1928-03-08

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE AT GENEVA

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay
on the table the report of the Canadian delegates to the world economic conference, May, 1927; also a copy of the final report of the same conference. I may say to my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that the delay in tabling the reports was caused by the translation of the documents into French. The French translation, unfortunately, was not ready until this morning. I move:
That five hundred copies in English and three hundred copies in French of the report of the Canadian delagates to the world economic conference, of May, 1927, be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That five hundred copies in English and three hundred copies in French of the final report of the world economic conference in Geneva, May, 1927, he printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This bill has for
its purpose the providing of a system of grading beef voluntarily, either for export or for home consumption.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VALIDATION OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62 relating to the submission to parliament of certain regulations and orders in council.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The object
of this bill is to give validity to certain orders in council and regulations passed from the year 1906 onward to about 1915 or 1916, the omission being that these documents were not reported to the house as provided for by law.
MR. GUTHRIE:	What kind of orders
in council and regulations were they?


Charles A. Stewart: They have
reference to the Railway Belt Water Act, chap. 47 of the statutes of 1912, the Dominion Forestry Reserves and Parks Act, the Dominion Lands Act, the Rocky Mountains Park Act, and the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. F. WELLINGTON HAY (North Perth) moved that in accordance with the recommendation contained in the third report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous bills the fees and charges paid on Bill No. 25, to incorporate Niagara Gorge Bridge Company be refunded.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon.
gentleman if there has been a report tabled on this matter?


Mr. HAY:: I could not say, Your Honour, as to that.


Hewitt Bostock: I cannot accept the motion without a report. The motion will have to stand.
Motion stands.



LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 61 to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.
Mr. TOLMIE:: Explain.
[Mr. Bourassa.l



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	During the past five years, what amounts have been paid to the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. respectively, for carrying special cars for: (a) cabinet ministers; (b) the Governor General;
.(e) official visitors?
2.	In ease of free service by the Canadian National, what would be the value of such service according to commercial rates, for each class mentioned above?


Mr. RINFRET:: Department of External Affairs:
1.	(a) No information; (b) no information; (c) 1922-23, C.P.R., no amount paid, C.N.R., $1,148.95; 1923-24, no payments made either to C.P.R. or C.N.R.; 1924-25, no payments made either to C.P.R. or C.N.R.; 1925-26, no payments made either to C.P.R. or C.N.R.; 1926-27, No payments made either to C.P.R. or C.N.R.
2.	No information in this department. Privy Council department:

Questions
1.	(o) Paid Canadian Pacific railway:
1927-Official visitors	$ 2,465 94
Paid Canadian National railways:
1925-Official visitors	
747	021927-Official visitors	
10,529	28Total	$13,742	242.	No information.
Department of Railways and Canals:
1.	(a) Nothing; (b) nothing; (c) nothing.
2.	No separate record is kept of such movement by the railway management, and to take out this information would necessitate a special and particular search of all train service records of every division of the entire Canadian National system over a period of five years. This would take so much time, and cost so much money, that the management noes not consider it in the public interest to undertake the work.
Department Secretary of State:
1.	(a) $2,145.30 (C.N.R.) upon the occasion of the reception and (b) installation of the Governor General in October, 1926; (c) none.
2.	No information.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-PAYMENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	What is the total amount by the various departments of the government for legal services, in the province of Prince Edward Island, during the calendar year 1927?
2.	What are the names of the parties to whom said moneys were paid, the department making the payments and the nature of service rendered in each case?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Department of Agriculture:
1.	$89.40.
2.	J. J. Johnston, $47.55-prosecuting on account of infraction of egg regulations; Geo. J. Tweedy, $41.85-services re search of title, etc., of Fitzgerald property.
Department of National Revenue:
1.
Customs and Excise Division	$1,528 45
Income Tax division	 35 86
Total	$1,562 31
2. S. S. Hessian, Montague, P.E.I.; Saunders & Campbell, Summerside, P.E.I.; G. S. Inman, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; A. C. Saunders, Summerside, P.E.I.; McKinnon & McNeill, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; N. McLeod, Summerside, P.E.I. Professional services in each case. Bell and Tanton, Summerside, P.E.I., for services in connection with collection of Income Taxes.
Department of Marine and Fisheries:
1 and 2. $20 paid to Heath Strong, K.C., re prosecution of Vernon Boyles for violation of fishery laws.
Department of Public Works:
1.	$55.40.
2.	G. S. Inman, Charlottetown, legal services re purchase of wharf property at Stanley Bridge, $42.05; Albert C. Saunders, Summerside, legal services re purchase of site for Kensington public building, $13.35.
Department of Immigration and Colonization:
1.	Payments by the soldier settlement board to the extent of $105.45.
2.	S. S. Hessian, $83.50; Stewart and Lewis, $21.95; both of which amounts were paid in connection wth the purchase of farms for settlers.
>?


REPRESENTATION OF NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
On the question:
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: What steps, if any, have been taken by the government to give Nova Scotia its full representation in the House of Commons, as provided for under the terms of the British North America Act, which, according to the population of Quebec (excluding Abitibi) at the last Dominion census entitles us to fifteen members, while we were allotted only fourteen members under the last Redistribution Act?


Hewitt Bostock: I think this question will have to be redrafted. According to standing order 44, first paragraph:
Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from the ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and from other members relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the house, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except as far as may be necessary to explain the same.
The hon. member will note that the question he offered is not in accordance with standing order 44 as it states an opinion. I would therefore ask him kindly to re-draft his question.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I asked this
question at a previous sitting on the orders of the day, and on the suggestion of the Prime Minister I put the question on the order paper.


Hewitt Bostock: I am sure the hon. gentleman acted in perfect good faith, but he will see that the question being oral, it may be that the right hon. gentleman suggested that it should be put on the order paper. If the
Questions

hon. gentleman will kindly re-draft his question in accordance with rule 44, it will be answered.
Question dropped.


ALBERTA COAL LANDS
Mr. ADSHEAD:: How many acres of coal lands are there in the province of Alberta to which patents in fee simple have been issued?


Charles A. Stewart: I think I
have given the hon. gentleman the information requested and I would ask him to drop the question.


Hugh Guthrie: The rest of us want to know the answer.


Charles A. Stewart: All right,
I shall be glad to bring it down.
Question stands.


INDIAN SCHOOLS
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Has the government bought, or agreed to buy, any industrial or boarding school used on behalf of Indians in the treaty, at or near or on any Indian reserve in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, or Manitoba?
2.	If so, from whom, how much was paid for them, and when was the vote submitted to parliament ?
3.	Is the government now under any obligation to buy any more schools of this class, and from whom?
4.	By whom was the price settled, and on what basis?
5.	Were independent valuations made of them, and by whom?
6.	At the time that these schools were built, did the persons or organizations building them have any authority from the department or Indians to establish or build such a school?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Muscowequans Indian residential school at Lestock, Sask., from the Oblate Fathers: $55,000: session 1923.
Round Lake Indian residential school at Stockholm, Sask., from the Presbyterian Church and Rev. H. MacKay: $23,000: session 1923.
Pine Creek Indian residential school at Camperville, Man., from the Oblate Fathers: $89,000: session 1924.
Cowessess Indian residential school at Marieval, Sask., from the Oblate Fathers: $70,000: session 1925.
3.	No.	*
4.	By the department and the church authorities, after valuation.
5.	Yes-
Miiscowequans-R. W. Caswell, Saskatoon, Sask.

Round Lake-L. Thomson, Wolseley, Sask. Pine Creek-F. C. Hamilton, Winnipeg, Man.
Cowessess-S. O. Holden, Indian Head, Sask.
6.	Yes.


RADIO-NEW BRUNSWICK LICENSES
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	How many persons residing in New Brunswick have been fined during the year ending February 20, 1928, for not having a radio license?
2.	How many informations have been laid against residents of New Brunswick during the same period for the said offence?
3.	How many of said informations have been with dr aval?
4.	How many informations for the same offence during the said period have been laid against residents of the county of Madawaska?
5.	How many convictions have been recorded against residents of the county of Madawaska during said period?
6.	How many informations against residents of the county of Madawaska have been withdrawn during the said period?
7.	If any such have been withdrawn, on whose representations ?
8.	Were any representations made by any member of the provincial legislature?
9.	If so, by whom?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1. 21.
2.	42.
3.	21
4.	21.
5.	Nil.
6.	21.
7.	Prosecutions were withdrawn after it had been established that persons had applied for licenses and were unable to obtain them owing to the fact that the person selling licenses at Edmundston did not at the time have a supply of license forms on hand.
8.	Not to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
9.	Answered by No. 8.


PRINCE RUPERT RANGE FINDING FACILITIES
Mr. BRADY:: 1.	Has any complaints been made to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or to any official of the government on behalf of several masters of vessels carrying grain from port of Prince Rupert to Europe who complained of having suffered inconvenience and loss of time through the services of a range finding station not being available close to the port of Prince Rupert?
2.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries been requested to establish such range finding station?
3.	If so, is it the intention of the minister to accede to the request?

Questions


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes (by the Prince Rupert board of trade).
2.	Yes.
3.	There is already a radio station established and working on Digby island, at the entrance to Prince Rupert harbour, for communication with vessels entering and leaving Prince Rupert.


ARMISTICE DAT
Mr. BARBER:: In view of the request of the Canadian Legion, is jt the intention of the government to declare November 11 (Armistice day), a national holiday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter is under consideration.


MALONECK POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What were the reasons for the dismissal of Mr. W. S. Jones from the position of postmaster at Maloneck, Saskatchewan?
2.	On whose recommendation was this dismissal made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Mr. Jones was dismissed in order to place post office in its former location, which was more suitable.
2.	When change of location was made the present postmistress was recommended by a number of residents whose request was forwarded through Mr. George McPhee, M.P.


TRANSLATION-FRENCH SPEECHES
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Why was the speech of the honourable member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) delivered in this house on April 11 last not translated into English and sent out to subscribers of the unrevised Hansard in accordance with the resolution passed by this house March 9, 1921?


Hewitt Bostock: The resolution of March 9, 1921, directs that speeches delivered in the French language be translated and printed on the Monday following delivery. The speech of the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) was delivered on April 11, 1927, and translated, but prorogation intervening on Thursday, April 14, no issue of Hansard appeared on the following Monday The translation does appear in the revised edition of the Official Report of Debates.


SMITHERS POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. BRADY:: 1.	Who is the present postmaster in Smithers, British Columbia?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What was the revenue from 6aid post office during year ending 1927?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	J. M. Adams.
2.	15th June, 1917.
3.	Total remuneration, including commissions and allowances for current year is approximately $2,250.
4.	Revenue for year ended 31st March, 1927, was $4,329.46.


HOUSE OP COMMONS STAFF
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	What are the names of the returned soldiers employed on the permanent staff of the House of Commons?
2.	What are their present occupations?
3.	How many male and female employees are there on the temporary staff of the House of Commons?


Mr. SPEAKER:: 1.	Lt. Col. H. W. Bowie, Sergeant-at-Arms; Maurice Ollivier, Joint Law Clerk; Marcel Gabard, Editor of French Debates; Lt. Col. R. Girard, Debates Translator; P. M. Bernard, Debates Translator; J. P. Chevrier, Debates Translator; H. Vallieres, Debates Translator; H. A. Charbonneau, Assistant Chief Messenger; Andrew Fairnie, Messenger.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	155 male; 178 female.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	For what reasons was the McConachie child refused admission to Canada at the port of Halifax?
2.	What officer recommended the rejection of the above mentioned child?
3.	When was the father of this child admitted to Canada ?
4.	At what port did he enter?
5.	How has he been employed since his admission to Canada?
6.	What medical officer examined this child in the old country previous to sailing for Canada?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, communications, and other documents on file in the Department of National Revenue, concerning a claim for draw-back on a consignment of wool imported from Great Britain by Victory Hosiery Mills, Registered, of St. Hyacinthe.


OIL REGULATIONS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of all orders in council passed during the last seven years which deal with oil regulations.

Louisburg Wireless Station


UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: I desire to ask a question 'based on the following despatch from New York which appeared in the morning edition of the Ottawa Citizen:
Police to-day quelled a disturbance by five hundred men and boys -who stormed the twelfth floor offices of a downtown concern in answer to newspaper advertisement for a sixteen dollar a week job.
Will the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) be kind enough to ask his officials at the border to notify any Canadians, who intend going to the United States after hearing this debate, of the terrible unemployment situation in that country?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman should give notice of his question.


LOUISBURG WIRELESS STATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: In view of the fact that Nova Scotia fishing vessels are now being equipped with radio receiving sets, and further in view of the fact that the main portion of the fleet will sail next week, is it the intention of the government to open the Louisburg station immediately to broadcast weather reports and other news, and if so, when?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: That broadcasting station has not yet been opened because we have not received the equipment. We did not buy the equipment because no information had come to us that the fishermen were ready to instal receiving sets on their vessels. But lately representations have been made by the fishermen that they are ready to instal receiving sets on their vessels. We have therefore ordered the necessary equipment for that station, and as soon as that equipment is received and installed we will start broadcasting weather conditions from that station.


REPARATIONS COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: Will the Secretary of State kindly lay on the table the report of the reparations commission?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I hope to be able to do so very soon.
'Mr. E. J. Garland.]


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed' from Tuesday March 6 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. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I deprecate the idea of prolonging for a single moment this long protracted debate. At the same time, in justice to the people who are kind enough to have some degree of confidence in me, whether they reside in my constituency or elsewhere, I feel bound to explain the vote which I am going to give at the end of this debate. I propose to vote, first, for the subamendment presented by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher), second1, against the amendment presented by my excellent friend the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan)-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am glad to hear for
once the good old Tory party applaud anything I say. Third, I propose to vote for the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and I propose to do this in the very spirit that has been evinced by members sitting in this corner of the house, the Progressives. I wish to co-operate, first, with the groups with which I feel myself more in sympathy, namely, the Progressive group and the Labour group, not because I agree with everything they propound, but because it seems to me that they are playing in our political life, especially with regard to economic and social matters, a very useful role from which members of both parties, or even men wandering in no man's land as I am, can derive some benefit. Then I propose, in the same spirit of co-operation, to help the Liberal party rather than the Tory party as at present constituted; and in this latter form of co-operation, which I propose to give as long as matters and parties stand as they are at present, I propose to co-operate with liberal-minded Liberals to counteract the influence of Tory-minded Liberals who sit to my left. What has brought me into trouble once in a while in the past with the good old Liberal party, was precisely the penetration in the minds of several members of that party of some of the Tory heresies. My dear old

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
friend, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, used to say: "Never mind all the harm that Bourassa is doing to our party. There is one thing I am sure of-he will never be a Tory." ^ I cannot bring my mind to the point, which I am afraid my excellent friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), is on the verge of reaching, that if you find something wrong with some people, you must ally yourself with people in whom you find no right at all. I cannot see any logic in that, and as between the two parties as at present constituted and inspired, I intend to stand for the lesser evil of the two.
With regard to the budget, I am not so much interested in it, if at all, as being the legal machinery for squeezing money out of the people's pockets and spending it to the advantage or disadvantage of the country, but rather in its possible and probable effects upon the various currents of social and economic life of the nation.
It seems to me-at least my little study of history has convinced me of this-that what has made British policy and British administration, especially under the broad-minded influences of such men as Bright, Cobden and Gladstone, was that they were not so much concerned with getting and spending the people's money as with attending to the needs of all classes of the people while carrying on their duty as administrators of public funds.
Let us take first the taxation system, and first of all the tariff. I speak quite freely on this matter because I have never professed to be a free-trader on principle. I well remember the time when, at my first election, I refused to endorse the program of my party one article of which was to wipe out every vestige of protection; not that I believed in protection, but I did not think it was then possible to effect an economic revolution by a stroke of the pen. I could not bring my mind to the point of promising to the people something which I considered could not be done. But with the passing of time I have come to the conclusion that protection as an economic policy, and the levying of customs duties as the principal means of filling up the treasury of the country, are unsound and contrary to the true social interests of the people. My objection to protection grows from year to year as I see its results, and first with regard to the self-consciousness of the population. Most people in our country, or in any other country afflicted with a high tariff, do not realize the amount of money which they pay either into the public treasury, or still worse, into the private purses of the protected industries.
Second, holding the views I have as to the social requirements of every country, and
especially of a young country like ours, in need of a large and growing population adapted to its conditions, I consider that every form_ of taxation which strikes primarily at the family, and particularly the large family, is the worst form of taxation. The levying of customs duties and the payment of indirect taxation is precisely that portion of our taxation which i3 most heavily borne by large families, and the most ignored by the very people who pay most of it.
Then with regard to industry itself, the tendency-I will not say in every case, or in every country, or with every industry-but the general tendency of a protective policy is to make the manufacturer who plants his industry, and makes it grow under the protection of an artificial instrument, sluggardly and backward in his process of manufacturing. Of course, our friends on the other side of the house, British as they are, but so thoroughly Yankee in their mentality, always quote as an example the great republic to the south; but they forget that American industry, American manufacturers and American distributors of articles manufactured under a highly protective tariff, sell those goods in an open and free market of one hundred and twenty million consumers, whilst in Canada, on the contrary, so long as our consuming population remains what it is, the tendency of our manufacturers is to give to the consuming public their products more or less as they come, without much care as to the process by which they are manufactured. It is sufficient to have travelled several times in foreign countries to find out that several articles that are produced by our manufacturers do not come up in workmanship and finish to the standard of goods manufactured either in low-tariff countries like England or in high-tariff countries like Germany.
Another objection I have to the maintenance of the protective policy in Canada is precisely one which appeals most, it appears, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), to whose very able speech I listened with much interest. May I say by way of parenthesis that the minister, so far as my humble self is concerned, has done something which rarely happens in our parliament? He has changed a vote in this house; he persuaded me to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher). I cannot bring myself to the point of enthusiasm which the hon. gentleman has developed for protection that not only helps in developing the natural resources of Canada but helps also in the creation and maintenance in Canada of artificial industries, the products of which are

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
imposed upon our people at higher prices than they are worth, simply because of the maintenance of a tariff policy which has been denounced for twenty-five years at least by the party to which I belonged for a number of years, and with which I wish to cooperate, but in the hope that they will gradually abandon their tariff policy to come nearer the Liberal policy that we advocated together.
Strange to say, in the recital which the hon. gentleman gave of these magnificent artificial industries prospering under our tariff, he mentioned, if I remember aright, the cotton industry. Of course, no cotton will ever be grown on the soil of Canada. He also mentioned the rubber industry. But strange to say, he made no mention of the woollen industry. While having no principles on these matters, being somewhat in the same state of mind as my good friend and neighbour (Mr. Neill)-who is not here at the moment, but whose speech of yesterday I have read with much interest-I think that if some protection is needed it should be especially for those industries which make or could make use of Canadian products. With regard to the woollen industry I agree largely with the argument that was presented to us by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards) a few days ago. But I would make any protection granted to the woollen industry in this country conditional upon their making use of Canadian wool, and that protection should not cover that part of their industry which uses imported foreign wool.
Likewise with regard to sugar, I would be in favour of some form of protection being given to the sugar industry, provided the sugar refiners were forced or induced to make use of beets grown on Canadian soil, rather than sugar cane grown in Cuba or in other islands in the south. It is in that manner that France, Germany and Belgium have built up a magnificent natural industry which helps the beet grower, the manufacturer of sugar and the public also, and has freed those countries from the monopoly exercised for many years by the sugar cane growers of America.
Mention has been made in this debate about encouraging the building of pulp and paper mills to manufacture our pulpwood. Well, taking the situation generally in Canada, from the little knowledge I have of it-and I have some knowledge because the constituency I represent is one of the large suppliers of pulp-wood-I think we have all the large industries in this regard that the paper consuming market will be able to stand, not just now, but a few years hence. Every informed man,

every man interested in the making and trading of paper, realizes that, thanks to the rivalry of those two or three great trusts that are dividing between themselves the wood of our forests and our water powers, we are approaching a crisis in the industry. Therefore, I do not say, let us encourage the building of more paper mills; I say, rather, let us look after the small individual, the small taxpayer, let us give a chance to the settlers, to the owners of small forest reserves, thousands of whom are still endeavouring to carry on in the forest lands or in the colonization parts of New Brunswick, of Quebec, of Ontario, but who find no market for the byproducts of their wood. After studying the investigations that have been made during the last thirty years I sincerely believe that Canada, and especially the three provinces just mentioned, is every year losing millions of dollars worth of wood, which is simply being allowed to rot on the ground because there is no other industry yet created or encouraged in Canada but the saw mill, the pulp mill or the paper mill; and these do not make use of such by-products.
Just a few days ago I met a young enterprising chap living in my constituency who, having cut wood for others for several years, decided to do something for himself. He went to Europe and visited the various countries where they make the fullest use of all kinds of wood. He bought the necessary machinery for the purpose he had in view, instruments for the transformation of the byproducts of wood, and returned to Canada. In due time that machinery reached this side, and he was charged something like 35 per cent duty. I claim, sir, that this is not an intelligent policy. We should give every encouragement to the small industrialist to make use of the by-products, which are nothing to the large concerns, but which mean much to the farmer, to the settler, to the small jobber- as we call him in Quebec and Ontario-and thus help the development of local industries of which we have so much need.
And here comes my fifth objection to the protectionist policy as it has been applied by all governments and parties in this country during the last fifty years. It has not only created an unbalanced industry, but it has gradually deprived various portions of our provinces of the small industries which were centres of social and economic life and concentrated those industries in the large manufacturing cities of Ontario and Quebec. Here my opinion is supported, as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, not by a rabid free trader, not by any exponent of the old theories of British and Canadian Liberalism

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
-at least in our party conventions of the past-but by one of the most distinguished members of the Tory party, a man who held a portfolio in the Unionist government, Mr. McCurdy. Time and time again he has made some very striking arguments against the application of the so-called national policy, going to the length of stating that it had ruined the maritime provinces, that it had deprived those provinces of their legitimate economic development and transferred their industries to the great manufacturing centres of Ontario and Quebec.
Not only does this policy work towards the concentration of industry, it also works towards a concentration of wealth. Sir, I do not think I am a pessimist. In spite of my white hair I have kept a good deal of the optimism of youth, but I really consider with a pang of fear the apparent aloofness with which most of our public men, our publicists, our leaders of thought, regard or disregard that tremendous growth of industrialism, I will not say supported, but handicapped by those atrocious processes of over-capitalization which now are practically putting the whole of Canada in the hands of a few trusts. The men in control of those trusts not only hold the strings of the public and private purse, but at the same time they are creating an artificial wealth, a fraudulent wealth, a wealth which does not arise from labour, which does not arise from the mental exertions of men, but which is simply created by a fraudulent abuse of law and public confidence in such a manner that for an industry which demands, let us say, 120,000,000 in capitalization, $60,000,000 worth of paper will be issued. Of this, some $20,000,000 will be distributed to the gamblers on the stock exchange or others who will pay ready cash for paper which is worth nothing, and another third will be distributed among the swindlers as common shares, and the public will have to make good the dividends upon that so-called capitalization, which is nothing but a steal at the expense both of Canada and its citizens.
Then if to these instances, which may be common to us and to other countries, you couple the fact that day by day a larger proportion of the natural resources of those industries, national in their scope, and a large proportion of that wealth, real or fictitious, legitimate or fraudulent, is passing from the hands of Canadians into the hands of foreigners, and especially of Americans, I say it is high time that those men who cry out-some sincerely, others for electoral consumption-Wave the flag! God save the king!-it is high time, I repeat, for them to say: Let us save Canada
for Canadians. Let us not encourage foreign financiers and their political tools by handing over to them the inheritance of generations of Canadians, a national inheritance that it is our duty to transmit to our descendants; let us not have it sold to a handful of American speculators who come here, pick up associates among politicians of all parties, purchase the goodwill and the advertisement columns of the newspapers of this country, and are gradually preparing the economic absorption of Canada by the great country to the south of us. Any man who has any knowledge of human nature or of history should be aware that no country situated as Canada is, alongside a country constituted as the United States, has ever been able to resist political annexation and national absorption once it had allowed all the sources of its economic life to pass into the hands of the masters of finance, the masters of policy and the masters of industry of the larger country. This is a further reason why I am in full sympathy with the small membership of the Labour group, a group which is not numerous but which enunciates and propounds some ideas that, while perhaps not agreeable to you or to me, have been courageously and consistently expressed. That group, I say, has had the courage consistently to demonstrate that by losing sight of these factors of economic life we are running the risk of a danger which possibly we may realize when it is too late to meet it.
Another objection I have to the maintenance of the protective system as applied to a country like ours is its effect upon the masses of the people. No one who has given even a little time to a consideration of the conditions under which the labouring masses have worked for centuries can help a feeling of pain in comparing the situation of thousands and hundreds of thousands of men and women labouring in this year of our Lord 1928, under a so-called democratic system of government, with the conditions under which labourers and artisans of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries existed. Then, in the small local organization, the common labourer served a hard apprenticeship; nevertheless he lived a family life with his patron. He learned all the essentials of his craft and from an apprentice he grew to be a companion. After he had acquired a knowledge of all the intricacies of his work, he made his chef d'ceuvre and took rank among the masters of his art or craft. To-day hundreds of thousands of our economic slaves toil away in large industries in which they are nothing more and nothing less than annexes to the piece of machinery in conjunction with which they work. Take a shoe factory,
The Budget-Mr. Bourassa

for example. In the province of Quebec there are thousands of men and women working in these factories; one will operate this machine and another that machine; they will concentrate their attention upon this or that part of a pair of shoes. But not one of them can make a pair of shoes. And the same is true of all other large industries; this is the condition of modern industrialism. This is the condition which has been brought about by the conjunction of a highly protectionist or industrializing policy with the state of things introduced by the replacement of small craft by large industry.
Now I offer a word in regard to our population problem, and in this connection I express my belief with the utmost sincerity and without any desire of offending my Conservative friends. But taking conditions as I know them, especially in the province of Quebec, having lived as I have done for half a century alternately in the city and in the country, I thoroughly believe that the overindustrialization of Ontario and Quebec, the concentration, as I have described it, of industries in a few large centres, has done more to uproot our rural population from the land, transplanting them first into these industrial centres and then directing them on to the United States. I do not believe that an upward revision of our tariff would remedy the plague of emigration to the United States, with which we have had to cope in the past and which, is so serious at the present time. Not only would such an upward revision of the tariff not solve the problem, but I really believe that if we want to keep our population at home, if we want to - preserve as much as we can the ethnical, the moral, the intellectual and the economic integrity of this country, we should endeavour, not to imitate our American neighbours but on the contrary to make it quite clear to our people and to every other people on earth that, while entertaining sentiments of friendship with our neighbours, we have pride enough and confidence enough in the geniality of our Canadians, in that splendid combination of French and English traditions, to create in Canada an entity which, while perhaps comparatively small in numbers, will develop harmoniously. To this end, I say, our fiscal policy must not be a weak replica of that of the United States, nor on the other hand must it be a servile imitation of the British policy; it must be a Canadian policy inspired by a thorough knowledge of Canadian conditions and adapted to the needs of the Canadian people. If we do this we shall come to the same conclusion at which my Progressive friends have arrived, perhaps from a somewhat selfish point of view

-because we are all more or less moved by self-interest. The hon. member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Irvine) was candid enough to express this in the magnificent speech he delivered the other day. At any rate, if these selfish views coincide with the interests of Canada, why refuse to accept them because they happen to be put forward by a group which is neither Liberal nor Conservative? Why should not this great party welcome such ideas, thus demonstrating that it is broad enough to propound a true national policy comprising the best ideas that may be Obtained, from whatever source they come?
If we want to develop Canada economically on a solid basis, our attention must be directed primarily to rural problems and to the maintenance of our population on the farms. We must create such living conditions as will render the farmers of Canada, east and west, to whatever race they belong and whatever language they speak, a happier people. We must make Canada a happier place to live in than the United States. Some manufacturers may cry out, some financiers who like to speculate, not so much in industry as in the incorporation of companies and the amalgamation of trusts; and they may purchase some complacent papers to denounce your policy. But if you stick to it with courage and intelligence, you will reap, in the hearts and minds and finally in the votes of sound thinking Canadians, a compensation far greater than you will need to offset such contempt as you may receive at the hands of sharks who have no object in view save to enrich themselves with the assistance of this party or that group-and even with my own help if they could get it.
For all these reasons, therefore, I support the subamendment. I support it because it expresses the desire for a prompter and more adequate reduction in the tariff. And for the same reason I am unable to support the amendment though it was presented by a very dear friend of mine. I read the hon. gentleman's speech with a great deal of interest, as I read all his deliverances. But while reading it I could not help recalling the time, many years ago, when I was still interested in sports. His speech, coupled with the motion at the end, appeared to me as the strenuous exertions of a stout football player endeavouring to kick a soap bubble. In that gassy motion the word "protection" does not appear. But knowing, as I have known for thirty years, the good old Tory party, I am sure that if the nigger is not in front of the wood pile he is behind it, if not in it; and I am afraid that until the wood pile is burned down and until the nigger gets

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
what he deserves-that is to say, until he is hanged to the nearest cherry tree-I cannot trust either the nigger, or the wood pile, or even my excellent friends, among them the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), who usually stands in front of the pile because he, at least, is open-minded and open-mouthed.
But there is one point upon which I would like to repeat the warning I took the liberty of giving my Progressive friends a year or two ago. Holding the views they do with regard to protection, and being more sanguine than I am of doing away with the tariff as soon as possible, how is it that they still cling to their old shibboleth of an increased British preference? In the budget this year we find a measure similar to that adopted by the government of Australia; on all goods imported under the so-called British preference it is stipulated that they must contain material or labour of the country of their supposed origin to the extent of 50 per cent of their value. I advocated the introduction of some such measure last year, or the year before; and this is one of the reasons why I am going to support the budget. I will not enlarge upon that however, beyond saying this: Do not my friends realize that by adhering to the British preference they are playing into the hands of the arch-pontiffs of protection in Canada, England and the world over? Do they not realize that this is the great hope of that handful of men who have inherited the glorious though disputed memory of the great Joseph Chamberlain, the most outstanding of whom at present is that imperial visitor whom we had the honour of receiving some weeks ago? I refer to Mr. Amery, who has been going around the world advocating the policy to which these gentlemen appear to be attached. Do not my friends realize that the reasons why the English protectionists stick to that policy and do all they can to coax and flatter the dominions into its adoption and maintenance, is because therein lies their only hope of ever bringing the British people to the support of protection, which the British nation rejected in disgust under the clear-sighted guidance of Cobden and Bright, whose memory, still cherished by the true English Liberal, is openly cursed or disdained by the English protectionist?
There is something more than that. Mention has been made, I think by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and by my friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), to the attitude taken by the economic conference at Geneva with regard to
the tariff question. May I inform the house that I had the great advantage of being in London before the program presented to the Geneva conference was given to the press.
I met the gentleman who prepared that program, whose name is of course well known as one of the noted economists of the day, not only in the British Empire but throughout the world. Sir George Paish was kind enough to give me an advance copy of that program as well as copies of the answers received from the representatives of the largest financial institutions in the various countries of Europe. In reading over that correspondence I was struck with the objection raised by the French and the Italians.
My friend the Minister of Justice was unfortunate enough to quote a German; before the war the word of a German would have gone a long way with the Tories, because the Tories in this country as well as in England were the greatest admirers of everything 'German. Since the war, however, they have changed, in their expressions at least, although I do not know of any single Tory in Canada or in England refusing to deal with a German when there is a good bargain to be made.
The Italians and the French, however, were the first to raise an objection, and they made in effect this answer to Sir George Paish: "As long as in any of the contracting parties at Geneva, or between them and some of their political associates such as Great Britain and the dominions, a system of imperial or national preference is maintained, it is useless to talk of a tariff reduction the world over". This is quite obvious. Foreign nations do not want to be trapped in this regard into anything similar to the so-called truce policy launched by Mr. Winston Churchill in naval matters, before the war, when on the one hand he offered Germany a truce in ship building and on the other, by secret correspondence with the dominion governments, encouraged the construction of those ships which the British government pledged themselves not to build. So long as we maintain the principle that as between British and foreign nations we disregard the law of free trade or freer trade, so long will it be impossible to bring the foreigner to agree with us on a general, world-wide reduction of tariffs.
Now, sir, passing to the other items of taxation under these proposals, I will content myself by saying briefly that I approve in a general way of the reductions made by the Minister of Finance, with some few objections. I have already told the house the injustices which occur under the sales tax, by which some small manufacturers, operating
The Budget-Mr. Bourassa

in small centres for the benefit of the farmers who surround them, are placed at a disadvantage. Of course they will benefit by these reductions, but once more in all friendship I ask the Minister of Finance to try to see his way clear to exempt entirely from the imposition of that tax those small manufacturers who make use of the by-products of wood, for example, to help the farmers in the surrounding country. Surely they are not such serious rivals to the great lumber industries or the pulp industries, which are capitalized at millions of dollars, that they cannot be left free of that tax.
From the same social point of view I approve of the further reduction in income tax in favour of families having to support invalid dependents, and I hope this means an exemption of $500 for each invalid supported by the father.


Hewitt Bostock: Time is up.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Is it? I am glad, for
your sake and for my hon. friends.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: And I especially thank
hon. members of the opposition for the great applause they have given a speech which may help them reconsider some of their views.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Mr. Speaker, it is with some degree
of regret that I rise to take part in this debate, and I do so because of a certain peculiar circumstance. It is not a pleasant experience to be asked to resign one's seat in this house, and particularly is that so when, as in my case, I have had the honour to represent a splendid constituency for over ten years and have been successful in four general elections. Nevertheless, this is a contingency which I may have to face.
There are some comforting features of the problem, however, which I may also mention. First, the suggestion does not come from any of my own constituents; again, I am not the only member involved, because all the members representing British Columbia constituencies are in the same position, and in the third place the suggestion is not due to any sins of commission or of omission on my part, but results from the failure of this government to take effective action in a matter which is deemed by the people of British Columbia to be of vital importance.
I have come to the conclusion that I should take this house into my confidence. A short time ago I received a communication from an organization in British Columbia, the United Farmers of Canada, British Columbia section, which is stated to be 100 per cent farmer and 100 per cent co-operative. This

communication is dated at Sayward, Vancouver island, 11th February, 1928, and is addressed to the hon. the Premier, hon. ministers of the crown, and members of the legislature of British Columbia, now in session at Victoria, B.C. It reads as follows:
Gentlemen:
Whereas, the legislature of this province has for many years expressed itself as being in favour of the total exclusion of orientals; and where as the legislature is supposed to represent the views of the people; and whereas, by the recent statements of the Hon. A. M. Manson, attorney general of this province, oriental penetration is more menacing at the present time than at any other period in the history of British Columbia; and whereas federal members who represent the electors of this province in the House of Commons at Ottawa, have moved for an exclusion act to apply to orientals; aDd whereas the Hon. Mackenzie King, Premier of Canada, and hon. leader of the Liberal party, has expressed himself as being against the passing of an exclusion act, we, tile British Columbia section of the United Farmers of Canada, hereby request that the Hon. Dr. MacLean, Premier of British Columbia and leader of the government now in power in British Columbia, do move at the present sitting of the house, and that Mr. R. H. Pooley, house leader of the Conservative party, do second the following motion:
"That it is the opinion of the legislature now in session, that in the interest of this province, it is necessary to forcibly draw the attention of the people of Canada to the seriousness of oriental penetration into the social and business life of British Columbia, and to show to the federal government in Ottawa, that British Columbia is determined to have enacted an exclusion law; and also to give the electors of this province an opportunity to express themselves on this important issue; that the present legislature recommends and requests all federal members representing British Columbia at Ottawa, to immediately resign their seats as members of parliament and return to the people for re-election on the excluison act issue."
Now, Mr. Speaker, had it not been necessary to reply immediately to this communication I might have taken the oportunity of conferring with you as to the proper answer I should make, but owing to the fact that my speaking in this debate has been delayed I had to acknowledge the communication without consulting with you. I did so on February 22, and said this:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your circular letter of the 11th instant, for which I thank you. As I see it, the idea behind the suggested resolution set out in your circular is that to show to the federal government at Ottawa that British Columbia is determined to have enacted an exclusion law, the legislature of the province of British Columbia should recommend and request all federal members representing British Columbia at Ottawa, to immediately resign their seats as members of parliament and return to the people for re-election on the exclusion act.
With all due deference to the enthusiasm and bona fides of your members, it seems to me that your proposal should be reconsidered,

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
as I am afraid it -would be impossible to gain anything for the cause of oriental exclusion by taking the course you suggest. As a matter of fact, twelve of the fourteen members representing British Columbia are Conservatives, and are pledged to support oriental exclusion. The only other two members are the Hon. Dr. J. H. King and Mr. Neill; the latter has come out very many times in favour of exclusion, and it seems to me you should direct your attention to the Hon. Dr. J. H. King and ask for his resignation. It might be possible to hold a contest such as you suggest in Dr. King's constituency, as he, of course, supports the Prime Minister who says openly that he is not in favour of exclusion.
I would be pleased to have further advices from you in this matter.
Now the hon. Minister of Health and Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, speaking on March 1 in this debate, had something to say on oriental exclusion, and I think he tried to give the house the impression that the people of British Columbia were very well satisfied with the action which had been taken by this government in connection with orientals. He referred to our Winnipeg convention, and said it was a dandy convention. Well, so it was a splendid convention. It was attended by some fifteen or sixteen hundred delegates from all over Canada, and at some of the meetings there was an attendance of over five thousand people. It was a splendid convention, a very enthusiastic convention, and a very satisfactory one in many ways, particularly in the selection of a leader of whom we are all proud. The hon. minister (Mr. King, Kootenay) said on the occasion referred to:
I have only to refer to the resolution passed by that convention with reference to oriental immigration which was sponsored by the Conservative members from British Columbia.
I can tell the hon. minister, who of course was not present at the convention, that the resolution in question was sponsored by more than the members from British Columbia. The question of immigration was referred to a committee consisting of some eighty men and women representing all the different parts of Canada, and this resolution was brought in by them. If I remember correctly its adoption was moved by the Attorney General of New Brunswick. It was supported, as I say, almost generally in the convention. Only one voice was raised against it, that of Sir George Foster, that staunch Canadian statesman, who for many years has been one of the leading figures in our history, and for whom we have all the greatest respect. Sir George Foster did not object to the idea of keeping out the orientals but he did object to the use of the word "exclusion."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is my
objection too.
Mr. McQUARRlE:	The Prime Minister
says that is his objection. Well, so far as that goes I do not know that anything objectionable will be found in the resolution itself. I have a copy of it here.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The resolution
seeks to prevent people from coming into the country.
Mr. McQUARiRIE:	If the minister will
control himself for a few moments I will read part of this resolution. I am not going to read it all because there are some eight items altogether and only one deals with the matter we are discussing now. This is how it runs:
Whereas, the present Dominion government's immigration and colonization policy has proved a failure both as to its plan of admission, distribution and administration-
I suppose the minister will agree to that.
Therefore resolved, that Canada adopt an aggressive system of immigration based upon the selective principle and with that end in view efforts be directed to ...	.
8. Oriental exclusion.
Now there is nothing in that resolution which says that any measure which may be brought in should be labelled "exclusion law." It is not so at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend if he agreed with the interpretation he is now putting on the resolution?
Mr. McQUARRlE:	Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is as far as he wishes to go, is it?
Mr. McQUARRlE: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then we are not very far apart.


John Arthur Clark: What other interpretation could they put on it?
Mr. McQUARRlE: That has always been our interpretation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then we are not very far apart.
Mr. McQUARRlE: Perhaps the Prime Minister will not agree with me later on. It seems to me that we are quite a distance apart. All we are contending for in British Columbia is that orientals should be kept out of our country. We do not care whether you call this exclusion or prohibition or anything at all, so long as they are kept out, and this resolution goes only so far as to say that efforts should be directed towards oriental exclusion, which means keeping them out. On May 8, 1922, this house had a full dress

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
debate on the question of oriental exclusion, and through the kindness and consideration of the Prime Minister a whole day and a whole evening were devoted to that question. I am not going to deal exhaustively with what was said on our side or what was said by the Prime Minister and his supporters. Anyone who is interested can look up the debate of May 8, 1922, and read the discussion for himself. But what happened on that occasion was that every Conservative member who was in this chamber at the time voted in favour of my resolution, which was one calling for oriental exclusion. The government introduced an amendment which called for effective restriction, and that was passed. The house was willing to give the government an opportunity of carrying out some measures of effective restriction. How has that satisfied the people of British Columbia? How has it worked out? The Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. King) also said:
I make that reference because there never has been an election in British Columbia since 1900, provincial or federal, during which the Conservative party have advocated a white British Columbia.


Mr KING (Kootenay):: Will my hon.
friend read on?	-


William Garland McQuarrie: That is what my hon. friend says. I am not going to read his whole speech, but I take issue with the minister and I say that in no election, Dominion or provincial, since 1900 or even prior to that time, has any Conservative candidate ever advocated any other policy than that of a white British Columbia.


John Warwick King: But my hon. friend fails to tell the house they advocate that when they are in opposition, but when they are in power they do not act and they have done nothing to bring about exclusion.
Mr. McQ.UARRIE: We have not been in power for some time.


John Warwick King: The Conservative party was in power for a long time.


William Garland McQuarrie: When I first came into this house the condition I found was that the people of the east were not entirely familiar with the situation which existed in British Columbia. I found that Conservative members as well as Liberal members for British Columbia had been endeavouring to impress upon the house the seriousness of the situation which then existed. I think the minister will agree that it was necessary for British Columbia members to do a considerable amount of missionary work and they did that

to the best of their ability. When I first came into this house at the time of the Union government, some other questions of importance were taking up the attention of the government.


John Warwick King: What about the period from 1911 to 1914?


William Garland McQuarrie: Perhaps the minister
has forgotten about it, but at that time a war was in progress and I do not think the minister would suggest that, during a war such as we had on our hands then, it would have been good policy for any member from British Columbia to get up in this house and move an exclusion resolution.


John Warwick King: If the hon. member will read my speech he will see that I made that exception, and I suggested that between 1911 and 1914 and between 1918 and 1921 the hon. member's party had an opportunity of doing something.


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not believe in
going back into the past. I do not think any more credit is due in the past to the Conservative party in the Dominion house than to the Liberal party in reference to this question, and I do not think so far as that goes, you can find any Liberal member from British Columbia-except the minister himself who, of course, is in a very peculiar position-who is not in favour of exclusion of orientals. I have no doubt when the minister gets out on the hustings he tells the people of my province that he is in favour of a white British Columbia.


John Warwick King: My action will
always be that followed consistently by the Liberal party. They have always been progressive.


William Garland McQuarrie: What has happened?
The orientals, particularly the Japanese, have been coming into British Columbia and they have been increasing at such a rate that the oriental question is the livest issue in the politics of that province. I find in a return, which was brought down at the request of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that in 1927 there were ninety-four Chinese admitted into Canada under permit, and of these forty entered as actors and actresses, four as missionaries and three as teachers. Thirty-five of the ninety-four have already left the country. In the same year, 493 Japanese entered Canada, of whom 118 were adult males, 277 adult females and 98 children. So we see they are still coming in, although the Prime Minister has stated that there are already too many orientals in British Columbia.

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
The Attorney General of British Columbia has been very active in regard to this oriental question. I have read in the press that discussions are going on from time to time in the provincial legislature in reference to this subject, and I have in my hand the Vancouver Daily Province of Thursday, March 1, 1928, which makes this statement-I am not going to read it all, but I will give the house a short extract. The article is dated at Victoria, March 1, and reads:
Members of the legislature, without regard to party, were invited by Attorney General Manson, Wednesday, to meet him informally and draft a resolution appealing to the parliament of Canada to halt oriental penetration into British Columbia.
To halt it, if you like:
This unexpected invitation, following the commencement of debate on the whole oriental situation, which interpreted as the government's answer to Conservative demands for oriental exclusion and the abrogation of the Canadian-Japanese treaty. What attitude the government will take in the framing of a nonpolitical resolution on the oriental problem was not indicated definitely by the attorney general, but in a carefully-worded speech he urged the house not to embarrass the Canadian government and the British government in dealing with Asiatic peoples. He would propose a resolution, he said, -which would seek to avoid any offence to the sensibilities of oriental nations, at the same time protecting the rights of British Columbia.
This sudden new turn was given to the oriental debate after C. F. Davie, Conservative of Cowichan-Newcastle, had moved his resolution calling for the abrogation of the Japanese treaty, and after W. F. Kennedy, Conservative of North Okanagan, had moved as an addition to this proposal, that the house favour the total exclusion of Asiatics from Canada.
It appears from statements that have been made in this debate that the situation in British Columbia has become most acute inasmuch as the orientals are getting into all lines of industry; they are going on to the farms and into the factories; their merchants are taking locations on the leading business streets in all the large cities and towns in British Columbia; they are entering into every walk of life in our country, and more than that, in British Columbia at the present time, according to Mr. Davie, out of every five adult males in the province one is an oriental. And still they are allowed to continue to come in. The attorney general has, as I say, been very active. He is asking for exclusion. The British Columbia legislature time after time has asked for exclusion and has also asked for the abrogation of the treaty between Great Britain and Japan which I think is known as the treaty of Commerce and Industry, which was entered into in 1911 and ratified by this house in 1913.
The attorney general brought up the matter at the Dominion-provincial conference which was held in Ottawa last fall, and according to the press of British Columbia, Mr. Manson pleaded for action by the Dominion government. I have here the report of that conference. Mr. Manson says that he made the representatives present at that conference sit up and take notice, that they were not aware of the real conditions until they had heard his speech. He says:
They expressed their astonishment when I told them that whereas the increase of our own children attending school in the last three years was only six per cent, the increase of Japanese children attending was seventy-four per cent in the same period. I told them that the time was coming when British Columbia would be nothing more than a British-Oriental community, and that they must expect the yellow races to cross the rockies and invade the provinces in the east as they had done on the coast. It is no use dealing with this problem by stabbing at it with resolutions; what we want is a solution on broad national lines!
In the report of the conference issued by this government I find a reference to the same subject, at page 37, as follows:
Mr. Manson dealt briefly with the oriental problem from the standpoint of his province and of the Dominion. He advised consideration of this by the federal government.
I find in the provincial report of the conference, published in the British Columbia Public Service Bulletin, a reference to the same subject. At page 163 it says:
A great many matters affecting this province were discussed at the interprovincial conference, or taken up with the federal ministers by Hon. Dr. MacLean and Hon. A. M. Manson, Attorney General, who accompanied him to Ottawa, including the need for firm action in regard to prohibition of oriental immigration.
I do not see much difference between prohibition and exclusion. It seems to me a very strange thing indeed that this government will not pay any attention to the representations which it receives from the government of the province of British Columbia, and it is also very strange that the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment would give this house to understand that the people of British Columbia are satisfied with present conditions.


John Warwick King: I have never said so.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is another
strange anomaly to which I would call attention, and that is the attitude of the attorney general of British Columbia, a strong man of the Liberal party, in regard to oriental immigration. The other day in the Supreme Court of Canada, through his counsel, Mr. COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie
W. E. Williams, he contested the authority of the government in any way to restrict the issuance of licenses to orientals. The Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment may not be aware of that. He takes credit to this government for having done something in regard to the curtailment of the issuance of fishing licenses to orientals. I give them that credit also, but I would at the same time say that it was my privilege to move the resolution which resulted in the curtailment of such licenses. Licenses have been cut down very materially. There was a time when the orientals controlled the fisheries of British Columbia-absolutely controlled them-but now, owing to the action which has been taken, the orientals are not getting as many licenses as they would like to have, and the number of orientals in the industry has been materially reduced. What will happen if the contention of the attorney general of British Columbia is correct? It will mean that the regulations which have been passed are bad. It will mean that any oriental in British Columbia who is a British subject, and desires to do so, may obtain a license to fish. I have here extracts from the factum of Mr. Williams, counsel for the province of British Columbia.
Dealing first with the right to receive a license to fish, he said:
It is submitted that all subjects of the king, resident in Canada, have the right to fish in tidal Waters.
He goes on to cite the authorities, and then proceeds:
It is not yet quite clear that the capacity in parliament to regulate fisheries enables parliament in the case of tidal water fisheries (where the right is a public right) to abrogate the right.
And again the authorities are cited.


Mr. STIRLING:: Who is Mr. Williams?


William Garland McQuarrie: I believe he is a law
partner of the attorney general.


John Warwick King: Was.


William Garland McQuarrie: I notice in the last
Vancouver telephone directory the name of the firm Williams, Manson & Gonzales. However. I accept the statement of the minister that Mr. Williams is no longer the law partner of the attorney general, and in any event I do not comment upon that at all. He continues:
If parliament is "the competent legislature" to abrogate the public right of fishing, by first abrogating the right parliament could then confer a discretion upon the minister to refuse a license to fish, because the public would then have no rights in the matter beyond what parliament saw fit to give.

This course has not been adopted. The public right of fishing has not been abrogated. The right exists, and no discretion has been reposed in the minister to refuse a license to fish.
And he quotes section 45 of the Fisheries Act. He goes on:
It is submitted that all the regulations submitted in question 3 are ultra vires of section 45 of the Fisheries Act. Subsection (e) does not enable the minister to refuse a license where the right to fish exists. There is a duty upon the minister to issue the license to any applicant who has a right to fish.
So I say it seems to me that there is something wrong in the attitude both of the provincial government and the Dominion government in regard to oriental matters, because on the one hand we have the Dominion government refusing to keep out orientals, and on the other we have the provincial government ready to give orientals the right to fish in Canadian waters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that the attitude of the people of British Columbia towards orientals is not based upon any racial dislike or any failure to appreciate their good qualities, and when your honour goes to Tokyo as the first Canadian ambassador-for such is the rumour-I hope you will represent to the government and people of Japan that we have a great admiration for their nationals-provided of course they stay in their own country. I might mention other rumours that are circulating. We have heard, for instance, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is to go to the supreme court bench; we have heard that the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) is to become Minister of Justice; we have heard that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will consent to go to one place only-the Senate, and we have heard that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) is to go back to the farm. But to return to the oriental question. It is demanding the attention of students and scholars from one end of Canada to the other. Only the other day I read with considerable interest the report of a speech made by Sir Arthur Currie, president of McGill university. While he takes issue with the Conservative party on the use of the word "exclusion," yet all his arguments point conclusively to the necessity for an exclusion law. He said:
For the sake of the past and for the sake of the future, we are the people who must be the judges of the kind of civilization we hope to perpetuate in this land of ours.
I have under my hand a letter from Dean Brock of the university of British Columbia. Recently he attended a meeting of scientists in Japan at the invitation of the Japanese

The Budget-Mr. Langlois
government. To him was assigned the duty of speaking on the oriental question from the standpoint of Canada, and he told the conference very frankly the position which we take. Later on I heard him speak on this subject at a meeting of the Kiwanis Club in Vancouver, and I asked him if he would kindly give me a letter explaining exactly the Japanese stand in this regard. He wrote me under date of November 30, 1927. I cannot read the whole letter, but I will give the house those parts which are pertinent to the question:
The Japanese who attended the conference now recognize, and I think it may be taken for granted that their government will recognize-
1.	That we have perfectly justified and satisfactory reasons for not wanting immigrants from Japan, and that these reasons are no reflection upon the honour of Japan or the qualities of the Japanese.
Recognizing the validity of these arguments, the leader of the Japanese in the discussion of this question, told me that they were very glad to have had this frank discussion; that they had not understood; that they now not only understood, but understood sympathetically, and that under similar circumstances the Japanese would take a similar position.
2.	They recognize that emigration to America is no solution of their overpopulation problem, so there is no compelling reason for Japan to be interested in such emigration.
3.	They have no desire for their nationals to go to a country where they are not wanted.
I would call the attention of the Prime Minister particularly to the fourth paragraph:
4.	They have no objection to stopping emigration completely, if we want that.
Now, I ask, why has not the Prime Minister been able to make an agreement with Japan to stop absolutely the emigration of their nationals to Canada? Dean Brock says that if the Japanese were in the same position they would do exactly what we want done. That is borne out by an article that I read the other day in the Literary Digest for February 11, 1928. It is headed, "The Cry of 'Asia for the Asiatics'", and this paragraph will no doubt interest hon. members:
Domination of the orient by European and American forces is the reason given for the frequent raising of the cry: "Asia for the Asiatics", and it appears that the endeavour to unite the various peoples in Asia in a league to combat foreign influence reveals itself every so often in a Pan-Asiatic Congress. One such is recorded in the Calcutta Amrita Bazar Patrika as being held at Nantao, a suburb of Shanghai, and it is claimed that these meetings were attended by representatives from all Asiatic countries with the exception of the Philippines and Indo-China. Mr. Imasatu, who presided at the sessions, is said to have been "trained in the school of the late Count Okuma, whose life-long slogan was 'Asia for the Asiatics.' "
5B103-70
And the article sets out the resolutions which were passed at the conference, including the following:
With a view to serve humanity, the conference recommends that Asia, the cradle of religions, should send out religious missions to Europe, America, Africa, Australia, and other countries to convert the people. The conference, recommends unity among Asiatic nations, so that they, by mutual co-operation, may defend themselves against imperial aggression.
With a view to improving the conditions of the Asiatic nations, the conference recommends better commercial relations among the different nations of Asia.
Now, if we went to Japan we would not be allowed the same privileges that the Japanese enjoy in this country. In passing, may I say that there seems to be no good reason in the world why we should have an exclusion law against the Chinese, of which the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is so proud, when we are afraid to pass a similar law against the Japanese.


Mr. AIME LANGLOIS (Chambly-Ver-cheres) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish
to add my congratulations to those already conveyed to the government for the excellent results of their administration as expressed in the budget proposals of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb).
He apprises us of the great improvement realized in the economic situation of our national railways, of an important decrease ia the country's debt, and of an appreciable reduction of the burden of taxes weighing on the Canadian ratepayers.
These results, clearly proved by statistics, have often been referred to in the house, during the course of this debate, so that I deem it useless to mention them again.
I am not far from the truth in stating that public opinion, generally speaking, is satisfied, and, I think that I am quite in order when submitting as evidence the approval of the Liberal press and a few Conservative newspapers, as for instance, the Ottawa Journal, the Gazette and the Montreal Star.
It is true that in connection with the reduction of taxation, our friends in the opposition delight in recalling that these taxes had been levied by the Liberals themselves. They, however, forget intentionally to mention that conditions in the country rendered these taxes necessary when the Liberals were recalled to power at the beginning of 1922. The last year of the Meighen administration, which comprised but nine months of the fiscal year, was liquidated by a deficit of more than $80,000,000. The previous year, the Meighen administration left a deficit of more than $90,000,000 to be

The Budget-Mr. Langlois

looked after. It was therefore evident that unless we allowed the deficits to accumulate, and destroy the confidence and credit of the country, we had to balance the budget and put in order a bad situation which had not been created by the Liberals.
It is therefore only fair to give due credit to the government for the relief given to tax payers by the lightening of their burden of taxes.
We must equally give it due credit for having dissipated forever the whisper of death which certain newspapers contended was hovering over the country.
During the last few years, each time the budget was brought down-the opposition foresaw the ruin of trade, industry and agriculture, because of the Liberal policy. It is interesting to compare these forecasts made in the house, especially during the course of the last two sessions, with the results which followed. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, as mentioned in the budget speech, "that the annual statements, within the last years, of the leaders in finance and industry have revealed a great progress and a genuine prosperity in the country." The statistics in regard to our trade are most satisfactory. Our exports add up to more than a billion dollars, and our farming products are included in this for a very substantial amount. The figures showing our favourable balance of trade, compared to those of our population, place us in the front rank among the nations of the world. On the whole, our industries are also in an advantageous situation, and the daily reports of transactions on the stock exchange show up their steady progress.
The Canadian dollar, which for a time had depreciated to one-sixth and even one-fifth of its par value, has recovered its full purchasing power. Our trade treaties, which are often the object of attacks against the government, have nevertheless found for our products advantageous markets. It is a satisfaction to know that we have sold to the countries with which we have trade treaties for $79,000,000 more than we have purchased from them.
Not being able to deny the advantages of
our economic situation, those who are trying to take away all merit from the government attribute the improvement to the intervention of Providence. Perhaps, they might become sceptical if, owing to this intervention and taking them at their word, we were to proclaim it a miracle.
The same scepticism haunts them, when conditions are less favourable. They then
think no more of Providence but of the gov-

emment, which, to their eyes is the cause of all evils.
The truth is that if the government may bear a certain responsibility when conditions are bad, it must also be given due credit when conditions are good.
An attempt is also made to prove that everything is decidedly wrong, by stating that poverty reigns among the people. It was said, very long ago, by a supreme authority: "You will always have poor people among you." All the nations of the world have verified the truth of this prophecy, and we do not escape the common lot. But when the great American nation and its wealth are constantly pointed out to us as an example, it is well to recall that in that country also, notwithstanding her policy of high protection, the majority of the people do not know what wealth is, that a considerable number of people there have difficulty in meeting their obligations, that the condition of the farmer is not so favourable as that of the Canadian farmer, and that poverty is known there as elsewhere. It is interesting to read on this subject the article "Wages and Prosperity" which appeared in the Canadian Congress Journal of February, page 17. Those who intend to go and live in the United States would do well to read this article before crossing the border.
As a whole, we have reason to be satisfied with general conditions, and to have faith in the future: our banks are sound; those who are in a position to give employment, are willing to give work, and each day we witness new enterprises springing up.
It would be proper at this time to express the wish that our great financiers, our wealthy manufacturers-induced by the eloquent remarks just made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)-improve and raise the lot of the labourer. Our tariff is harmful to no enterprise. Our manufacturers can meet competition on the home market, and they compete advantageously on foreign markets. Our organizations are thus more sound and have a better chance of developing than if their success depended solely on government protection. In fact, owing to our small population, our home market is rather restricted. We produce more than we can consume, so that we need outside markets. I am opposed to the solution which consists in opening wider the gates of our country to immigration, under the plea of developing our home market. In this century of intensive production, the increase of our population will always be exceeded by production, and the same problems will remain unsolved.

The Budget-Mr. Langlois
It would, perhaps, be better to restrict immigration somewhat, at least for the time being, and close the doors of this country to labourers who come to Canadian cities to replace our workmen. This restriction should last until the need of labour is felt. Of course, I am in favour of the policy which tends to open up our virgin lands; it would be wise in this regard to grant Canadians and our people living in the United States, who wish to take up new lands and make their home in Canada', the same advantages we afford to immigrants coming from Europe. What we must demand of our immigrants is that they be sound physically and morally: quality is more important than quantity. This restriction would have the effect of decreasing our emigration to the neighbouring republic, as Canadians would then have a better opportunity of making a living here.
If we .placed any faith in the speeches of the opposition, we might, if we ignored history, be led to believe that the emigration of our people began under the present administration because the tariff had not been sufficiently increased. I was recently reading a pamphlet in which the author asserted that from 1880 to 1890, under the regime of the national policy of Sir John Macdonald, Canada had lost, through emigration to the United States, more than 850.000 people, and that, during the ten years of the Borden-Meighen administration, the floods of emigration had carried away 750,000 people; and that these figures had increased owing to the war, as stated yesterday by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond).
When in 1919 this question was brought up in the house, the government then in power was not in a position to assure us that it had healed this wound by a high tariff, and through one of its ministers it gave this answer:
"Emigration to the United States is the result of the rapid expansion of industry and trade in the neighbouring republic and also of the numerous opportunities offered to youth to go into trade and business."
I can see there one of the reasons of the emigration of our people; I shall further add that the attraction of the American republic is increased by the fact that it is an independent nation, respectful of the freedom of its citizens, and animated by an ardent patriotism.
Canadian emigration started previous to the establishment of responsible government; the cause can be traced to the hardship of life and the lack of freedom in our country. It is therefore not proven that the protection . vaunted by the Conservatives has been a
56103-70J
sure remedy against emigration, or that the lowering of a few tariff duties by the Liberals has been one of the causes. The fiery speeches on emigration, far from bettering the situation, have but the effect of aggravating it-,
In the past, politics has too easily had recourse to the art of dividing in order to govern. Our racial contentions have prevented the growth of a Canadian spirit and weakened the ties which kept our people here. At the least reverse people prepared to leave this country where the respect due to every one was ignored, where one could not live happily.
It is more than time to definitely abandon this narrow path, where too long we have lingered. At 'this stage, it gives me infinite pleasure to warmly thank the present administration for having carried on the Liberal work of 1896, and for having contributed in a large measure to bringing about good feeling in this country, to fostering Canadian patriotism by further asserting the autonomy of this country, by obtaining for Canada as a nation a distinct representation at the League of Nations, and by inaugurating our diplomatic representation in other countries.
Rather than sing the praise of the neighbouring country, let us celebrate ours; let us rejoice at our economic progress and let us try to emphasize it by sound legislation	and	the	co-operation	of	our
Scientific Research Council, which we should compose of our ablest minds, and tio which we could confide the task of discovering the possibilities of success in the various spheres of life, thus facilitating the formation of new and Canadian enterprises for the general expansion and particularly rational development of our natural resources and industries connected with agriculture.
Let us	not	lend	a deaf ear	to	the
recriminations constantly coming from all parts of the country against the burden of taxation which weighs on us. These recriminations, while reminding us of errors of the past, implicitly tell us that more and more our policy must rest on" the exclusive interests of our country.
Mr. Speaker, a state is not only a system composed of material interests; it must moreover possess a background of common thoughts. This background of common thoughts, I would wish it to be inspired by the love of Canada and consideration for the freedom and morality of the citizen and regard for his character and personality.
On that score, I am thankful to the government for what it has accomplished in the past

The Budget-Mr. Maloney
and I have faith in what it can do in the future; and that is why I willingly give it my support.


Mr. M. J. MALONEY (South Renfrew):: I have listened for some weeks to numerous hon. gentlemen in this house discussing, with great eloquence and wonderful intelligence, the possibilities of our country. I have heard with patience, but more often with pleasure, several of my hon. friends, each with his own tale to tell, with regard to conditions as they affect the different portions of our Dominion. And I have come to the conclusion that Canada is indeed a difficult country to govern and that under ordinary circumstances the government of the day deserves commiseration rather than condemnation. If this government had really shown any effort to ameliorate conditions as they affect injuriously the great masses of our population, I for one at least "Should feel that it deserved our pity rather than our censure. But unfortunately one cannot sympathize with this government because-I at any rate am forced to this conclusion-it is not entitled to the pity of any citizen of the Dominion of Canada.
It is true a budget was presented to this house some weeks ago; it is true that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in presenting that budget spoke in millions. Nothing was too small for the minister in dealing with the finances of the country, and in a half apologetic way he claimed' prosperity for Canada. Those of us, however, who sit face to face with the Minister of Finance, and who saw that far-away look on his face, were struck by the fact that he was looking out beyond the financial institutions of Canada, which institutions he invoked to prove his argument that Canada was prosperous. He was looking beyond the large banks and insurance companies and other financial corporations in the Dominion, looking out among the common people. He was looking to the labourers, the farmers and the merchants of Canada and the rest of the other 95 per cent of the people who make up the population and who are not benefited by this budget. For these he had no cure. He would say to the farmer, to the labourer, to the miner, to the merchant, "Look at the prosperous condition of our great banks." But these other people are. not interested in this prosperity; what interests the labourer in this country is the answer to this question: "Where am I going to get a day's work with a decent day's pay?" The farmer is not interested in the millions of dollars the insurance companies and the banks are wringing out of the people of this country: he wants to know
\fr. T-anclois 1
where he is going to get the money to pay the interest on the mortgage on his farm. The answer of the minister to all these men would be, "Gentlemen, I have no hope of bettering your condition financially. The only advice I have to offer you is to work; keep on working; work hard; save; be thrifty, and' do not spend a dollar on the pleasures of life. In that way you will drag along all right." That is his answer to- the 95 per cent of our population who are not affected beneficially by this budget. Go into the street in any section of this Dominion of Canada and talk to the average citizen, wherever you meet him. As I have said, he is not interested in the prosperity of the banks and our other big institutions; he wants to know where he is going to get work and what pay he can get for that work. Go to the miner; he is not interested in this prosperity. He would ask the Minister of Finance, "What have you done to protect the industry which is supporting myself and my family?" The minister could only answer, " I have done nothing. I advise you to work; keep on working and do not spend a cent." This is a sad picture, but it is_ true.
There is one thing about this budget; it has not been boomed as have recent budgets presented by this government, for the simple reason that it is a shifting budget, one which wobbles and states nothing definitely. It shows the wavering attitude of the government; it shows their fear and demonstrates that they have not the courage to grapple with the tremendous problems which confront the people of this country to-day. The minister claims that during the last four years his government have reduced the debt of Canada by 8100,000,000, but he knows that during that same period our railway obligations amounted to much more than that sum, and he knows full well that those^ railway obligations are a black mark against the credit of Canada just as surely as any victory bond outstanding to-day.
The minister claims that this year he will reduce taxation to the extent of $19,000,000, but in an earlier paragraph in his budget speech he comes out boldly and tells the people of Canada that he expects to squeeze $10,500,000 more out of them this year than he did last year. This is the reduction in taxation. From whom is he going to squeeze this $10,500,000? Is he going to take it from those best able to pay? Is it going to come from the rich men of this country, from those drawing salaries or having incomes of $4,000, $5,000, $6,000, $8,000, or $100,000 a year? No; he knows very well that these are men of influence. Any man drawing a salary of

The Budget-Mr. Maloney
from $5,000 to $20,000 a year is usually a man of considerable influence in his own locality; the minister realizes that that influence may be required some day on behalf of himself or his associates, and he feels that he should get in strong with those men at present. He does so to the extent of reducing their burden by 10 per cent, so far as the income tax is concerned; he removes 10 per cent from the tax of the man who is able to pay it and shoves that additional burden on the shoulders of the man who is earning $2 a day and struggling to support his family.
The government claim to have reduced the sales tax, and they have reduced it. They have brought it back to where they found it in 1922, but in that very reduction they have again penalized the poor man as compared with the rich man. The hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette), in his speech a few days ago truly said that by virtue of this reduction of one per cent in the sales tax a man buying an automobile valued at $1,000 saved a ten dollar bill. That is quite true, but the hon. member forgot to bring joy to the heart of the labourer, the man earning $2 or $2.50 a day and endeavouring to support his family on that huge salary, by telling him that the next time he bought a pair of shoes for his little boy at a cost of $2 he would save two cents. If this man forgot to be thrifty for a while and became reckless enough to purchase a $5 suit of clothes * for his little boy, he would save five cents. That is the reduction in the sales tax. If we must have a sales tax, Mr. Speaker, and if it is the desire of this government to maintain that tax, why not exempt boots and shoes and articles of wearing apparel? Such things as automobiles are not necessities of life; for the immense majority of the citizens of this country an automobile is a luxury, but clothing is an absolute essential. If this government are anxious to aid those who are feeling the pinch to-day they could do so very easily by removing the sales tax altogether from articles of wearing apparel, but* have no hope that this government will do so.
I am sure the trade conditions of this country are causing the government of the day some anxiety; trade figures are not quite so pleasant to read as they were a few years ago. The Minister of Finance told us the other day that in the first nine months of the present fiscal year our exports decreased by $28,000,000, and to make matters worse we were informed that our imports had increased by $56,000,000. If this continues the day is coming when Canada will be buying
more than she sells, and we all know what happens to any man who spends more than he earns. That is the position in which Canada will some day find herself. I ask why such a condition should be present in this country, where we have tremendous natural resources which are capable of supplying not only our own needs but the requirements of foreign countries as well. Why should we be required to import goods which we can produce here in Canada?-it is an unfortunate thing that a large percentage of the importations into Canada are agricultural products and other foodstuffs. I do not attribute that at all to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe him to be a most competent man, a sincere man, a man who is making every effort for the benefit of Canada, but he is hampered by those with whom he is associated. I believe that if the minister could act in accordance with the promptings of his own mind he would introduce a fiscal system in Canada which would abolish the condition of which I spoke a moment ago. He would bring in a fiscal system which would mean stability for our industries throughout Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. To-day he has protectionists on one side of him and anti-protectionists on the other, while in front of him are those who are neither protectionists nor anti-protectionists. Therefore he is hampered in his acts, and the only policy he can evolve to-day is one which contains a free trade wink for the west and a protectionist nod for the great province of Quebec.
It is true that our balance of trade is still on the right side to the extent of some millions of dollars, but it is unfortunate that that favourable balance of trade is created by virtue of the fact that we are exporting our raw materials. It is a deplorable thing that we are shipping out of Canada to be manufactured in foreign countries raw products, which should be turned into finished articles in this Dominion. Why should we allow our products to leave Canada in a raw state? We have citizens who are as intelligent as the citizens of any other land. We have artisans who are as expert and ingenious as those of any other country. Why is it then that, we can not convert these raw materials into completely finished products in our own country? Some will say it is due to lack of capital. But in this country there are millions and millions of dollars lying idle, and outside of Canada there are billions of dollars awaiting a favourable opportunity for investment. Why can we not secure this rponey for the development of the resources of Canada? There is one reason, and one reason

The Budget-Mr. Maloney
only, and it is that the investor is afraid of the government we have. We have an unstable government, we have a group government, we have a government that will afford no protection of any kind to the man who is prepared to invest his money in developing our natural resources.
The tariff changes in the 'budget are insignificant, and I shall deal briefly with only one item, that which affects the woollen industry. I proclaim boldly that by the reduction of the duty on yarns coming into Canada, the Minister of Finance and the government are ruining the sheep growing industry in this country. Not only are they doing that but they are putting the spinning industry out of business. Furthermore, the weaving industry, an industry supposed to be benefited by this item in the tariff, will eventually be injured, because there is nothing in the wide world to prevent any private citizen supplied with yarn emanating from sweatshops in foreign countries from setting up a little plant of his own in opposition to an established Canadian industry. So even the industry referred to will eventually be injured by this tariff change. The county of Renfrew, part of which I have the honour to represent here, is admirably adapted to the growing of sheep, and the farmers of that section were hoping, as the years went by, to engage more actively in that industry. To-day the growing of wool, a most important operation, has been effectively killed by this government, and it passes my comprehension how any farmer in this house, no matter what his political affiliations may be, can stand up and defend the lowering of the duty on wool coming into Canada. This is a matter which the farmers of Canada, from one end of the country to the other, will watch very closely indeed. In addition to the wool grower and the sipinning industry, there are other industries identified with the manufacture of wool. Despite what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite to the effect that the industry has not been injuriously affected by any tariff changes, I wish to say that in the Ottawa valley at least five woollen factories have been closed down. The closing down of these five factories is undoubtedly due to tariff changes which have been brought into effect from time to time by the present administration.
All the departments of government have been under review during the last few weeks. The Post Office department has received special attention from several speakers who have preceded me, and it is in connection with some of the officers of that great department that I should like to speak for a moment. Reference has been made to post-

masters. They are an outstanding body of men, usually leaders in their own community, who are appointed because of their honesty and probity. These men-apart from those in the cities and larger towns-draw their salaries, as hon. gentlemen know, by way of commission from the revenues of the office. During the war, and for some time afterwards, the revenue of nearly every post office in the country was greatly increased because the ordinary postage stamp was employed where war tax stamps were necessary. Shortly after the conclusion of the war, for what reason I do not know, the government altered this condition. They made a change prohibiting the use of the postage stamp on cheques, or wherever a war tax stamp was required. That meant a huge reduction in the revenue of the various post offices and a consequent great diminution in the salaries of the postmasters, and this at a time when all civil servants were enjoying increases in salary. Then again, the present Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) issued an unfair proclamation which declared that the box rents in villages and small towns would be in most cases doubled. What does that mean? It means that if you reside in a village or small town there is no letter delivery system you have to walk to the post office and pay twice the amount you formerly did for the post office box containing your mail, whereas in the large centres the mail matter is delivered absolutely free. It is true that this action raised the postal revenue somewhat and to a slight extent bettered the position of the postmasters. Now did the Postmaster General do anything further for that deserving class for whom I am pleading? He did. He guillotined politically 421 of them, and to that extent relieved the unemployment situation among his own political friends. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the position of a postmaster in Canada to-day is not a desirable one, and if the Postmaster General continues the dismissal of this class of employee he will eventually find difficulty in getting men qualified to fill these positions.
The mail carriers are another boay of officials who have received some attention and sympathetic consideration from a number of hon. gentlemen who have addressed the house in this debate. These men are performing an arduous and exacting task. Some of them are working long hours, travelling over rough roads, all in the country's service, and I have always thought that any minister, no matter how cold-blooded he might be, should blush with shame when he comes to sign his name to a contract which binds a man to perform the service these men are

The Budget-Mr. Maloney
performing to-day for the' remuneration they are receiving. There will be, I believe, an application before the government for an increase up to $70 a mile. Why, in the United States, wheTe they have real roads, the mail couriers receive $75 a mile as a flat rate; they have their annual holiday and they have sick leave and everything else. In Canada the courier has nothing; but if he were even secure in the contract which he signed with this government, that would perhaps be some source of satisfaction to him.
I have in mind the case of a courier in my constituency, a most excellent official, an estimable man in every way, whose only fault, whose only failing, lay in the fact that in 1926 he voted for me. He had a contract which had three and a half years to run and after that election was over, representations were made to the Postmaster General by some .of his political friends in that constituency The Postmaster General was ordered to get that man, to get rid of him. What did he do? He instituted an inquiry, he had a questionnaire despatched to every box holder on the route, of whom there were some thirty in all. My information is that every one of those documents came back to the department of the Postmaster General strongly in favour of the courier who had that route, eulogizing him in every way and telling the department that the people in the district were entirely satisfied with his services. In face of that fact the Postmaster General deliberately cancelled the contract. I ask hon. members: Has it come to this in Canada, that a solemn contract entered into between the government of this country and a subject is no longer a contract, is no longer anything but a scrap of paper, to be tom up at the whim and will of a minister and some of those who advise him?
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) has so far escaped attention for the most part in this debate, and while the matter to which I wish to refer will come under him, I do not for a moment accuse him of such reckless extravagance as will be Shown by the item of which I desire to speak. It is proposed that we beautify the city of Ottawa. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is, I believe, the father of that proposition. Since he moved out to Prince Albert he can think only of great, wide-open spaces, and if we continue him in his present position, a day will come when the great city of Ottawa will be wiped off the map and there will be nothing but a great, wide-open space in front of the parliament buildings. I understand it is the intention of this government to spend
millions of dollars in tearing down and destroying perfectly good property in this city. We are all anxious to make Ottawa a model oity; we are all anxious to beautify it so far as we possibly can; but when this goes to the extent of spending millions of dollars in pulling down and destroying property in the heart of the city, I believe that under present circumstances, with the debt and taxes the people of this country are called upon to pay, we are going too far. There are in this beautiful city many points which, at trifling expense, can be made more beautiful still, and the Prime Minister will have some trouble in defending his action in regard to the expenditure to which I refer. When he goes out among the people of Canada; when he goes out to Alberta; when he goes out to Prince Albert; when he goes down to Nova Scotia or any of the outlying sections of the country, he will have great difficulty in convincing the people there that an expenditure of $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 in the destruction of real property in Ottawa is of more importance than bringing the produce of Alberta and Nova Scotia to the central provinces. He will have difficulty in convincing the citizens of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific that it is far better to destroy this property than to build a national highway from Halifax to Vancouver. He will have difficulty also when he comes before the citizens of Ottawa, because while many of them may favour the project, the taxpayer here is not enamoured of it; he hates to see millions of dollars of taxable property destroyed and a proportionately greater burden thrown back upon his shoulders. It is said that the Prime Minister will beautify Ottawa; that he is anxious to make Ottawa a city which will be the envy of the world. We admire him for that thought, but the stranger who comes within our gates, when he alights from the train in this city, would be far more favourably impressed by an imposing binding than by a wide open space. An imposing building would indicate industry. Would the imagination of the visitor not be more stirred by seeing substantial buildings than by seeing park benches filled with the unemployed? So much for the question of the beautification of Ottawa.
Other matters have been touched upon by several hon. gentlemen who have spoken, but one which I might mention and which is another instance of useless expenditure is the question of the money which will be spent in establishing embassies in various foreign countries. It is proposed to establish embassies at Paris and Tokyo. Both of these, if they follow along the line laid down by

The Budget-Mr. Maloney
the leader of the government when he instituted the ambassadorial palace at Washington, will cost this country millions of dollars. The Prime Minister will have our ambassadors go to Tokyo and to Paris. Why? What benefit will they be to this country? Will they bring any more trade to Canada? Will they bring any wealth from those countries to assist in increasing the prosperity of our land? Not at all. Those ambassadors are going there as official representatives of this country, and if we ever have a chance to get into trouble, why, we shall have a man on the job to start it. Far better indeed if the government, instead of spending this money on embassies, would appoint half a dozen really live, up to date agents in those countries who could procure for us a market for our surplus produce which we should be able to send them in the manufactured state.
I should like to say a word to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), who made an excellent speech in this house the other day. His most effective point was the last one he made, in which he condemned group government. In that I agree with him wholly, absolutely and entirely; but I was greatly surprised that the Minister of Railways should condemn group government with the minister himself occupying an important portfolio in a group government. The bulk of the expenditure of the minister's department, so far as this section of the country is concerned, comes I believe under the management of the Canadian National Railways. Were the Minister of Railways in his seat I should like to direct his attention to the conditions as they exist in the county which I represent, and I would ask him to tell us, for the further information of the citizens of this country, who most heartily desire to know, whether the government of Canada is running the Canadian National Railways or whether the Canadian National Railways is running the government. We are anxious as loyal citizens of Canada to see the Canadian National Railways thrive and be successful in every way; but the minister who is responsible to the people should have some say in the operation of that road. Let me tell him that in the county which I have the honour to represent, between two points on the Canadian National railway system which are twenty miles apart, it takes two days to make a round trip direct; between two other points fifty miles apart it takes three days to make a round trip direct-all because of the fact that traffic from that particular line has been diverted to suit the whims of some other sections of the province. I am speaking on behalf of a district which is to-day shipping 
thousands and thousands of dollars worth of freight, a district which by hard labour is endeavouring to forge ahead and prosper. The people of that district are denied the railway facilities which should be theirs; the Canadian National Railway under the conditions which exist to-day does not meet the convenience of the people of that section.
Further, at one very important station on that line those who have business with the railway have been obliged during the last two years, to do business with the agents of the road in a very small box car. The station at Caldwell on the Canadian National railway was burned down some two years ago, and from that day to this no move has been made to replace it. The people of that important section of a great county, the revenue from which I am sure would pay many times over the cost of building a station, are therefore compelled to do their business with the railway in a small box car, a condition which is injurious to the health of the people, and I am sure causes great inconvenience and hardship to those entrusted with the conduct of the business of the road at that point. These are matters that I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways.
During this debate the Department of Immigration has been under review by several speakers. Last session the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) was criticized, and criticized very severely. With that criticism I did not agree. The Minister of Immigration was a new man and I believed that whatever his political propensities or proclivities or changes of heart may have been, he was an honest man. He came into that department without much experience, and I felt that we should have deferred any criticism until later. That view I hold to-day. I believe that after this session is over, the Minister of Immigration will have learned something greatly to his advantage and greatly to the advantage of the important department over which he presides.
It is said that we need1 more immigrants in Canada. We do. Where should we first seek these immigrants? Should we go into foreign countries seeking foreigners? Our first duty, Mr. Speaker, should be to bring back to this country those of our own who have left. 1 have here the latest report of the registrar general for the province of Ontario, which shows that during last year he issued 17,284 birth certificates to native-born citizens of Ontario for the purpose of emigration. Those 17,284 native-born citizens of Ontario have left this country during the last year, without taking into account the thousands of others who may have been born in Quebec, the mari-times and the west.

Question Made Order for Return


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker,
my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney) has made a good speech. I admire the sturdy and robustious way in which he supports the principles of his party. However, I notice that he repeats the contention that our population is leaving us at a tremendous rate and seeking its future in the United States. I happened to receive to-day a copy of the monthly letter of the National City Bank of New York, and in paragraph 3 it deals with the unemployment situation in the United States of America. I will read the paragraph, which I think is an almost perfect answer to that part of the Conservative amendment dealing with unemployment. It says:
One of the features of the present situation which is causing concern is the amount of unemployment. For some time it has been evident that the surplus of workers was gradually increasing, but only recently has the situation become sufficiently serious to command general attention. With the sharp blump in industry at the close of last year, employment has been cut, and both federal and state labour department reports indicate the level of active factory labour in December and January to have been the lowest since 1921.
I have read this as an answer to that part of the Conservative amendment dealing with unemployment.
At this stage of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I should be pleased if you would call it six o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 8, 1928
The bouse met at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Guthrie: May I address you, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of procedure in the house with respect to question No. 9 which appeared on the order paper of yesterday. When the question was called, the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) announced that it was an order for a return, and tabled it forthwith. I find that the question is a very brief one; the answer
likewise is very brief, and there is no reason why a question and an answer such as this should not appear upon the pages of Hansard. It would be a great convenience to the members of the house if such questions did appear upon the pages of Hansard. As it is, there is but a single copy of the answer, which goes into the office of one of the clerks of the house, and it is very difficult to obtain access to it, and when a number of hon. members desire to see it, almost impossible. I would ask in regard to a question and answer of this kind, which will not take up more than half a column of Hansard, that the question and answer be printed as of to-day in the proceedings of the house. I could, I suppose, put it upon the pages of Hansard by reading fc, but I have no desire to take up the time of the house in doing so, and I would ask Your Honour to direct that the question and answer be incorporated in the pages of Hansard.


Hewitt Bostock: Of course, I am the
prisoner of this little book. Standing order 44. paragraph 4, says:
If a question is of such a nature that in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, and the minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the table of the house, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the house-
Not by the Speaker, but "by the house":
[DOT]-be deemed an order of the house to that effect, and the same shall be entered in the votes and proceedings as such.
If the minister has no objection and the house has no objection, what the hon. member asks may be done, but I am the servant of the house.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I have no recollection at the moment as to just what the question was.


Hugh Guthrie: It refers to the Mc-
Conachie case.


Robert Forke: There was no intention on
my part not to have it put upon the pages of Hansard. It was sent up to me as an order for a return. I have no objection to having the question and answer read and put upon the pages of Hansard.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house that this question and answer shall be incorporated in Hansard as tabled?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: This should really have been decided yesterday, Mr. Speaker, but I have no. objection at all so far as I am concerned, nor do I think the government has.
Question


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house, the question and the answer will appear in tomorrow's Hansard in full.


QUESTION
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	For what reasons was the McConachie
child refused admission to Canada at the port of Halifax?	,	.
2.	What officer recommended the rejection of the above-mentioned child?
3.	When was the father of this child admitted to Canada?
4.	At what port did he enter?
5.	How has he been employed since his admission to Canada?
6.	What medical officer examined this child in the old country previous to sailing for Canada?


Mr. FORKE:: 1.	Margaret McConachie was refused entry to Canada because she was a prohibited immigrant under section 3, subsection (a) of the Immigration Act, mentally defective (feebleminded).
2.	A board of inquiry was held in this case and the rejection was ordered after the hearing of evidence, including that of a medical inspector at the port.
3.	April 30, 1927.
4.	Quebec.
5.	As a miner in Nova Scotia.
6.	Dr. J. Hudson Clifford, a roster doctor, of Bellshill, Lanarkshire, reported having examined the McConachie family including Margaret on November 1, 1927, and, his report being quite clear, the movement of the family to Canada was facilitated under the usual conditions; that is, subject to medical examination at the port of arrival. Margaret McConachie was not seen by any Canadian doctor prior to sailing.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):: As there is already a good deal of private legislation awaiting action by the house, but which cannot be taken up while the budget debate continues, I would suggest, in order to expedite business, that the government and possibly the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) could get together with a view to preparing a special motion for sending this private legislation to the various committees concerned.


Ernest Lapointe: In answer to the hon. member, I do not see any private bills on the order

paper for to-day, the reason probably being that the officers of the house knew that private bills could not be taken up. The question, however, raised by him will be given consideration, and if possible we might expedite the second readings of private bills.



HUDSON STRAITS AERIAL SURVEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: I would like to ask the government if they would be willing to give consideration to the matter of rewarding in some form or other the Eskimo guide who, through his great knowledge of the north country and great skill as a pathfinder, was able to save the lives of two intrepid airmen in the employ of the government.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: We have not yet had a full report regarding the parts taken by the various members of the party who were lost; we have only reports of efforts which were made by various individuals to assist in finding them. When the report is received I shall be glad to give consideration to the suggestion of my hon. friend.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 7, 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).
Thomas William Bird: Mr. Speaker,
as a western Progressive I was very much inerested in the speech of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). It was a good speech but peculiar in some respects. In my reply to it I wish to avoid anything that could be interpreted as a personal attack. I have great respect for the hon. gentleman and, I may say, respect for the position he occupies. I quite realize that he and his colleagues are in the position they now occupy as much by the will of their constituents as by their own choice, and it would ill become me, or anyone else for that matter, to cast any slurs upon their motives. I think, however, I may well be pardoned if I reply to some points in his speech, especially as his remarks related to the subamendment

The Budget-Mr. Bird moved from this comer of the house. I noticed that my hon. friend did not criticize the substance of the amendment. As one who has been sent here by Progressive votes he knows only too well that that subamendment is a correct, precise expression of Progressive principles. It was these principles that created the Progressive party. It was these principles that sent sixty-five Progressive members to this house in 1921. It was these principles for which the Progressives fought over a period of four years on the floor of this house, first under the leadership of my hon. friend's predecessor in Marquette and later on under the leadership of the present Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke). So we can well understand that my hon. friend has no objections to make to the subamendment in itself. If he objects to our moving it; if he thinks it is inopportune for us to move it, that may be attributed largely to his present hyphenated state of mind and not to any Progressive principles he may hold.
Let me turn to the reasons he gave for supporting the budget. Did he support it because of the policy of the government in respect to the income tax? Assuredly not. He knows that the policy of the government as expressed in the budget on the income tax is an unsound and un-Progressive policy. One needs only to turn to his speech of last year to find one of the best expressions of Progressive principles on that subject that one can find on any page of Hansard. No, he is not supporting the budget for its policy on the income tax. He knows that policy is wrong; that it is unjust; that it is diametrically opposed to all the Progressive? have ever stood for. Is he supporting the budget because of its tariff schedule? Why, no. My hon. friend characterized the tariff schedule in the budget more severely than any other member I have heard speaking in this house. He called it unintelligible. That is an ugly epithet to apply to a budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). We in this comer of the house agree with him, but we cannot see in that fact any reason why we should support the budget. On an examination of my hon. friend's speech it would almost seem that there is no very sound reason why he is supporting the budget.
There is however one ray of light. He tells us that he is supporting the budget because the manufacturers and their representatives on the left of the Speaker have been raising a "owl about it. He has been in this house long enough to know that the manufacturers and their representatives in the house are in the habit of raising a howl about nothing at all.


Mr. MANION:: I rise to a point of order. As one of the members to your left, Mr. Speaker, I object to being dubbed a representative in this house of manufacturers and I think the hon. gentleman should be compelled to withdraw that statement.


Thomas William Bird: I shall be pleased to withdraw the statement, and I hope the announcement of my hon. friend will not hurt the funds of the Conservative party at the next election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw that expression and not aggravate it. I must say that to characterize an hon. member of this house as being a representative of the manufacturers is rather a stigma. Such a charge, if proved, makes any member liable to a very heavy fine and even suspension. I would ask the hon. member who has unwittingly made the remark, kindly withdraw it.
Mr. BIRD. My remark was laden with no animus whatsoever. There is a well-known animal-


Hewitt Bostock: I take it that the remark is withdrawn.


Thomas William Bird: The remark is withdrawn and I was about to say that there is a well known animal that is in the habit of biting the hand that feeds it.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. I object to this hon. gentleman referring to me as an animal that bites the hand that feeds it. The manufacturers do not feed me and I resent that remark. It is worse than the previous one.


Hewitt Bostock: I thought the hon. gentleman had withdrawn the remark. He should withdraw it.


Thomas William Bird: I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend is not that kind of animal.


Hewitt Bostock: Biologically a man is an animal; but this is an assembly of gentlemen, and hon. members should not be characterized as animals.


Thomas William Bird: I feel a very real regret, Mr. Speaker, for having made that accidental remark. I was dealing with the remarks of my hon. friend from Marquette with regard to the attitude of my hon. friends to my right who are in close association with the manufacturers of Canada and are in the habit of expressing or re-echoing the opinions of those manufacturers on the floor of this house. I would say to my hon. friend that that is not a safe guide to follow in supporting the budget. The
The Budget-Mr. Bird

other day I clipped from the Financial Post an article headed "Tariff Change Not Bothering the Cotton People." That article is a complete answer to the only reason my hon. friend gave for supporting the budget. I think this would be a good time for me to read an extract from his speech of last session. I will give only a brief excerpt, but it is a very significant one:
If we may assume with confidence that the omissions from the budget are temporary and accidental, and that future budgets will both reduce the tariff and maintain the income tax as a permanent fiscal instrument, we shall feel fully justified in voting with the government. If, on the contrary, we must assume that the government is inaugurating a new policy looking to the abolition of the income tax and making only such changes in the tariff as are dictated by expediency and not by low tariff principles, we should be compelled to vote for the amendment. Which of these courses we are to pursue can be decided in only one way-we must have from the government a categorical and incontestable statement of its position in regard to future tariff reductions. Refusal to give such a statement must inevitably be construed as an admission by the government of a desire to depart from the policy of tariff reduction.
As a commentary on that speech let me quote from the speech of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) delivered in the same debate. The member for Marquette interrupted the hon. minister by saying:
I take it from what the minister said, in reply to my address of yesterday asking for some assurance from the government in the matter, that the policy of the government is in the direction of lower tariffs, and that it is not the intention to abolish the income tax as a permanent fiscal instrument. Am I right in assuming that ?
This is what the Minister of Railways said in reply:
My hon. friend must not put words in my mouth. The words I used were explicit and they were words behind which every member of the government will stand. I may remind the hon. gentleman of what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has himself said. Some people tried to hold a pistol at the head of the Minister of Finance last year, we all know with what success: and those who try the same thing again, whether friend or foe. will find the same result.
That lesson must have had its effect upon my hon. friend within the ensuing twelve months. Last year he came down with a wild west demeanour, flourishing his pistol in the face of the, government; but after twelve months, having been talked to by the Minister of Railways, he comes down in a very different spirit. He has found out that it is a very naughty thing indeed for a Liberal-Progressive to be toting a pistol around and flourishing it in the face of the government which he is supporting; and it is more than naughty,

it is a very silly thing indeed, because the government has got a bigger pistol than he has, and when the Minister of Railways was speaking to him last year he had that pistol in his belt, and my hon. friend knew it.


An hon. MEMBER:: A cannon.


Thomas William Bird: Yes, a cannon. So much for
the extraordinary defence of the budget made by my friend from Marquette.
In the time that is left for me, Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed to make a few remarks upon the subject of group representation in this house. My hon. friend from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) made a very able defence of the group system the other day, and I do not want to cover the same ground. Fortunately group representation is more than a theory to be defended. It is a fact to be explained and to be understood, a fact that may be put to varying concrete tests, and I shall for a short time invite the house to join me in putting the idea of economic group representation to certain practical tests. First of all, let us look back and ask ourselves whether the economic idea in politics is not consistent with the development of parliamentary practice under the British system of constitutional government. I want to say emphatically that for the past hundred years the economic conception in politics has dominated and moulded British political life. Before that time undoubtedly there were political, parties in existence, but those parties had. no relation to parties as we understand them now; they represented a purely caste system in which the people had neither part nor lot. That was the age in which the party spirit dominated English public life. We go back to the time when, after the revolution, roundhead and cavalier-blessings upon their heads! because the warfare they carried on was real-gave way to Whig and Tory. From that moment the British people were committed to three generations of stagnation, not only in their political life, but in every phase of their existence with perhaps the one exception of material progress. But so far as material progress in the eighteenth century is concerned, it was associated with such practices as most of us of British birth blush to remember. I do not need to mention the horrible slave trade. Even the material advance of England at that time was a thing to be mentioned in a hushed breath. That was the age in which party politics blighted almost everything it touched. It contaminated the very springs of British life; it did not leave even

The Budget-Mr. Bird
religion, art or literature untouched. Very fortunately that period came to a sudden and inglorious end in the French revolution and in the Napoleonic wars which followed'. When the smoke of battle had rolled away the young giant of democracy was discovered stretching its mighty limbs and rubbing its drowsy eyes; and the most surprising thing of all was that out of its awakening heart there gushed forth a song more entrancing than anything that had been heard since Milton sang so gloriously the song of liberty. Those were the days when not only the political life and the economic life of England witnessed a rejuvenation, but when the very heart of England revived. I say that wherever an insincere party system is clamped upon a people it contaminates everything in the national life; nor can it help doing so. If you play upon the sincerity of the people and present to them alternatives that mean, nothing, sooner or later you dry up the very springs of national life. That period was the heyday of the party system, and the opinions of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) are therefore coeval with Queen Anne and her queer skirts and funny furniture. Those were the days when the party system triumphed, when party shrivelled up the soul of England. But even in those days there were people who penetrated the insincerity of parties. Dean Swift, another Irishman who believed in group government, in his story of Gulliver, pours his vitriolic scorn upon the party system of that day. Gulliver went to Lilliput where he discovered that there were two parties of the old stamp: there were the Big Endians and the Little Endiams, and the only difference between them consisted in the way they broke their breakfast eggs. The Big Endians broke their eggs at the big end and the Little Endians at the little end. It is the same to-day, only the egg of contention is the tariff. Now while those two parties in Lilliput waged their silly warfare there was a neighbouring prince from Blefuscu who took advantage of the strife and bled the people white, and I have no doubt he actually contributed to the party funds on both sides. This prince represented the big interests of the day, the only interests that ever profited by an insincere party system. Well, this sort of thing went on as long as it could until one day a prophet arose who discovered in the Lilliputian bible a certain passage which ran thus: "All members of the faithful shall in future break their eggs at the convenient end." Which was the convenient end? The
convenient end was the end best suited to the varying sizes of mouths in Lilliput- because in those days they sucked their eggs. In other words, the common people in those days, like the common people of to-day, were suckers. But the time had come when they would be suckers no longer. They said, "This business of breaking eggs is ours; we are the ones concerned in it and in future we will break our eggs as we like." As I say, this state of things came suddenly to an end and democracy, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, abruptly confronted the old landed aristocracy with their childish and meaningless political wrangles. Whig and Tory gave way to Liberal and Conservative early in the last century.
I am by birth and early training a Conservative, and in my younger days I was taught to revere the teachings of Burke. At the beginning of that century Burke had laid deep the true principles of Conservatism and later on in the century, in various ways, from sources which the present Liberals would not own if they knew what they were, Liberalism also took its roots. And these two parties for a generation stood for something actual and real. But the generous spirit which begot them soon evaporated and once more England was filled with the meaningless din of party shibboleths. Anyone who wants to find out what politics meant to England in the early and middle Victorian periods should take a course of reading in Carlyle and Ruskin and Matthew Arnold. The party system in England created in that country in that age nothing but a sink of misery and ugliness; there was nothing in the industrial life of England of that time for which any Christian Englishman could find any defence. This condition of things could be traced directly to the' unreal party system of the age. Fortunately, however, that period had its terminus, and after the 'sixties and 'eighties, after the enfranchisement acts of those periods, the farm labourer and the industrial worker began to realize their position; and before the end of the century there arose a party on strictly economic lines, a party which stood unexpectedly on the threshold of power and peremptorily demanded entrance. England at the end of the century was therefore committed to economic politics. The advent of the Labour party into the public life of England meant the re-orientation of British political life. One of the most significant things in British experience in recent times has been the investigation set on foot by the Liberal party into the industrial and economic problems of England. The English Liberal party, wishing to rejuvenate itself and to recover something

The Budget-Mr. Bird
of its old glory, wondered onee more how it might capture the imagination of the British people. It found that the old party platforms had no longer any hold on the popular intelligence and therefore, at its own expense, it initiated one of the most thoroughgoing industrial inquisitions that England has ever known, with the object of placing the Liberal party squarely upon an economic basis. The "condition of England question" has at last become an economic question.
My time is going. I have dipped rather insufficiently into the past, and I should like to take a quick survey of contemporaneous political life. When we examine the countries of Europe we find that in all that continent, wherever political enlightenment really prevails, every country is a multi-party country with a strongly economic flavour. Let us consider Denmark, that wonderful little country. The other day a prominent Canadian said that "whenever he addressed an audience on agricultural topics he became obsessed with Denmark, that wonderful little country which sets an example to the rest of the world in agricultural co-operation and intensive production. That is the country to which the Canadian National Railways recently sent a delegation of five hundred farmers to see how farming should be carried on, and Denmark is a typical multi-group country. In the election of 1924 there were four groups; the Social Democrats, who came to power; the Agrarians, next in strength; the Conservatives and the Radicals. Where are the Liberals in Denmark? They do not exist, because in that country politics rest securely upon economic questions, and a curious fact is that after the election in 1921 the strength of the parties was such that the Agrarians joined hands with the Conservatives in order to form a government. That proves that some of these speakers across the way were wrong when they discounted any possible co-operation we might give the Conservative party. In Denmark the Conservatives form the citizen class in the small towns, and unlike the dwellers in the small towns of Canada they know on which side their bread is buttered; they know they derive their living from the farmers, and when it comes to economic and political questions they join hands with the farmers.
The Minister of Railways dragged in Italy and Spain, but discreetly overlooked those northern countries. Italy and Spain are the most backward countries in Europe, and the minister said the present regrettable political conditions existing in those countries was due to the group system. Mr. Speaker, the present conditions in those countries are not due to the group system but to the per-
sistence of a party system which has outgrown its day. In 1870, when Italy adopted union, the people divided up into parties consisting of the Right, the Left and the Centre. Those parties meant something at that time, but they quickly lost touch with the people, and for generations kept the people with their noses to the grindstone. They oppressed them; they kept them illiterate and ignorant. Forty per cent of the people are illiterate, and they were kept poor beyond all imagination. That was the condition against which the people revolted, and it is to the eternal honour of those Italians that they did rebel; it shows that they have something of the old spirit in them. They went to extremes, of course, but you cannot expect a people 40 per cent of whom are illiterate and with no political experience to do things wisely. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that those blundering failures of Italy and Spain-because Spain is in exactly the same condition-are only temporary. Surely the people who inherit the political genius of a Machiavelli and the patriotic passion of a Mazzini will win through.
I will leave consideration of the United States, although I think that country presents the greatest object lesson of what a two-party system can do to a long-suffering people. I need go no further than the speech of the Minister of Railways to prove that the country to our south, with its two parties, is not exactly a happy country in which to live. The lower classes in the United States, the working men and the farmers on the prairies, have been suffering under an intolerable oppression under that insincere two-party system. President Wilson once said of his own country, "An invisible government has erected itself above the forms of democracy." That is what special privilege is doing all the time, and in the party system it finds its easiest tool. A few generations ago, when the privileged classes found that they could no longer use the gibbet and the quartering knife, they turned to the party system and have found it even more successful in oppressing the people, because so far as the British people are concerned it is always easier to fool them than to frighten them.
I desire now to come down to the parties as we have them in this house. We do not need to go to Europe to prove that the group system has a logical and inevitable place in public life in Canada; I need only point to the Labour party, whose existence in this house for several years is sufficient proof that labour has its own point of view. What about the farmers? In 1921 and earlier the farmers felt the pinch of economic pressure;

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie
they turned to the old parties, Conservatives and Liberals, for a way out. They were something like Alice, who became lost in the woods and who wanted to find a way out. She went to ask Tweedledee and Tweedledum -Dum and Dee. I think you know what Dee stands for; Lewis Carroll was, I think, a clergyman like myself, and did not like to say. As she went along the path she found that the sign boards pointing to their houses lead in the same direction, and at last she exclaimed "Why, I do believe they both live in the same house." When she discovered them, one had a very irritating way of answering questions by saying "Nohow" while the other said "Contrariwise." So when the farmers went to the old parties and asked them to lower the tariff, the Liberals said "Nohow" and the Conservatives said "Contrariwise." In 1921 the farmers of the west were lost in the woods of economic difficulties, but when they turned to the old parties they could get no help.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, in the first place may I be permitted to congratulate the house on the fact that the new forty minute rule is in operation for the first time during the course of a budget debate. I am one of those who had an opportunity of listening to a great many budget debates in this house, and I express it as my opinion that the new rule is working well, and that taking the general average, the quality of the speeches delivered since this debate began has been higher than that observable in previous debates. There has been more of concentration on the part of hon. members; they have been far more concise in their remarks, and I think the speeches which have been delivered from every quarter of the house have produced a better effect generally than those which we have been accustomed to hear in former sessions. I heartily support the new rule in every respect, Sir.
Since time is limited one cannot attempt to do more than touch lightly upon some of the many aspects of the budget as presented to parliament this session. I think in some ways the method of presenting the budget in this house is open to objection; there is room for a good deal of improvement. The nop-disclosure of so many important matters by the Minister of Finance may lead, in many instances, and does lead, to improper conclusions being drawn in regard to the actual financial position of the Dominion of Canada at present. No one could gather from the budget speech or from the public accounts which have been laid on
the table that the most important financial commitment of this country to-day is in respect of the Canadian National Railways. It far transcends in magnitude and importance all other conditions or circumstances in connection with our national finances. Yet in the budget speech offered by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance a few days ago, only one brief paragraph is devoted to matters pertaining to the finances of the Canadian National Railways. It is true that in a single sentence the minister announced that during the past year there had been an issue of guaranteed bonds by the railway company to the amount of $65,000,000. Apart from that brief announcement there is nothing to lead either the members of this house or the people of Canada to realize that the most important financial commitments of Canada to-day are in respect to the railway system owned by the Dominion. Now my suggestion is that a financial statement of Canada should furnish fuller information in regard to the financial position of the national railway system than anything we have before us at the present time. The Minister of Finance contents himself with producing a general balance sheet of the Dominion, but that is only one page of the ledger. Side by side with that general annual balance sheet should be a balance sheet, in concise form if necessary, of the Canadian National railway system; and if both pages of the ledger were produced side by side the people of Canada, as well as the members of this house, could form a better conclusion as to the real condition of our finances than is to be derived either from the budget speech or the public accounts which was laid on the table a few days ago. I do not suggest that the Minister of Finance is either the author or the originator of the present system. My suggestion to my hon. friend the minister is simply that on the next occasion on which he is called upon to make a financial statement in this house he will see to it that the most important financial commitments of this country be not disregarded, but be laid, with some elaboration, before parliament in order that hon. members may be able to realize the exact situation. After all. we all understand that this Dominion constitutes but a single political entity. There is but one government. It is true there are many departments of that government, but the departments of government are all intimately corelated and all thoroughly interdependent. There is but one common head, one common fund, one common liability, and one common responsibility. Indeed I think I might say in the language of the Apostle Paul: While there are many members there
The Budget-Mr. Guthrie

is but one body. " The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee. Nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. And whether one member suffer all the members suffer with it." So it is with the government of Canada, responsibility of every public department finally rests in the body politic, which is the government itself.
Now this year's budget contains, perhaps, one notable feature. Since the last session of parliament the Minister of Finance has undertaken to have an audit of his departmental accounts by a firm of chartered accountants, and for the first time, I think, we find in the public accounts to-day a certificate from a firm of chartered accountants to say, that for the years 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927 they have examined the public accounts of Canada and have found them to be correct. But
there is in that same certificate an express reservation in regard to the railroad liabilities of the Dominion. That is to be noted, Mr. Speaker, and it is likewise to be noted that the audit is only extended over four years. Now during the course of the present debate the Minister of Finance was asked as to how he came to have an audit of his accounts made^ by chartered accountants, and in reply he said that he had seen a speech of mine in the newspapers, and had sent that speech to a firm of chartered accountants in Montreal and asked them for an audit-I do not know whether it was an audit of my speech or of the public accounts of Canada. Well I want to tell the Minister of Finance that 1 have no complaint against the public accounts of Canada. I have no quarrel with this audit even. I have always accepted the public accounts as genuine and correct and I have never challenged them. What I have challenged on more than one occasion are ministerial statements made in this house and in the country in respect of those public accounts. And when ministerial statements do not agree with the public accounts I have always sided with the Auditor General and submitted that the public accounts were correct and the ministerial statements which disagreed with them were incorrect. Now if my hon, friend the Minister of Finance desires to send speeches to a firm of chartered accountants, I would suggest to him that instead of sending my speeches he send some speeches of his own and ask the accountants to make a report upon them. I refer specifically, for the information of the Minister of
Finance who is now in his seat, to the speech which he delivered in this chamber on April 10, 1924 and in which he made this statement :
tMr Onthrie.1
These two amounts, totalling $9,622,760.37, together with $20,786,349 surplus of revenue over total expenditures, reduce our net public
$30 409 109^37IarC^	hy the amount of
That statement was made in this house. It appears in unrevised Hansard in these words, it apears in revised Hansard in the same words, and in a special edition of his speech prepared at the instance of the Minister of Finance and sent broadcast through the Dominion. I maintain the minister's statement is not correct, and if the minister will read his own statement and turn to the public accounts of his own department he will find that instead of having a surplus of 830,000,000 odd on March 31, 1923, the public accounts disclose that there was a deficit of approximately $31,000,000. Now let him send his speech to the chartered accountants and let them report upon it. I will grant you it is probably a mistake on the part of the Minister of Finance; he has probably made a slip.


Mr. ROBB:: No, no.


Hugh Guthrie: He has probably made an error, but the slip or the error was rather an important one. Instead of a surplus of thirty millions the actual figures show a deficit of thirty-one millions, a difference in the public accounts of Canada of $61,000,000. The newspapers always give the speeches of the Minister of Finance great prominence. His supporters use them throughout the country on the hustings and the parrot-like propensities of his followers in this house have been fully displayed upon every political platform. They start off under the impression that the minister's statement in this house in 1924 was a correct statement. They do not know that he was $61,000,000 out in his calculation or in his statement. Why we heard very recently, in the by-election in North Huron, Liberal speakers claiming that there had been a reduction in the national debt of $166,000,000 during the last five years, notwithstanding the fact that the riding was flooded with pamphlets published by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) to show incidentally that, in four years the reduction in the net debt of Canada was only $105,000,000, The $61,000,000 mistake of the minister made the difference. Many Liberal orators actually claimed a reduction of $166,000,000. If that election had been prolonged another couple of weeks, some Liberal orator would have had the whole national debt of Canada paid off! Why does the Minister of Finance start his accounting with the year 1924? Why does he select a thoroughly artificial, arbitrary starting point? He has been a member of the Liberal administration or the Liberal

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie
party since they took power in this house, and he knows the attitude assumed in regard to this question by his predecessor in office, the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding.


James Alexander Robb: May I answer my hon. friend?


Hugh Guthrie: The minister will have
a reply in this debate and he may answer then. I know the attitude assumed by the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding when he was Minister of Finance. He absolutely repudiated any responsibility for the year 1922. In his budget speech delivered in in this house on the 11th May, 1923, he referred to 1922 as a Conservative year and stated that only three months of it were under the control of the Liberal government. That is true. It was the Conservatives who prepared the estimates and arranged all the financial details for that year. Nobody would seek to charge the Liberal government with the year 1922, but Mr. Fielding always manfully assumed responsibility for the year 1923. The Liberal government had complete control of the finances of Canada for the year 1923. They prepared the estimates; they spent the money, and they are responsible for all that took place during that year, but the present minister wants to get from under in respect of 1923. What does Mr. Fielding say in regard to 1922? When he spoke in this house on the 11th of May, 1923, he had not a bad showing to make financially. He announced that he had received in ordinary revenue in 1922 $381,000,000; that he had spent in ordinary expenditure $347,000,000, and he was able to declare a surplus of $34,000,000 of revenue over expenditures. But he said that he must pay all capital and special charges which amounted to $18,000,000, and even after paying all these outgoings he was able to proclaim for 1922 an actual surplus of $16,000,000. But this is where the trouble came in. Railway financing for that year took $97,000,000 which Mr. Fielding paid out of the treasury of the Dominion of Canada, leaving a deficit in the public accounts for 1922 of $81,000,000.
What did Mr. Fielding say about the year 1923? He was also able to exhibit a very substantial surplus. He had a surplus of ordinary revenue over expenditures of over $62,000,000. Then he paid all of his capital expenditures and special expenditures amounting to $24,000,000 and he still had a balance of more than $37,500,000 for the year 1923. But again trouble arose through the national railways of Canada which called upon him to pay deficits amounting to $92,000,000, and the merchant marine amounting to $6,000,000, or a total deficit of $98,000,000, which were paid out of the treasury of 56103-71
Canada, leaving him after all calls had been met with a deficit of $31,000,000 for that year. Mr. Fielding delivered on that occasion his last budget speech and since that date the budget speeches in this house have been delivered by the present Minister of Finance. I have asked hon. members to note that the Minister of Finance takes as his starting point the year 1924, disregarding the fact that his predecessor always took the year 1923, as the starting point of the Liberal administration.
I come now to another branch of the question, that is in connection with the Canadian National railway finances. I received only two hours ago through the courtesy of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) a copy of the financial statement of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1927, and I have had time only to glance casually over that rather voluminous document and to satisfy myself as to certain salient features of it. I think this house received a few days ago in the speech of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) more real and useful information and more sound criticism in regard to Dominion railway financing than it has received in this chamber in many years. I heard his speech; I afterwards read it with the greatest of interest and if in the figures which I quote I am not able to agree entirely with those quoted by him, all I can say is that I have before me the Canadian National railway report for the year 1927 which was laid on the table of the house yesterday and which he did not have an opportunity of examining when he made his speech. However any discrepancies in our figures are not very material. I was amazed when the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George announced in this chamber that the indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways, not to the government of Canada but to the investing public, now amounted to the enormous sum of $981,000,000. I find that in the statement just issued that figure is correct. My statements as to amounts are all made in round numbers; I am not dealing in odd figures. Of that sum of $981,000,000 which the public have as a first charge against our railways, $657,000,000 is guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada as to principal and interest, $93,000,000 is guaranteed by the various provinces and the unguaranteed portion amounts to $231,000,000. But for the whole $981,000,000 the Dominion of Canada is responsible. This country is the owner of that road subject to a prior mortgage. These bonds on maturity must be paid and the interest on them must be maintained and

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie

paid. This country can never afford to allow any creditor of that railway system to seek to put it into liquidation or to wind it up under the Railway Act. We must protect it. Therefore in the final analysis we are responsible for 8981,000,000 worth of bonds, the larger portion of which we have actually guaranteed.
But on the other side of the page what do we find? We find that in addition to that, the obligations of that railway system directly to the Dominion government are as follows:
Cash advances	$595,000,000
Unpaid interest	 226,000,000
Appropriations account, government railways	 436,000,000
Total, about	$1,258,000,000
Such is the claim of the government of Canada which comes subsequent to the claim of bondholders to the extent of $981,000,000, making a total indebtedness in respect of the national railways as of this date of $2,237,000,000. These figures are astounding. It is difficult to comprehend them. They bulk too large for the ordinary mind or imagination but they are the figures which are submitted to parliament by the Minister of Railways in the national railway report tabled yesterday.
What is the position to-day in regard to these railways? According to this report, the position is that the total operating revenue last year was $256,000,000, and the total operating expenses $214,000,000, and the year closed with a net revenue from operation of $42,000,000. I think we should congratulate the president and the board of management of the Canadian National Railways upon the splendid showing they have made during the past year, and of all men I think the one who should be the first to tender his thanks and congratulations to the president is my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.
What was the situation in connection with the national railway on January 1, 1923. The situation then was that the net operating revenue of the Canadian National system was 84,155,000. That figure was announced by Sir Henry Thornton in a speech in Toronto on the 13th of February last. On January 1, 1923, the net earnings of the road were $4,155,000. I pass now to 1924. A change had taken place by that time, through the efficient management of Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors, and the net operating revenue had risen in 1924 to $18,000,000 odd-a rise in one year of $14.000,000-so that the treasury of the
[Mr Guthrie.]
Dominion of Canada, which is in charge of the Minister of Finance, was relieved of railway payments that year to the amount of $14,000,000 which had to be paid out of the treasury the year before. In 1925 there was a further increase in net operating revenue to $33,000,000, as against $4,000,000 in 1923. In 1926 the net operating revenue had increased to $48,000,000, and in 1927, the year just closed, these earnings had been $42,000,000.
Now what do the figures I have just given for these four years mean? The increase in 1924 was $14,000,000, in 1925, $29,000,000, in 1926, $44,000,000, and in 1927, the year just closed, $38,000,000, or a total increase in the net earnings of the railway in those four years of $125,000,000-1125,000,000 which formerly had to be withdrawn from the treasury of the Dominion, but of which the treasury during the last four years has received the direct benefit on account of increased earnings of the road. Nobody will pretend-not the Minister of Railways, for he knows too well, nor the Minister of Finance -that this government or any member of it is entitled to a particle of credit for the improved showing made in connection with the Canadian National Railways. The management of the road is supposed to be entirely divorced from government control. It is under the absolute control, so far as management goes, of Sir Henry Thornton and his board, without government interference, and they are entitled to the full credit for the result obtained-$125,000,000 of relief for the treasury of Canada in four years. Now look at the boasts of this government and of the Minister of Finance that in the last four years they have paid off $105,000,000 of the net debt of this country-$20,000,000 less than the actual relief that they received from the Canadian National railway system under the management of Sir Henry Thornton, and under conditions which do not entitle the government to one particle of credit
Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that in a proper financial statement presented to this house, the facts and figures I have given should be set side by side with the general financial statement showing the reductions of the national debt. The Finance minister has actually received in relief $125,000,000 from the railway, and he has paid off from the net debt of Canada in those four years only $105,000,000, and yet he calmly accepts congratulation and applause for himself and hi.s friends accord it to him. The real fact is that the Finance minister and the Minister of Railways are endeavouring to appropriate

The Budget-Mr. Guthrie
to themselves the credit that is due to Sir Henry Thornton. They are endeavouring to bask in the reflected glory of the president of the Canadian National Railways without there being the slightest foundation for their claiming any credit for his achievement.
But what has been going on during the last five years in financing the debts of the national railways? During the last five years the bonded indebtedness of the national railways has been climbing at an alarming pace. On December 31, 1923, the bonded indebtedness of the national railways to the public was $823,000,000; on December 31st last the bonded indebtedness to the public was $981,000,000; in other words, the bonded indebtedness of the railway has been increased in that five year period by $158,000,000, for which this country has granted its guarantee of payment both as to principal and interest in every instance- $158,000,000 of increased liabilities, and only $105,000,000 of decreased public debt in this country. Can one fairly separate the figures? Should they not be considered together? Should they not be set side by side and expounded together by the Minister of Finance to this house? Do the people of Canada or even the members of this house realize the extent to which these guarantees are growing? I met a man in Ottawa, not in this house, who asked me why it was that Canada was called upon to guarantee the bonds of the Canadian National Railways. I assume that every member of this house knows why. Because the Canadian National railway system is an insolvent system, and I am sorry to have to say that you will find, if you look at the railway statement, that on the 31st of December last it was insolvent almost to the extent of half a billion dollars, according to the statement signed by Sir Henry Thornton, the president of the road, or to be exact, the road is behind $443,000,000. Do you wonder that the railway cannot raise a dollar on its own bonds? Do you wonder that it cannot go into the money market and borrow a dollar on its own securities unless it puts up special pledges of rolling stock and the like?


Mr. DUNNING:: The same as any other
road.


Hugh Guthrie: The railway has to come
to the government and get its guarantee in order to float a loan, and the moment the Finance minister puts his name on the back of one of these bonds it becomes a positive liability of the Dominion of Canada which some day the Dominion treasury will be called upon to pay. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways shakes his head. In the excellent speech which he made in this house a few days 56103-711
age he said: We have followed this principle of not recognizing these guarantees as liabilities or debts because in the province of Ontario the provincial government does not recognize the guaranteed bonds of the Hydro Electric Power Commission as debts of the province.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; I must beg my hon. friend's pardon.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the one case which the minister cited-


Charles Avery Dunning: As an instance.


Hugh Guthrie: *-in justification of the method of book-keeping adopted by this government. Let me point out to him that the cases are not parallel. This government is guaranteeing the bonds of an insolvent company; the Ontario government is guaranteeing the bonds of perhaps the strongest financial corporation in North America to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why do they guarantee
them?


Hugh Guthrie: For every dollar of
guarantee of Hydro Electric Power Commission securities in Ontario, there are many, many millions of dollars of physical assets in excess of the guarantee.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why the guarantee then?


Hugh Guthrie: The guarantee is for the purpose of allowing the hydro-electric commission'-it is really but an association of certain interested municipalities-to go into the money markets and be recognized as a financial institution and be in a position to secure money at the lowest possible rate of interest.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly.


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend not see the distinction between guaranteeing the bonds of an insolvent institution and those of a perfectly solvent institution?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not admit that it is insolvent.


Hugh Guthrie: In the one case you incur liability, in the other you do not. If my hon. friend does not see the distinction I am not going to labour the matter any more, because I am satisfied that I cannot make him see it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the point which I desire to make is this, that if credit be due to anyone in respect to the reduction of the net debt of the' Dominion, that credit is directly due to the management of the Canadian National Railways; for the improved showing which they have been able to make and for the relief which for the last four years they
The Budget-Mr. Guthrie

have been able to afford to the treasury of Canada. Without one move of the hand or - one stroke of the pen by the Finance Minister or any of his colleagues, Sir Henry Thornton and his board have accomplished that feat, and to them credit ia due, and to them the thanks of the country should be returned.
I have only one other observation to make, and I have but a few minutes in which to make it. There is another aspect of the budget I do wish to mention, and it is in regard to what I call the iniquitous sales tax. On a former occasion during the present session I mentioned the sales tax, and I told the Minister of Finance that so far as it was in the power of an opposition to make demands upon the government, this opposition was going to demand the abolition of the sales tax during the present session of parliament. I regret that the tax has not been abolished; it has merely been reduced to that point at which it was seven years ago when the Liberal government took office. The sales tax was imposed as purely a war measure. The war has been over for ten years, but this administration still maintains that iniquitous burden on the people' of this country. My hon. friend the Finance minister may wave his hand and announce that he has made another cut in the income tax, and the wealthy men of Canada will appreciate that no doubt; but if he had wiped out the sales tax he would have conferred a benefit, not upon the wealthy, but upon the people of the Dominion least able to bear that tax. I had to smile when in delivering his budget speech the Minister of Finance came to that particular portion where he discussed the changes in tariff rates in regard to woollens. What do you think he said? Does anyone remember? These are his words:
In revising the woollen schedules two main considerations have been kept in mind, the vital necessity for warm clothing in a climate such as ours,-
That is the first consideration, and I remember the seraphic smile that passed over his face as he slowly raised his eyes to heaven and in measured tones pronounced those solemn words. What do his changes in the woollen tariff mean to the ordinary man in the street who buys a suit of clothes? They involve a difference of about two cents a yard-all the manufacturers' profit in many instances, I grant you. That difference represents seven, eight, or nine cents on a suit of clothes, something that will never be passed on to the purchaser but will be absorbed by intermediaries. Now, cannot I warm up his heart in regard to the sales tax? I agree that
[Mr Guthrie.]
ours is a cold climate in the winter season; people must wear woollen clothes. By retaining this sales tax of three per cent a man has to pay an extra ninety cents on. a $30-suit of clothes. Do the people of Canada yet realize that they are paying this iniquitous tax into the treasury? Do they know that this war burden is still in force? I know the complaint is made from time to time that the retail merchants are still keeping up prices, but do the people realize that on $100 worth of purchases of boots and shoes, clothing, furniture, everything save food, they have to pay to-day $3 into the treasury of Canada to help in the reduction of the national debt? I do not believe they realize that. Four per cent they paid last year, five per cent the year before, and six per cent for a while. And with what a grand flourish the ministers of the crown announced these reductions! Last year the minister said: We have reduced the sales tax twenty per cent. It sounded like a large reduction, but it was only one per cent as a matter of fact-one cent on a dollar. The other day the minister announced: We have reduced the sales tax 25 per cent. The ordinary people thought: It must be gone this time sure. But only another cent has been shaved off the top, and for every $100 worth of clothing, hats, mitts, boots and shoes, to be worn in this cold climate of ours, three dollars must be paid into the treasury, although the war was over ten years ago. What did the minister say last session? " Why," he said, "how can I do it?"


Hewitt Bostock: Time.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac):	Mr. Speaker, I regret that the new rule compelled you to call "time1" on my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who, to my mind, has this afternoon delivered the greatest eulogy on the Liberal party that I have ever listened to. He made out a most complete case for the administration, as he usually does when he prepares his speeches. He started by saying that the members of the government were an entity, one body, and he quoted scripture to prove that every member of the cabinet was responsible for all governmental action regardless of the department in which it originated. He castigated my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) for saying anything about the Canadian National Railways, and then he proceeded to show that under the Liberal administration, which had selected Sir Henry Thornton as the president and manager of the system, it had been brought out of the condition of chaos in which he and his party left it a few years ago, and he praised Sir

The Budget-Mr. Cahill
Henry Thornton for the marvellous surpluses earned by the system during the time he has been in office. If anything more were required to demonstrate the virtues of this government than the fine eulogy pronounced by my hon. friend this afternoon, I do not know where you would look for it. Certainly when you eulogize the success and progress of the Canadian National Railways, that very satisfactory condition of affairs cannot be separated from the prosperity of Canada generally.


Mr. SPOTTEN:: Who built the Grand
Trunk Pacific?


Mr. CAHILL:: Who bought the railways
under closure? My hon. friend from South Wellington, who to-day eulogized the management. He could never do that when he and his Conservative friends were in control of the Canadian National Railways. But, as the hon. member said, you cannot divorce the success of the Canadian National Railways from the prosperity of Canada; and the prosperity which he spoke of must be attributable to the government of Canada-to the government of the day. If our railways were able to earn the dividends which he mentioned, it was only because of the good government which we have had since he and his friends left office in 1921.
My hon. friends reason that the debt should include guarantees of the Canadian National Railways. I do not know what system of book-keeping they would set up in order to show that two parties were liable for the same debt. If the Canadian National Railways are earning dividends on their debt to the public, why ^how it in the Canadian statement of Canadian affairs? If they were not, it would have to be added, as was done in the past, as non-active securities of Canada. That was the system adopted under the Conservative regime. They showed that advances to the Canadian National Railways were non-productive, and they were classed as non-active assets; the Conservatives did not figure that they would ever be able to realize anything from them. But when the Canadian National Railway system reached the stage where it was earning interest on its debt to the public it would be impossible to show in the Canadian statement a $40,000,000 guarantee of a loan and charge that as a liability against the Dominion government, while Charging the same thing against the Canadian National. There is no better way of dealing with the matter than the method followed by the Conservative party, nor is there a better method than that now pursued by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). You
are not telling the public anything new when you say that the government have guaranteed the stock of the Canadian National Railways; the people know that. The people also know that under this administration interest is being paid on account of the debt-something which was never known before in the history of the railways under the Conservative administration.
My hon. friend complained of the huge debt of the Canadian National Railways. I realize that it is huge. But the hon. gentleman must take responsibility for a large part of that debt: he and his colleagues in the house insisted, by closure, on paying to the owners of the stock of both railways which they took over an excessive, exorbitant price, when they could have foreclosed and saved hundreds of millions of dollars to the Canadian people. Of course, the railway is heavily loaded with debt,'but to my hon. friends opposite must be charged the responsibility; it is not attributable to this government.
I notice that the party opposite are trying very hard to get into the good graces of the people again by their support of the Canadian National Railways. My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George, however, apparently slipped, although he was quickly brought to time by his colleagues around him. The people of Canada know that the Canadian National Railways must be supported by public opinion if the system is to succeed, and I am very glad to see that our friends opposite are now taking the attitude that they too will deal fairly with the Canadian National.


Mr. CAHAN:: Did my hon. friend learn
anything to the contrary from my speech?


Frank S. Cahill: I thought I did.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You are entirely mistaken.


Frank S. Cahill: Perhaps I am. Now, Mr. Speaker, during this debate I have listened with great attention to the criticisms of the budget by hon. gentlemen opposite, and the more I listen the more I am impressed with the greatness of that fine Canadian leader, Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir John Macdonald was a statesman who was both farsighted and ingenious; he was responsible to a large extent for the confederation of Canada and for the construction of a line of railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. He helped in large measure in his time to develop Canada and Canadian resources and to make the Canadian people happy in Canada. But Sir John did propound one fallacy, the fallacy that protection is a cure-all, the fallacy that you can lift yourself by your boot straps, or that a nation can tax itself rich. My hon. friends of the Conservative party have lived for fifty
The Budget-Mr. Cahill

years or more in a somnambulant state: they have not evolved one new idea or thought except that which they constantly repeat, that protection is a cure-all for the ills of Canada.
During that early period of railway construction there was prosperity in Canada; we know that from statistics and from the history of the time. After the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway and the settlement in the west of a nucleus of farmers who proved to the world that western Canada was a profitable country to .farm in, that it was feasible to farm here,-after the construction of that road, I say, there set in the natural depression which follows construction works in any country. We wraited for ten years until that other great statesman came to the front-Sir Wilfrid Laurier. After the west had been proven Sir Wilfrid Laurier undertook to fill the vacant spaces in that part of the Dominion and instituted a railway construction program which offered employment to all the people who came to Canada. Every immigrant was able to find employment, was able to take up free land: and during that period we had a great influx of immigration and a time of prosperity. But since that day there has been no immigration policy so far as the governments of Canada are concerned. The present policy could not by any stretch of the imagination be called an immigration policy: a policy of assisted immigration, bringing in people at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, is not to be considered an immigration policy. The Conservative party had never had a shred of policy that could be called an immigration policy. After all, there is only one immigration policy. Study the question as you will, look around as you will, there is only one immigration policy for Canada or for any other country, and that is a policy that will make for the best interests of all the people. That is the kind of policy that brought people to Canada before, and that is the only policy that will bring them again. As to this cry of the lack of an immigration policy, the lack of a policy by reason of the fact that there is no protection, the people of Canada have suffered under protection for many years, and on this point I should like to see a referendum taken in Canada on the question of lower or higher tariffs, on the question of free trade or protection. I am convinced that 70 per cent of the people would be in favour of a low tariff or of free trade. In this connection I am reminded of a policy which I believe would be useful to Canada; I think it is a platform that might well be adopted by the Liberal party. I refer to these words of Lord Macaulay:
Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining them-
IUi. Cahill.1
selves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment; by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law, and by observing strict economy in every department of the state. Let the government do this: the people will assuredly do the rest.
That is a policy that might well be adopted by Canada. It is a policy that might serve as a guide for this country, a guide against legislating in favour of any class, a guide that would permit the government to legislate in such a way that all who come to Canada will have an equal opportunity to make their own living, to reap the benefits of their own efforts, without being handicapped by some of the legislation which has been on the Canadian statute books for many years.
We are handicapped in this country by our insane banking system. It is almost impossible to get people to advocate a change in that system. I have heard it remarked in the house that the only people who are opposed to the present banking system are the people who cannot get credit. It occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, that possibly those who supported the present banking system had notes coming due, and were therefore afraid to oppose the banks. However. the system is handicapping our people; it is one of the great drawbacks in the maritime provinces, one of the things which bring their representatives here year after year pleading with this government for assistance. From their association with hon. members opposite these representatives eventually came to the decision that something should be done for them by the government by taxing the people, and of course taxing themselves as well. That is a species of Tory socialism, that you can tax yourself rich. A great deal of their complaint is due to that very cause, just as the farmers in the west complained a few years ago until they evolved a plan whereby they marketed their wheat co-operatively and took conditions as they found them. By that process they have reaped more of the benefits of their labour than was previously the case. When those western farmers first attempted the co-operative movement, however, they were blocked by the banks of Canada and placed1 in a most awkward position. They had to go outside Canada for assistance in order to finance their undertaking, until finally the Canadian banks found they could not block them any longer and came to their aid. This system has accumulated the
MARCH 8, 1928	H27
The Budget-Mr. Macdonald (Cape Breton)
finances of Canada in the two great centres of the east, and until that system is changed it is impossible to legislate in such a way as will give equal opportunities to every Canadian. Until that time comes, and some adjustments are made in our present laws, it is useless for us to spend money on an immigration policy in an attempt to bring people to Canada to work under the same handicap. They realize what they are up against before they come here, and many of them refuse to enter Canada because they know that under our present conditions we are not doing all we can for even our own people.
While I am on this subject, Mr. Speaker, there is one poiat I should like to develop. Ever since I have been in this house I have heard the point stressed by both parties and by the different leaders that a preference of some sort should be given to the Britisher. That might be all very well if, by that preference, you are not putting the other fellow in the position of a second rater. Every time you say you have a first choice, all others must be a secondary consideration; they must necessarily be second choices. The man who comes to this country to live is very sensitive, and when you point out to him that you have a first, a second and possibly a third choice he does not care to be placed in anything but the first class. Every man who comes to Canada should be accepted as a Canadian; he should be allowed to grow up in Canada as a Canadian without any such classification. I venture to say that many members of this house, if not a majority of the members, are not descended from people coming from the British Isles; to them you say you prefer some person else. To the German settler on the prairies, to the American settler or to the man coming from any other country but Great Britain you say: You are only second choice. I believe the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Eorke), the members of the government and the members of the opposition in speaking on immigration matters should hesitate to classify any man coming to Canada as less than a first class Canadian.
If we would devote a little time and attention to really working out our problems, in a very short time we would have no immigration problem. I have listened for some weeks to a discussion of this budget, but I have failed to hear one constructive suggestion. Hon. gentlemen opposite have brought forward the old shibboleth of higher tariff, higher taxes; that is the only theory the Tory party can suggest for the ills of this country. Further taxation is to cure everything 1 II the parliament of Canada had devoted the
time spent in this debate to an earnest attempt to find out what could be done to stop emigration, to promote immigration and to assist the people already in Canada we would be very much better off. We have taken weeks to discuss a harmless budget, an amendment offered by the opposition which means nothing, and a subamendment from the Progressive comer which I think means even less. The debate has gone on long enough, Mr. Speaker, and I do not propose to prolong it; all I wish to say is that aftet the excellent speech of the hon. member for South Wellington I am quite convinced that the government is in a safe position and that I shall be justified in supporting the budget presented by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.


Mr. J. A. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to say a few words with regard to the amendment to the budget moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), which amendment may be taken as the policy of that portion of the house sitting immediately to your left. I do not intend to mince matters, so I may state now that it is my intention to vote against the tariff proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), because in them I see no solution offered for the many problems which face a large and important portion of this Dominion.
It is not my intention to take up the speech of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill); what I have to say will consist mainly of references to my native province and the constituency from which I come. Representing as I do a constituency on the island of Cape Breton, close to our great industrial centres; living in the heart of one of the greatest inshore fisheries in the maritime provinces-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Mr. MACDONALD (Cape Breton):: I would ask that my hon. friends opposite maintain order when I am speaking. I have a cold at present, and I am not going to put up with too much of that sort of thing.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Finlay MacDonald: As I was saying, I live in probably one of the greatest in-shore fisheries in the maritime provinces, and I feel it my duty to raise my voice in protest against the budget proposals of this government as presented by the Minister of Finance, because they offer no assistance to any of these great industries. I fully expected that at this session of the house the government would fulfil the solemn
1128	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Macdonald (Cape Breton)
promises which they made to the people of the maritimes on the hustings in that portion of the Dominion from time to time; practically every Liberal candidate promised definite and practical relief to the long suffering industries of the* maritime provinces. The Prime Minister also made the solemn promise that he would fully implement the findings of the Duncan commission, and he made special reference to our coal and steel industries, stating that because of the uncertainty of the conditions then surrounding those industries he would defer action until a settlement was reached.
In this suggestion the majority of our maritime members concurred, and we gave our whole-hearted support to the government. During last session we on this side of the house refrained from embarrassing the government with our endeavours to secure those rights which Sir Andrew Duncan and his associates declared were ours, but we did so only because of the definite promises made by the Prime Minister that he would fully implement the findings of that important commission. This is the third budget which has been presented to this house, Mr. Speaker, which shows the complete indifference of this government to the industrial development of Nova Scotia. The budget of 1924 when first introduced purported to deprive the agricultural implement industry of a considerable proportion of the meagre tariff protection it enjoyed, and this was done at a time when unemployment was rife in many of our industrial centres. Protests poured in to the government from manufacturers of farm implements, among which the voice of Hon. Vincent Massey was undoubtedly heard. And so great was the political pressure exerted that the government granted compensation to these manufacturers by placing iron and steel on the free list when used for the production of farm machinery. The net result was that a serious blow was struck at the iron and steel industry of the province of Nova Scotia, the effects of which are only too well known to all who are acquainted with the resultant economic conditions in that province.
It is distinctly disappointing to the people of Nova Scotia that this budget contains no mention of relief to the steel or coal industry, and gives no evidence that the government has paid the slightest regard to the recommendations in the report of the Duncan commission for prompt tariff consideration for those basic industries. The only tariff change in the budget relating to coal or steel is the provision of a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty on bituminous coal used in the evaporation of salt produced in Canada.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, our Nova Scotia coal industry has been made to suffer in the interests of an industry which finds its chief centre1 in the province of Ontario. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Duncan report contained a definite recommendation that a bounty equivalent to 50 cents per ton on Canadian coal used in the production of steel should be1 granted for the encouragement of both our coal and steel industries in the province of Nova Scotia. You will find that recommendation at page 38 of the report. Last year the Prime Minister excused the government's failure to implement the recommendations of the Duncan commission by pointing out the unsettled state of the Nova Scotia steel industry. This pretext no longer exists. From a statement made in this house by the1 hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) I would infer that the government definitely refuses to apply the remedy which a commission of its own creation recommended should be applied for the upbuilding of the Nova Scotia steel industry until certain additional steps are' taken by the group in control of these industries. One of the minister's objections was the inflation of capitalization and the unwieldy and complex organization which groups some fourteen companies under one head. I should like to remind the Minister of National Defence that at the time this huge merger was mooted in 1920 the Liberal government of Nova Scotia of which he was then a member passed enabling legislation which brought about the creation of the very corporation which he now criticizes. If my memory serves me correctly, my hon. friend voted for the passage of that enabling legislation, and he now has the temerity to stand up in this house and take the attitude that the industrial workers of the province of Nova Scotia must continue to suffer hardship, misery and want solely on account of conditions which a Nova Scotia Liberal government, of which he was a member, were instrumental in bringing into being. I may tell my hon. friend that the very objections which he now raises were forcibly brought to the attention of his government and himself by the local opposition of which I was at that time a member, and I considered it my duty to vote against the legislation which was then enacted by the legislature.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to another great industry in my native province for which this budget makes no provision beyond a few items which practically have no importance or significance, and that is the fisheries of the maritime provinces. One would be led to believe from the proposals

The Budget-Mr. Macdonald (Cape Breton)
of the present budget that such an industry did not even exist, and from the past actions of this government it is obvious that industry has never given it very much concern. Sir Andrew Rae Duncan in his report to the government claims that the fisheries of the maritimes, in extent, in quality and in value, constitute one of our most important natural resources. According to figures compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and issued by this government there are 20,000 people in Nova Scotia alone who gain their livelihood in this industry, and the market value of their products is some $12,500,000 annually. This great industry is today on the decline, especially that portion of it known as our inshore fisheries. This can be evidenced by the number of closed homes in many of our fishing districts. Since 1914, according to the returns of Mr. Ward Fisher, fisheries inspector for the province of Nova Scotia, some 10,000 persons have left the industry. The war accounted for some of these, but the great majority were compelled, on account of the meagre returns which they received for their labours, to go to the United States where, under the protection of the Fordney tariff, they could receive a remuneration and enjoy a standard of living such as was not afforded to them in their native province. The county of Richmond has suffered probably, more in this respect than any portion of the province of Nova Scotia. In 1910 the number of fishermen employed was 2,113, and 212 people in our lobster canning industry. In 1921 there were 1,752 fishermen, employed and 164 men employed in our lobster canning industry. In 1926, the latest year for which returns are available, the number of fishermen had fallen to 1,370, and in the lobster canning indusary 120, and I am afraid it will be found that later returns will bring the number of fishermen in the splendid constituency of Richmond-West Cape Breton under 1,000. In one school section alone in little over a two-months period, 33 children moved to the United States together with their parents.
This condition was brought strikingly before the government by the Duncan commission. In the session of 1927 the government promised, through the Prime Minister, to take immediate action to remedy these deplorable conditions. The Prime Minister, while stating his willingness to do everything possible for the industry, threw in the teeth of every Nova Scotian the fact that the province of Nova Scotia rejected the proposed reciprocity agreement in 1911. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that that agreement did not grant the province
of Nova Scotia any concession in respect to fisheries that it did not enjoy from 1912 to 1922? When the Fordney tariff went into effect in 1922, it deprived Nova Scotia of a large market in the United States. What did this government do? It lamented, as at present, the defeat of reciprocity. Had it taken the initiative at that time, it would have sought out other markets in other parts of the world. The Fordney tariff rates were imposed at the instigation of the American Fishermen's Union, and this same union in 1921-22 would have compelled the high tariff government of the United States to abrogate the gentlemen's agreement which had been entered into with the Laurier-Fielding administration. This is the fate which has overtaken practically every trade treaty which Canada has entered into with the United States. The reason why the people of Nova Scotia rejected the reciprocity treaty was because they knew it could be abrogated at will; they had had the experience of what had befallen the reciprocity treaty of 1854. The people of Nova Scotia wanted something of a more definite nature than that which our Liberal friends offered. The Duncan commission asked for a separate Department of Fisheries under the head of the deputy minister, a man with practical fishing experience, who could make a survey of the industry and be in close personal touch with the conditions as they exist in the maritime provinces. On page 34 of the revised Hansard of 1927 the Prime Minister is reported as stating:
The commission's recommendation with respect to the appointment of a deputy minister whose duties will be confined to what at present constitutes the fisheries section of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, will be carried out.
This was on the 18th March, 1927, just a year ago. This is another promise of a Liberal administration that has not yet been fulfilled. I should like to ask whether public utterances, and as in this case, very definite promises made to this house and to the country, are to be held thus lightly?
As was stated by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), the Nova Scotia inshore fishing industry in the autumn of 1927 was in such a deplorable condition that indignation meetings were held in various places and, viewing the condition of the people in the fishing districts, the clergy of the diocese of Antigonish sent a resolution to this government demanding the appointment of another commission. In this they were backed by the provincial government who helped them in every possible way to organize an effective fishermen's union. I do not intend at the present moment to go into the
1130	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Macdonald (Cape Breton)
order in council appointing the commission, or to dwell upon its political complexion. Suffice it for me to say that the great bulk of the fishermen of Nova Scotia do not want and, indeed, emphatically resent their industry being made a political football.
It was not my intention to speak on the fisheries Until the report of the commission was brought down, but I have not the least expectation in the world that this report will be tabled during this session of the house. The commissioners are now in Montreal, housed in the Windsor hotel at the expense of this country, and they are in a quandary as to what to recommend as a solution to remedy the existing state of affairs. This industry must wait another year before anything of a definite nature is to be done and I feel that the government is only sparring for time in order to make another political gesture to (the fishermen of the maritimes. May I say to my hon. friends opposite that we of the maritimes have had too many political gestures thrown our way? What we want now is definite, immediate remedial action, and if that is not forthcoming, the few seats which this government holds in the maritimes will be even fewer than they are to-day when the next appeal is made to the province of Nova Scotia.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has made to this government certain suggestions every one of which, as a representative of a fishing community, I most heartily endorse. I would go even further and ask that fish landed from foreign beam trawlers, dry fish imported from Newfoundland, and fish shipped into central Canada from the United States, pay as high a duty as Canadian fish entering the United States. I would also ask that our fishermen be given long-term loans, such as have been granted to our Canadian farmers, in order to enable the fisherman to equip himself to prosecute his calling successfully. I would suggest also that a form of fishermen's insurance be created, because, as the law exists to-day, only tonnage boats can be insured, and as the majority of our inshore fishermen do not come under this classification they have no means of protecting themselves against loss. I also strongly urge that the twenty per cent reduction recommended by the Duncan report on westbound traffic be made to apply to fish from the maritime provinces routed to United States points.
The question of transportation should be taken up by the government and greater cold storage facilities provided. The salt and dried fish industry is practically a thing of the past, and if a fresh fish industry is to be maintained in the maritimes we must have

refrigerator boats and cold storage facilities. The government will tell us that this will necessitate a raid on the treasury. Let me tell my hon. friends opposite, and especially that group which sits in the far corner, that this industry has an interest in the treasury of Canada to the extent of around $4,000,000, and I feel that this money should be used for the development of cold storage facilities and cold storage transportation for the inshore fishermen of the maritime provinces. Under the Halifax award in 1873, $4,525,000 was placed at the disposal of the government of Canada for compensation due to injuries suffered by the fishing industry of the maritime provinces. From November 21, 1878 to May 17, 1882, the Dominion government had sole use of this money. In 1882 a portion of the interest on this money was by act of parliament made available in the form of bounties to the fishermen, the amount so used being $160,000 per annum. The point to note is that at five per cent per annum, which would be a reasonable interest return, the amount available for distribution should have been $226,250, without the principal being touched. Thus for forty-five years, from 1882 to 1927, the Dominion treasury has been enriched, at the expense of the fishermen of the maritimes, to the extent of $66,250 per annum. From 1878 to 1882, a period of four years during which no bounty was paid, the treasury profited to the extent of $905,000. In other words, there is a sum of accrued interest approximating over $4,000,000 rightly belonging to the fishermen of the maritime provinces. The legislature of Nova Scotia passed a resolution in 1921 supporting this contention and in the same year a similar resolution was passed by the government of Prince Edward Island. I claim that this money rightfully belongs to the maritimes and it should be either given to bonus the industry or used for facilities which will benefit the fishermen of the maritime provinces as a whole. Furthermore I contend that fishermen from the colony of Newfoundland should be precluded from sharing in this bounty when fishing aboard Nova Scotia fishing vesels during their seasonal employment in Nova Scotia fisheries.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) on Monday last made some reference to the fisheries of Nova Scotia. Those references consisted largely of time-worn platitudes and an attempt to belittle constructive suggestions put forward by an hon. member on this side of the house. One point in the minister's speech that stood out above all others was the studious way in which he

The Budget-Mr. Macdonald (Cape Breton)
skated over and avoided the greatest question before the fishing industry of the province, that of the beam trawler. Not only this house but 16,000 fishermen in Nova Scotia are wondering to-day where he stands. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg brought to the attention of the house the fact that the fishermen of Nova Scotia, and of the eastern part in particular, have been subjected to most unfair competition by landings of fish duty free from foreign trawlers. Does the Minister of National Defence approve duty free landing of fish by trawlers owned outside of Canada? He will have an opportunity to declare himself in that regard. The people of Nova Scotia and especially our 16,000 fishermen, would like to know where he stands. Why did the minister not declare himself on a second matter of very vital importance to the fishermen of Nova Scotia, namely, that of the institution of a department of fisheries with a responsible minister at its head? From his remarks it may be inferred that he was fairly well acquainted with the evidence given before the commission, but he did not mention anything about the appointment of a deputy minister as recommended by the Duncan commission or the establishment of a department of fisheries with a responsible minister at its head.
As to the inspection of fish and fish products, the minister said this was already being done. The only inspection that is being made is an inspection of pickled fish, and this has been done in a haphazard manner, and very often by political appointees with no fitness for the position, with the result that the inspection has been practically valueless. It is true that in Canso and Hawkesbury a fresh fish inspector was appointed last summer to inspect fresh fish landings in connection with the government fish collection experiments there, but the fact remains that this was an isolated instance, and that there is to-day no such thing as the inspection and grading of fresh fish, dried fish, or smoked fish products.
The minister boasts of the scientific research which is being carried on. No one belittles the work which is being attempted, but it is only a beginning. Included under this heading are such subjects as a complete survey of our foreshore to determine the extent of our resources-for example, of our scallop beds; a study of fish life, and a determination as to when depletion begins and conservation becomes essential; experimentation in the cure, marketing and packing of all kinds of fish, and provision by the establishment of competent inspectors in fishing communities for bringing home to the practical worker the results achieved.
The hon. minister dealt with another topic, that of markets, and boasts of what has been achieved. Does he not realize that while shipments of fresh frozen fish have increased, the entire benefit has gone to a few corporations, and was very largely the result of the landings by foreign trawlers? The problem of marketing is allied to that of transportation. Markets must be developed, particularly at home, by education and devising means of transportation, so that when they are developed the benefit may be passed on to the thousands of our fishemen who await and need them, and not be swallowed up, as in the past, by the charter of a few more European trawlers.
The minister talked of progress and improvement. Where does he find that improvement? Certainly not in the conditions of the thousands of fishermen scattered along our coast line. The minister boasts of the encouragement which this government has given the industry. Let me say that if these boasts are all the hon. minister has to offer, and if we are to have only the same kind of progress and achievement during the next five years, heaven help the fishermen 1 Why talk of steady progress and achievement when we have lost, in twelve years, 10,000 of our fishermen?
I should like to say a few words with regard to providing medical attention for our sick fishermen. Dominion legislation provides for what is known as a sick mariners' fund, to which the owners of shipping schooners in our interprovincial coastal trade contribute. It also applies to fishermen of tonnage ships. This is of great benefit to our sick seamen. We also have the hospital ship for the care and attention of our deep sea fishermen. The Workmen's Compensation Act in our province as it stands at present cannot be taken advantage of by our inshore fishermen because they are not employers of labour. Generally the fisherman himself is the labourer, and in order to come under the Workmen's Compensation Act he must employ three or more labourers; and then he would not as an an employer be eligible himself. In any event the fee demanded by the various compensation boards is prohibitive, and if made compulsory would put the fishermen at a great disadvantage. Even then no provision would be made-for sickness; accidents only woflld be taken care of. I have found in my fifteen years of practice among the fishermen of this country that accident is the exception. What we have to contend with is sickness brought on by the hazardous occupation which the fisherman is compelled to pursue in order to
1132	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Macdonald (Cape Breton)
gain a livelihood. Secondly, the fisherman, being underpaid for his services, is-together with his family-undernourished. Tuberculosis is prevalent among our fishermen; it is one of the most deadly diseases encountered in our fishing districts. Our fishing villages, located generally around our indentations and bays, are in most instances far removed from medical care. The poor fisherman, with the meagre earnings of to-day, is not in a position to secure the medical aid he requires for the protection of himself and his family. I would suggest to the government that our fishermen be placed on an equal footing in that respect with the deep sea fishermen, and that either a contributory system be adopted or a certain proportion of the Halifax award be utilized for the purpose of caring for our sick and invalid fishermen and their families.
With respect to railway transportation, I have in my hand a resolution passed by the municipal council of the county of Richmond, Cape Breton, as follows:
Whereas the fisheries of Isle Madame and contiguous waters in the county of Richmond are an invaluable asset to this municipality and the entire Dominion as well, and
Whereas the farmers of Richmond, keeping pace with the times, are conducting operations on a vaster scale than heretofore, but
Whereas many farmers from the eastern sections have left their farms being unable to carry on their agricultural activities at a profit owing to lack of railway accommodation, and Whereas the pulpwood, gypsum and other mineral resources of the county of Richmond are boundless, but their development is impeded owing to lack of adequate railway accommodation east of St. Peter's on the Canadian National Line, therefore,
Resolved, that this council in annual session convened, hereby memorializes the federal government to extend the present line of railway to St. Peter's eastward as far as Louisburg or Sydney, and to construct a branch into Arichat. the shiretown of Richmond, to be operated in conjunction with the main trunk line inasmuch as the federal government has acquired the present line to St. Peter's making it an integral part of our Canadian National Railways system, further,
Resolved, that the said government be memorialized to refund to this municipality the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars-$10,000- borrowed to pay for the right-of-way when the said line was opened in 1903, further,
Resolved, that this council considers these demands neither unreasonable nor unjust, but the just deserts of the county of Richmond as an integral part of this great Dominion, with a right to its existence and an opportunity to W'ork #ut its destiny as at present incorporated, and further,
Resolved, that copies of these resolves be forwarded to the Minister of Railways at Ottawa, and to every federal member in Nova Scotia with the request that they work in season and out of season for the consummation of these ideals so dear to our hearts and so vital to our interests.

Briefly, the resolution recommends that this government take under consideration the advisability of extending the Cape Breton railway, which now runs from Point Tupper to St. Peter's, eastward as far as Louisburg. The resolution also asks that the sum of ten thousand dollars which was borrowed by the municipality of Richmond to pay for the right of way when the Cape Breton line was built in 1903, be refunded to the municipality by the federal government, and further, that a branch of this railway be extended to Arichat, the shire town of the municipality. The construction of such a railway would be of great benefit to the fishing industry of Isle Madame, on which our shire town of Arichat is located, and also to the various fishing communities lying between St. Peter's and the town of Louidburg. The fishermen along this coast require railway transportation. A large proportion of the best farms and farming land in Cape Breton west and Richmond lies along the proposed route of this railway extension. There is available in this section of the country sufficient pulpwood to keep a 150 ton per day pulp mill going for the next forty years. This large pulpwood reserve cannot be utilized except by the construction of a railway. Almost every variety of mineral ore is to be found in this region, zinc, copper, lead, manganese, limestone, iron, coal, as well as building material. As regards some of these minerals, we are already beyond the prospecting stage. That vast quantities of zinc, lead and copper exist there, has been proven by a large corporation now carrying on operations in this district; I refer to the British Metals Corporation. They have spent upwards of $200,000 in development work in this district during the past year, and it is their intention to operate on a large scale as soon as spring opens. The industrial development of this area has been seriously hampered during the last few years owing to the lack of transportation facilities, and it is to be hoped that this government will immediately take steps to remedy the existing unsatisfactory state of affairs.
As regards the $10,000 claim which the municipality of Richmond holds against this government, I might explain that the municipality, having been refused consideration in the matter of railway facilities by both federal and provincial governments, guaranteed free right of way to any corporation that would undertake the building of a railway. A corporation was organized for this purpose, and the road was built as far as St. Peter's. The municipality of Richmond expended $10,000 in buying the freehold for the present right of way from Point Tupper to St. Peter's. The

The Budget-Mr. Howard
road was completed in 1903, and was operated by the Cape Breton railway company up to 1920 when it was acquired by the federal government and incorporated into the Canadian National railway system, and the municipality of Richmond claim, together with myself, that the federal government should now reimburse the municipality for the amount of money expended in acquiring this right of way. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I strongly support the claim.
In 1926, under the Conservative regime, I brought the matter to the attention of the acting minister of railways, with the result that a departmental official was sent into the municipality. After consultation with the municipal authorities and going into the matter personally he recommended favourably to the Railway department. I would ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) to take the matter under favourable consideration and reimburse the municipality of Richmond for the money they expended in this connection. I do not feel that we are under any obligation to the revenues of Canada for any favours granted us in this respect, for the reason that valuable rolling stock, right of way and railway rights were acquired by the federal government in 1920 for the paltry sum of $100,000, and the railway has proven under Canadian National management to have been an asset rather than an encumbrance. I have it on authority that during the last year this was one of the few branch lines that earned operating expenses and was not a burden on the Canadian National railway system or on the treasury of this country.
Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, permit me for a few minutes to join with those who have preceded me in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the splendid budget that he has again given to the people of Canada. Not only do I congratulate him on this budget, I congratulate the entire government on. the success of its administration. It has frequently been said that they have been able to retain power, but it must also be said that they have been able to demonstrate by the increasing prosperity of the Dominion that Liberal principles are conducive to such general prosperity. The government have been able to provide for the necessary expenditures and at the same time reduce the net debt by $42,000,000, thus saving in interest at least $2,000,000 that otherwise would have had to be paid by our people. Even more important than this is the Finance minister's outlook on the future, for he states that on the estimated revenues for the fiscal year 1927-28 he believes that next year he will be
able to make a further reduction in taxation of at least $19,000,000.
Hon. members on the other side of the house have tried hard to show-and this point was particularly stressed by the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan)-that the net debt instead of having been decreased has been increased on account of the guarantees of Canadian National Railway bonds. In this connection I wish to quote a few lines from the speech of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) to make clear the situation. He said:
All the debt of the Canadian National Railways to the people of Canada is now_ treated as part of the net debt of the Dominion. . . that portion of the debt of the Canadian National Railways which is owed to the public, and on which the railway is earning the interest, is not a part of the net debt of Canada, but is a charge against the railway.
And rightly so. But the hon. Minister of Railways was perhaps too considerate of hon. members opposite or too gentle in his manner to make a contrast between the condition of the Canadian National Railways to-day and in the past, something that I claim is most important to consider in the interests of the taxpayer. The facts of the case are these. In 1921 under Tory administration $42,000,000 was taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers to pay the railway deficit, while to-day the system has earned $42,000,000, enough money to pay interest on all the debentures in the hands of the public. And this in spite of the fact that between 1921 and to-day freight rates generally have been considerably reduced. As to the condition of the railways of Canada to-day, I would quote from the Montreal Star of Monday night, as follows:
Canadian Pacific traffic earnings for the month of February show an increase of $1,608,000. while those of the Canadian National increased $2,636,797, making a combined increase of $4,244,797 over February of last year.
I was sorry to hear the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George criticize the Canadian National railway system and its management, but I rejoiced to-day when the hon. member for South Wellington tried to reinstate the Tory party in the confidence of the people by praising the Canadian National Railways and Sir Henry Thornton. Undoubtedly the sentiment throughout Canada is that the criticism of the hon, member for St. Lawrence-St. George was unjust and unmerited. I congratulate Sir Henry Thornton on the splendid spirit that he has engendered in his employees. I wish to pay tribuate to the employees of both our railway systems, and to assure them that the successful operation of these railways is due more to their co-operation than to any other factor.
The Budget-Mr. Howard

Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to an item in the budget that has not been .referred to very much on this side of the house, and has not even been mentioned by our friends opposite, but nevertheless to my mind it is one of the most important things in the budget. On page 508 of Hansard the Minister of Finance shows that he has a surplus of nearly $55,000,000, but he has reduced the net debt of Canada by only $39,000,000. Naturally this raises the inquiry: Why is not the whole of the surplus set aside in reduction of the national debt? The explanation is simple. The government had to face a loss of nearly $16,000,000 on account of the poor administration of their predecessors. The government could not decrease the net debt of the country to the full amount of the surplus because after the war the Tory government d-evised a scheme to rehabilitate our returned soldiers by placing on farms those who wanted to take up farming. I do not criticize the motive; it was splendid. But I do criticize what happened. The figures in the budget show exactly what did happen. These men sent their friends throughout Canada to purchase farms, and in my own section, as well as in other sections, the prices paid were according to the degree of friendship which existed between the purchaser employed by the government and the man who had a farm for sale. As a result the government to-day is revaluing the soldier settlement lands and trying to give to the returned men, who paid a great deal more than their farms were worth, a square deal, and so in a small way recompense them for the great service they rendered their country overseas.
At this juncture I might contrast the direction of the policy of soldier re-establishment under the Tory government in 1920 and 1921 with the administration of the department under the present government. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) on the splendid work he has done and is doing in this connection. I can assure the house that in the eastern townships, in which of course I am more particularly interested, we have one of the finest committees on revaluation to be found anywhere in Canada. That committee comprises men who are not politicians but who enjoy the complete confidence of the entire district which they are endeavouring to serve. I am sure that in that section the soldiers will secure justice. And we owe them justice. The fact still remains, however, that the Minister of Finance could not further reduce the debt this year by $16,000,000 on account of the money wasted by the Tories in the purchase of those farms. One more 
suggestion I would offer in regard to the treatment of our soldiers. I trust that, even if it may not appear on the statute books of Canada, our government and our government officials will stretch a point, if they have to go out of their way in some cases, to give full justice to these men or to their wives, families and dependents when perhaps their case does not absolutely come within the letter of the law.
This brings me to another item in the budget speech which I wish to touch upon, namely, the 'refunding scheme. Everyone is cognizant of the fact that throughout Canada nearly all of the financial institutions and trust companies are quite keen on gome scheme of refunding the war debt. For my part I think it would be a splendid thing, but I was pleased to read, on page 509 of Hansard, in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, the following words:
" I submit that until Canada is nearer the pre-war rate of taxation, annual reduction of taxes is as important as reduction of debt. Our policy is to reduce both."
With which I agree. I submit this for the consideration of every Canadian citizen: This generation, from 1914 to 1928, has suffered to pay the price of the war; in 50,000 Canadian homes there is the vacant chair which indicates their participation in the war. Some of our financial men have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars as a direct result of the war, and more than ever our working and labouring population is still bearing the brunt of the struggle. Why, then, ask this generation to curtail still further in order to pay off the debt of the country? Have we not done our share? Let us reduce taxes and use the surpluses we have each year to build up Canada and to make this country a greater place to live in than it is to-day, so	that we	may	beable to hand on to	the	future a	heritageworth while. Let us leave to our children's children the paying off of the war debt, seeing that we have done our share, and especially in view of	the	fact that	it is	inthe best interests of	this	Dominion for	us
to leave to posterity, after we have played our part in the war, a going concern, a country greater than it is to-day.
I am reminded of the picture painted in the house the other day by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). Certainly the hon. member was experiencing one of his off days when he depicted all the closed factories throughout Canada. As he painted that picture I wondered what he was referring to, and I came to the conclusion that possibly the hon. member for Fort

The Budget-Mr. Howard
William had passed through Oshawa on the day the automobile factories were closed while the employees were in Ottawa in a delegation.


Robert James Manion: I was referring to the
closed factories in my own constituency.


Mr. HOWARD:: In view of the hon. gentleman's remarks, I think perhaps it might be just as well for me to cite some facts regarding my own home town, Sherbrooke, the queen city of the eastern townships, one of the most beautiful and prosperous cities in Canada, ideally located, even if it is small. I want to call the attention of the house to the fact that during the calendar year, 1927, the figures of exports to the United States alone, apart from supplies to our home market in that little section of the country known as the eastern townships of Quebec, amounted to $19,251,000. This quantity of products, through the only consular district, Sherbrooke, was sold and shipped to the country to the south of us. This mirrors the prosperity of our people. Last night I received a local newspaper in which I find that the surplus of Sherbrooke for the past year amounts to nearly $2,000,000, while the operating surplus in the electrical department, which is run under municipal ownership, is $245,000. Furthermore, the municipal tax rate in the city of Sherbrooke for the next twelve months has been reduced from 12^ to 10i mills on the dollar. All I can say to the hon. member for Fort William is this: If next summer the hon. gentleman finds things in Canada so bad I shall be glad to have him come down through our section of the country where I promise that we will demonstrate to him that Canada is still prosperous. That the people throughout the country are patriotic has been fully shown by the wonderful celebrations which took place on July 1 last. In my own town we had on that day a celebration which was second to none in Canada.
Our farmers are coming back to their own, and I say this advisedly. I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) on his decision to extend during the next two years the restricted area as far east as St. Francis river. We in that part of the country are affecting the markets of the United States by our exports to such an extent that I find, in another item in the newspaper, the statement that in Washington the other day a delegation of farmers insisted that the United States government should raise their tariff in order to keep out our products which are being shipped from this section of Canada. As regards unemployment, I can only say that it is practically non-existent in my town. Every member of parliament knows, from his position, how quickly men call upon him when they are out of employment; so when I say that during the last six months only two persons have interviewed me looking for jobs, the house will realize that unemployment is insignificant in Sherbrooke-that in fact it does not exist.
Now I want to say a few words regarding the tariff. And first of all I want to congratulate the tariff board on the splendid work it has done in the investigation of cases brought before it. I make this statement after careful consideration, and not as a member of parliament. On several occasions the manufacturers of my town asked me to come to Ottawa with them and sit in at the hearings of the board. I did so and was surprised to see the manufacturers putting up their case on one side and the Consumers' League, on ' the other side, advancing its arguments in the interest of the taxpayer. The result is that there has been worked out a scheme which is reflected in the budget and with which we are satisfied in the city of Sherbrooke, even if two of our industries had their raw material slightly increased and one of the others, in the woollen line, had yarns put on the free list. I trust however the time will come when the tariff will be taken out of politics entirely. When I look at the tariff I cannot see why we should disagree with the western members of the Liberal party or even with some of the broad-minded members in the far corner. In the city of Sherbrooke we have two silk industries manufacturing silk stockings and garments which have a protection of 25 per cent against other countries shipping similar materials into Canada. Yet the prices of their products as sold to the consumers of Canada are exactly the same as the prices for which the American manufacturer sells to the United States consumer, so our manufacturers do not take advantage of that tariff of 25 per cent. That is what I call playing the game fairly.
I would also call attention to another industry which is carried on in the city of Sherbrooke; I refer to the manufacture of tire fabrics. This industry sells practically all its output to one concern in Toronto, to which the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) referred the other day. He congratulated the rubber people on their extraordinary showing, and demonstrated that the small tire used on the Ford car was actually selling for less in Canada than in the United States. But I may tell the house, Mr. Speaker, that that is made possible only because an industry in Sherbrooke, employing
The Budget-Mr. Howard

one thousand hands, is shipping its raw fabrics to Toronto, and in spite of a 25 per cent tariff protection the average price last year on its total output was only 6 per cent over the price in the United States. That is the policy of this party, in contrast to the policy outlined in two extraordinary speeches coming from the opposite side of the house to which 1 listened.
In this section of the country we use a great deal of coal; our labouring classes and our poor people all use coal, and I am foing to take home a good many copies of the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite in which they advocate a duty of $1.50 on. coal coming from the United States. I want to tell the people in my constituency that the Conservative party want the people to pay $1.50 a ton more than they paid this year for their supply of coal next winter. As a matter of fact, while I am deeply interested in the. working classes and the poorer people, who need the government most, I am also frank enough to say that the people in the constituency of Sherbrooke do not expect the government to feed them every morning; they are willing to work for what they get.
Now I come to the reduction in the income tax. I do not know that my ideas in this regard will coincide with the ideas of other hon. members of the house, but first I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance for the reduction he has made this year. At the same time, I want to give my opinion of what I think should be done eventually in this regard. I believe the reduction should be oomtinued until the rate is about one-half the present rate, which I believe is too high. I should also like to see the tax on corporations reduced to 5 per cent, which is quite reasonable. Then I should like to see the exemption raised by $2,000 next year, $2,000 the year following and $2,000 the year following that, until no person in Canada with an income of less than $9,000 will be called upon to pay income tax.
In this connection there is another point which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. A number of people were fortunate enough to buy tax exempt victory bonds, but I am sure if you look around this house, you will find no one, with the exception of my deskmate and the leader of the opposition, who owns any of those bonds. However, in 1931 bonds will come due to the value of $52,000,000 from which the treasury' of this country has not received a cent in taxes in the past ten yeans; in 1933 tax exempt bonds totalling $446,000,000 will come due, while in 1937 we shall have to

redeem bonds of this class to the value of $326,000,000. making a total of $824,000,000 irom which the treasury of this country has not received a cent in the past ten years.
The one thing to-day which saves Canada from bolshevism, communism and socialism, is the fact that we have never adopted the principle that everyone should pay alike; that principle is not followed by any profession in Canada. Consider the medical profession; if the leader of the opposition were taken to the hospital and operated on for appendicitis I am sure his bill would be $1,500, and rightly so. If another member of this house should undergo an operation for appendicitis he might be charged $250 by the same doctor. But if Jimmy Jones, in my town, were taken ill and rushed to the hospital and operated on, if there were any charge at all I will bet the same doctor -would not charge him over $35. So I say I am glad that in Canada we have recognized the principle that those who have the most should pay the most, and therefore I am not in favour of the further reduction in the income tax. As one hon. member in the far corner said, we could relieve one hundred thousand of the income tax payers, by raising the exemption, and anyone whose income is over $9,000 deserves to pay something into the coffers of this country.
Then there is the question of prosperity in Canada. In the Financial Times of this week, which represents public opinion in the financial centres of Montreal, I find this statement with regard to Canadian stocks:
Net gain in capital value of $743,302,691.
That means there was an increase of almost a billion dollars in the value of Canadian stocks last year. I am pleased with that state of affairs, because it denotes the general prosperity of Canada, but I have just a word or two of warning to add. I have every respect for the Department of Finance, and the value of that department was demonstrated last year when a certain trust company tried to put something over on the people of this country and were not allowed to do so, because1 the Department of Finance said, "No, you cannot go ahead doing business unless you put more capital into your concern." I say this advisedly, that we do not want to load Canada with the burden of over-capitalization, because when stocks are split, when values are increased and water is put into the stocks there are only two possible results in a general way; either the cost of their product to the consumer is increased or the wages of the employees are lessened, and I do not want to see either of these things happen. So I hope that this government will be able in

The Budget-Mr. Howard
the neaT future to place on the statutes of Canada a law which will provide that any corporation increasing its capital must first secure the consent of the Minister of Finance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will ask you to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Benjamin Howard: To complete the argument I was advancing when the house rose at six o'clock I should like to make this statement: We all remember the famous reduction in the duty on automobiles. It is not necessary to review the facts with respect to it except to say that when a fair proposition was made to the manufacturers and they were asked to reduce the price to the Canadian consumer, of cars manufactured in Canada, they refused absolutely to do so. They persisted in maintaining the price at the American retail price, plus the Canadian duty of 35 per cent. Then this government reduced the duty on automobiles and the price dropped to exactly the amount of that reduction in duty. I would suggest again to the manufacturers of automobiles that they cut the price of their cars in Canada 15 or 20 per cent, and if they would do so that we should put back the duty to the original rate of 35 per cent in order to keep out imported automobiles, and yet give the Canadian consumer the benefit of the reduced price. I make that suggestion in the hope that the manufacturers in Canada are willing to play the game with the Canadian consumer, and with the idea that the tariff may be used to keep out American or other competition without increasing the price to the consumer in this country.
During the past two weeks we have heard in this house speech after speech criticizing what I consider a mere detail of administration. Surely in olden days the Conservative party not only indulged in criticism of the general policy of the government but suggested remedies for whatever they considered defective in that policy. The course pursued by the Conservative party to-day in regard to the McConachie case illustrates the straits to which they have descended. Now I view that particular matter in this light: I am not prepared to state that any mistake was made, but I do say this:	If the government has
allowed the person in question to enter Canada, I suggest, and I think we are in duty bound to do so, that the whole family be taken *back to Scotland, that their home be repurchased and that they be re-established there.
But in spite of the sympathy I personally feel for the family under the conditions, I am still prepared to say that we must keep up the quality of our immigration regardless of the quantity. I am not surprised considering the speeches of opposition members, that the figures of immigration are not larger than they were during the past year. Only this week the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), for whom I have the greatest respect, made a speech in the city of Montreal, and I wish to read an extract from that speech as reported in the Montreal Gazette of Monday, March 5th:
Canada selling her estate, says Hon. R. B. Bennett.
I do not believe that Canada is selling her estate. I defy any member on either side to prove that such is the case. But I would ask this question:	Outside of criticism of a mere
matter of detail in the particular case alluded to, what policies or general suggestions have the opposition made to the government outside of a suggestion that a duty be imposed on coal? I pay this tribute to the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church): he at least has the courage of his convictions to the extent that he has placed a motion on the order paper asking the government to go ahead with the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway; but in spite of the fact that a great many hon. members opposite come from Toronto, or from that section of Ontario deeply concerned in this matter, not one single member on that side has advocated a policy that would mean increasing our immigration and increasing our prosperity.


Mr. HOCKEN:: There is lots of time for that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I refer particularly to the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterways. As to the remark of my hon. friend, this debate is practically over.	|


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You will hear from us about it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: A great many articles have been written and a great many suggestions have been advanced with respect to this proposition, and in almost every instance the only objection to it is on the score of cost and its international features. As I stated this afternoon, I am not worrying one bit about the cost to Canada. I think that as Canadians we ought to spend in the development of this country the money available in our surpluses, and if there is one thing which in my opinion would develop Canada it is the expenditure of possibly $600,000,000 on the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway.



The Budget-Mr. Howard
During the three sessions that I have had the privilege of being a member of this house I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite ask this government many times to stop Chicago from stealing the water of lake Michigan for the purpose of diverting it into the .Mississippi river. If the opposition are so much concerned about the interests of Canada, let them cease criticizing the Immigration department oveT the McCon-achie case and make some constructive suggestions that would really be in the interests of this country. The diversion into the Mississippi river of 8,500 cubic feet of water peT second from lake Michigan is a serious matter to Canada. When we utter those figures rapidly it does not seem to be a very serious matter, but those who are acquainted with the city of Sherbrooke know that power is developed there on the river Magog. That power has helped make Sherbrooke what it is. Now the mean flow of the Magog river is 550 or 600 cubic feet per second. In other words the water that is being taken from lake Michigan, and which belongs to Canada, is fourteen times the mean flow of the river which furnishes power to Sherbrooke. The biggest argument against this development is its international feature, but my position in that regard is that I have every faith in Canadian statesmanship and I am not the least bit afraid to treat with the United States on that subject. If that project is carried out, one thing we know it will do is put a stop to the building of a canal from Buffalo to the Hudson river and in view of the extent to which our Canadian trade is already going via New York surely it is imperative that we make every possible effort to divert this trade through Canadian channels.
As regards the power development in the St. Lawrence river I am sure that the people hardly realize, when they criticize the project, that of the total fall in the river between Kingston and Montreal only 93 feet is in the international section while 115 feet is in the all-Canadian section, so that in any case Canada stands to benefit by more than 75 per cent of the total power development. Some remarks that I made the other day on this subject were misquoted and I wish to correct that error now. If this scheme goes through we shall interest not financially but morally the large section of central United States and also the state of New York, which is interested in the power end of the scheme and they will be a large factor in stopping the Chicago steal. Speaking as a man from Quebec, I believe if the deep waterway were built for no other purpose than the fact that it will permit a development of power near

the city of Montreal, that it might be a good thing to have this power in the hands of the government rather than allow it to pass into the control of private individuals.
If we are so much interested in the prosperity of our country, let us remember that in the past this prosperity has always been due to some great government work being undertaken. For instance, the time that my section of the country went ahead was when the Grand Trunk railway was built through the eastern townships. In fact from that section the people came in delegations to Montreal, the then seat of parliament, and asked the government to undertake some governmental work during that period. When the great Canadian Pacific railway was built through Canada, there was, as was stated again this afternoon, a wonderful period of prosperity. If we want a successful immigration policy; if we want to bring people into Canada; if we want to make Canada prosperous, let us go ahead with this scheme, and even if we create a false prosperity during the next ten years and spend $500,000,000 or $600,000,000, the effect will be that it will make two jobs in Canada for every man and create an employment situation such as is essential to the development of our country.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I may say that the first budget of the Liberal administration in May, 1922, showed a deficit of $81,000,000, and to-day, after six years under this government, and including two months and thirteen days under Tory administration, there is a surplus of nearly $45,000,000. So much for Liberal administration so farl


Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that when a compliment goes from those who sit on your left to those who sit on your right it should be accompanied by a brick, but to-night I am going to omit the brick and to acknowledge and to thank the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) for his courtesy in connection with a matter which materially affected a mining section of my district. Had he taken the course which the case justified and adopted stringent measures, the pay of a number of miners would have been materially affected. It would have prejudiced a number of miners working leased properties; it would have jeopardized the position of a number of creditors, and it would have retarded, at least temporarily, mining development. The minister was very considerate and generous;
I may say that the matter was satisfactorily settled all round, and I am glad to be able to make this acknowledgment.

The Budget-Mr. Esling
I want also to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) on the successful installation of a pre-cooling plant at Wynndel, in my district. It has been a great aid to the berry and fruit growers, and while it was completed only last year it served a very effective purpose, a particular instance being cited in connection with some thirty tons of strawberries. These strawberries would otherwise have been a total loss, but they were saved by the ability to put them in this pre-cooling plant. They were processed and cooled to freezing point; then they wore packed in barrels and shipped seven weeks later netting the owners some four thousand dollars. Shipments from this district, namely, the Creston district, in 1927, amounted to just over half of a million dollars; it is one of the banner fruit and berry districts of British Columbia. The yields were as follows:
Forest products	 $225,000
Fruit and vegetables	 255,000
Poultry products	 35,000
Live stock, and so on	 10,000
There were 92,376 boxes of apples shipped, which brought 8133,000. And next to apples come the strawberries. Creston is a wonderful strawberry district. They pick the berries in the morning and the next morning without change of cars they are on the market at Calgary.
I have this little memorandum of production from the Creston Review which I should like to put on Hansard:
The great revenue getter was strawberries with an outgo of 30,000 crates, for an intake of $60,000. In addition to this 15 tons went out for jam manufacture, and another 30 tons were processed and shipped to Toronto for making soda fountain cordials, flavourings, etc. Of this creditable total it must be stated that fully 75 per cent was produced at Wynndel.
Of raspberries 6,716 crates were marketed, worth $15,113, and when to strawberries and raspberries is added the value of the loganberries, blackberries, gooseberries exported, Creston district can claim a 1927 berry crop worth not less than $85,000. Red and black currants, placed at 1,526 crates, were worth about $3,000.
Probably no other district in the interior of British Columbia has such splendid marketing advantages or such a promising future. Extensive reclamation projects are in view which will add materially to the vast area of fertile land in that district.
I should like to say just a few words about the budget, because that portion of any budget in any country which contains even a suggestion of reduced taxation is always a good political gesture as indeed is any measure likely to lighten an individual's financial burden; and nobody knows this better than 56103-72J
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) himself. He had experience in the last campaign; instead of going from place to place excusing and explaining and denying and defending the shortcomings and the sins of omission and commission of his colleagues and his party generally, he simply talked about reduced taxation and he got away with it. It may be very truly said that many of those who sit on your right owe their membership in this house to-night to the policy adopted by the Minister of Finance of merely talking about reduced taxation.
As regards this reduction of ten per cent in the income tax, while a ten per cent reduction sounds very fine it does not mean so much when one remembers that Canada has a population of 9.000,000 people of whom only 116,000 pay this income tax, so that practically 8,900,000 are not affected by this reduction to the extent of one penny. It means that the rank and file of the population of Canada, people earning say less than S3,000 a year, will not benefit to the extent of one penny. Nor does it mean anything to the mani on the ten or twenty-acre plot of land who depends for his living on the sale of farm products, vegetables, poultry and so forth. While this cut in the tax does lessen the burden on the big fellow, I think everybody agrees that it is the big fellow who should pay the bill, and if there is one fair tax in Canada it is the income tax.
Had the budget provided for the total abolition of the sales tax by the end of 1928, as urged by the Conservative amendment, practically every wage-earner and every small farmer in the Dominion would have benefited. I think people seldom realize when they are paying a sales tax. A family of five, a man, his wife and three children, living in a moderate v;ay, will have to pay a tax of $20 per year on their clothing, but simply because the sales tax is not marked on the bottom of the bill people fail to realize that they are paying it. Or take the case of a man who is building a house. He seldom realizes that he is paying sales tax on the materials entering into that house, whereas as a matter of fact it is estimated that sixty per cent of the cost of a 63,000 house goes into material, and on that the man is paying sales tax: in other words even under the proposed reduction in the sales tax the man who puts up a $3,000 house will still pay $52 in sales tax.
I want to speak of my own particular district for a few moments, because naturally every member is interested in emphasizing the conditions in his own district. I want to show how the tax anodes in some communr
The Budget-Mr. Esling

ties. In the town of Trail, for instance, during the past five years, the expenditures on dwellings, business blocks and public improvements have amounted to $2,206,000, on which sales tax amounting to $53,000 has been paid. In addition to that we have a very progressive industrial institution in that city, which in the last five years has paid approximately $180,000 in sales tax on the materials used in their construction work.
When you buy a motor car, no matter how cheap it is, you have to pay a sales tax of from $25 to $40 on the car. My district, as well as the adjoining one represented by the Minister of Health in this government (Mr. King), who is the minister for British Columbia, is composed almost entirely of wage earners and small farmers, and they would have retained a very much larger proportion of their pay cheques if the sales tax had been abolished last year as urged in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. He then urged the total abolition of the sales tax on clothing, and I find by Hansard of March 17, 1927, that the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. King), the minister for British Columbia, in whose district, as I said, there is a very large percentage of wage-earners, was not very solicitous then about the families of the wage-earners because he voted against the amendment to abolish the sales tax on the family wardrobe.
It is to be regretted that the Minister of Finance has not seen his way clear to abolish double taxation on dividends. There is one thing a young and growing country needs, and that is outside capital to aid in developing its resources. The investor is naturally prejudiced against a country in which his returns are taxed twice as compared with a country in which they are taxed only once. At the conference on taxation that was held in October last, the Dominion government was requested to discontinue the practice of double taxation, and I regret that it has not done so in this budget.
I am now going to refer to a matter which might perhaps more properly be brought up when the estimates are under discussion, but I bring it to the attention of the government now because the need is,urgent. I refer to the necessity for the immediate construction of a public building in Trail. It has been announced by the government that an item for a public building in Trail will be noted in the preparation of the supplementaries, but as this must be approved by the cabinet in council, I wish to make a few observations in its support. Last session the Minister of

Public Works (Mr. Elliott) said that it was the policy of the government to erect public buildings only where the accommodation was inadequate and the necessity urgent. That is a sensible and businesslike policy with which I agree, and I propose to show that the needs of Trail come under that head. There can be no excuse for not erecting a public building in Trail on the ground of lack of funds, because the Finance minister in his budget speech stated that there was a surplus of $54,000,000 and estimated revenues sufficient to meet the needs of a growing country. A site for a public building was bought and paid for in the city of Trail in September of 1925, and I have a letter and a wire here dated September 27, 1927, from the resident architect at Victoria, saying that the matter was of great urgency, as indicated by a telegram from the Public Works department at Ottawa. It was of great urgency then, Mr. Speaker-that was just four weeks before the election-but unfortunately since that time nobody in the government has been interested in the matter. According to the 1921 census the city of Trail had a population of 3,020, and that number has increased to-day to 8,500, or approximately 9,000. To show the deplorable lack of accommodation in the post office, I would point out that there are from three to five families shar-in a post office box, and 500 additional boxes are needed to meet the applications on hand. Nobody wants the government to spend money foolishly, but I say that the men going off shift from the great industrial plant at Trail are entitled to adequate postal service, and the most deplorable feature in Trail at present is the post office and customs accommodation. There is located at Trail the largest metallurgical plant in the British Empire, treating lead zinc ore from the richest mine in the world. The mine has ore blocked out to a value in excess of one billion dollars. The plant produces pure gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, antimony and by-products to a value of nearly forty million dollars a year. It furnishes 10 per cent of the world's lead supply and 7 per cent of the zinc supply. It produces daily 400 tons of lead, 300 tons of zinc and 70 tons of copper. It pays more than one per cent of Canada's total freight bill by rail and water. The company is capitalized at $15,000,000, while to-day the shares are selling on the open market at a price equivalent to a total value of $165,000,000.
The permanency of the city for which we are asking this public building is emphasized by the fact that the company has loaned its employees $700,000 for the purpose of

The Budget-Mr. Esling
erecting homes. The company itself has erected a $100,000 store building, a $100,000 hospital-and, by the way, it is the last word in hospitals of its size-and contributed $35,000 to a memorial building. It has also advanced money and made possible the construction of an artificial rink at a cost of $50,000. The life of each employee is insured under the group plan. After a certain period of service with the company an employee is retired on pension. The company maintains the largest herd of pure-bred Ayrshires in the Dominion for the purpose not only of supplying the residents of Trail with milk, but of furnishing a bottle of milk every day to each of the men employed around' the lead furnace. At Christmas-I just want to show you that this company is intensely human-each married employee receives a gift of $50 in cash and a turkey; each single employee a gift of $25 in cash and the equivalent of a turkey in merchandise. After three years' service an employee is given a share of stock, the market value of which to-day is $274. As I said before, it is an intensely human institution, and the pity is there are not more in Canada.
Trail's payroll is nearly $5,000,000 a year. The company, together with the community, pays annual taxes to the province and to the federal government of $2,000,000. Last year they paid into the federal treasury in taxes a sum equivalent to six times the total expenditure on federal public buildings in British Columbia, including rents, repairs, and mortgage interest on a federal purchase in Vancouver. Although the federal treasury has received this immense sum, the federal government has not in thirty years spent one solitary dollar in Trail, with the exception of the $11,000 Which it paid for the purchase of the site to which I have referred. Every street in the city is paved with concrete, and the sidewalks are of cement. In the past five years the company has done construction work to the value of $7,000,000, and the city has issued building permits for dwelling houses and local improvements to the value of $2.000,000. The customs and excise duties collected in Trail for the fiscal year 1926-27 amounted to $120,000, and the post office revenue for the same fiscal year ranks Trail No. 9 out of 931 post offices in the whole province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these facts would indicate that there is certainly good reason for urging the erection of a post office in Trail. It was only a few days ago that I received a telegram from the city council asking that the government be urged to have such a
public building completed this year, as the situation is urgent. First of all, there is a. lack of accommodation, and then there is urgency. The hon. Minister of Public Works stated his policy was to erect public buildings where there was a lack of accommodation, and urgent necessity. Here both conditions prevail. The telegram contains this paragraph :
The rent of the present building has lately heavily increased, with the consequence of an increase in box rents, making these box rents higher than anywhere else.
I wish particularly to impress upon the minister the lack of accommodation. I have a letter from the Ratepayers' Association of East Trail which says:
As the company is daily adding to its number of employees the congestion becomes greater. With so many cars in our city it is dangerous to send children after school hours and too far for our wives to make the trip,-
I may say this refers to East Trail, which is about a mile from the post office.
-so it falls on the men to call for the mail on the way home, and they soon tire waiting in this line, and go off home without the mail.
There is further evidence of lack of accommodation. I have also the report of the post office inspector dated September 16, 1926, in which he recites:
That there are 1.047 boxes in the Trail office; that the postmaster could rent 1,500, that he estimates in three years Trail's population will reach 12,000.
Then the inspector adds:
I would respectfully request that a public building be proceeded with as soon as possible.
There you have the inspector himself recommending the construction of a public building as soon as possible. He also suggests that the post office contain 2,100 boxes instead of 1,047 as at present. Surely that is further evidence of lack of accommodation. He further suggests that the new building should have three times the present square feet of floor space. This is more evidence of lack of accommodation. Now let me give an extract from the Nelson Daily News, pulished at Nelson, fifty miles from Trail. In an editorial I find the following:
The Nelson Daily News hopes that the request of the Trail board of trade for a public building will receive in this case a little more than the usual "earnest consideration".
And here is another passage from this editorial:
There are conditions of congestion; that Trail post office is notorious.
Let me quote further from the editorial:
The present post office quarters now rank as wholly inadequate and temporary.
The Budget-Mr. Esling

In a letter dated February 3, 1927, the hon. Minister of Health of British Columbia writes me as follows:
I am thoroughly conversant with the matters of that district, and it was with a view of giving better accommodation that I recommended the purchase of property in Trail some time ago, it being my intention to advocate the erection of a suitable building on the site.
I hope the Minister of Health (Mr. King) in meeting of the cabinet council will advocate the erection of this building.
I have another letter. It is from the deputy postmaster general:
As to post office accommodation, the district superintendent reports that the present premises are inadequate and that a new and suitable building should be erected. A recommendation to this effect has already been forwarded to the Department of Public Works and it is understood that the matter is under consideration.
I have also a letter from the Postmaster General himself as follows:
I may say that the construction of public builidngs is a matter of policy resting with the Minister of Public Works, but I have already made representations to his department that the accommodations at present provided at Trail are totally inadequate and have urged the erection of a suitable public building.
I think I have shown that the policy of the Minister of Public Works applies to Trail.
Last year Canada celebrated1 its sixtieth anniversary. Flags were flying, bells were ringing, and everybody rejoiced from coast to coast. Altogether it was a wonderful celebration, one that would have gratified the fathers of confederation could they have witnessed the festivities and observed what has been accomplished in Canada in the sixty years from the time those strong and able colonial statesmen framed the act which gave us our constitution. They would have rejoiced to know that we to-day have an educational system in Canada equal to any in the world1; that we have a transportation system which encircles the globe; that we have huge water power developments and industrial activities; and that we enjoy all the modern comforts of the most advanced nation. It would, I say, have been an inspiring revelation to the fathers of confederation. Following that celebration came the imperial conference, from which Canada emerged with an allegedly mew constitutional status. We have been basking in the sunshine of absolute autonomy; we have been negotiating commercial treaties; and we have been sending ambassadors in every direction. All this makes a thrilling and inspiring picture to hang in the gallery of world progress, because Canada is a great and independent nation,

I want to give you another picture by way of contrast. The affairs of this great and independent nation are to-day administered by a government which, without a hearing, without any charges upon which to proceed, and against the written protests of ninety per cent of a community, saw fit to remove a little country postmaster in order that they might appease the appetite of some hungry Grit who wanted to possess himself of the office, the actual remuneration of which is less than one dollar per week. There is located on the Arrow lakes in British Columbia a little community known as Renata. That community is composed of just sixty-one adult souls, all thrifty, enterprising and industrious fruit growers. In the early part of 1927 a vacancy occurred in the post office and fifty-five of these sixty-one persons signed a petition for the appointment of the storekeeper; the other applicant was a Liberal returning officer, road boss and justice of the peace. The Postmaster General must have done so inadvertently, but he appointed the storekeeper, and I have a letter which states that the Liberal returning officer made the boast that within six months he would be postmaster in that community. Well, within not six months but precisely nine weeks from the day of the appointment of the storekeeper word was received, not from the inspector, not from the department, but from the Postmaster General himself-the Postmaster General of this great and independent nation-firing that little country storekeeper whose remuneration was less than one dollar per week. The community protested; it forwarded its protest to Ottawa. But nothwith-standing that fact their representations were ignored; their protests were of no avail. As a community they got together and said, We will not go to the new post office, but will patronize the postal service of the river boats. And to show that they were in earnest, I may mention the fact that whereas the receipts of Renata post office for the last nine months under the new Liberal appointee have been $70, for the corresponding nine months of last year they amounted to $162. The people send one of their community out to the new Liberal post office to get their mail and they bring it to this little store where it is distributed.
I asked for a return of the correspondence in this matter, and naturally enough I expected the correspondence which led to the dismissal of the former postmaster. All I received was the correspondence that took place after his dismissal. There was one letter in which the statement was made that it had been deemed advisable to make the change because of a

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
change of site. But the site which suits the people is near the wharf, the only outlet for the community, whereas the office of the new postmaster is half a mile out of town, inconvenient to the people of the community. This is a picture which hangs in the gallery of public opinion and shows the political degeneracy of this government. I will add this, however: My personal regard for the ministers on the other side is too great to allow me to think for one moment that the majority of them would condone such a removal. But a government must be judged by the company it keeps, just like an individual. I do not know what part the minister from British Columbia played in this particular affair, but the fact remains that he was the sole survivor of the last Liberal wreck in that province, and anyone wanting a job would naturally appeal to his influence. That was why I asked for the return.
I w'ant to say a word about mining, because of the new activity in the development of our mines. The advances which have been made in metallurgical research warrant the conclusion that it will not be long before the value of the mineral output of Canada equals that of wheat. The value of last year's wheat production was approximately $450,000,000, while last year's mineral production was valued at $241,000,000. With the advances in metallurgy we are now able to treat more complex ores and ores of lower grade, and under this development northern Ontario and Quebec as well as Manitoba will, it is fair to assume, show a healthy increase in mineral output. Experiments in the recovery and utilization of the iron content of the smelter slag are proceeding at Trail, and I hope before long we shall be turning out iron there in addition to the other products.
In this connection I should just like to say that we in Trail, in common with the rest of this Dominion, should feel extremely proud of the fact that last week, in the city of New York, Mr. S. G. Blaylock, manager of the Trail smelter, was awarded the James Douglas gold medal by the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers for the greatest commercial achievement in metallurgy. The history of this award dates back to the time of the war, when the allies were paying 45 and 48 cents ,per pound for zinc, the supply of which was practically controlled by a New York syndicate. Mr. Blaylock and his research staff at the Trail smelter solved the process of separating zinc from ores, as a result of which the Trail smelter was able to supply the allies with zinc at 15 cents per pound. I think, Mr. Speaker, that if the federal Department of Mines would step on it and speed up its research department some day we might hope for equal honours to be achieved by that department.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, before entering into a discussion of the budget proposals I wish to say a few words with regard to some remarks made by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) last evening, when he spoke of the preference for the Conservative party shown by certain hon. members in this corner during the session of 1926. In my opinion the hon. member for Lisgar is the last person in the house to bring up the question of the famous 1926 session, because one of the most humorous incidents which comes to my mind when I think of that session is the awful agony the hon. member went through whenever the fate of the Liberal party was at stake. With regard to my own position I simply wish to say that I have never attempted to make any apology for the stand I took on that occasion. I submitted that stand to the electors of my constituency, and my presence here to-day is their judgment of that stand. I am prepared to let it go at that.


Mr. BROWN:: You have apologized for it since.


William Thomas Lucas: No. The hon. member for
Marquette (Mr. Glen) also made reference to our attitude at that time, and imputed certain motives to members in this comer of the house. As the hon. gentleman is a comparatively new member and has no personal knowledge of what happened during the session of 1926 or the sessions preceding, his views cannot be based on personal observation. They must be taken as a reflection of the views of certain of his colleagues, and I can only regret that he saw fit to mar an otherwise skilful and well delivered address by making such ill-founded insinuations from unreliable sources. If the hon. member for Marquette will reflect on his own situation he will remember that he came to this house, as the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) well said this afternoon, full of Liberal and Progressive ideas. He had a double-barrelled pistol, loaded to the muzzle with those principles. When he pointed that double-barrelled pistol at the head of the government, however, what happened? The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) rose and said, in effect, "You have your gun loaded with the wrong ammunition. That is the ammunition we use when we are talking in the country, but it is of no use in this house." So the hon. member for Marquette immediately extracted that ammunition, and we find him to-day,
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

meekly kneeling at the feet of the government. I think the hon. member should reflect a little before he begins to impute motives to other hon. members.
So much has already been said with regard to the budget that one finds it rather hard to uncover anything new. I feel, however, that if through the discussions whidh have taken place even one new suggestion may be offered or some of those suggestions already made driven home in such a way as to help in some small degree to bring about the solution of our many and varied problems, then our time will not have been wasted. I must congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr Robb) on again being able to present a surplus to the house. The minister has been able to show a surplus ever since he took over the office which he now occupies, which is very gratifying indeed. But, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it would be much more gratifying if we could honestly believe that that surplus really existed, because many good arguments have been presented to show that if the method of book-keeping to-day were the same as that employed by his predecessor, Mr. Fielding, the minister would have a very substantial deficit instead of a surplus. I think the people of Canada today want to know the true situation. I understand that Mr. Fielding presented some seventeen budgets in this house, and we all know the respect in which he was held by the people of this country, irrespective of political feelings. Permit me to read just a short extract from the budget speech of 1923, which will be found at page 2641 of revised Hansard for that year:
The revenue for the year was $381,952,386.99 against ordinary expenditure of $347,560,690.63. If the surplus is to be ascertained by comparing the ordinary revenue with the ordinary expenditure-and that was the time-honoured way of determining surpluses-then on that year there was a surplus of $34,391,696.36. But there was a capital expenditure of $16,295,332.55. If we take that into account, both ordinary expenditure and capital expenditure, there was still a surplus of $18,096,363.81. Then there were certain special expenditures including demobilization charges, of $1,526,583.22. So, if we take into account ordinary expenditure, capital expenditure and what is called special expenditure, there still was a surplus of $16,569,780.59. So far this is a story of surpluses; but there is a further statement to be made which quite destroys that happy picture. There were charges for advances to railways of $97,950,645.36. If we take, then, the whole expenditure for the year, ordinary, capital, special and railways, there was a deficit in that year of $81,380,864.77. After allowances for some deductions are made, the next result was that year we added to the public debt $81,256,818.04.
We turn now to the year 1922-1923 which closed not many days ago. We have not the

complete accounts before us, but there is sufficient information to enable us practically to announce the result. Ordinary revenue amounted to $393,619,000. These are estimates, as the figures are not absolutely final. Ordinary expenditure amounted to about $331,780,000. As between those two items there was then a surplus of $61,839,000. Capital expenditure, however, represents $14,500,000; adjustment of war claims, $6,700,000; cost of loan flotations, $3,050,000; these representing in all $24,250,000. There was thus a surplus over ordinary, capital and special expenditures, of $37,589,000. But again the railways have to be taken into account. We had to advance during that year $92,190,000 for railways, and $6,060,720 for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, making in all for that charge, $98,250,720. This, of course, takes up all the surplus I have mentioned and leaves a large balance on the other side of the account. If we take everything into consideration for the year, the net result was that we added to the public debt in the year just closed $49,293,086. The receipt of something over $8,000,000 from the British government on exchange account helped us to keep down what otherwise would have been a larger addition to the public debt.
It will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that in 1921-22 Mr. Fielding added $97,950,645 to the expenses of that year in the shape of advances to the railways. In 1923 he again added advances to a total of $92,190,000, and in both those years he had heavy deficits. In 1924 the new Finance minister, out of a total advance to the railways of $74,550,000 added only $24,550,000 to the expenses of the year, and took care of $50,000,000 by way of guaranteed bonds, and by so doing was able to show a substantial surplus. Now what I should like to know is this: If the Finance minister followed exactly the same method of bookkeeping as his predecessor, would he have been able to show that surplus? I am not saying for one moment that the system of bookkeeping which the Finance minister adopts at the present time is a wrong system, but I do claim it is not fair to make these deductions until the Canadian National railways are recapitalized and started off with a new balance sheet, and that balance sheet placed before us when the budget is brought down. We should then be in a position to judge whether any new borrowings should be charged to public debt or not. Until this is done we shall not be able intelligently to discuss the reduction of the public debt, and until this is done the government cannot make a just claim to any such reduction.
I have a very high regard for the Finance minister. His genial personality and his fair treatment of members generally is certainly appreciated. I have also a very high regard for his ability as a politician. A man who can show surpluses where apparently no surpluses exist, a man who can juggle with

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
the tariff and make people believe they are getting something when they are getting very little, must certainly be given credit for cleverness. Why cannot we be frank in regard to this matter? The Liberal party in their platform of 1919, which has been read many times in this house, declared explicitly that they are in favour of free trade and a lower tariff, and yet the statement has been made, and figures quoted to prove it, that a difference of not more than one or two per cent exists on the whole between the present tariff and the tariff which prevailed under Conservative governments.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: What year of Conservative administration are you taking in making that comparison?


William Thomas Lucas: I am taking the average tariff.


Malcolm McLean: In what years?


William Thomas Lucas: If the hon. gentleman refers to the figures furnished by the bureau of statistics and takes the average tariff from about 1868, or when the first tariff was framed, and compares the averages for all those years, I think he will find that >my statement will be pretty well verified.


Malcolm McLean: No, sir.


William Thomas Lucas: The budget of 1926 affords
an excellent illustration of how this juggling with the tariff takes place. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) brought in a resolution in 1925 asking for a reduction in the duty on automobiles. When the vote on that resolution was taken we received more support from hon. gentlemen to my right than we did from hon. members on the government side, and the records will bear me out in that statement. However, the support we received was very small. The next year the hon. member for Macleod again introduced a resolution asking for a reduction in duty on automobiles. That year the government accepted the resolution, and a straight cut of 15 per cent was made in the tariff on automobiles of $1,200 value or under. Now our Liberal friends represent to their constituents, and to the country generally, that there was a straight cut of 15 per cent in the automobile duty. They are quite right in stating that a cut of 15 per cent was made in the duty, but do we find an actual reduction of 15 per cent in the price of automobiles to-day? Only last night the hon. member for Macleod placed on Hansard the actual prices that have to be paid for automobiles, and instead of the reduction in price being 15 per cent, as claimed, it only amounts to about 5 per cent. Now from the
party standpoint this may be considered good tactics, but it is certainly not a courageous or a manly way to deal with the people.
Now we come to the present budget, and at first glance one is inclined to think that the changes are fairly sweeping. But on closer examination these changes turn out to be little more than a mere reclassification, and we have not had any explanation from any member of the government yet as to just what the changes actually do mean. We find that there are 122 items struck out, and 159 items substituted. The budget looks like an attempt at window dressing in order to cover up empty shelves. This manner of dealing with the tariff reminds me of one receiving a valentine box. When one is unwrapping layer after layer of highly coloured paper, hope soar^ high that something worth while is within, but the hope is quickly dispelled when the contents are found to' be nothing but a cigarette which quickly disapears in a few puffs ol smoke. When one looks at every cut that has been made in the tariff by the present government we find that the manufacturer has been given some compensation which practically offsets the cut so far as protection is concerned. If the government finds it necessary to do this then I say that the philosophy of the Liberal party practically disappears. I have always understood that their contention as put forth to the people was that the manufacturers or the big interests were taking too great a toll out of the masses of the people, and yet while they may reduce the tariff they give some compensation which still allows those big interests the same amount of protection. If after several years in office they have found that it is not in the best interests of Canada to reduce protection, one would have no fault to find with them, if they would come out frankly and say so. I feel safe in saying that since the days of confederation no other question has received more consideration than the tariff, yet we do not seem to be any closer to a solution of it.
We now come to the question of the income tax reduction. I am absolutely opposed to that reduction, but the most serious thing in that connection is the statement of the Minister of Finance as follows:
It is proposed that the Dominion shall continue gradually to lighten the load in the income tax field.
In my opinion the income tax is the fairest tax that has yet been devised, because it bears most heavily on those who are best able to pay it. It has already been stated in this debate that Great Britain receives a very large proportion-forty-five per cent-of her revenue from the income tax. The United
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

States, as has been stated, receives sixty-five per cent, while Canada receives less than fourteen per cent. If the income tax is to be lowered or wiped out, this means that we shall have to depend on the customs tariff for revenue to cover both ordinary and war expenditure and the Liberal pledges as to lowering the tariff and shifting the burden from the masses of the people will become a mere phantasy. I cannot for the life of me see how the government can propose to reduce the tariff if they are going to reduce these other modes of taxation, because we all admit that we must raise a certain amount of revenue to carry on the business of the country. We find that this year the total war revenue amounted to $146,470,000 and the tptal war expenditure to $164,501,000, so that we are short of raising sufficient money to pay actual war expenditure by $18,031,000. Yet the Minister of Finance proposes to make a further cut and gradually to wipe out the income tax. What does that mean? It means that we will have to raise by means of customs tariff not only the ordinary revenue but a sufficient amount to take care of war expenditure, and therefore it is not reasonable to expect that under those conditions the tariff can be reduced.
A great deal has been said about prosperity in this country, but I think one of the best tests of prosperity is to show how our population is increasing. The question of immigration is being discussed more than any other problem in Canada to-day. I have read the speech of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) and I agree very largely with the ideas he expressed in regard to an immigration policy. His policy will be found on page 1018 of Hansard, and briefly it is that he would admit anyone of British origin, sound in body and mind.


William Thomas Lucas: Yes, white; and that he would apply the family quota to continental Europe, so that those from continental Europe who are now in Canada would have to nominate their relatives in order that they might be permitted to enter this country. If those people who are here at the present time were prosperous they would be only too glad to nominate some of their relatives to come to Canada and ^hare that prosperity with them. He quoted from a pamphlet prepared in the United States showing that population did not increase according to the amount of immigration. I have that pamphlet in my hand. It deals with United States conditions, but I believe from figures which I will present to the house in a short time that this will apply also to Canada. The pamphlet states:
Except for brief periods, immigration will not increase the population above the figure it will reach without immigration. . . If we admit those from other lands we shall decrease by a like number those who will be born of those now here. .	. The question for coldblooded consideration by the American of to-day is this: Do you want the soil inherited by your son or by the son of one who now toils in a foreign land?
While studying the question of immigration I secured from the bureau of statistics some figures which in my opinion are startling, and I am going to place them on Hansard. I will ask hon. members to study them and I am sure they will come to the conclusion that this problem is so serious that we as Canadians should place it above party politics and face it like men. The last Canadian census was taken in 1921, and a quinquennial census was taken of the three prairie provinces in 1926. I wish to quote figures in connection with the population of the three prairie provinces in the period between 1921 and 1926-because this is not an estimate; the figures are accurate on account of the census having been taken in


Mr. NEILL:: White.	those years.	The figures are	as follows:Actual	Natural	NewPopulation	five-year	increase	immigrationProvince	1921	1926	increase	1921-1926	1921-1926Manitoba .. .	. .. 610,118	639,056	28,938	52,446	67,243Saskatchewan .	. .. 757,510	820,438	62,928	76,362	59,137Alberta	. .. 588,454	607,599	19,145	50,216	54,545Totals.. .	. .. 1,956,082	2,067,093	111,011	179,024	180,925
We should have had in those provinces in 1926, counting the natural increase and the new immigration, a total population of 2,316,031. What does that mean? It means that we lost our whole natural increase of 179,024, and 69,914 out of 180,925 new immigrants, or 38.6 per cent of the new immigration. We hear a good deal about our own Canadians going across to the United States.

We know the United States has a quota law against the people of other countries than Canada, and therefore I believe I am quite right in assuming that these people we have lost must have been our own Canadians who have gone across to the United States.
While the figures for the Dominion are not quite as bad as those for the three western pi ovinces, they are still very startling. A

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
census was taken in 1921, and while we have only an estimate of the population of the whole Dominion for 1026, the bureau of statistics gives the following figures:	Total
population in 1921, 8,788,483; 1926, 9,390,000. But we had a natural increase between 1921 and 1926 of 856,682, and new immigration amounting to 667,349. When we total this up, we find that we lost our whole natural increase of 856,682, and 65,832 of our new immigration, or about ten per cent.
We find that in the three prairie provinces the number of farms occupied in 1921 and 1926 was as follows:
Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
1921	
53,252	119,451	82,9541926	
53,251	117,781	77,130Decrease.	.	1	1,670	5,824
What has been our general immigration policy? It has been to bring the agricultural class to this country. And yet we find after spending the amount of money we have to bring people to engage in agriculture on our western farms, that we have lost 40 per cent of our new immigration and the whole of our natural increase. Surely these figures are so startling that no one will deny that there is something wrong. We are spending a vast sum of money from our own Dominion treasury, and on top of that I venture to say that every provincial government in Canada is spending a certain amount of money, to bring in immigration. The two great railway companies and many private organizations in this country are also spending vast sums for the same purpose. While it is impossible to get the complete figures, it has been estimated that something like $10,000,000 is being spent each year in Canada to bring immigration into this country, and the result is as I have indicated.
What is the trouble? Is there anything wrong with Canada? I think every hon. gentleman will agree with me that there is not, that we have one of the finest countries in any part of the globe. Is there anything wrong with the people? I think we will answer no, because we find that our Canadians, no matter to what part of the world they may go, are able to capture the very best positions, and can hold their own either in business or in war, if necessary.
Then what is the trouble? Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the greatest curse with which this country has been afflicted has been partisan politics, where men are fighting for party instead of for the country. I believe that if those men would put the same energy into fighting for Canada as they are putting into
fighting for their party we would certainly get better results. We should get back to the days of old, when none were for the party and all were for the state There are a great many problems facing Canada and I think every member will agree with me that we spend far too much of our time in bickering over party politics. I picked up a paper the other morning, and the first thing that caught my eye was "421 postmasters dismissed in Canada from October 1, 1926, to February 1, 1928." A few nights ago when we were discussing a vote that had been cut out for a post office at Camrose and one for Mahone bay, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) justified the dropping of those items on the ground that the other party did the same thing back in 1911. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is men of the calibre of the fathers of confederation, men who will be ready to sink their party differences and work together in the interests of Canada as they did, laying the foundations of which we are all so proud, and until we have men of that calibre there is very little hope of bettering our present conditions. When one looks at these immigration figures, one realizes that we are spending all this money to bring in immigrants, millions of dollars every year, and the only result we are getting is to supplant our present population; we are changing its complexion without increasing the numbers.
I would just like in conclusion to read the advice which Premier Baldwin gave to Canada when he was over here. He said:
Canada has an enormous future, and if it be not impertinent to say so to Canadians, I would say: The future is with you; do not be in too much of a hurry. Your country is a country for men of the north, virile races. Quality before quantity any day. Build up with the best. What does it matter if it is a hundred years, or two hundred years, or more, before your country is full? Keep the stock you have, and the men and women you have, and see to it that the coming generations are in no whit inferior to them. I have often thought that it is a dangerous thing to the morale of a nation to get rich quickly as it is to an individual. Time is all on your side. Maintain the values; maintain the standards; and may the prayer of Canada always be the prayer of the Greek sailor which has been preserved for us by Seneca: "God, You may save me if You will; You may sink me if You will; but whatever happens, I will always keep my rudder true."
Mr. ALEX T. EMBURY (Hastings-Peter-borough): Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have attempted to address the house, and I will be very brief, but I feel certain that what I have to say will be received with consideration by all the members.
The Budget-Mr. Embury


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Mr. EMBURY:: When I add that I will
detain the house for only twenty minutes, I feel sure that I have already received' the commendation of hon. members. At the outset may I be permitted to say a few words about my own riding. It is a new electoral division formed by the last general redistribution, and like most of the ridings in the rural and central parts of old Ontario, it has not received that publicity in this house that has brought into more or less prominence the ridings of the prairie provinces and also of the maritimes, whose members have spoken occasionally during the last three sessions on maritime rights. I do not suppose there is a riding in the whole Dominion with more diversified resources and industries than the one which I have the honour to represent. I will briefly enumerate a few of these:
Lumbering is carried on on a considerable scale.
Before the discoveries of our great mining fields in new Ontario, northern Quebec and northern Manitoba, which have lately made Canada famous, Hastings county was the most talked-of mining district in Ontario. Iron, talc, corundum, feldspar, fluorspar and gold mines have been operated at different periods to a more or less considerable extent, and our marble deposits are among the greatest in the world. The talc mines in the Madoc district are known the world over, because practically the whole of the supply for the American continent of talc for toilet purposes is furnished by us. Italy is the only country that has talc of a quality at all approaching it.
Next come our manufacturing plants. We have at Deloro in the very central part of the riding one of the most modern, scientific and largest smelting and refining plants in operation.
I must not forget our tourist trade, which has already developed on a large scale, due to the net work of lakes among our hills-lakes stocked with game fish in abundance.
Last and greatest of all of course is our old stand-by and most important asset, mixed farming.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in spite of all these natural advantages and attractions, I cannot, like the member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) and other Conservative members, boast of ever having had the honour of a visit from a cabinet minister, to say nothing of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his whole cabinet. They pass through on the train and do not even stop at the water tank for water. When they look at their political map they find the constituency of Hastings-Peter-borough marked-barren; soil unfertile. That
[Mr. Embury.)
is true, but in one sense only, and I extend to the Prime Minister and his cabinet a cordial invitation to this interesting riding. I may say, however, that it will not be necessary to come at election time.
Now, sir, the outstanding problem of the Dominion to-day is the growth of our population. It is discussed by men in all walks of life, from great economists to the man on the street. In legislative bodies the theme is almost worn threadbare. Yet it is a fact that under present conditions no remedy seems in sight, Canada, so much talked about by ourselves and by other nations as a land of opportunity, a land of great natural resources, a land of rapidly increasing wealth, a land of unlimited possibilities in agriculture and in mining-this land, so far as population is concerned, is almost stagnant. There must be a reason for this, as there is always a reason for everything. The real and only reason is our failure to furnish employment for our own people and for newcomers from other lands. Our situation in relation to the United States is, in one respect, analogous to that of Scotland to England. Scotland has a race of people second to none in the world, but England has the population and the wealth, and always will have. But on closer study there will be found to be a vast difference in the two cases. Sixty years ago Canada looked like a mighty poor neighbour to our friends across the border; but undreamed of wealth and development in our prairie provinces, mining fields and water powers, has changed the situation entirely, and to-day we are looming large in the eyes of the world. But there is still something wrong,/ ' United States capitalists are grabbing great volumes of our best investments, while we are giving them in exchange the best of our young manhood. We spend millions of dollars on immigration schemes, but still the exodus goes on, and it will continue until a policy is devised ond put in force that will furnish work for those already here and those who would like to emigrate here from other countries. Canada has a citizenship that averages as high as that of any country, and is vastly superior to that of most countries. It is the duty of this government, therefore, to throw aside all selfish considerations and compromises and lend its efforts wholeheartedly to a solution of this great problem.
Another subject of controversy has been the effect of the Australian treaty on the dairy industry of Canada, but not until this year, Mr. Speaker, has the situation become so acute as to cause real alarm to the whole of rural Canada as well as to the government

The Budget-Mr. Embury
itself. I have before me some figures which will give a pretty accurate idea of the effect of the treaty on this great Canadian industry. I do not wish to worry the house with too much detail, and therefore I will give these figures in concise form. On December 1, 1927, there were 26,932,669 pounds of creamery butter and 660,088 pounds of dairy butter in cold storage-over 6,500,000 pounds more than the average for the preceding five five years. On the same date in 1926 we had over 7,500,000 pounds more in cold storage. On top of this there was brought into Canada from Australia in December 28,000 pounds, and from September 1 to December 31, 3,031,153 pounds; in the month of January, 1927, we received 248,584 pounds from Australia and 3,183,289 pounds from New Zealand, according to the figures supplied by the bureau of statistics. From the latest information received from leading produce men who operated with the steamship companies in Halifax and Vancouver we learn that from September 1, 1927, to February 15, 1928, 5,000 boxes, or 276,584 pounds of Australian butter and 5,437,040 pounds of New Zealand butter were received at Vancouver, and at Halifax 4,685,240 pounds of New Zealand butter. I am told that recently a steamer arrived from New Zealand with about 30,000 boxes, and that another steamer left Auckland for Vancouver on February 12 with 27,000 boxes. From this information it is estimated that the amount of butter brought in or on the water in transit will amount to about 13,500,000 pounds. Then with the several boatloads due to arrive before the end of the month, it is estimated that over 15,000,000 pounds of Australian and New Zealand butter will have come into Canada between September 1 and April 30.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to see how our creamery men under these conditions can compete with Australia and New Zealand, ff our creamery men during the coming summer are not able to operate at full capacity, it means serious loss to themselves and much lower prices to the farmers. In my riding we have an area 100 miles in length and in parts 50 miles in width, with a network of hundreds of miles of roads, travelled daily from May 1 until November with cream trucks, collecting the cream from the farmers to supply many creameries. Is it any wonder that we view with alarm the entrance of foreign butter at one cent per pound duty? Of course, I am free to admit that other provinces, especially British Columbia, benefit in other ways from the Australian treaty, but it seems that in this case the farmer is the principal sufferer from the policies of the government. I may say that during the session of 1926 those men who were most strenuous in their opposition to the treaty, and who probably most clearly saw its ultimate effect on the farmers of Ontario, met defeat at the polls. I hope that what I have said to-night will not result in my meeting a similar fate at the next election. Now, Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that this state of affairs is undermining the very foundations and knocking out the main prop of mixed farming. Mixed farming is one of the elements that has made Ontario the richest province in the Dominion of Canada to-day. This government, by the Australian treaty, is dealing a serious blow at this time honoured and basic industry; yet there is absolute silence on the part of the ministry. Does the government intend to act, or not?
Perhaps I may be allowed to digress for a moment to say a word about group government. Let me say at the outset that I hold no brief for group or class government of any kind. Class government in Canada was a post-war condition and we shall not see it again, at least not in our time. But I cannot fail to see that there is some softening of the bitterness that has prevailed in politics from this cause, and in support of this contention I wish to quote, if. I may, from the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) in defence of the group to which she belongs. The hon. member says in part:
The history of the whole attitude of the Liberal party to the new groups since 1921 has been one of protestations of friendship, which, if accepted, have proven to the honest the graveyard of their hopes and to the others a fulfilment of their treacherous plans.
She goes on to say:
Speaking for myself, I would rather have the bitter, uncompromising, unfriendly and snobbish attitude of the Conservative party. At least it was honest and we knew where we stood. I often wonder why these Conservatives think they are so much better than other people.
On the surface this lo^s like a slam, but to me it looks like a little friendly slap; and this being leap year I do not think anybody would for a moment accuse the hon. member of boldness in this mild flirtation with the Conservative party. On the other hand, much more vitriolic was the attack of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) on the Progressive group, which I think showed very bad taste considering that the government of which he is now a member was held in power for years by members of that same group which he now takes particular pains to snipe at from his seat in the house. I presume he speaks for the government.
The Budget-Mr. Embury

With reference to the budget, almost the first words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) are these:
Mr. Speaker, seldom have the annual statements from leaders of finance and industry throughout Canada so generally reflected such progress and prosperity as that of the year 1927.
Granting that prosperity does exist, granting for a moment that the minister's statement is absolutely correct, I should like to know what this government had to do with this alleged prosperity. In my opinion, the provincial governments, with their extensive road policies and railroad construction into their mining fields, should be given a large share of the credit for Canada's present position in world finance and industry. Highway construction and maintenance, provincial and county, highways, and colonization road construction, have become almost as important as our railway system. Nothing but an advanced provincial policy in the construction of highways has been responsible for our large and increasing tourist trade, which is now an annual item of over $200,000,000, and is increasing at a rapid rate. But above all, the prosperity of 1927 was due to an almighty and beneficent Providence or Creator who tempered the winds and guided the rains over one of the greatest crops that Canada has ever seen.
Another statement of the Minister of Finance in his budget speech reads:
We expect to receive from customs duties $153,600,000, an increase of $11,600,000 over the previous year; excise duties $57,000,000, an increase of $8,400,000.
This statement was received with applause by members on the government benches, as well as by their Liberal-Progressive allies. They forgot themselves for a moment. If ever a country owed an eternal debt of gratitude to any party for making it possible for the Finance minister to utter such a statement as that just quoted, this country owes that debt to the Conservative party of Canada; and I say this without trying to detract for a moment from any credit to which the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) may be entitled.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think that the budget is a compromise on the part of the Minister of Finance between what he would like to present to the country and what his Liberal-Progressive allies on his right allowed him to present; and I also believe that the interests of this country will be better served when a party is elected which is free to guide our destinies, unhampered by the fear of offending any particular group of politicians on which it is obliged to lean for support.

I have one definite suggestion to offer the government: there should be some economy practised in administration. The government is spending money lavishly, as the estimates will show. The establishment of new and unnecessary embassies, and other gigantic undertakings that are not pressing, seem a trifle out of place for a comparatively new country with a tremendous debt and so few people to pay it. If we build for the future, let us do so in proportion to our ability to meet our obligations. The motto which every government and every nation should have constantly before them is this: In time of prosperity and plenty prepare for adverse contingencies. But in this respect the motto of this government seems to be: "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."


Mr. G. D. MORIN (Bagot) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, allow me, on behalf of the people of Bagot and my own, to convey to you our warmest congratulations, as well as our feelings of deep respect and admiration for the innumerable services rendered, and that you will for a long time to come, we trust, continue to render to our country through your good example and fine qualities as a statesman.
It also gives me pleasure to again pay our respects to our illustrious leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), to his worthy colleague the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and also to all the members of the cabinet, whose names will be handed down to posterity as types of energy, work and application.
I also wish to take the opportunity of conveying our sincere congratulations to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), chosen, on October 15th last, in the city of Winnipeg, to guide the destinies of the great Conservative party. Let me assure him that if he does us the honour of a visit to our riding, he will be welcomed with as much dignity and courtesy as was his predecessor, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, at the time of my first election, that famous partial election in Bagot, in December 1925.
Many speeches were delivered on the budget or rather on thoughts suggested by the budget; I think we have heard about eighty-five of them. On this side of the house we claim that, on the whole, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it was received as very good news, spreading joy and encouragement; on the other hand our opponents find in it but sorrow and desolation. To justify our joy let us, in the light of facts, briefly compare the budgets of the last five years of the Conservative party's rule, from 1917 to 1922, with the bud-

The Budget-Mr. Morin (Bagot)
gets of the last five years of the Liberal party's regime, from 1922 to 1027. If we look in the Statistical Year Book for 1926, we find at page 795, statement 23, that the country's debt which, in 1917, was 1879,186208, had increased, in 1922, to $2,422,135,802, an increase therefore of $1,542,949,504; and that, in 1926, it had decreased to $2,389,731,099; and moreover it had still decreased in 1927, by $38,000,000. According to the same statement, the debt per capita which, in 1916, was $76.55, was increased by our opponents to $270.93, in 1922; the present government brought it down to $251.43, up to 1926. These figures illustrate why our colleagues on the other side of the house do not face squarely the financial issue of the country. It is better and indeed suits their purpose better to make a flank attack, by attributing to the kindness of Divine Providence as well as to the zeal and diligence of a young and enthusiastic nation, the great improvement in our finances. Yet, notwithstanding so obvious a success, our opponents hold this government responsible for all the grief caused by the departure or exodus of our people to the United States. Although they do not say it openly, they endeavour to show that in order to stamp out this evil, we should apply the great remedy, high protection. Let us return to the Statistical Year Book for 1926 and look up page 95, statement No. 4; we find that under the high protection regime, from 1881 to 1891, the rate of increase in the population of this country was 11.76 per cent; while under the Liberal rule, from 1901 to 1911, it was 34.17 per cent; and from 1911 to 1921, under the protectionists, it fell to 21.95 per cent. These figures are sufficient evidence and indicate quite the contrary of what our opponents are trying to show.
Instead of so much pessimism, would it not be better policy to spread hope and encouragement, to say exactly what our country is; an ideal spot for every good Canadian inhabiting it or for any person who may in the future settle here bringing with him the qualifications required to be a good Canadian. While we hear in the house much slander or calumny about our country, let us see what is said of it abroad.
In the Canadian review "Quebec" published in London by Mr. L. J. Lemieux; in quoting figures as to Canada's progress, the London editor expresses himself as follows:
In 1926, the Dominion of Canada, with a population of about 9,500,000 people, manufactured as much as did the United States, when they had a population of 50,000,000; has as much foreign trade as had the United States when they had 76,000,000 people; mined minerals equal to the total mining output of the United States, when they had a population of
38.000,000; had a favourable trade balance of $400,000,000 (the largest of any nation in the world).
On the other hand the "National Foreign Trade Council" of New York, recently stated: That Canada surpassed every nation in regard to the increase of her trade from 1913 to 1926. The Canadian trade increase was 85 per cent, while that of American trade was but 31 per cent. At the beginning of the year, the League of Nations published a communique in which it is shown that the increase of wealth in Canada reached 1,100 per capita, in 1903; $2,406 in 1926; a rate or progress never reached by any nation. "Le Canada" from which this information is taken, continues as follows:
Should not these statistics published by organizations that are not Canadian, suffice to convince us of our real prosperity.
After such testimonial how could there be some one in Canada to maintain that our country is not on the path leading to prosperity and material welfare.
However, such an intense and rapid development, as well as the increasing number of motor cars in this country and in the United States with its 6,000' miles of international boundary, has created in Canada a new situation which requires more than ever the attention of our public corporations, and particularly the federal and provincial governments.
Speaking on behalf of an electoral riding almost exclusively agricultural, I submit that it is especially to the farming class that we, in this house, should, to-day, more than ever interest ourselves. We must seek the means to make farming a more paying and alluring proposition; we must, by unceasing work, filled with courage and real sympathy, better the lot of the farmer, so that all those who are at present or will become farmers, may be proud of it and happy. The out of data methods must make way, as in all other spheres, to methods more appropriate to the needs of the time. The farmer must really be protected and encouraged by a more active and effective propaganda. Steady and constant work should tend to bring back to our farms the small home industries, to improve house planning, farm management, stock breeding, general farming methods, implements and tools. Is it not evident that to help farmers is to preserve and improve the base on which rests the whole social fabric.
The farmers of my district and those of the whole country, I think, are not and will not be opposed to anything which may improve their conditions. Most of my electors are well off, but they are aware that owing to

The Budget-Mr. Morin (Bagot)
the great changes which are taking place certain reforms are needed to ensure to their descendants all the affluence they themselves enjoy. The farming class in my riding seem to be quite satisfied of the present administration; it highly appreciates our rapid recovery from the disastrous war. The same may be said of our industries, specially those of our only town in my riding, the pretty town of Acton Vale. All are aware of the enormous difficulties which represent, for our government, the administration of such a vast country, they however humbly request, in their interest as well as in the general interest of the community, that the adequate remedy be applied.
After the ordeal of the terrible war of 1914, after perhaps other calamities less terrible and disastrous than that one we trust, our country is courageously recovering from its trials and will attain, with the concourse and application of all, its high destiny, that of becoming the most beautiful and happy country in the whole world.
The honours and success of the past being certainly the best guarantee for the future, I therefore intend, sir, to cast my vote in favour of the present administration.
Mr. ROBINSON moved the adjourment of the debate.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection, provided that this will not interfere with the arrangement to conclude the debate on Tuesday.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I thought that was the arrangement between the whips.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.02 p.m.
Friday, March 9, 1928