hon. members know, however, an exception is made with reference to countries which have tariffs against the United States as we have; the United States tariff will seek the tariff level of those countries. In this connection I would refer anyone interested to paragraph 1548 of the United States tariff, page 76. We have the same opportunity now to take advantage of reciprocal free trade in coal with the United States that we had in 1911 in other natural products if we wish to take it, and wipe out all duties. I ask the government, and I ask the Minister of National Defence, whether they or he would be in favour now of wiping out the duty on coal, thereby allowing American coal to enter Canada and our coal to enter the United States free of duity. That weapon is in the hands of the government; they could inaugurate such a policy immediately. I hope they will not do so, because it is our policy to secure an increase in duty for the industry, and I hope that some day we shall get it. It is within the power of the government to have free trade in coal between Canada and the United States, if they so desire. I ask the government, would they adopt such a policy to-day? They say we did not do so in the reciprocity election of 1911 in other natural products, but will they do so now with regard to coal? I ask the question in vain; there is no answer.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: It is a very hard question for them to answer.


Robert Knowlton Smith: The Minister
of National Defence mentioned other things with respect to the steel industry, and what was to be done under the Duncan commission report. We were led to believe last yeaf when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a statement in connection with the report of the Duncan commission that the report of that commission would be implemented in its entirety. That was the impression that was conveyed to all of us and to the country, and the phraseology adopted by the Prime Minister at that time certainly
1060	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
led me to that conclusion. But I drew the inference from the speech of the Minister of National Defence yesterday-I do not wish to misquote him in the least, and if I am making a misstatement I want to be set right -that the government had not made any commitments with respect to implementing the Duncan commission report in that connection; that there has been no definite promise in that regard, and that no serious consideration will be given to the question of bounties on steel, as recommended, until certain conditions are met and adhered to. That, Mr. Speaker, is the impression I gained from the minister's speech and I hope it is wrong. That is certainly not the impression of the people of the maritime provinces, it was not the impression I gathered last session when this matter was under discussion. We expected that when Besco was unscrambled, and when some particular group had secured control of the affairs of the company so that it could be properly managed, something would be done for the steel industry by way of a bounty as set forth in the Duncan commission report.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) made a very straightforward statement in the city of St. John on the eighteenth of last January when he said that the matter of a bounty to the Sydney steel plant would be divulged in a few weeks in a manner that would make every maritimer proud. What are we to understand from these two statements, that of the Minister of National Defence, and that of the Postmaster General to which I have just referred? Are we to understand that nothing will be done for the steel industry in the province of Nova Scotia before certain conditions are met and adhered to as set out yesterday by the Minister of National Defence or are we to understand, as stated by the Postmaster General, that something will be done in the very near future that will make every maritime province citizen proud? These are the things we should like to know, and we have a right to the information. There are conflicting statements between two ministers of the crown on this important matter and it is scarcely fair to these gentlemen themselves, to say nothing of the people in the maritime provinces, not to have a decisive answer from the government in this connection. There never was a time in the province of Nova Scotia when the steel industry needed assistance more urgently than it does to-day, and resolutions in favour of such assistance are being passed by public bodies throughout the province. Boards of trade are taking the question up and forwarding resolutions to the government. Hon. gentlemen opposite blame 
us for weeping and wailing in connection with the question of maritime rights. Do they expect us simply to come here and have our pictures taken, or do they think we should give expression to the thoughts and the wishes of the people of Nova Scotia who sent us here? We are not going to be gagged by any talk of that character, which is nothing more or less than a cheap variety of balderdash. One of the resolutions referred to was passed by the Lunenburg board of trade, and you would be surprised to know, Mr. Speaker, that the president of that body, who signed the resolution calling upon the government for immediate action towards implementing the recommendations of the Duncan commission report, is none other than the president of the Liberal Association for the province of Nova Scotia. A copy of this resolution has been forwarded to the Prime Minister, the Premier of the province of Nova Scotia, the member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), the member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) and others. Another resolution to the same effect has been passed by the board of trade in the city of Halifax. While in the board of trade at one particular city there may be a preponderance of one political opinion, and in the board of trade of another locality a preponderance of political opinion of an opposite character, I should judge from the resolution forwarded from the town of Lunenburg at least that the majority of the members of the board of trade there are not of the same political faith as those who sit on this side of the house. The situation as regards the steel industry in the province of Nova Scotia is critical; it never was more critical, and the need of government assistance, as I have already said, is urgent. There is talk about prosperity in this country, but men who cannot get employment do not take much stock in that kind of talk.
The Minister of National Defence said yesterday something to the effect that the steel industry in the Dominion could not be so badly off because the Canada Steel Company appeared to be quite prosperous. Quite so. The Canada Steel Company enjoys a protection of between 30 and 35 per cent, in addition to being located at an excellent distributing point where it enjoys easy access to ready markets.


Mr. CANTLEY:: And gets a bounty as
well.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Yes, a bounty as well, as my hon. friend points out. Down in our part of the country the industry is manufacturing primary steel, not the finished article, and enjoys a protection

The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
of only about 9 per cent. The Canada Steel Company is so situated that it can take advantage of what is called the wave of prosperity, which only exists in spots here and there throughout the country. On the other hand in our part of the country we enjoy no such advantage, because the government has provided no facilities to help us. I think it is the right of those of us who are here as members to place these matters before the house. If we did not do so we would be shirking our duty, especially when boards of trade and others are pressing upon the government to give some relief to this industry, and our functions and duties as members of parliament, particularly those who happen to be on the opposition side of the house, would be, if the government had its way, simply to come into this chamber and sit and listen. In all sincerity I ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration as a man, to see that something is undertaken by the government without further delay to grant to the steel industry in Nova Scotia what was recommended by the Duncan report and what the people of that province thought they were going to get as soon as the British Empire Steel Corporation was in a position where it could be properly controlled.
Another statement was made by the Minister of National Defence with respect to the inflated value of the stock of the British Empire Steel Corporation. It is quite true that the paper value was inflated; the company was over-capitalized, as was admitted by all; but still this was only an inflation on paper. The company never paid any dividends on the common stock and I do not think they paid any dividends on the second preferred stock, so that whatever inflation there was in that company was only a paper inflation. Surely that could not be a reason for refusing assistance. To say that because there was some kind of paper inflation in that company you cannot do anything because it will only be throwing another bone into the ring for somebody to fight for, or placing on the bargain counter something which will further embarrass the situation, does not seem to me to be sound reasoning, and now I think this company is in a position where, if it can get some government assistance, the assistance which was recommended and which the people of Nova Scotia expected it to receive, it will have a chance for its life. If not, I doubt whether it will survive.
In the east we feel somewhat perplexed and have rather gloomy apprehensions over
the government's attitude towards industries in eastern Canada. If the government succeed, by the methods which they have been adopting in the last budget, in preserving any sort of co-ordination in this country, they will do something that has never before been successfully achieved in this country by similar tactics and policies. The only benefit that we in eastern Canada derive from this budget is a reduction in the sales tax, and I admit that we get a little benefit there. There is not in the budget one other thing that I know of by which we in the maritime provinces benefit. We are willing and anxious to abolish the sales tax, to do away with all these taxes that bear so heavily on the shoulders of our working people, and the abolition of the sales tax is the basis of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Hon. members opposite made a great hue and cry against certain Conservative members who voted against the budget in this house a couple of years ago because it contained some good things and, in our opinion, some bad things. I wonder if they will vote to-day for our amendment, which certainly contains a good thing for the working class in this Dominion. It seems to me that it would be a splendid thing to go to the people and say:	We have relieved you of a great burden by abolishing the sales tax. I wonder if those same hon. members who were so critical of our attitude then will be with us to-day and will vote for an amendment which we propose. Wait and see. If at least two Liberal members from Nova Scotia are true to form, I think we can get a couple of votes for our amendment.
The question of the coal industry has been so thoroughly gone into on many occasions by different members on this side of the house that it would be a waste of time on my part to take up the matter in detail this afternoon.


Mr. ILSLEY:: W hat is the hon. member's remedy for the situation in respect to the coal industry in Nova Scotia?


Robert Knowlton Smith: If my hon.
friend will look at the speech delivered by me on the address, he will find that very point elaborated.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Do not elaborate it. Just state it.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I will state it. In the first place my hon. friend has the impression that it is tariff protection alone that we are after in order to cure this situation
1062	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
That is not the case. The tariff is only one factor, although in my opinion it is the most important factor. We must have a higher tariff on coal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: How much?


Robert Knowlton Smith: Enough to
shut out United States coal. It may be $1.50 or $1 a ton. I remember that my hon. friend last year interjected the remark that a tariff of $6 a ton would be required-that information, I believe, was supplied by the fuel board-to shut out United States coal from Canada; but that did not apply particularly to the coal of eastern Canada; it had especial reference to coal in other portions of the Dominion. Beside the question of an increase in the duty there is the question of lower and still lower freight rates, subventions for shipments west of Montreal and the establishment and government assistance of coking plants that will be compelled to use all Canadian coal. It seems to me that is the basis of a national fuel policy in this Dominion. I was glad indeed to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) the other night in answer to the remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) who said in effect that he did not know just what a national fuel policy was. It cannot be explained in any better way than was done by the hon. member for Inverness a few days ago.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Did my hon. friend ever
make any computation as to how much the reduction in freight rates and the subventions should be in order to effect what he desires?


Robert Knowlton Smith: I have not
made an accurate computation, and the question of the computation is, in my opinion, of secondary importance. The question of shutting out United States coal that comes in and destroys our Canadian market, that puts our Canadian miners out of work that disrupts mining conditions, especially in a province like Nova Scotia, is the question of primary importance. United States coal can be shut out and we should proceed to do that. We can develop a coal market in this Dominion and mine and sell our own coal here, instead of sending over $100,000,000 to the United States every year to buy foreign coal.
Of course, I know that some will say that the coal industry in Nova Scotia is not economically sound. The Minister of Immigration is reported to have so stated in the city of Toronto a few years ago. The simple fact is that if it is said there are mines there which are not economically

sound to operate you can say that of every industry in Canada that enjoys the least bit of protection. You could have said that about the great steel industry in the United States when it began. You could have said that the American policy relating to steel was not economically sound in shutting out all foreigners from their market in order to develop the steel industry in that country. You can say that of every industry that enjoys the least bit of protection, but in the long run the industry will develop, with protection just like the steel industry in the United States has developed, to a point where it is not only economically sound, but where it can outdo the world both in price, production, and the marketing of its products. If we develop in Canada a national fuel policy, can any reasonable person doubt but that there will be a decrease in the quantity of coal we import and a corresponding reduction in the price of the product? Last year we imported nearly twenty million tons of coal; we use in Canada a little over thirty million tons. The coal industry in this Dominion represents in money invested about $150,000,000. Are we going to allow this industry, which has been stagnating for years, and which is of a spasmodic character as to its operation to die simply because it is claimed by some theorists to be economically unsound? I think not. I think the lesson of the United States steel industry is as pertinent as anything could be. Give our industry a chance to get on its feet; give it a market for a while to see what it can do. As to its being economically sound or unsound, let us first give it a trial, even if it takes $6 a ton-and it certainly would not take anything like that, but if iit needs $1.50 a ton, as was suggested by the hon. member for Pictou, the industry should receive that assistance; and then with lower and still lower freight rates, with subventions west of Montreal, with coking plants established which will be compelled to use one hundred per cent Canadian coal, I think we can hope to revive this industry.
It will be said, what about the British Columbia coal fields? That has been mentioned in this house by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). The British Columbia coal fields sell about half a million tons of coal a year to a district in the United States which is very far removed from the coal fields of that country, and no matter what the tariff was, British Columbia could hardly lose that market, owing to its distance from the United States coal mines and the long rail haul that would be necessary to enable the consumers in that section of the country to the south to get American coal.

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
Laying that aside for a moment, I make this suggestion-I have not perhaps given it the thought I should have done before presenting it to the house, and I therefore leave it just as a suggestion. In Australia, one of our sister dominions, they have a policy under the Paterson scheme, of bonusing Australian butter to the extent of six cents a pound. I maintain that in this country, if it is necessary to the development of a national coal and fuel policy, and also to the protection of the mines in every portion of the Dominion, including British Columbia, we could well afford to pay the difference between the present duty and what the duty might be when it is fixed at a point high enough to keep out American coal. We must take drastic steps to stop the importation of American coal into this country. The increased importations are alarming; they are mounting higher and higher every year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is it not true that the coal mines of Nova Scotia produced about one million more tons in 1927 than in 1926?


Robert Knowlton Smith: It is quite
true that there has been an increase in the coal mine production of Nova Scotia. That is due in a small part to the gradual regaining of the Montreal market, which was lost during the war. There will probably continue to be a Slight increase in the production of coal mined in the province of Nova Scotia because we may regain even a little more of that market, but I say that we should have all of that market, and we have only about half of it to-day. Instead of producing between six and seven million tons a year in Nova Scotia, we should be producing twelve million tons.
The Minister of Justice when he was speaking said, in substance, that the policy of the government was to lower the tariff without injuring any legitimate industry in this country. For his benefit I should like to read a communication which is in direct contradiction to the remarks of the hon. minister. It is a letter I received from the Oxford Woollen Mills, of the town of Oxford, Nova Scotia. It reads:
We were stunned to read the portion of the Robb budget dealing with the textile industry.


Hewitt Bostock: Time.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) concluded his speech on the budget by advising economy. J think we all agree in admitting that he himself gave the example by his brief speech. In less than thirty-five minutes, he gave a clear and precise
statement of Canada's financial and economic conditions; he showed with figures and facts to back it, that our finances were gradually improving and that, generally speaking, the country's affairs were prosperous. His statement, clear as to what relates to the past, optimistic as to the future, is of a nature to rejoice and encourage us.
Even though his speech was brief, it lacked neither value nor interest on that account- he however furnished matter for a long debate, and really I would have hesitated to rise at this phase of the debate, if it were not for the fact that the discussion on the budget proposals affords one of the few opportunities to members who sit in the rear of the ministerial benches to publicly express their views and put forth the suggestions which they believe to be in the general interest.
The study of the budget proposals shows that, under the Liberal administration, which followed those of the hons. Borden and Meighen, the period of deficits gave way to one of surpluses, our credit has been reestablished, and from the economic viewpoint, Canada occupies one of the most enviable places among the nations of the world. In opposition to this state of affairs, those who aspire to replace the present administration have had but criticisms to offer and nothing to suggest. It is moreover the candid admission of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). Most of these critics have already been answered and I shall content myself with stating that in all public or private administration, the important factor is that revenues should exceed expenditures. That is how we distinguish a good administration from a bad one, and great credit must be given to the present administration for having succeeded in balancing the budget and keeping it balanced, while decreasing our debt and the rates of taxation.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Caban) moved an amendment in which regrets alone are expressed. One cannot carry on a government with these, and I confess that simply voting to pass regrets does not move me much. He regrets that the sales tax was not entirely wiped out. Yet, the hon. member is sufficiently acquainted with business methods to know that this total elimination would have brought on confusion in trade and bankruptcy among a great number of business concerns. Therefore, it is not to be thought of or desirable, and the Minister of Finance was quite wise in gradually decreasing it. He also regrets that the government does not find more work for our people. Is he not the one who taunted
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

the government for having reduced the tariff on automobiles, reductions which increased production and gave more work to our people. Finally, he regrets the unemployment, the emigration of our people and the absence of immigration. As regards unemployment, reports are contradictory; however, I note that it exists among our neighbours, the United States, a country that the opposition often take a delight to cite as an example of prosperity. I read in the Boston Post of February 8 last, that according to the incorporated Labour Bureau they, at present, estimate the number of unemployed in the United States at 4,000,000. As to emigration, it is established that it is gradually dwindling down, and that a large number of those who had left are returning.
However, what may be the case, it is important that we should know the real causes, so that we may be able to apply the best remedy. I shall not discuss the universal remedy of the Conservatives, which is protection; it is to them what Pain Killer was long ago in our rural districts, a cure-all.
The emigration of our people to the United States since 1919, is the ransom of war. Think over it, and you will find that war, the badly managed and exaggerated participation in it, is the principal and real cause of the exodus of our people to the United States. It took from our rural districts the young men to send them either to the battlefields or to cities, in the munition works. After demobilization, a great number who had borne arms, having acquired a likinig for travelling and adventure, refused to return to the land. While those who had gone to work in the cities, in the munition shops, found themselves without work. They had acquired a taste for city life, large salaries, luxury, but they had lost the one for the soil, and neither would they return to the farm. Owing to our exaggerated participation, wasteful and unforeseeing administration during that period, when the government carried on simply with borrowed capital instead of taxing war profiteers, trade and business were depressed; we were left with an enormous public debt, our currency had depreciated; while the United States which had entered the conflict a long time after us and in proportion to their means, found themselves in a far better economic situation. Their industries had not been disturbed and their currency was at par. It was then that we witnessed these young men, who had left the land, take the roads leading to the neighbouring republic.
Add to this the vilifying discouraging campaign, and forecasts of ruin by the Con-

servatives, and you will find therein the principal causes of the emigration of our people to the United States. Our friends in the opposition are rather late in giving the alarm. It is a war debt that we are paying off; it is a sequel to their acts. Note that between 1900 and 1914, United States citizens were immigrating to Canada. Farmers from Kansas, Dakota and Minnesota, had sold their farms at good prices to come to Western Canada and purchase other farms on better terms. A good proportion of the immigration during that period came from the United States.
The best means to stop emigration, and relieve unemployment if it exists, would be to bring the people back to the land. How are we to do it? By a campaign of education: Point out the beauties of rural life; show the advantages of owning property to counterbalance the desire for pleasures which the city offers. _ Through the efficient help of our public authorities, in establishing farm credits, allowing farmers long term loans to help them to establish themselves on farms, short term loans to purchase live stock and necessary implements, and current loans for the purchase of seeds and fertilizers. Our Rural Credit is a great step in that respect; with experience, it can possibly be improved and provide for all cases of need. Let the government grant, to city people who have previously lived in the country, the same advantages and even more than to strangers; let the government offer to transport free the families of people wishing to settle in the west or in more remote parts of their province, where, with the help of long term loans, they may settle decently and cultivate those lands. Our generosity, I think, should first be extended to our own people.
By teaching the art of agriculture in a way that it can be understood by all, and which includes new and more remunerative methods of farming. Take for instance Denmark, a small country forty five times smaller than the province of Quebec, but with the same population, where they specialize in dairy farming, they have succeeded in increasing the butter production, since 1891, at the rate of 249 per cent, while the number of cows have increased only 29 per cent. Let us give our farmers every possible chance of success.
Let us now deal with the question of immigration, a question both economic and social which should be borne in mind by all those who take an interest in the country's future.
For those who see in the rapid increase of the population, an opportunity to increase

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
their fortune, the selection of immigrants carries no weight; but to those whose aim is higher and better, who foresee the more populated Canada of to-morrow, co-operating in the common work of civilization, they find matter to ponder over and they advise caution. Hence, two schools: one would open wide the gates to immigrants, the other-and I congratulate the government of belonging to the latter-would restrict immigration.
The vastness and wealth of our country are not questioned, yet our population is not in proportion with our natural resources. How are we to increase it? By natural increase? It would be the best means which could be advocated, it is the normal development of a country; but it is found too slow a method. By immigration? That is another way, but what kind of immigration? To have no restriction would have the effect to draw the scum of other countries, the undesirable, the habitual unemployed, who would come and overcrowd our cities, and who always end by crowding the hospials or jails, and become a charge to society. Moreover, if national unity be considered, the peopling of Canada through the means of an intense immigration, is not desirable. A certain proportion must be kept between natural increase and increase by immigration; time must be given to assimilate the new element.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Maxime Raymond: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock, I was discussing immigration as a means of increasing our population. What population do we wish to increase? Urban or rural population?
Our immigration policy should be the one which the interests of the country demands. Now, Canada's interest requires that our immigration policy should develop agriculture.
Is it a question of supplying labour for industry? No. Modem machinery tends to do away more and more with manual labour, yet greatly increasing the output. It is the soil which requires workers. Let our efforts tend in that direction. Let us bear in mind that agriculture is at the basis of the economic life of a country. It is the soil which feeds us. Agricultural nations are, for their existence, independent of men and events, while industrial nations are entirely dependent on both. For instance, look at England, a country seventy-five per cent industrial, with its unemployment crisis. Moreover, prosperity of trade depends upon the purchasing power of farmers. So much said for the economic side of the question.
Turning now to the social and national viewpoint, we still have an interest in drawing to our shores a rural immigration, which is more assimilable and more stable. Those who come to cultivate the land remain on it permanently, it enchains them. The same cannot be said of the workman who roams from one country to another. The foreigner, in the city, is always an unsettled workman. Things are very different with the farmer who builds a home, invests his capital and founds a family. "Farmers", said Bonald, "are rooted to the soil; the others are but placed there."
Since the interests of the country demand a farming immigration; let us seek it where it is to be found. Many would prefer bringing over British subjects. Quite right. But subject to their being of the class of immigrants which we need. I am in no way opposed to British immigration, but let us be logical. When you look for farmers, you do not especially seek them from the most industrialized nation, the one that is the least given to farming. England, far from being able to send over farmers, needs them herself. She has not enough. It is not race that should guide us in such matters, but the personal worth of the immigrants. France, since the war, has become a country for immigrants so as to fill up the voids left and therefore has little to offer in that respect; but we could find excellent farmers in Belgium, Slovakia, an essentially farming country, in Norway whose people have already brought wealth to Minnesota and Dakota. What we need are genuine farmers and not camouflaged ones, and I would suggest that each immigrant entering Canada, should have an identification card, showing his trade, professional or farming occupation, so to keep track of him.
Let our immigration policy be essentially Canadian, founded only on the needs and interests of Canada, and not based on that of other countries. Let us not take the risk of our country becoming the dumping grounds of the globe by opening too wide our doors; let this policy be one of welcome, but at the same time strict, selective of individuals but not of races. To give our country strength and prosperity, we must have industrious, healthy and orderly people, citizens desirous of making Canada their only country, and who, blending with the mass, will help us to make a great, united and free country both internally and externally, composed of various races who, without denying their origin, will give us the advantage of their genius and of their best traditions, so as to form "the Canadian nation" whose English, French,
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

Scotch, Irish and all other names will but be their Christian name, "Canadian" will be their family one.
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Defence (Mr. Ralston,), to the proposed increase in the estimates of his department. That is a subject which does not seem to trouble the members of the opposition. I am not aware that we are threatened with war. Quite the contrary, nations are talking of peace, disarmament and are even signing treaties to that purpose. Our geographical situation is an additional guarantee of our security. Why then increase the expenditures of the (Department of Defence? Economy is advocated. Quite so. Let us first apply it to the expenditures which are not productive. Let us bear in mind that we have numerous needs, and that we must see to those that are most urgent.
We have voted large sums to develop the west, to help the maritime provinces and to accommodate Ontario. The province of Quebec, I think, has been most reasonable in her requests, notwithstanding the useful, if not urgent work, which the development of her territory necessitates. For instance, the construction of a railway in the Gaspe peninsula is strongly urged, it is needed to open up that part of the country which is rich in farming lands, forests, mines, fisheries and water-falls. It would be unfair to put off the carrying out of these works for unnecessary expenditures.
I am not prejudging the question. When the time comes to discuss in detail the estimates, the Minister of Defence will. I trust, furnish us with satisfactory explanations. For the present I am just calling attention.
The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher), by a subamendment, has protested against the cutting down of the income tax. Although I am in favour of the income tax, I believe that gradually, as our revenues and finances will permit, there must also be tax reduction on that score.
However, if the Minister of Finance is willing to relieve every one a little from the burden of taxation, it must have been noticed that he was not disposed to acquiesce to every claim.
Some time ago, a delegation headed by Sir Herbert Holt, president of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co., came before the Minister of Finance to request an exemption from the federal tax, in favour of this company, which sells electricity, gas and a number of other things. Many, among those who are not in touch with the affairs of the company, must have been favourably impressed to see

Sir Herbert Holt, great financier, director of at least one hundred and thirty five companies, [DOT]-we are informed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)- leaving his business to come and plead, not in his own behalf or that of the company of which he is the principal shareholder, but in favour of the poor consumer of the city of Montreal, who may be a victim of an injustice. He even pledged himself to have the consumer benefit from the exemption of this tax. What a laudable act! In his annual address, at the general meeting of the shareholders of the company, on the first February last, he also requested the federal members to use their influence to have this injustice cease.
The hon. Minister of Finance, after giving the matter due consideration, did not think proper to agree to their request and the day following the budget, Mr. Norris, vice-president of the company, proclaimed1 again that it was an injustice and appealed to all the citizens to protest. Let us examine, with your permission, the grievances invoked, and let us judge if there is an injustice done and if so, by whom was it committed.
The injustice would appear to come from the fact that the Ontario Hydro-Electric Company, which sells electricity in Ontario, pays no income tax. That is a fact, it pays no taxes, for the very good reason that it makes no profit. If the Montreal, Light and Power Company will do likewise and sell its electricity at cost price, it will not pay any tax. That is my first point!
There are in Ontario other private companies, for instance, the Ottawa Electric Co., which sell electricity and pay an income tax. Why should the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co., not pay its income tax then, and where is the injustice? That is my second point!
The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co., does not only sell electricity to the citizens of Montreal, but it also sells some to the United States, through the intermediary of the Cedar Rapids Co., of which it holds the capital stock, and it thus realizes profits. Why should it not pay taxes on this revenue? And where is the injustice? That is my third point!
The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co., does not only sell electricity, but it also sells gas, and if I am not mistaken, it sells to the poor Montreal consumer, four or five times more gas than electricity. The Hydro-Electric does not sell gas. All companies that sell gas in Ontario are privately owned and pay income tax. Why should the Montreal, Light,

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
Heat and Power Co., not pay the income tax then? And where is the injustice? That is my fourth point!
The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co. does not only sell electricity and gas, but it also carries on other business. It sells coal, stoves, lamps, toasters and other goods. It has even a number of stores in Montreal and elsewhere. All commercial houses in similar business pay income tax. Why should the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co. not pay also her income tax and where is the injustice? That is my fifth point!
Not only that:	Look up its financial statement for 1927, you will find that it has in its assets nearly $15,000,000 in investments, on which it draws revenues. Why should the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co. not pay income tax on those revenues like all others, and where is the injustice? That is my sixth point!
If we were to exempt the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co. from the income tax, to be fair, we would have to exempt the private owned companies of Ontario and elsewhere which sell electricity; to exempt all companies which sell gas; to exempt all merchants who sell coal, stoves, lamps and other articles that the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co. sell -why not then all merchants-to exempt all those whose revenues are the outcome of investments. In other words, we would have to wipe out the income tax.
The president and vice-president mentioned a very high figure, representing the income tax paid by the company, and the impression gathered from this statement, was that the tax was collected on the sole profit realized on the sale of electricity in the city of Montreal, which is not so. Deduct all the profits which it realizes on the sale of electricity to the United States, on the sale of gas, on the business of the various articles which it sells, on its investments for an amount of over $15,000,000, and you will see that the amount of income tax which it really pays, in regard to the electricity which it sells to the Montreal consumer, is not very high.
I do not doubt the sincerity of those who accompanied Sir Herbert Holt when they interviewed the Minister of Finance, to request the exemption from' the income tax, but when we are aware of the manipulation carried on by this company for the last twenty-five years: increased capital, splitting of shares, change in name and juggling with figures, we have a right to question the motives of Sir Herbert Holt and his company and not put it down to philanthrophy.
If the consumer pays too high a price for electricity in the city of Montreal, and in fact he does, it is not on account of the federal
tax paid by the company, but to the exorbitant profits made at the consumer's expense; and when, under the plea that an Ontario company, the Hydro Electric Company, is not taxed, for among others, the good reason that it makes no profits, it asks, for an exemption of taxes on the profits realized, not only on the electricity sold to the citizens of Montreal, but on that sold to the United States, on the sale of gas and other articles in the various branches of commerce, also on its investments, it simply wants to ward off the public's suspicions who rightly claim lower rates for electricity.
Are you aware of what profits were distributed among its shareholders within the last twenty-five years? It is the direct successor of the Royal Electric Co., which was doing business ,in 1901, with a capital of $3,000,000; the latter's stock with the help of a good deal of "water" was diluted to the amount of $63,000,000. Through transactions carried on by Sir Herbert Holt, and share splittings, any person holding in 1901, a hnudred shares in the Royal Electric Co., for which he is supposed to have paid $10,000, now without having disbursed an additional cent, is holder of 2,250 ordinary shares, which on the stock exchange are quoted at $90 per share, and are worth $202,500, without mentioning a bonus of 750 preferred shares distributed in 1926, and which the company repurchased at $50 per share, that is $37,500, beside all the dividends paid to that shareholder since 1901, at a rate varying between 8 per cent and 60 per cent, on his initial investment. The profits of that company are so large, that it is obliged1 to conceal them under the guise of contingent funds: $500,000, insurance funds; $1,000,000, depreciation funds, indefinite amounts; investments and call loans about $15,000,000. Its current assets for 1927, exceed by $6,000,000 that of the year 1926.
If you now look up the financial statements of the company, you will note that each year, the president, Sir Herbert Holt, never forgets to state in his yearly address, "that the practice of the company is to share the profits with its consumers and to sell its products at a minimum rate, and he always hopes that, if business continues good, the consumers will, in the near future, be given lower rates." As you can readily see, the sharing is not with the consumer, but to his detriment. I think that the consumer has a better guarantee of getting his share of the tax paid on the sale of electricity in Montreal by the company, when the money is safely in the hands of the government.
That is how the company deals with the citizens of Montreal in regard to profits. Now. let us examine rates and see how it expresses its sympathy to the Montreal citizens.
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

Its sympathy consists in selling to the citizens of Montreal, electricity at the rate of 3J cents per k.w.h.; while it sells it to the citizens of Westmount, at the rate of 2 cents per k.w.h., that is to say 75 per cent dearer to the Montreal people. The Ottawa Electric Co. of Ontario, which pays the income tax, sells its electricity to the consumer at the average rate of cent.
Its sympathy for the Montreal people further consists in offering electricity, for industrial purposes, at the rate of $15 per h.p., to the Ontario Hydro Electric Co., which resells it at $22, while the former sells the same electricity to Montreal people at the rate of $35 per h.p.
Its sympathy also consists in exporting to the United States, through the intermediary of the Cedar Rapids Co., of which it is the sole stockholder, electricity at a lower rate, that is $12 per h.p.
Its sympathy is still further expressed by forcing the consumer to lend it money, which amounts, at present, to $800,000. Are you aware that a Montreal citizen can neither purchase gas nor electricity without first depositing $5 or $10.
That is its sympathy for the poor consumer. This deposit remains there until the discontinuation of the service, that is to say until his death. And what interest is he paid? Three per cent not yearly, but only when the deposit is withdrawn. Instead of borrowing money at the rate of 5 per cent, it forces the consumer to lend it the money at 3 per cent, and if you figure out what $800,000 represents m interest, you may judge what amount it holds without interest at the expense of the poor consumer.
I think you will admit that Sir Herbert Holt and his company, the Montreal Light, Heat and Power, are not entitled to pass as benefactors to the consumer, and you will not be astonished that the Minister of Finance did not seriously consider their request. When the government collect in the way of taxes, a small part of the profits which the company makes, they remedy, in a slight measure, the injustice that the company does every day to the Montreal consumer.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a great many speeches in this house and I must confess that many of them have been of a high standard and a constructive nature. I am sorry that my lack of ability will not enable me to preserve that high standard, I not having had much experience in speech making. I congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Raymond). He will be happy now -I wish I were in his shoes.

I congratulate also the hon Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). We all recognize his wonderful ability and appreciate his power in this house. I love indeed his sense of humour, and maybe his sarcasm at times. However, notwithstanding his contention that the government 'has not ruined Canadian industry, may I say that it has. And when you ruin industry you ruin the business world, of which I have some knowledge. Why, the government has tried to control operations both domestic and foreign, by land and by sea. A few years ago you will remember, sir, the government attempted to put a fleet of boats on the ocean to compete with the merchant marine of the world, and so cut down freight rates for cattle and wheat, in order to make our honourable farmers believe it was doing something for them. Well, sir, you might as well try to fight a battleship with a canoe as put into commission the class of boats the government intended to subsidize in its attempt to cut down ocean freight rates, and had it not been for the members on this side of the house putting up a strong and vigorous objection, the country to-day would be losing thousands of dollars in that hopeless enterprise. Undoubtedly every time you attempt to change the old channels through which business has been done successfully for many years, you are interfering with business and upsetting the business world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the government side argue that we of the official opposition are the cause of the people leaving Canada. May I say, sir, there is nothing to it. Canadians who to-day are on the American side have every confidence in the Conservative party. During the election of 1925 in my own riding I read many letters from parents of young boys and young girls who were working in the States praying me to do everything possible to defeat the King administration. I said a moment ago that the Canadian people have demonstrated their faith in the Conservative party. As proof of my statement I point to the fact that during the month of the general election in 1925 and for the eleven months following more of- our people returned to the Dominion than in any similar period since, and of those more than 40 per cent came in the eleven months after the election, from November to the September following. That shows whether or not the people have absolute faith in the Conservative party. So why should we not stand up here and tell the truth to the people? Why should the people be humbugged and camouflaged?
I do not intend to worry the house with figures or statistics. Figures sometimes lie, and statistics are not always correct. My

The Budget[DOT]-Mr. Spence
intention is to make some observations regarding the present administration, observations which may be considered in the nature of criticism. First, I wish to congratulate the government on having in the party a minister so capable of manipulating the budget that it is said to be supported by all classes of people. -But the present budget, just like its predecessors, is gotten up for the express purpose of keeping the party in power, regardless of conditions throughout the Dominion. What we need to-day is a business administration, instead of a government that seizes every opportunity to evade responsibility. Since 1921 we have been getting government by special commissions and special committees too numerous to mention, at considerable cost to the country. Of course the administration has always seen to it that a majority of its supporters were placed on each special commission and special committee so that they would report as directed, that majority being in sympathy with the government's proposals. It is simply humbugging parliament and the Canadian people. Barnum once said that you might fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you could not fool all the people all the time. Well, that is the only thing this government has succeeded in doing. Instead of wasting so much time concocting and manipulating schemes in connection with the budget purely for the purpose of keeping themselves in power, why do the government not submit a program of constructive ideas, some satisfactory agenda for the consideration of parliament? This may be considered radical coming from the Tory side, but let me say right here that I am no politician; my interest is Canada first. I do not believe in playing politics too much, and there is altogether too much politics played, particularly on the other side of the house. What we need is something that would enable us to make the best of our opportunities and not to throw away all our chances of promoting the prosperity of this country. I am confident that if the government took the members of this parliament into their confidence and asked for suggestions and advice as to the best means of promoting the welfare of Canada, the members on this side of the house would offer such advice in all sincerity, and the government would benefit more by that advice than they do from that of ministers in charge of departments. If the government are not directly asked for information they will scarcely volunteer it. That is the way politics has been played in the past at any rate.
The budget presented by the government this year seems to have acted as an opiate on hon. members on the other side of the house; most of them have been lulled to sleep and have slept until yesterday and to-day. The first evidence of any real pep that we have so far seen on the other side was injected into the debate to-day by the Minister of Justice. Are hon. members opposite afraid to offer suggestions or make demands of their party leaders? Hon. gentlemen on the other side apparently are satisfied simply because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has made certain statements which are supported by the Minister of Justice, the ablest representative of the government. I am not at all decrying the ability of the Minister of Finance, but the budget contains no suggestions that will make for the development of the country. It seems to be altogether of a destructive character.
I am going to offer some suggestions by way of a new system of obtaining information and of ensuring our rights as representatives of the people, and I hope the government will consider these suggestions. Why should not members of this house have an opportunity this year to express their views regarding the development of the St. Lawrence waterway? Why, and what is the reason? Where is the hidden hand that has prevented us from discussing that question? I have an idea myself as to what we* may expect, if not in the near future, certainly at some time, and hon. members may well wonder what will happen. Again, what is to prevent the government giving some assistance in the building of good roads through a contribution each year? And for purposes of exploring and developing the natural resources of this country a stated amount should be included in the estimates annually. That is the sort of system which would be followed in the conduct of business anywhere, and some business tactics should be adopted in government as well as in business administration. We should have also some sound system of immigration and colonization whereby we might retain our own Canadians and provide them with employment at home. If the government would only seek information and advice on this side of the house they would benefit considerably more than by indulging in criticism of the opposition. We have a serious problem to face in our endeavour to keep our Canadians in Canada. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, "You are the government and you should do something. You are in power; we are not." If I were on the other side I * ould make the same criticism for the con-
The Budget-Mr. Spence

sideration of our own party. These are all matters that call for earnest consideration.
This government has tinkered with tariffs and meddled with the business world to such an extent that people in business have no pleasure being there; they would sooner get out. The government have made treaties with foreign countries altogether to the detriment of this Dominion. Our negotiators have not been capable in holding their own. If I were on a -committee negotiating a treaty with any country and I did not get the best of it, or at least a square deal, there would be no treaty. But in nearly every case our treaties have been to the disadvantage of this country. A treaty is a business proposition and we have a right to get the best deal possible. But we are not building up our trade under the treaties negotiated by this government.
Let me discuss for a moment or two the French treaty-and I will touch only those phases of it of which I know something. That treaty came into effect a few years ago; I will not bother the house with figures because they sometimes lie and I might make a mistake. Well, what have we got from it? The French treaty, generally speaking, has been a bad thing for Canada. I am connected with the fruit business and am therefore in a position to make the statement that this particular industry has been considerably injured by the treaty. Take our cherry business, for example. Since the French treaty came into force the great wholesale extract manufacturers and retail ice cream people have been bringing cherries from Italy and France by the carload and in casks at a cheaper rate than our people can grow this fruit. Many years ago we had a splendid cherry business in Canada, and I know what I am talking about because I have been in the industry for thirty-seven or thirty-eight years. We had a very good market for cherries but since the treaty has been in operation it has practically ruined the trade and the growers can scarcely meet cost of production. A few years ago there were magnificent orchards of Montmorency cherries; to-day they are being cut down with the axe. This is one industry that has been destroyed by the French treaty.
Then there is the silverskin onion business. Silverskin onions used to be a high class commodity for pickling purposes, used extensively by such people as Heinz; but under the French treaty these onions ready dressed for packing in bottles have been coming into the country from Holland at the rate of four cents per pound, while no grower in Canada can produce them at that figure; it takes at least five or five and a half cents a pound to grow this vegetable here. This is the effect

which the French treaty has had upon the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada. Is it not clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is too young a country to be making treaties with the older lands? In the last ten years we have developed the silverskin onion business and the requirements of the industry are considerable. It needs great care and attention to dry them if the right colour is to be obtained, and there must be suitable buildings in case of wet weather outside. Obviously, therefore, a great deal of bother is involved, so that the man producing them deserves the best consideration that can be shown him. But owing to the French treaty the business has gone to pieces.
The Australian treaty, too, has been very injurious to this country; we all know what the effect has been on our dairy industry. This industry has undoubtedly been seriously discouraged since the treaty has been in force and eventually it will be wiped out unless something is done and done in the very near future. The sheep industry also is practically ruined.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: Hon. gentlemen laugh, but
if they know nothing about business conditions in Canada I can assure them that there are those who do know. Due to the Australian treaty and the consequent lack of protection, the woollen business of Canada has been badly affected. Let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that even the party who preceded them, the Conservative party, never gave the producers of sheep and sheep products the consideration they should have received; they should have had protection on raw wool years ago. But under the Australian treaty the business is suffering so seriously that it will not be long now before the only thing we shall have to eat will be Australian mutton. We shall not be able to produce a lamb chop in Canada; that will be a luxury reserved entirely for the millionaire.
In 1922 the present government started tinkering with our tariff. They first lowered the duty on textiles and then they reduced it on farm implements, in order to please certain interests and to obtain their support in this house. They then allowed raw material to come in free when used in the manufacture of farm implements, this being done also to please certain interests such as the Massey-Harris people. We all know how famous this concern is and how much money it has cost this country. That was the beginning of the interference with the tariff. At the same time, by lowering the duty on raw materials entering into the manufacture of farm imple-

The Budget-Mr. Spence
merits we ruined many factories which made parts for such people as the Massey-Harris Company. We hurt the workers in Canada and no one received any benefit, not even the farmers; those members of this house who are farmers and my hon. friends to my left will agree that there was no reduction in the price of farm implements.
Then this government decided to reduce the duty on automobiles, and they compromised again; you all know what they did, but I will just repeat it. They lowered the duty on automobiles to please their friends in this house, then lowered the duty on certain parts entering Canada and reduced the excise tax, which still held their friends who made automobiles. As you see, they were trying to keep in power all the time regardless of what happened to this country, and all the time they were losing revenue. My own idea is that the simplest, sanest and easiest way to keep this country running is by a customs tariff, and I would eliminate half the other taxes if I had anything to do with it. By tinkering with the automobile business we caused many more cars to be imported into Canada, which naturally reduced employment as well. There again the government followed the same system of knocking down and building up, in the meantime losing revenue.
Then the government lowered the duty on certain lines of cotton goods from 37i per cent to 30 per cent, afterwards allowing certain raw materials to come in free, which built the protection up to 40 per cent again. I received that information from a gentleman who is in the business, so I know I am making a true statement. The desire of the government, of course, was to please those friends who are in the cotton business by allowing the raw material to come in free and those friends are about the only ones who benefited; no one else could benefit by manipulations of that kind. Then the gov-emnment decided to allow machinery for woollen mills to enter Canada free, when two-thirds of the machinery already in this country is idle. From still another standpoint that is absolutely unfair, because many manufacturers who paid duty on the machinery they brought into Canada will be forced to write off hundreds of thousands of dollars from their capital accounts. That! is fen absolute injustice to the industry.
I suppose by appointing two plenipotentiaries to foreign countries the government expect to put Canada on the map, but to my mind this is pure vanity and a woeful waste of public money. To me it would seem to be inviting trouble to send a minister from
Canada to Tokyo, and I would suggest that the better plan would be to let John Bull continue to represent us.
Our tariff system is antiquated and unsatisfactory. Since the war the whole world has become revolutionized, and there is no reason why there should not be a revolution in our tariff system. Why not adopt a tariff system similar to that in force in the United States? I am glad to see the minister in his seat; perhaps he will consider that suggestion. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) gave an illustration the other day of what happened to a mutual friend in Toronto who tried to build up a little business in Detroit. He shipped a consignment of dry goods to Detroit on which the duty was only 50 per cent, but before they were cleared through the customs house, by some system of manipulation, the duty was raised to 90 per cent and my friend in Toronto was forced to pay the return express on the goods. We should have some such elastic tariff system with someone in charge who knows how to operate it. I am not attempting to disparage the present minister, because I think he has done more to straighten out the customs business than anyone else, but I could give you many instances of embargoes which have been placed against our goods by the United States. About two years ago the Americans came to Canada and started to raise the price of potatoes; we wondered what was going to happen and where we were to get our supplies, because they had carloads of potatoes at the border and everywhere else ready to ship into the United States. I was afraid I could not get a sufficient supply in Ontario so I made a trip to Winnipeg, and not satisfied with going into the wholesale fruit and vegetable district I went to the stock yards, where I got in touch with a number of drovers from whom I started to purchase forty or fifty cars of potatoes. I was to complete my arrangements the following day, but when I came back to the Vipond wholesale house I received a wire from my own people telling me to " lay off " the potatoes, that the market had dropped fifty cents and the United States had raised an embargo against them. That is the system they have adopted, and you can never hope to get any business in the United States except the business they do not want themselves. In the yards at Winnipeg there were over fifty cars of potatoes ready to go to the United States, and the people who had bought them lost forty cents or fifty cents a bag; we were left "holding the bag" as usual.
I know something about fruit and vegetables. The fruit and vegetable growers and others interested in the distribution of these
The Budget-Mr. Spence

products waited on the government some time ago asking for increased protection. I do not hesitate to use the word " protection " because that is absolutely what I mean, and I understand the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) promised them a seasonal tariff. Did they get it? No, they only got the promise, which they always get from this government. A seasonal tariff, Mr. Speaker, is one which is high during the time when we have plenty of these products in our own country, thus preventing American fruit and vegetables from being shipped over here and killing the market. Then, when our own production is exhausted, the tariff is reduced in any way necessary to give the consumers of this country an opportunity to have a continuous supply of fresh vegetables. At the beginning of our season, however, starting with strawberries and asparagus and running right through the peach season, we should have a seasonable tariff, and I demand that the Minister of National Revenue take this into consideration, because it is the only thing that can save us. Competing as we do with states such as California, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, North and South Carolina, Maryland and others, where they grow from one to three crops a year more easily than our fruit growers can produce one crop, I say it is an unfair thing to allow these states to send their products to Canada when our own fruit and vegetables are plentiful, and we have a right to protect that industry as well as the Massey-Harris concern or any automobile factory.
Canada at one time had a fair market for farm produce in the United States, before the Fordney-McCumber tariff went through. I have shipped a good many cars of produce to the United States, and I was always compelled to pay both the freight and duty on every car I shipped. We do not follow that practice in Canada. In the year 1921 we sold the United States farm produce to the value of about $191,000,000, real farm produce dug out of the ground. In 1927, however, we only sold $64,000,000 worth of farm products to the United States, or a drop of almost $130,000,000 in that six year period. Are we to continue our folly of allowing the United States to send fruit and vegetables to Canada without more protection or consideration for the growers in Canada?
Let me remind my hon. friends from the province of Quebec that this applies to their province as well as to mine. Their farms are small and they produce mostly vegetables; their only market is the home market, and if they deplete the population of industrial centres such as Montreal and other smaller places, what will happen to the market? There 
will be none. The same thing applies to Ontario, starting with Toronto and finishing at Niagara Falls; if the population decreases the market is gone; not only that, but the value of the land between Toronto and Niagara Falls is cut in two. The United States is a great producing country itself, and you cannot get anything in there while they are able to produce plenty of goods for their own market, and as a rule they are always able to do so. Once in a while they find themselves a little short, but that very seldom happens. Climatic conditions affect the production in some parts of the country but if there is a shortage in any particular district shipments are made from another part of the country in order to fill the demand. A few years ago, I think it was in 1918, the United States put an embargo on products coming from Holland, France and England. They would not allow them into the country, and a propaganda was begun there to raise the products in question at home and keep the products of other countries out, thus retaining the money expended on those products in their own country. We should take a leaf out of the United States book.
Under the same heading I will mention something of value to the wholesale trade that we have been asking for for years. It is something which I advocated in this house in 1922 and 1923-I refer to the imposition of a specific duty. What I mean by a specific duty is so much per pound, per crate, per box or per barrel, as the case may be. I pointed out on the occasions referred to that the trouble with the ad valorem duty is that dealers, if they so desire, may get special invoices for customs purposes only. At that time trucking from border points such as Buffalo was common, and there was not much chance for customs officials to check heavily loaded cars. However, that trouble has been eliminated or nearly so by customs checking up closely. Those who imported in car lots found it impossible to compete with the truck system.
For other reasons I still demand a specific duty. Customs regulations to-day are very severe and hard to understand, and the trade is continually getting new regulations which are not understood by those engaged in the business as a whole. Importers are put to a lot of expense and trouble getting advice, and nobody can afford to keep a lawyer on the job continually. No appraiser can give a ruling that is definite, and I may say that this applies to some officials higher up, in fact customs officials differ themselves as to certain rulings. The solution of the problem is to adopt the specific duty which will

The Budget-Mr. Spence
eliminate all misunderstanding, and simplify the work at the customs house. Let me give an illustration of this:	If you have a carload of any commodity containing any number of packages and the duty is 50 cents a box there can be no misunderstanding. If there is any dispute as to weight the railway freight bill can be used. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, a specific duty will lessen the cost and expedite the work of the customs officials. There will not be as many officials needed because the work will have been simplified to such an extent.
I come now to the question of the dumping duty. I am not advocating that that duty should be abolished, but I hate to see the Americans getting the advantage of it. They made many thousands of dollars last year. Take, for instance, a car of California peaches that is quoted to you at a rate of 70 cents. It would be much cheaper in the long run if you were to buy at SO cents. The Americans know what the fair market value of our product is. They quote you the price of peaches at so much and you might as well take them at SO cents as pay 65 or 70 cents. It costs you more in the long run if you buy them for 65 or 70 cents than if you buy them for 80.
Then, again, take the purchase of celery or lettuce. You can, we will say, buy a car at the rate of $1 and they will quote you a rate of $1.50. You will accept the latter rate because the trade finds it better to follow the line of least resistance. The other day we had an interview with certain customs officials and we asked for a certain ruling provided the trade carried out all the customs requirements at the point of entry. We asked if we could be guaranteed any protection in the event of meeting all these requirements and we were told "No, you have no protection." I say that there would be none of these difficulties in the operation of the customs regulations if there was a specific duty imposed on all products.
Another matter of which we complain is interference with the old channel through which business has been proceeding. This may arise in connection with a ruling in the customs. If you buy a car of cabbage and it is shipped from the point where it is grown, it is often rolled out on to the railway because there is no place to keep it, and it is kept in movement. The result is that in the case of a car of cabbage the freight from California to Chicago is added to the cost, and then you are charged duty on the freight as well as on the goods.
There is another cause of complaint in the matter of the buying of rolling cars, where 56103-88
the duty is charged on the freight paid. No dealer will buy any more, and this will mean a loss of business to the Canadian national railways because they haul 75 per cent of these commodities which come into the city of Toronto; and the dealers lose as well.
Coming now to the continual claims on the part of the government that prosperity prevails in Canada and that the credit is due to them, I wish to say that if we had real prosperity every one of us would realize the fact. Prosperity comes periodically regardless of governments. I do not admit that real prosperity exists in Canada. There are too many unemployed here; too many failures in the business world, too many mergers and amalgamations, for me to say that we have real prosperity. The boom we hear so much about in large office buildings financed by American capital and promoted by speculative builders is no sign of prosperity. Stock market booming is even a less convincing sign. If we had real prosperity, business men would be using up all their energy trying to keep pace with the increase of business. It is a case of chasing business to-day, not of trying to keep pace with it. I would rather see our factories filled with workers than see our buildings filled with agents selling foreign goods and thus doing our own workers out of jobs, or filled with promoters of all kinds, gambling in stocks that are not sound and that are deceiving the Canadian people. I hope the latter state of affairs is not what my hon. friends opposite consider prosperity. The government claim that they are reducing taxation, but I cannot see how that is the case when taxes collected during the last five years are greater than in the five years previous. That is not my idea of a reduction in taxation.
With all our wonderful resources, with a land flowing with milk and honey, why should this country be lagging behind with a population of nine to ten million people and with not even the ordinary increase in our population? We have the best class of men and women in the world; they are hardy, healthy and they Should be happy; they are nearly all educated and fit for any job, but still this government has been moving along in the same lackadaisical way for the last seven years, fooling the people and keeping in power being their first consideration. If people engaged in industry and commerce paid as little attention to their business as this government does to the country's business, they would soon wind up in the poorhouse, but there is sufficient money in the treasury to keep everything going, and the people pay.

The Budget-Mr. Spence

Our educational system throughout Canada is fairly good. I know it is good in my province. We are spending millions of dollars in Ontario educating the youth of our country to develop the industries of the United States of America, thus saving Uncle Sam a good deal of money. After graduating from our universities, our boys and girls, for want of an opportunity to make a living, are leaving Canada. This is due principally to the exportation of our natural resources instead of having them manufactured into the finished article in this country. That is something that deserves our serious consideration. Freight rates are higher on the finished article and a distribution of our finished products by our own railways all over Canada would enable our railways to pay their way and employ more people. To-day we get only the low rates on the raw material and that is one of the principal reasons why the railways of Canada are not paying at present.
As someone else has said, I do not want to accuse the government of doing nothing. I wish to commend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) for his action in diverting the Hudson bay terminal to Fort Churchill in place of Port Nelson. I also wish to thank the government for the return of natural resources to the prairie provinces. If that has not been already done, I hope it will be done immediately.
I am glad to know that the revenue from customs is increasing, diue no doubt to a proper administration, and I will say that we are getting proper administration to-day. But that proper administration was brought about by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who has made Canada millions of money and who has' received no credit for doing so. I will say this-and I know somebody will criticize me for saying it-the Canadian people in this case did not appreciate the hon. member's sacrifice, but this country has reaped a large benefit and now the administration will go on and the customs laws will be enforced1 by the hon. gentleman who is at present in charge. I did expect this year that- the government would assist in the elimination of smuggling by lowering excise duties on cigars, cigarettes and tobacco. We are losing revenue, particularly on cigarettes. I am satisfied that smuggling in cigarettes cannot be stopped and we might just as well make up our minds that we can no more enforce the law so as to stop cigarette smuggling than we could enforce the Ontario Temperance Act in Ontario, when it was the law of the province.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member's time is up.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I feel myself at a disadvantage to-night in following two such entertainers as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence). I must say in all sincerity that with all his humour the hon. member for Parkdale has endeavoured to make some constructive suggestions to the government. The Minister of Justice this afternoon amused the house and himself by reading numerous extracts which eminently suited his purpose to show conflicting criticisms directed at the government's budget from the Conservative and the Independent members of this house. He then declared, I think rather categorically, that the government represented all the people and all the interests of Canada, but he failed to offer for the benefit either of those whom he represents, or of the members of the house, any analysis of the budget or its effect on the people or the country.


Ernest Lapointe: I had only forty minutes.


George Gibson Coote: I have been in this house
for six sessions and I have never yet listened to a budget debate in which so little attempt has been made on the part of the government or its supporters to analyze the proposals of the budget or to explain just what they mean or what would be their effect upon the people of the country. In fact, as regards receiving any enlightenment from members of the government as to these proposals, the debate might as well have closed the day following the delivery of the budget speech and the vote might then have been taken. I do not however think the time has been entirely wasted. Some very interesting speeches have been delivered and some constructive suggestions have been offered during the debate.
Personally I feel that this budget covers too much ground for me to deal with it in detail in the space of forty minutes. First of all the budget includes a financial statement of the country for the past fiscal year, as well as a statement of the public debt, the railway finances, et cetera. In addition it contains a proposal to reduce the sales tax, a further proposal to reduce the income tax and a proposal to strike out 122 items from the customs tariff schedules and to substitute 159 new items, as well as to strike out 4 items of drawbacks of customs duties and to insert 10 new items. I should like to suggest that it is not necessary that all these proposals should be grouped together and the house compelled to concur in all these matters. I suggest that the financial statement should be given to the house by itself; that the

The Budget-Mr. Coote
house should be allowed to go into committee of the whole to consider the statement, or that the statement be referred to the public accounts committee without our having to agree to a resolution which proposes a reduction of the sales tax, a reduction of the income tax and between 160 and 170 changes in the customs tariff schedules. I suggest that if the minister wishes to introduce a reduction in the sales tax, it should be introduced in the ordinary way by resolution to be followed by a bill. The same procedure should be followed in the case of reducing the income tax, and also. I think, in regard to the minister's proposals in connection with the customs tariff. If this procedure were adopted, we could decide each proposal on its merits and the votes of the members would be recorded upon each proposal. But under this budget system, members who are absolutely opposed to any reduction in the income tax are being forced into the position of either voting in favour of the reduction or of defeating the budget, which we all understand means the defeat of the government, to be followed by the dissolution of parliament and a general election. It is unfair to the members of this house that they should be placed in that position. To my mind the democratic and businesslike thing to do would be to introduce each item separately and let each one be decided on its merits. I think the principle which I am advocating underlies the rule which was quoted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a few days ago in regard to the motion of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), which rule provides that papers shall be called for only on one subject at a time.
The speech of the Minister of Finance in delivering the budget was in my opinion much too short. He was not limited to forty minutes. He gave no reason for reducing the income tax; he dealt with that matter in a very few words. He gave no reason for reducing the sales tax; he dealt with that matter in less than two lines of Hansard. He did not say why the sales tax should be reduced; he did not say why it should not be abolished; he did not say whether it would not be wise to reduce it on the necessaries of life and leave it on the luxuries. I think the minister might also have given us some more information in regard to his tariff changes. As I said before, he has struck out 126 items in the tariff and inserted 169, with scarcely any explanation as to the effect of these changes. He dealt with that subject in one page of Hansard. I repeat, the minister was not limited to forty minutes like the rest of os, and I think he might have enlightened the 56103-684
house in regard to this matter-that is, if he knows just what the effect will be. As these changes have been made, I understand, as the result of the inquiries of the advisory board on tariff and taxation, I suggest that the minister might have the chairman of the board on the floor of the house to act as his deputy when these resolutions are being considered in committee of the whole. I think it as well to intimate to the minister now that the house will need a good deal of explanation in regard to some of these items.
Last year the minister gave as a reason for not making any changes in the customs tariff the fact that the tariff advisory board had not reported on the matters which had been referred to them, and he implied that he would make no changes in the tariff unless and until this board had reported on them. I should like to remind him that this is an advisory board on tariff and taxation, and if he takes the attitude that the tariff should not be changed until the board has inquired into and reported on the proposed changes, why does he take a different attitude in regard to taxation? Has the question of reducing the income tax or the sales tax been referred to the board? If not, why not?-especially as it seems to be the intention of the minister to eliminate both these taxes in the course of a period of years. I notice that when the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) was speaking he said he hoped that next year or the year after the income tax would be wiped out, and he hoped the sales tax would be wiped out entirely next year. I wonder why he did not, as a good Liberal, also express himself in favour of the customs tariff being wiped out, so that we should all be in the happy position of having to pay no taxes, except a little excise tax on liquors and tobacco, which the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) wishes to have reduced; and it may be he is quite right.


David Spence: And make more money.


George Gibson Coote: But as the hon. member (Mr. Sanderson) did not suggest wiping out the customs tariff, I presume he is in agreement with the hon. member for Parkdale and is in favour of raising all the revenue through the operation of the customs tariff. Surely this is a strange doctrine to be preached by a Liberal. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he ask the advisory board on tariff and taxation to inquire into and report on the application and the administration of the income tax, as to whether the schedules are equitable, whether they are fair as between different incomes, and whether it is a greater brake on the Wheels of business than a tax on
The Budget-Mr. Coote

commodities, such as the sales tax and the tariff tax. The income tax has been persistently attacked by an organization calling itself the Retail Trade Bureau of Canada. Personally I should like to know who these people are that operate under that name, and I now invite them to inform the public, and especially the members of this house, whom they deluge with their circulars, who they are, just how many retailers they actually represent, and where they secure the necessary funds to carry on this intensive propaganda.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: And how
much their incomes are.


George Gibson Coote: I have met very few retailers who are opposed to the income tax. I believe most of the objection to the income tax could be overcome by proper changes in its application. The statement has often been made in this house that farmers are not paying their share of the income tax. I would like to see the advisoiy board on tariff and taxation investigate very thoroughly the administration of the Income War Tax Act to find out whether the farmers or any other class of people in Canada are not paying their income tax. Personally I want to see the act so administered that all who are liable shall pay.
I should also like to have the board report on the advisability of changing the application of the tax so that taxpayers should be assessed on their incomes over a period of three years. This matter has repeatedly been, brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance, but so far we do not seem to have been able to make any impression upon him. We have brought to his attention cases where farmers, and ranchers particularly-there may be others-have incurred a loss in two or more successive years, and the next year, having an income which made them liable under the Income Tax Act, have had to pay the tax although the profit in the good year was not sufficient to make up the deficit in the two previous years. There have been cases where a man has been assessed for income tax whose whole profits from the year's crop have been paid to the bank to cover the deficits incurred in previous years, and where the assessed was unable to borrow money to pay his tax. I have even heard of a case where a man was threatened with suit by the Income Tax department because he had not under these peculiar circumstances paid the tax. I would like to see the board investigate this whole income tax question very thoroughly.
I Mr. Coote.]
I wish now to draw the attention of the minister to one tax which he has overlooked and to a situation which certainly calls for some action on -his part. I refer to the excise tax on automobiles. In 1926 the tariff on motor cars imported from the United States was reduced from 35 to 20 per cent. In the discussion which then took place, and which is recorded in Hansard of 1926, page 3663, the late Minister of Customs, Mr. Boivin, estimated that it cost the individual consumer who imported a car from the United States approximately five per cent in addition to the twenty per cent customs tariff. This is owing to the fact that there was at that time in the United States an excise tax of 5 per cent payable by the purchaser of an individual car, and he had also to purchase a license for the car before it could be driven out of the country. The new prices on Ford cars which became effective after the budget of 1926 were 25 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States. Proof of this will be found on page 3663 of Hansard of 1926. On June 7, 1926, the present Minister of Finance introduced a bill to amend the Special War Revenue Act, to provide for the removal of the excise tax of 5 per cent from cars produced in Canada and valued at less than $1,200. When putting through the measure the minister was twitted by his Conservative opponents with handing back with his left hand 5 per cent of the protection that he had taken away with his right hand. In reply, he assured the house that he would not allow the manufacturers of automobiles to take any advantage of this 5 per cent. I will quote his own words as recorded in Hansard of 1926 at page 4133:
I hold in my hand a letter from the automobile manufacturers of Canada guaranteeing that they will pass this on to the Canadian people, and that the purchaser of a Canadian car will have all this reduction in the excise
tax	I repeat that we have the
promise of the associated automobile manufacturers of Canada, of all the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada-it will be found on Hansard to-morrow morning-that they will pass this excise reduction on to the Canadian purchaser,-
I hope the house will take note of the following words:
-and I serve notice on them now, in the presence of my friends, that if they do not live up to that agreement we will find means of placing them in a position where they will have to do so or meet competition of the world.
I have recently secured information as to the Canadian price and the United States price of certain cars valued at less than $1,200 which are being made and sold in Canada by some of the automobile manufacturers who signed the letter referred to by the Minister

The Budget-Mr. Coote
of Finance. I may say that I found considerable difficulty in securing the factory price in Canada of some makes of cars, but I have here the prices of five different makes
which are represented among the firms who signed that letter. If I have the permission of the house I will place this statement on Hansard; it is not very long:
Canadian
price
Ford roadster	 8495
Ford coupe	 510
Ford tudor		640
Ford fordor	 740
Sport coupe	 710
Chevrolet roadster	 625
Chevrolet touring	 625
Chevrolet coupe	 740
Chevrolet coach	 740
Chevrolet sedan	 835
Chevrolet Imp. sedan	 890
Whippet coach	 695
Erskine six coach	 995
Chrysler "52" coupe	 870
Chrysler "52" 2-door sedan.. ..	880
u.s.		Percentage
price	Increase	of increase$385	$110	28.6395	115	29.1495	145	29.3570	170	29.8550	160	29.495	130	26.2495	130	26.2595	145	24.3585	155	26.4675	160	23.7715	175	24.4535	160	29.9735	260	35.4670	200	29.8670	210	31.3
May I say that this list shows that Ford cars are now approximately 30 per cent higher in Canada than they are in the United States; Chevrolet cars about 25i per cent higher; Whippet coach-the only car of this make on which I could get a price-29.9 per cent higher; Erskine coach 35.4 per cent higher; Chrysler coupe 29.8 per cent higher; Chrysler sedan 31.3 per cent higher. I think the prices which I have quoted are ample proof that our automobile manufacturers, with the exception of the Chevrolet people, are taking advantage of this removal of the excise tax on Canadian made cars and are not passing the benefit on to the consumer. I have read what the Minister of Finance said he would do under these circumstances. Perhaps I might read the last sentence again just to remind him of this:
I serve notice on them now, in the presence of my friends, that if they do not live up to that agreement we will find means of placing them in a position where they will have to do so, or meet competition of the world.
I do not expect an immediate answer from the minister, but I do think the house should know what he is going to do about it before these resolutions are disposed of. There seem to be two courses open to him: either remove the tax from imported cars as well as Canadian made cars, or replace the tax on Canadian made cars. If he replaces the tax on Canadian made cars, I think the proceeds should be turned over to the provinces to !be used by them in the building of highways. Personally I see no more reason for imposing an excise tax on automobiles 'than on most articles which are in general use to-day, unless the money is to be used in the building of good roads.
During the fiscal years 1919 to 1927 the federal government has collected in excise
tax on automobiles $34,722,000. During these years approximately twenty million dollars has been paid to the provinces to be used in the building of highways. As the federal government does not contribute in any other way towards road building, I think it is nothing but fair that all the excise tax collected should be turned over to the provinces for this purpose. There is no greater need throughout Canada to-day than for improved highways. I believe that is the general opinion of the members of this house. I would suggest to the minister that if he feels he does not need this ten per cent which he is taking off the income tax, he should use it to co-operate with the provinces in the building of a national highway. We claim to have now reached the status of a nation, but we have not a highway on which we can drive from one side of Canada to the other without passing through the United States. This ten per cent of the income tax, if spent on the building of such a highway, would mean a considerable increase in employment and a resultant improvement in general business conditions many times greater than will be secured by the return of the ten per cent to income taxpayers. I am informed that since 1917 the federal government in the United States has granted $650,000,000 in aid to highway construction, while our government has given $20,000,000. I suggest that a good way for the government to celebrate the jubilee of confederation would be to build a national highway from Halifax to Vancouver, and call it the jubilee highway.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I purpose to speak on two or three matters not mentioned in the budget, but they entail an expenditure of a small amount of money, so I presume it
The Budget-Mr. Coote

is appropriate to discuss them at this time. In 1925 a bill was passed through this house to give certain relief to the depositors of the defunct Home bank. The bill was amended in the senate, and at a conference between the house and the Senate an amendment was agreed to providing that 35 per cent should be paid on claims under $500, and a further 35 per cent on claims under that amount where the depositors could show that they were in need. Mr. Clarkson, one of the joint liquidators, was called hurriedly before the senate committee and asked on the spur of the moment to give an estimate of the probable amount which would be required to carry out the bill as amended. The amount as finally voted was fixed in accordance with this estimate at three million dollars. Most of this money has been paid out by the liquidators, but it would require a further sum of approximately $450,000 to pay the 35 per cent on claims which were approved. Unless such a sum is provided by parliament some of the cases where the depositors are in need cannot be paid. It is very clear that it was the intention of parliament to provide for 35 per cent to be paid on the class of claims I have already mentioned, and I think this house would be remiss in its duty if it did not make provision for payment of that amount. This is a matter which, under the rules of the house, rests entirely with the government. I am sure that if hon. members were given a chance to express their opinion on this matter free of party control they would certainly vote that the money be paid. I would urge upon the government that this amount be placed in the supplementary estimates so that the liquidators will be able to pay the balance of these claims.
I want to refer for a moment to the meagre salaries paid to some of our lower salaried postmasters. I am informed that statistics gathered by the Postmasters Association show that 10,000 postmasters are receiving from 20 cents to $2 a day, out of which all expenses of office must be paid by the postmaster. At the present time this represents a living wage of from $60 to $620 a year for all the responsibility these people are called upon to assume. The government demands honesty and efficiency in the handling of the mails; yet it pays a salary which is beggarly. An application has recently been made to this government by the judges of Canada for an increase in their salaries. If the judges require an increase then the postmasters require it a hundred times more. A little investigation into the conditions under which postmasters work, and the long hours which they have to put in, would make anyone realize that these men are not [Mr. Coote.l
being fairly dealt with at the present time. We sometimes see in the press the comments of judges on the meagre salaries being paid bank clerks; but while I agree with these criticisms which are often expressed, I think the banks are doing handsomely for their clerks compared with the way in which this government is paying some of the lower salaried postmasters.
I want also to say j.ust a few words regarding unemployment relief. In a country such as Canada there is bound to be a certain amount of unemployment in the winter time. I am led to speak on this matter because twice within the last three days I have been stopped on the street and a^ked by a man to give him the price of a meal. These men in both cases looked as though they were quite willing to work. One man assured me that he had walked from Ottawa to Britannia and back looking for a job shovelling snow and he could not get one that day. These men, unless they are to starve or be put in gaol-neither of which we wish to see-must be taken care of by the municipality, and it is the duty of the government to resume the policy of sharing with the municipalities this cost of relief for the unemployed. This policy was pursued by this government in the year 1926-27 when they paid out approximately $77,000 to the municipalities for that year. Surely this amount is so small that the government does not need to haggle over the matter. May I quote a few words from the Manitoba government's report on this subject:
The control of the immigration stream is in federal hands and it would seem reasonable to demand that at least a share of the cost of relief made necessary by unemployment caused by immigration should be paid by the dominion government.
The minister in his budget speech made reference to the fact that Canadians were returning home, and I could not help but wonder whether it was the millionaires returning because of the income tax reduction. In every budget debate which has taken place since I first came to this house as a member, the exodus of Canadians to the United States has been discussed at great length, at greater length perhaps than any other subject apart from the tariff. In my opinion the primary cause which is at the bottom of this condition has not been discussed in this house. There is only an invisible line dividing Canada and the United States; the soil and climate in those districts adjacent to the boundary are very similar and the reason why people leave one country to go to the other is mainly to better their economic condition. The economic position of the people is affected not only by the natural resources, soil and climate, but also

The Budget-Mr. Coote
by the artificial conditions which are determined by the legislation of the country and the control of finance and credit.
I wish to compare for a few minutes the control of legislation in Canada and the United States. In Canada the control of legislation is autocratic. In this house a private member cannot even introduce any bill which entails the expenditure of public moneys. He cannot even amend such a bill, even though it is to save the government a little revenue. We had a demonstration of this last year when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodswort'h) moved that the reduction of ten per cent in the income tax should be limited to incomes of $10,000 and under. That motion was declared out of order, and, strange to say, the members of this house upheld that decision. The member may, of course, introduce any other public bill, but the rules of the House of Commons are such that, in my six years' experience in this house, I can remember only one such public bill that ever finally passed and became law, and in that case the government set a special time for the bill to be given a third reading. The Prime Minister selects the cabinet; he can also dismiss them at will, so that it amounts to this; no legislation can be passed here unless it has the express approval of the Prime Minister. Under our system and the rules of the house, the absolute control of legislation is vested in the Prime Minister, and practically all the legislation passed by this house, exclusive of private bills, has originated in the cabinet. This is not the most objectionable feature of our system. The fact that the Prime Minister holds in his hands the power of dissolution of parliament at any time makes him an autocrat; in this case, makes him King in fact as well as in name.
Comparing our system with that in effect in the United States: generally speaking any member of congress may introduce any bill which in his opinion is in the interest of his constituents. If he can secure the support of a sufficient number of members of congress and of the upper house his bill may become law whether the president approves of it or not. True, the president may veto the bill, but if it be passed again with sufficient majority it becomes law in spite of his opposition. In the United States a large part of the legislation which is passed originates with the members elected by the people. In Canada practically all legislation of a public nature must originate with a prime minister, who secures the position because he was chosen leader by a party convention. In the United States the members of congress are elected for a term of four years. Any member can
vote for what he thinks is right; he cannot be sent home at the whim of the president, even if a measure favoured by the president is defeated. In Canada the Prime Minister has the power to dissolve the House of Commons any time he takes the notion. All of our members are more or less familiar with the threat that " if a government measure is defeated parliament will be dissolved."
The people's representatives have very little to say under this system of government. The government brings in a measure and says in effect, " if this measure does not go through we will dissolve this house." Naturally, unless it is a particularly obnoxious bill, it will go through. In some cases the cabinet possibly does get the approval of its own caucus, but I will venture the assertion that they did not do that with this budget. Did the government supporters or the group co-operating with them decide what the contents of this budget should be? I hope they are not responsible for it. If they are we may as well give up hope of any progressive legislation coming from that side of the house. I wish the people of Canada really to understand the situation that exists here; they would then see how difficult it is for their representatives to do anything worth while in their behalf. The Finance minister prepares his budget with the greatest secrecy; nothing which it contains is allowed to leak out- until he actually delivers his speech in parliament; then the house must accept it or it will be considered a defeat of the government to be followed by a dissolution of parliament and a general election. This is very largely true of the work of the whole session; the cabinet introduce whatever legislation they see fit and the members sitting on that side of the house are supposed to support that legislation in all cases. Party discipline is so rigid that it is almost an unknown thing for a member of the party in power to even suggest a reduction in any item in the estimates. In making this statement I would call to my support Hon. Herbert Marler, whose remarks will be found at page 527 of Hansard for 1925. Mr. Marler was at that time the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and he said:
Perhaps on this side of the house I am looked upon as a black sheep or a yellow dog if I dare to suggest to the minister that I would like certain information on a particular item. It is exremely unpleasant to ask ministers on your own side of the house for particular information. It is a most unheard-of action on the part of any member on this side to dare suggest that a vote be cut down, or that certain action be taken with regard to it, or dare even to suggest that he should exercise his own intelligence in voting the money of the people.
The Budget-Mr. Coote

That was the opinion of Mr. Marler, who was ft very able member of this house. Under this system a private member, and especially a member of the party in power, is reduced to the status of a sort of glorified errand boy. I hope I may say this without giving offence, because I think we are all pretty much in the same position. A member can spend most of his time in Ottawa running errands to the various departments for his constituents, making an occasional speech on the budget and voting for all government measures. Surely no one would question the fact that we could get legislation more in the interests of the people if members of this house had the same opportunity of securing legislation as that enjoyed by members of congress, and I think it also safe to assume that the brains of parliament are not confined to the party in power and that the brains of the party in power are not confined to the cabinet.
If the system in the House of Commons is bad, that which obtains in the Senate is even worse. Members of that chamber are appointed not because of their ability but as a reward for services rendered to their party; they are appointed for life and are responsible to no one. They can block any legislation, with the exception of supply, and in the main they are representative of the reactionary element throughout the country. What chance have we to progress under these conditions? I consider this system to be at the root of many of our problems to-day. You may ask, "If this is the case why did not our people insist on changing the system?" The answer is because this system suits the parties, and the party leaders kept the people entertained with their discussions over the tariff and similar things. The older people were such ardent Liberals or Conservatives and were so engrossed in their party warfare that they never thought of improving the system, while the young people found it easier to cross the boundary line and secure a position than to stay here and fight against the disadvantages of such a system.
I would like to make it very clear that I am not advocating the adoption of the United States system of government. I have compared some features of their system with the Canadian system, because of the time which has been spent in this house comparing their tariffs and other matters with similar matters in this country; but I should like also to make it clear that I do want such changes made in our system as will give the representative chosen by the people power to initiate legislation, and to secure the removal from the hands of the Prime Minister of the

power of dissolution of parliament. Let us get away from that worn-out tradition that the defeat of a government measure by the house should be followed by the resignation of the government or the dissolution of parliament. Personally I should like to see a fixed term of four years for parliament, but as that would necessitate a change in the British North America Act possibly we cannot get that in my lifetime, because we are told Ontario and Quebec oppose it.
If I have time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to compare the control of finance in the two countries, although I shall have to do so in about two minutes. In Canada four banks control approximately 80 per cent of the banking and credit business of the entire country, while in the United States every city and town has its own bank owned and controlled by men whose interests are centred in the community. Their bank can grow only as the community grows, so naturally they do their best to retain all the bright and capable young people in their own community. If we are concerned about keeping our young people in Canada why not reform the system of government and give the representatives of the people a chance to do something for them? Let us remodel our banking system to make it serve the needs of the people in the outlying parts of the Dominion as well as those living in the vicinity of Toronto and Montreal. In my opinion it will be hard to secure any effective change in the banking system of this country until we make some change in our system of government-and in the rules of this house.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I am opposed to this budget because it will reduce the income tax, which I believe to be the best method we now have for the collection of taxes. I object to the reduction of the sales tax on certain articles which we class as luxuries. I also object to the proposal to double the percentage of empire labour and material cost required on goods receiving the British preference.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Time.


Mr. DUNCAN SINCLAIR (North Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, in opening my few remarks on the budget and the amendments thereto I wish to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker of this house, and I hope (hat on this, my first attempt to speak, I shall have your kindly sympathy. I promise faithfully that I will be under the wire before the flag falls. I also wish to thank hon. members on both sides of the house for their kindness to myself since coming here. Like the old Scottish preacher who once said in opening

The Bridget-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington)
his sermon, "My dear friends, I want to say something before I begin," I should like to thank the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for the splendid assistance they gave me in the last election. I was very sorry to be so busy in the election that I was not at home when they visited my vicinity, but if they will only send me word next time they come I will be there to meet them and receive them in a hospitable manner.
I had no intention of making a speech this session, but in looking over the speech from the throne and the budget as brought down by the Minister of Finance I decided this was my time to get in, because I could scarcely say less than is contained in either the speech from the throne or the budget. With regard to the budget and the amendment thereto, I must say that I am heartily in favour of the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I regret that the budget does not contain a remedy for the unemployment existing in Canada, that no attempt is made to induce our boys and girls to return to their native land, and that there is nothing which will prevent the continuance of the alarming exodus to the United States. The budget contains no provision for the preservation of our own market for farm and dairy products, does not provide for the development of the natural resources of this country and does not abolish the sales tax. I suggest to the Minister of Finance and the government that the time has come when there should be no more tinkering with the tariff, a process which inevitably causes injury both to the manufacturers and to the farmers of this country. What I mean by that is that I think the tariff should be left as it is for at least the life of one parliament. Before I ever went into politics I remember how the managers of factories and the people who had their money invested in these industries were kept in a continual state of apprehension because they did not know what this government was going to do, or what industry would next be attacked.
I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that if he had outlined in the budget a national fuel policy for Canada, a national iion and steel policy for Canada, a national pulp and paper policy for Canada; if he had outlined policies whereby our natural resources could be turned into finished products in Canadian factories by Canadian workmen, he would have solved many of the problems which confront us to-day, and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke)
would not be condemned, as he is being condemned now, for conditions which have been brought about by the foolishness of this government. There is no doubt at all that our young people are leaving Canada in large numbers. There must be some reason for it, and there must be some remedy for it. Why not apply the remedy and stop the exodus from Canada of some of our best and brightest minds? Recently when crossing the border I got into conversation with a gentleman on the train. He asked me where I came from, and I replied, from Canada. During the journey I noticed some big factory buildings and asked him what industries they housed. He said they were pulp and paper mills. I asked, "Where do you get your pulpwood?" He replied, "From you foolish Canadians." "What do you mean?" I said. He replied, "Exactly what I said. If we could not get this pulpwood from Canada we could not manufacture it here." "What would that mean?" I inquired. He replied, "We would have to go to Canada." Now the question I ask is: Why not bring them to Canada? I would simply give notice to every pulp and paper manufacturer in the United States who gets his supply of pulpwood from Canada that one year from to-day the exportation of this pulpwood will not be permitted, and that they must be prepared to manufacture it in this country. These industries would thus be compelled to establish themselves in Canada and our boys and girls employed in those mills would return with them.
I wish now to make a few remarks on the Australian treaty as it affects our farmers. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister if Agriculture and the government in this matter. I recall how the former member for South Oxford, Mr. Sutherland, pleaded with the government not to ratify this treaty. He warned them what would happen if they did so. What he predicted would come to pass iX that treaty were ratified has happened. I am absolutely opposed to the enactment of any law which injures the dairymen or the woollen industry of this country, whether introduced by a Liberal or by a Conservative government. I well recollect when every farmer in my own constituency kept from ten to twenty-five sheep. But they are not keeping them now. What is the cause of that? The government must be aware of this falling off. There must be a. remedy for it, and it is up to the government to provide that remedy. The facts given to the house the other day by the hon. member for Victoria B.C. (Mr. Tolmie) should convince the government that something should be done, and done at once
1082	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington)
to save the sheep industry and the woollen industry. After reading the speech of the hon. member for Victoria, I was rather surprised to get in nay mail a circular from the Civil Service Association which contained the following notice:
Civil Service of Canada Position Vacant
Applications are invited from residents of the province of Ontario qualified for the position of
District Sheep Promoter-$2,040 per Annum.
The circular does not say whether the district sheep promoter is to have a Mc-Laughlin-Buick or a Ford car. I expect that he will have one. The minister will surely give him a Ford car, although he himself drives a McLaughlin-Buick. Just think of the government employing a man at this salary when the responsibility for the condition of that industry lies in the government itself! They spoil the woollen business and then they try to get some person to jack it up. It is a sad thing that only one-third of the woollen and worsted goods used in Canada is supplied by Canadian mills, and that the remaining two-thirds are imported. We could and we should grow enough wool in this country to supply all our needs.
I wish now to say something about the dairy industry. In order to show the condition of that industry in my own riding I am going to read to the house extracts from communications from the creamery men of North Wellington, showing what effects the Australian treaty has had on the dairy industry there. I will also place on record the importations from Australia and New Zealand under the treaty. I think we all agree that up to the time the Australian treaty came into effect the dairy industry was one of the finest industries in this Dominion, and thanks are due to the Dominion and the provincial governments in the past for the assistance they have always given this industry. Unfortunately the present government entered into this treaty with Australia. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is so little interested in the dairy industry that he is busily engaged in talking with hon. members around him. I suppose he was very busy talking when this treaty was made, and that is why he allowed it to go through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Duncan Sinclair: I now wish to give some figures showing the importations of butter from Australia and New Zealand. They are as follows:

Importation of Butter Before the treaty
Australia, 12 months ending December, 1925, 278 pounds; value $110.
New Zealand, 12 months ending December,
1925,	53,424 pounds; value $21,583.
After the treaty
Australia, 12 months ending December 1926, 2,995,740 pounds; value $1,095,988.
New Zealand, 12 months ending December
1926,	3,193,382 pounds; value $1,260,788.
Australia, January, 1926, 473,200 pounds;
value $181,645.
New Zealand, January, 1926, 570,185 pounds; value $203,870.
Australia, January, 1927, pounds nil; value nil.
New Zealand, January, 1927, 729,288 pounds; value $244,898.
Australia, 12 months, 1927, 376,096 pounds; value $135,160.
New Zealand, 12 months, 1927, 8,714,985 pounds; value $3,023,801.
Australia. January, 1928, 248,584 pounds; value $92,628.
New Zealand, January, 1928,	3,183,289
pounds; value $1,126,291.
With respect to the 278 pounds of Australian butter shipped during the twelve months ending December, 1925, the Minister of Agriculture, it seems to me, must have asked the Australians to send over a sample shipment, with the promise that if the butter was of good quality he would try to get them a good market in Canada. But to my mind the saddest thing of all is that in the month of January, 1928, New Zealand shipped into Canada 3,183,289 pounds of butter valued at $1,126,291. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is representing the farmers of Canada or the farmers of Australia.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Wellington):: I have never interrupted an hon. member and I have never interjected a question during an hon. member's speech. I will give the Minister of Agriculture a hint,-he is indulging in sleep, perfect sleep, from which it is time for him to wake. What was the excuse that the Minister of Agriculture made to the National Dairy Council? This is what he said:
Now we got a preference in the Australian market for certain exports like paper and pulp and motor cars, what are we to give in exchange that would be of some value to them? Supposing the present items were eliminated, what would you suggest to take the place of butter ?
I should think the Minister of Agriculture of any government is and should be the farmer's friend. Just imagine the Minister of Agriculture of this government sacrificing the interests of the farmer for motor cars, pulp and paper! I suppose the Minister of Agri-

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington)
culture has a copy of every letter I hold in my hand, but just to show the house how the people in my constituency view the Australian treaty, I wish to read a few extracts from letters which I have received. The first one reads:
We just wish to draw your attention to the serious condition of the creamery butter industry in Canada. Up to 1926 we had a growing butter industry, which was developing into one of the leading industries of the country. Then the duty was reduced on the importation of butter, and the farmers to-day cannot afford to meet the competition of New Zealand and are cutting down on butter production, as fast as they reasonably can.
This is from one of the leading creamery men in my riding, and the saddest part of it is this paragraph in his letter:
To-day large numbers of female calves are being vealed because there is more money in producing veal than there is in producing butter, with the result that not only our present production is being lowered, but our future for years to come is being scarificed, in the shortage created by vealing the female calves. To add to this shortage a great many of our best milch cows are being bought up for the American market.
I would suggest that the government should give us the same protection as we had before so as to put us on even footing with other countries. The second letter is from another creamery man in my riding who says:
Beg leave to say that we feel that this treaty is not in the best interests of Canada, and especially not the producer of cream, who has to produce cream under entirely different conditions than that of Australia or New Zealand, whose climate permits the production of cream at much less expense, than the Canadian farmer can produce it, who has to stable feed at least six months of the year. There is no doubt about it that the effect of this butter being dumped on our market certainly has a bad effect on the price of the butter to the producer. In 1926 when this treaty became effective the butter market broke twenty cents per pound. This meant severe loss to the farming industry, and we believe that in the best interest of Canada as a whole that the same duty on butter coming into Canada from any country should be equal to the duty that we pay if we have to export any to Australia, New Zealand, or the United States. We trust that you will in the interests of your constituents and the Canadian farmer as a whole vote to have the tariff on butter from New Zealand and Australia placed at six cents per pound, the same as we have to pay on our butter going there.
This is a letter from another creamery man in my riding:
I might say in regard to New Zealand and Australian butter coming into Canada, we should have at least eight cents a pound protection, on account of the bonus that they receive. They allow them to sell their butter cheaper in Canada than in New Zealand or
Australia. I think that if we had eight cents duty on butter coming in it would be a great help to the farmers of this country, as well as the creamery men. I think we would be able to pay the farmers about four cents a pound more for butter fat at present, if it was not for this butter being dumped in here, as I can buy New Zealand butter cheaper in Toronto to-day than I can buy Canadian made butter.
This is another one from a man who holds office in the Canadian Creamery Association of Ontario. He says:
At our executive and annual meetings this question has been brought up and I feel safe in saying that at the present time eighty per cent of the creamery men of Ontario are against the Australian treaty tariff as it now stands.
This morning I received the following resolution from the Ontario Milk and Cream Producers Association:
The Ontario Milk and Cream Producers Association desires to place itself on record as being decidedly opposed to the clause or clauses in the Australian treaty which permit butter to be imported into Canada at the low tariff rate of one cent per pound, thus creating a situation that places the Canadian producer under very unfair competition and making it extremely difficult for him to carry on his business at a profit. Experience with the treaty so far has shown that Canadian dairying is working under a severe handicap, because of it and unless some remedial measures are undertaken, the butter producing industry of the Dominion cannot make the progress it should.
It does not seem reasonable that an agricultural country like Canada should import large quantities of butter while an industrial country like the United States is able to produce nearly all the butter it requires. I would therefore in all sincerity ask the Minister of Agriculture to lose no time in seeing that the Canadian farmer at least has the home market for his own product.
Let me say just a word about my own riding of North Wellington, which I think is the finest riding in the Dominion of Canada. We have a rural constituency comprising great big Irish, German, Scotch and English farmers and business men, aijd they saw fit to send your humble servant to this house to represent them. We do not ask the government for very much, but I would just remind the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott), who I am sorry is not in his seat, that I see no mention of North Wellington in his estimates. We need post office buildings at Arthur, Drayton, Moorefield and Clifford, and I hope to see some provision made for these, or at least some of them, in his supplementary estimates. I am sure it was entirely an oversight on his part and not at all intentional that they were not included in the main estimates. I might tell him right now that I would just as soon he
10S4
The Budget-Mr. Ilsley

built a post office in the village of Arthur this year. It might help the government and it will not hurt me, because I am very anxious that the village of Arthur should have a post office.
In conclusion I hope and trust that we shall all work together, Liberals and Conservatives, United Farmers of Ontario and Progressives, Labour and Independent members, to make and keep Canada as it always has been, the brightest gem in Britain's crown.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Sinclair) will not consider it presumptuous in me, one of the younger members of the house, to congratulate him upon what I believe to be his maiden speech in this house. I enjoyed very much what I could hear of his speech. I cannot say that I agree with all the sentiments he expressed, but I certainly consider his effort to have been very creditable.
From what I could hear of the opening of his remarks he laid emphasis on the thing that has been stressed so much and so often by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, and that is the matter of emigration from the Dominion of Canada to the United States. As that is one of the main lines of attack upon the budget which has been pursued by the Conservative party, I hope to refer to it later in my remarks.
First of all I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) upon the budget and upon the series of budgets for which he has been responsible as Finance minister. The most complimentary thing that I can say is this, that by the series of Robb budgets which have been brought down to this parliament during the last few years the minister has proved himself a worthy successor of that great Nova Scotian who preceded him, the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding; and in saying that I am paying him the highest compliment I can think of.
As I said before, the main line of attack that has been made upon this budget from the other side of the house has been based upon the proposition that it lowers the tariff too much. I have listened with very much Interest to the addresses that have been made in an attempt to support that proposition, and I note that my hon. friends opposite single out this year the spinning branch of the woollen industry as that which will be most injured by the tariff reductions. The best speech, if I may be permitted to say so, that has been made on the other side of the house upon that phase of the subject was that of the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. 
Edwards). I read his speech, and the letters from the manufacturers which were quoted therein, and I note that they do not make any specific or unqualified prediction of disaster to the industry; they simply state their fears as to what may take place. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this country will not be convinced by that. They will feel that these predictions are to be placed in the same category as the predictions of ruin and disaster that were made by the Conservative party at the time the agricultural implement duties were reduced, and in the same class as those other predictions of disaster which were made when the automobile duties were reduced. We all know that those reductions were not succeeded by worse1 times in those industries, but by better times, and I think the people of this country will come to the conclusion that the same will be the case in regard to the reduction of duties provided for in the present budget.
Regarding the main argument of hon. gentlemen opposite, that the tariff policy of this government has been driving our young men and women to the United States in great numbers, I am prepared to admit that from some parts of Canada there is considerable emigration to the United States. There is in my own constituency; there has been during the last few years. But, Mr. Speaker, I deny that lowering of tariffs has been in any measure responsible for driving these people to the United States, and I also deny that the raising of the general tariff level would in any measure result in their return.
Take the condition in my own constituency. There we have had five bad apple years in succession. If we had five good apple years, or even two good apple years, when conditions were favourable in the apple industry there would be a vast change in the conditions there. As the house knows, the apple growers of the Annapolis valley sell the greater part of their apples abroad in competition with the world, and particularly in competition with the exportable surplus of American and also English fruit. Now in competing with the apple growers of New York state we in the Annapolis valley have certain advantages, especially in the cost of barrels, of labour, and of fertilizers, which, due very largely to the policy of this government in putting fertilizers on the free list is lower in the Annapolis valley than in New York state; but on a considerable list of other articles, on some farm implements, on some tools and other hardware, on some spraying materials and other farm materials, the cost, based as it seems to be in many instances upon the

The Budget-Mr. Ilsley
American price plus the Canadian duty, is greater in Annapolis valley than in New York state. If any person is interested in pursuing this subject in detail he will find it dealt with at pages 108 to 111 of a recent publication entitled The Maritime Provinces since Confederation, published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The Nova Scotia farmer has to pay substantially more than his American competitor for power sprayers, disc harrows, mowing machines, horse rakes, potato diggers, potato planters, manure spreaders, lime sowers, grain and fertilizer drills, spring tooth harrows, tractors, trucks, some spraying materials, and almost all other farm materials such as middlings, bran, cornmeal, coal oil, gasoline, tires, not to mention motor cars and equipment. It is obvious that if you increase the customs tariff on these articles, which I understand is the proposal of hon. gentlemen opposite, you are going to increase the cost of production to the apple producers in the Annapolis, Cornwallis, Gaspereau and Avon valleys of Nova Scotia. If you go to any farmer in those districts and ask him why he is not doing as well as he did before the war, he will tell you that the cost of production has gone up disproportionately to the price he is receiving for his products. It is obvious that any policy which results in a general increase in that cost of production, any policy which will result in increasing the spread between his costs and the costs of his New York state competitor, is not going to make conditions any better in the Annapolis valley. As a matter of fact it will make conditions very much worse, and you wiii have two persons leaving the locality for the United States where you have one at the present time. I think that constituency is fairly representative of a great many rural constituencies in Canada. Higher tariffs as a cure for conditions in a constituency such as that, so far as emigration is concerned, would be a joke, or perhaps I should say, a tragedy
As a matter of fact we do not have to depend upon our reasoning or upon logic to a proper conclusion as to what effect a higher tariff would have upon emigration. If there was one period in the history of Canada when conditions should have been ideal so far as the emigration problem is concerned, according to the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite it was the period between 1879, when the national policy came into force, and 1896, when the Conservative party went out of power. There you had a government favourable to the protection of home industry, a government whose avowed policy was to furnish jobs for Canadian workmen. You had no inquisitive consumers' league to cope with,
no fussy tariff board. If the manufacturer wanted protection he simply went to the Finance minister and got what he desired. What was the result? If the reasoning of hon. gentlemen opposite is valid and sound, surely we would expect that there would be practically no emigration from Canada during that period, and yet the records show that there was no period in the history of Canada, before or since, when emigration was as great as during that very period.
My hon. friends opposite are talking against the government because, they contend, its policy is leading to emigration. I tell them their talk is as nothing compared with what was said by Sir Richard Cartwright and his colleagues in the early nineties after the census of 1891. Sir Richard Cartwright placed facts before the House of Commons to show that in the decade between 1881 and 1891 there was an exodus from the Dominion amounting to 1,460,000 persons, or 146,000 a year for ten years on end. That was the condition during that halcyon period. Why, in the province of Nova Scotia the population, which according to the census returns was 440,000 in 1881, had increased to only 450,000 in 1891. But it is a matter of history that the census of 1891 was conducted fraudulently and showed tens of thousands more people in the province than were actually there. If anyone wishes to check this I would refer him to the speech made by Sir Frederick Borden, then the member for King's County, in the House of Commons on June 12, 1894, in which he shows that whole families were transplanted from the Cornwallis and Annapolis valleys to the New England states, and yet they were shown in the census returns as still living in the province. As a matter of fact our population was stationary at that time, notwithstanding a high birth rate and considerable immigration. It was stationary in New Brunswick-even the census did not show an increase. It was stationary in Prince Edward Island-even the census did not show an increase. In the book to which I have referred, issued recently by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, it is said that the total emigration from the maritime provinces between 1881 and 1891 exceeded 103.000 and between 1891 and 1901 it exceeded 111,000. It was not until after 1901, when the results of the Laurier policies began to be felt, that the emigration from the maritime provinces was substantially reduced.
It is for these reasons, reasons that I might call historical as well as mathematical, that I say the cure-all prescribed by hon. gentlemen opposite would in fact be no cure at all. If we had applied what I understand to be the
The Budget-Mr. Ilsley

remedy suggested by my hon. friends opposite, a scientific tariff, so-called, that is, a tariff which adequately protects the simpler and raw forms of products from foreign competition-the remedy suggested by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith) this afternoon; he said he was advocating a tariff on coal which would absolutely keep out American coal-if we had a tariff like that, increasing as our goods become more highly processed and reaching its maximum when the goods become most highly processed, it would mean a tariff amounting to 60, 70 and 75 per cent in the latter case. Such a tariff would be so crushing to our primary producers that it would depopulate whole countrysides, let alone solve the problem of immigration!
The remedy in the maritime provinces is not to be found along those lines. So far as the rural sections are concerned, I suggested, in a speech that I made in the house a month or so ago two or three things which I thought the government ought to try to do in the direction of developing foreign markets. 1 was paid the compliment of being very severely criticized by the Halifax Herald, a Conservative newspaper in Nova Scotia. This paper said that I was simply repeating old party shibboleths, without any regard to their applicability to the conditions actually in existence in the province. But in answer to that criticism I want to put on record a little evidence. In Nova Scotia it has been admitted for many years, by both Liberals and Conservatives, that one of our greatest needs is wider markets. I refer to the submission of the claims of Nova Scotia made by the Rhodes government to the Duncan commission. At page 167 I find this:
It undoubtedly called for great sacrifice on the part of the farmers of this province to forego the advantage of the American market, as A ova Scotia is especially adapted to the production of vegetables, fruits and like perishable products which find a ready sale in the industrial centres of the New England states.
As a matter of fact, the Rhodes government has aippointed a marketing representative to develop those New England markets in the person of Professor Cumming, the Secretary of Agriculture in Nova Scotia under the old Liberal government. The Liberal leader, Mr. Chisholm, made some criticism of Secretary Cumming being sent there on that mission, but the Halifax Herald, on February 18th, 1928, defending the appointment, had this to say:
Mr. Chisholm explains that his complaint that the former Secretary for Agriculture had been "degraded to the position of a commercial traveller to Boston" was a slip of the tongue, as doubtless it was, though a Bomewhat unfortunate one.

Our own view is that that is not the point at all. A lapsus linguae is no ''hanging matter , even if it is a trifle embarrassing. But just why it should be suggested that Dr. Cumming has in any way been "degraded" is a little more than we can understand. Finding markets for the products of Nova Scotia farms and orchards and dairies is just about the most honourable and most useful work in which any man could engage.
This from the very paper which states that no wider markets are necessary! Now, as a matter of fact, the expansion of markets which I suggested was the Cuban market for potatoes and the German market for apples. Anyone who denies the value of those markets is simply ignorant of conditions existing in the business or is misrepresenting the facts. There is no doubt about the value of those markets among the people who themselves are actually engaged in the production of apples and potatoes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal briefly with a few of the attacks that have been made upon the budget, more particularly by the Conservative members from my own native province. I have always understood that a budget, While being a statement of the estimated revenues and expenditures for the ensuing year, is primarily a program of taxation. I know that the greatest budgets ever brought down in the British House of Commons, the budgets of Mr. Gladstone in the early sixties, were certainly programs of taxation which were designed to interfere as little as possible with the flow of trade in its natural channels. These budgets were succeeded by periods of great prosperity in England, in fact of greater prosperity than England had theretofore enjoyed. But the conception of a budget held by my hon. friends on the other side from the province of Nova Scotia is essentially and fundamentally different. They seem to think that it should contain something for themselves or their constituents. They say: What is there in it for us; what is there in it for this industry; what is there in it for this business? They seem to feel that the budget is a sort of Christmas tree and ought to be hung with prize packages and gifts for their constituencies. They seem to feel that the Minister of Finance is a sort of Santa Claus and if he does not stuff their stockings full of presents he is deserving of the very greatest censure from the Dominion. Now I think I am as sincerely desirous of seeing the province of Nova Scotia advance as anyone else, but I must differ emphatically from that fundamental conception of what a budget is. What do the Nova Scotia Conservatives suggest?
I do submit that for the most part their suggestions are impracticable. We heard this

The Budget-Mr. Ilsley
afternoon from the hon. member for Cumberland. How does that hon. gentleman propose to solve the coal problem in the province of Nova Scotia? He says he would solve it first by the imposition of a duty high enough to keep out eighteen or twenty million tons of American coal, but on second reflection he admitted that, the Dominion fuel board having stated that it would have to be a duty of about S6 a ton, that amount was not necessary to protect the mines of Nova Scotia. Apparently he wants protection only so far as Nova Scotia is concerned; he is interested in Nova Scotia alone. He also advocated a reduction in freight rates and, as he said, still more reductions. He advocated subventions and increased bonuses to the coking plants. He said that the coking plants should be compelled, probably by making it penal to disobey the statute, to use Nova Scotia coal. These are the remedies he suggests for the difficulties of the coal industry of Nova Scotia. I asked him whether that industry had not increased its output last year by a million tons and he admitted that it had, but he thought the increase should be greater still. Perhaps it should be, but my hon. friend has failed to put his finger upon the true trouble in the coal industry of Nova Scotia. That trouble is lack of winter employment; the trouble is seasonal unemployment in the industry. The thing to which the government should direct its attention is a solution for the problem of seasonal unemployment. The companies themselves asked for the coking plant legislation of last session and stated that it would be sufficient. I am hoping that the coking plant legislation will meet the problem because it is directed to the trouble there, and it seems to me idle for any member to stand up and ask for great subventions and bonuses and reductions in freight rates unless he is prepared to tell the house something about what these proposals would involve in the way of cost. I am sure I should not have the effrontery to demand all these things unless I could give at least an approximate estimate of what they would cost the people of the Dominion.
While on this question I want to correct my hon. friend in regard to two or three misstatements of fact-misstatements which I have no doubt were inadvertent. He wanted to know whether those of us on this side would favour the reciprocity pact in respect of coal and have coal admitted free into Canada as into the United States. The hon. member should know that this was not part of the reciprocity pact of 1911. That pact provided for a 45 cent per ton duty on coal other than slack entering the United States
and Canada, the duty on slack being left exactly where it was at that time. My hon. friend also spent a great deal of time endeavouring to take credit to the Conservatives for the steel bounties. I am not greatly interested in these historic controversies as to which party deserves the credit, but since we are on the subject I may as well give the house two or three facts. The assistance which was given the coal industry prior to 1897 was infinitesimal and insignificant. In 1887 there were only 19,000 tons of steel produced in Nova Scotia; in 1896 only 32,000 tons. But by 1911 there were 390,000 tons produced in the province, showing that the assistance given the industry during that later period really amounted to something and was neither infinitesimal nor insignificant as it had been during the earlier period. My hon. friends are very ready to come to this government and declare that they must have this and that and the other. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) said that the banks of the Lahave river were being denuded of pulpwood and he asked what the government was going to do about it. What was the Minister of Finance going to do about this pulpwood which was being shipped to the United States? I would sug-guest that the responsibility rests primarily not upon the shoulders of the Minister of Finance or of this government but upon the people of the hon. gentleman's constituency. They might do just as the people of my constituency did in a similar situation: they put their money up and built a pulp mill on the shores of the Avon river in the town of Hants-port, and that mill will handle the pulpwood produced there and prevent its going to the United States.


Mr. ERNST:: Of what use would a pulp mill be when the timber tracts are owned by a United States corporation? I should like to know.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As my hon. friend knows, one of his friends, Mr. Bamjum, on the eve of the election of 1925, promised to build one there.


William Gordon Ernst: It is near realization, but
not on the Lahave; it is on the Mersey.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We at any rate built one in our constituency, and we did not do so in fulfilment of pre-election promises either.
Hon. gentlemen from Nova Scotia talk blue ruin in this house; they say that conditions are frightful. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to what my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg had to say the other day about the fishing industry. But in the province of

The Budget-Mr. Ilsley
Nova Scotia they sing an entirely different song, and in order to explain the difference I want to give the house a little bit of political history in Nova Scotia in recent years. The question of secession has been brought up in this house two or three times, but in this debate it has been mentioned only by one hon. gentleman, the member for Queens-Lunenburg, who has gone out of his way to introduce it into the discussion. He says I intimated that he was a secessionist. I never intimated anything of the sort.


William Gordon Ernst: Sectionalist.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is Hansard wrong?


William Gordon Ernst: Yes, it is corrected in the revised Hansard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am going by unrevised Hansard. The context, however, shows that my hon. friend must have had reference to secession, because he goes on to talk about the policy of the Halifax Chronicle and declares that secession never received support from members on his side of the house. What then was he talking about if not secession? But I am not particularly concerned about having the matter cleared up, although I think it is just as well to have the record straight. Let me say that there is not a member on this side of the house who has ever advocated secession in the province of Nova Scotia. But the same is not true of hon. gentlemen to the left of the Speaker. I would refer to that chapter in the history of the Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia in the year 1923 with reference to this question. In that year the Conservative opposition in the Nova Scotia legislature sponsored and introduced a motion known as the Corning resolution, the last recital of which I wish to read:
And whereas, Nova Scotia if an independent, self-governing British dominion, would be able to protect its farmers, fishermen and industrial workers through tariff measures and trade treaties, thus preserving its home markets and furnishing employment to its people and profitable investment for capital, and build up the enterprise and population of the province.
Therefore resolved, that in'the opinion of this house a vote of the electors of Nova Scotia should be taken by way of referendum for the purpose of ascertaining whether the people of this province favour its withdrawal from confederation and the reconstitution of Nova Scotia as an independent, self-governing British dominion.
Every Liberal member voted against that resolution; every Conservative member voted for it. And amongst the Conservative members who voted for the resolution, according to the Journals of the House of Assembly of

Nova Scotia, at page 262-the vote was taken on April 20, 1923-I find the name of the same Mr. Macdonald who pounds his desk so vigorously on the other side of the house when he considers that hon. gentlemen opposite make a point.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? On what did Mr. Fielding conduct his campaign in 1882?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not talking about events at the time of confederation or twenty years after confederation: I am talking about what happened within the last five years in Nova Scotia. Now we come down a little later in the history of politics in that province, to the provincial election of 1925, and I want to tell the house this because it bears directly on the question of emigration and immigration. Early in 1925 we had a provincial election which was largely fought on the emigration question). Hon. E. N. Rhodes entered provincial politics in that year. The Conservative campaign was based on this, that the cause of the emigration from the province of Nova Scotia was the policy of the provincial Liberal government for the last forty-three years; in other words emigration was definitely taken out of the field of Dominion responsibility and made a provincial responsibility by the Conservative party at that time. They promised that if they were returned to power they would "bring the boys back;" that slogan was then coined by the Conservative party, and I can remember picking up issues of the Halifax Herald and reading those very touching full page advertisements. I remember particularly an advertisement which represented some travellers going along a New England highway. In the distance they heard strains of music; four men were singing:
There's a long long trail a-winding,
Into the land of my dreams;
Where the nightingales are singing
And a white moon beams.
Upon investigation they found that these four men were Nova Scotians, singing this song with sobs in their voices and tears in their eyes. When the travellers asked them, "If you love your native province so much, why do you not go back?" Their answer was that forty-three years of Liberal misrule had driven them away and made them exiles from their native land, and they had to wait for a change in government before going back. We have had the change of government in Nova Scotia, but Mr. Rhodes and his government have not brought back the boys.
If you want a testimonial as to conditions in the province of Nova Scotia just listen to

The Budget-Mr. Ilsley
the blue ruin song we hear in this house. You do not hear that down in Nova Scotia, because the Rhodes government are trying in every way to convince the people that they have fulfilled even a one-hundredth part of their pre-election promises. They have discovered since assuming office that emigration is not a provincial responsibility, and since then they have sought to throw the onus back on the shoulders of the Dominion government. Consequently we have these members from Nova Scotia asking for all sorts of things entirely without regard to the financial burden which will be thrown upon the government, simply making it appear that the whole thing is a Dominion responsibility. I will admit that this government have some responsibility in these matters, and as a Liberal I am proud of the manner in which they are assuming that responsibility.
Let us consider the legislative program of last session. I know the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) said the other day that the Conservatives were responsible for that program, and again I am not going to argue very much about who is entitled to the credit; but let us keep the record straight. Every member of this house knows that that legislative program would not have been enacted and could not have received the support of the entire country as it did if it had not been based upon the findings of an independent, non-partisan, judicial commission of inquiry. I refer to the Duncan commission, and every member of this house knows that the Duncan commission would not have been appointed if the hon. member for Inverness and his associates had had their way. They are all on record, each one of them, as opposing the appointment of any kind of commission.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: My hon. friend says we are on record as opposing that commission.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is my hon. friend asking a
question?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I rise to a question of privilege. I desire to say that the hon. gentleman has misrepresented the case, although I do not say he has done it purposely. The stand we took was thishon. members were in the house at that time; the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), and the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) among others. They all opposed the appointment of that commission, and yet the hon. member for Inverness seeks to take credit in this house for the findings which were made and for the legislative program based on those findings. The government appointed that commission in the teeth of the opposition of those hon. gentlemen and in the face of their derision and contempt, and the government are now trying to carry out and are carrying out those findings as rapidly as it is practicable to do so. Now it ill becomes hon. gentlemen opposite to come into this house and try to take credit for what the Mackenzie King government have attempted to do and are doing for the people of the maritime provinces.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he tell the house who submitted the evidence before that commission, upon which those findings were based?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I remember correctly
several hundred witnesses were examined before that commission.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not very much more to say. I did intend, if I had time, to deal with another class of attackss upon the budget, particularly those made by the Progressive party. Their attacks, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) pointed out this afternoon, are diametrically opposed to those which have been made by the Conservative official opposition, but I think I will not go into that question to-night. It involves a discussion of the practicability and possibility of group government in this country; it involves a discussion as to the lines of cleavage between the parties; it involves the question of whether compromise is or is not a necessity of government in Canada, and I will reserve that for some future time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can only say what follows from my remarks, that I shall certainly vote against these two amendments and in support of the resolution.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. There is no ques- On motion of Mr. Bourassa the debate was tion of privilege.	adjourned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, their utter- On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house ad-ances are on Hansard; I gathered them to- joumed at 10.50 p.m. gether and placed them on Hansard myself in a speech which I made last year. All the

1090	COMMONS
Economic Conference at Geneva
Wednesday, March 7, 1928