1928-03-09

RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 63, to amend the Railway Act, (Investigation of subsidiary of telephone or telegraph companies).
Mr. DUNNING:: Explain.


Mr. GEARY:: When an application comes before the Board of Railway Commissioners to fix the rates of a telephone or telegraph com-

pany, either by way of reduction or increase of such rates, the- financial condition of the company is a matter of which the board must make itself fully aware, because on the financial condition of the company, its assets and its liabilities, its income and expenditure, is based as a rule the decision of the board as to whether the rates should be increased or reduced. It is suggested that a company such as this may conceal a certain important part of its affairs by the formation of a subsidiary company or the acquiring of another company to which that portion of its affairs may be transferred for treatment.
Under the act there is no jurisdiction in the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada to investigate the affairs of such a company, that is of a subsidiary or acquired company such as I have described. It is beyond my comprehension why an investigation into the affairs of a company Should stop at the point where that company has transferred a part of its affairs to another company which is a subsidiary or controlled company but which in reality is a part of itself. The purpose of this bill is to remove what I submit to the house is an absurdity by giving jurisdiction to the Board of Railway Commissioners to inquire into the affairs of such a subsidiary or controlled company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY ' On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the government if Canada has been consulted with regard to the policy of Great Britain in Egypt.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I assume that my hon.
friend refers to a treaty which was in the course of negotiation between Great Britain and Egypt?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The treaty to which my hon. friend has reference was a treaty being negotiated between His Majesty, as representing Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Egypt. The Canadian government was kept informed of the progress of the negotiations.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on what I think is properly a question of privilege. The privileges of the

The Budget-Forty Minute Rule
house are involved, and also the special privileges that some hon. members seek to obtain. Last session we revised the rules limiting speeches to forty minutes and setting eleven o'clock as the hour of adjournment. This was done to shorten debate and expedite the business of the house-a result that we who come from a long distance and have to spend months here are very desirous to obtain. But I doubt very much whether this result will be obtained unless we curb certain practices that seem to me to have grown up during the last few weeks.
While there may be some advantages in the new rules, there are also some disadvantages. It seems to me that the new rules have encouraged the practice-I do not use the term offensively but simply for want of something more apt-of jockeying for position. W'e all understand why hon. members should wish to get first place on the orders of the day. It is more pleasant to speak to a full house and full galleries than to empty benches. Naturally also the member, if he has a weakness for newspaper publicity, has an opportunity to have his vanity gratified. This, I suppose, is inevitable. The reporters are probably limited to so much space, and their copy, I expect, is prepared early in the evening.
We have now been debating the budget for three weeks. In the early days of the debate it might have been allowable to adjourn early because of lack of preparation on the part of hon. members. But at this late stage there is no reason why any member should not be prepared to speak at the time assigned him by the whips. Last Monday I began to speak at ten o'clock. On Tuesday the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) began to speak at ten o'clock. One day last week the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) began his speech so late in the evening that he had to complete it next day. But last night, as on some former occasions, the debate was adjourned at ten o'clock. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who was leading the house, said he had no objections if it did not interfere with the arrangement to conclude the debate next Tuesday. But the government is not the only one affected; the privileges of hon. members are interfered with. Possibly the early adjournment last night may debar some hon. member from taking part in the debate.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there would be some difficulty in having a hard and fast rule that you could apply with the same impartiality as the forty-minute rule; but I would suggest to the house the impropriety 56103-73
of any member at this late stage of the debate asking for an adjournment at ten o'clock. Could there not be a gentleman's agreement under which any member would be willing to take a sporting chance of what comes to him in the matter of time? I know it has been the custom to allow the adjournment to go to the different parties and groups in rotation, but that custom could still be observed without needlessly prolonging the time of debate or interfering with the privileges of any hon. member.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the house to a very difficult situation that affects many of our members under the forty-minute rule. The other evening when I was speaking I sat down at the end of thirty minutes, believing that I had exhausted the time allotted to me. Of course, I had to depend upon my colleagues to let me know when my forty minutes had expired. Now, in order to facilitate the business of the house and enable hon. members to know how their time is passing, I would suggest that on the table there should be an electric button within easy reach of the Clerk by which he could indicate the passage of the forty minutes by switching on near the clocks a green light and a red light at fifteen and thirty-minute periods respectively. Then an hon. member would know when to begin his peroration. An electrician could set up such a device in a short time. It is very difficult for hon. members to keep an accurate check on the hon. gentleman who may have the floor. For instance, yesterday I timed the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and other hon. members, and found my timing did not agree with that kept by other members.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, might I say that this shows the utter absurdity of the rule.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Of course, this is a matter for the house to decide. Personally I would not object to the green and red lights -I know the meaning of the two colours. But I should like the arrangement to be automatic so that I might depend on the clock and not on my own judgment, well remembering the words of Pope:
'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own.
I should like every hon. member to rely on the clocks when I have to say time!" Of course, it is understood that the clocks are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott).

The Budget-Mr. Robinson



THE CARILLON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that while parliament is in session this is the only opportunity members have of hearing the carillon, and also in view of the fact that a great number of visitors come to the capital during the session, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will take into consideration the advisability of having the carillonneur give concerts at a stated time each day? I would suggest between 2.30 and 3 p.m. Many members are fond of music, I am particularly; I love to hear the tintinnabulation of the bells.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the suggestion of
my hon. friend has much to commend it. Here again the Minister of Public Works is concerned, for he has control of the carillon. I will have a word with him and see if it cannot be arranged, if not every day, at least on certain days, to have concerts given by the carillonneur at hours which will be convenient to hon. members and the public.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 8, 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. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset allow me to assure you that I shall not consume my full forty minutes. This debate has now been in progress for three weeks, and there is very little left for private members to say at this late stage. Therefore I shall confine myself in what I have to say to the important constituency of West Essex, which comprises the city of Windsor, the towns of Sandwich and 0 jib way, and the townships of Sandwich East and Sandwich WTest; a constituency which is attracting the attention of the whole Dominion at the present time owing to the extensive developments now going on there.
But before I deal with my subject I should like to make a couple of references to the speech delivered last evening by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). I want to remind him that charity

begins at home; and when he suggests that there should be a further cut in the price of automobiles of from 15 to 20 per cent, a reduction such as the industry could not possibly stand, it seems to me that it would be more apropos if the hon. gentleman would advise that the industries he controls in Sherbrooke, which have a protection of from 30 to 35 per cent, should suffer a similar reduction.
The hon. gentleman said that no suggestion had come from the opposition as to giving employment to the unemployed. Apparently he has not followed the debate, but as I proceed I will suggest to him where all the unemployed in Canada might be taken care of if certain policies were carried out. This unemployment problem is in my opinion the most serious we have to deal with in this country, if for no other reason than the importance of keeping our Canadians at home. A situation has prevailed in Windsor during the past two years which is new to us in the way of unemployment. There are several reasons for this. I am informed that when people from the British Isles are on the steamships crossing the Atlantic and do not know exactly where they are going to settle when they come to this country, officers, or passengers as the case may be, advise them, '''Oh, go to the border cities; you will get a job there at from $4 to S5 a day". Unfortunately this has not been the case since the reduction in the automobile tariff. Further, we have another situation there for the relief of which I think we should have some assistance from the government. I refer to deportations from the United States of Canadian citizens most of whom are of foreign birth, and who entered that country illegally: when they are deported back to Canada they are dumped into Windsor and in most cases become a charge on the city. The result is that the charity funds of the municipal council of Windsor are growing by leaps and bounds to take care of these unemployed.
According to the chamber of commerce returns regarding employment in the border cities, in September, 1926, 74 firms out of 114 gave a return of 11,337 men employed. In September, 1927, the number was 8,661, showing a decrease of 2,676. I want to be fair about this, and I will say that conditions are better chiefly on account of the Ford Motor Company having started. In November, 1926, the employment figure was 11,349 and in November, 1927, 10,304, still a decrease of
I, 045. In December, 1926, the figure was
II,	034 and in December, 1927, 10,171, or r decrease of 863.

The Budget-Mr. Robinson
Referring to the question of unemployment, I wish to read certain remarks made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) in Winnipeg. I quote the following from the Montreal Gazette:
Unemployment Problem
Heenan Gets Suggestions from Manitoba Officials
Winnipeg, February 25.-The problem of unemployment is the most gigantic task the Canadian government has to face, and the co-operation of municipal, provincial and private bodies would be necessary before it could be solved, stated Hon. Peter Heenan, federal Minister of Labor at a meeting to-day attended by members of the legislature, provincial officials, aldermen of the city and board of trade members.
Mr. Heenan promised to take the various suggestions back to Ottawa and place them before the departments involved.
I could suggest many other ways of finding . employment for thousands more in the border cities, but we are faced with so many difficulties in connection with the continual tinkering with the tariff, and reductions which are made from year to year, that industry does not know where it stands. Let me give to the house a concrete illustration. In the border cities we have a drop forging plant whose expenditure on plant and machinery is some $1,500,000, and they are in competition with similar plants in the United States. Let us suppose that General Motors in the United States have from seventy to eighty different plants; they take their overhead in connection with all these plants at, say, 25 per cent, dividing it proportionately among them. The overhead in drop forging plants is higher than in any other line of industry owing to the high cost of drop forging machinery, dies, tools, et cetera. The proportion should be 75 per cent. This concern to which I have reference put in their tender for an export business in Canada on which they would get a drawback of 99 per cent. I might mention, by the way, that the drop forging plants in Canada have to import their machinery, steel, dies, tools, oil, coal, et cetera. The Canadian concern underbid the American competitors by 7i per cent and the Americans immediately determined to meet the price and so they got the order. To my mind there should be something in the customs regulations whereby Canadian industry might be protected against such unfair competition. I submit that an expert should go into the drop forging plants in the United States to ascertain their cost of manufacturing, comparing it with the cost in the Canadian plants, taking the respective invoices. I am sure that in most cases the
Canadian plant could not manufacture at the same price.
A good deal has been said about emigration from Canada. I want to give the figures from the American consular office at Windsor for the years 1926 and 1927. I have them here month by month but I will not burden the house with them. For the first six months in 1926 vises were issued to 2,357 Canadian born citizens who desired to reside permanently in the United States. In the first six months of 1927 the number was 2,090, a difference of 267. The figures for the last six months of 1927 show an entirely different state of things. For the last six months of 1926, 2,189 Canadian citizens took out vises to live in the United States whereas in the last six months of 1927 there were 4,070 or 1,881 more than in the corresponding six months of 1926.
My remedy for unemployment-and this is my answer to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard)-is that if the government would cease tinkering with the tariff on agricultural machinery and automobiles, and let us manufacture our raw materials into the finished product they could find employment for 100,000 more in this country. We are continually increasing our importations of manufactured goods which should be produced in this country, and to offset that the government policy is to increase our foreign trade. We all know that the best market for the farmer and the Canadian manufacturer is our home market; we should look after that market first and develop the foreign market afterwards.
There is one other thing to which I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance; I refer to old age pensions. If the government would increase the allowance under the old age pension scheme I am sure it would help the municipalities throughout the country which are at present maintaining houses of refuge and similar institutions. It would also be of great assistance to the Salvation Army and other charitable organizations, because a good many of these old people would come under the old age pension scheme and the 'municipalities would not have to shoulder the whole burden.
There is another suggestion I have to offer, which would benefit the border cities throughout Canada, and perhaps particularly those in Ontario. Since we have obtained a sane liquor law in Ontario many Americans who desire to enjoy greater	freedom, and
especially those who are British bom, would like to live on the Canadian side of the border, and of course we would like to have them here.	My suggestion is that if an.
The Budget-Mr. Robinson

American citizen wishes to live in Canada, a man whose business is entirely in the United States and whose entire revenue is derived in that country, he should be allowed to bring his automobile into this country in bond. Many people who would like to come to Canada seem to find that the great stumbling block; they have to pay duty on their automobiles while their household goods are brought in free, and in many cases their automobiles are used chiefly in their business. This arrangement would be reciprocal, to a certain extent.
A great deal has been said about the automobile industry, and in that conection I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance the fact that in 1927 our importations of automobiles and parts were valued at $65,497,721. In 1926 these importations were valued at $54,305,111, which shows an increase of 111,192,611 in one year. On the floor of this house two years ago the minister stated that his policy would force automobile manufacturers doing business in Canada to establish plants here, but that has not been the case. The largest single items in the importation of automobiles were Hudson and Essex cars, the production of which does not involve one day of Canadian labour. Also in this connection it is worthy of note that the change in the tariff on automobiles has practically eliminated the Canadian manufacturer of trucks and busses from the markets of the Canadian west. The Gotfredson corporation, which up to that time doubled its business every year, now finds it very difficult to carry on. Some associates of mine, together with myself, put $35,000 into the stock of that company, which sold at $25 a share; today you cannot sell the stock. It is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange at $8 bid and $9 asked, and there are no transactions taking place in it. I am told that in the maritime provinces and in British Columbia the United States manufacturers of trucks and buses will drive their cars a thousand or two thousand miles over muddy roads to the border; then m some cases will have a truck tow them to some customs house, and have a valuator value them as second-hand trucks or buses. In this way they will only pay duty on about one-third of the value of the car, so the Canadian manufacturers cannot compete against them. I believe that defect has been remedied to some extent, but as yet the business has not come back to the Canadian manufacturers.
Another very important item is the farm tractor, which was put on the free list as a war measure to increase production on the

farms. In 1924 we imported 5,236 tractors with a total value of $3,651,502; in 1925 we imported 2,200 having a total value of $1,410,554, while in 1926 we imported 6,895 tractors, valued at $5,153,120. I have secured the figures for 1927 from the Bureau of Statistics; in that year 15,651 tractors worth $1,400 each were imported, the total value being $12,091,910. In addition to that 231 farm tractor engines were imported in 1927, and these were valued at $491,728. Surely, even if nothing else can be done, this material should be allowed into Canada free to be machined and assembled in this country, which would provide employment for a large number of workers. The Ford Motor Company, at Walkerville bought a fifty acre plot of land for the construction of a building and equipment to manufacture Ford tractors, but since tractors have been placed on the free list thi3 company cannot compete with the parent concern in Detroit, so the matter was allowed to drop. I have no doubt, however, that if a duty were placed on tractors, as certainly should be done, the Ford company would proceed to manufacture tractors in Canada and perhaps other companies would start up in addition.
Now I would like to say just a word with regard to the tobacco industry. We held meetings in Chatham and Windsor as well as throughout the entire southwestern part of Ontario at which we had the honour of the presence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and his deputy. These gentlemen visited that district twice, and we came to parliament expecting some result. What has happened? They have not said a word with refrence to the position of that industry to-day. Apparently the government will not take advice or suggestions coming from this side of the house, ibut I think it is the duty of those members representing that part of Ontario to say something on behalf of that industry. Everyone expected a reasonable reduction of the excise duty on cigarettes, which would reduce the smuggling of these articles and would greatly help the tobacco industry, but they were disappointed. Thera is no doubt that this should be done and also that the excise tax on cigars should be reduced. We should also raise our duty against raw leaf tobacco to the level of the United States tariff against us. It seems a shame when we consider that w7e import some 17,000,000 pounds of tobacco from the United States which could be very well supplied by our own farmers.
Now I would like to read a couple of extracts to show what the people of the United States think of a high protective tariff, and

The Budget-Mr. Robinson
what they consider it has done for the manufacturer and farmer of that country. President Coolidge speaking before the Union League of Philadelphia on November 17, 1927, regarding the benefits derived from the tariff by all classes in the United States, made the following statements:
Without the influence of a protective tariff, it would never have been possible for our country to reach its present stage of diversified development with its liberal rate of wages, its unprecedented distribution of wealth, and its high standards of living. If these conditions are to be maintained, that policy will have to be continued. In some few lines we can compete with all the world, but in general our agriculture and our industry, are compelled to make a larger outlay to provide their establishment, pay a very much higher rate of wages, and therefore find their costs of production are greater than in foreign countries.
Any material reduction in our general tariff rates would ultimately result in a drastic deflation of agricultural and industrial values, in the rate of wages, and in the standards of living. Under our present system our foreign commerce has reached the highest peace-time record and our national income has steadily increased to the enormous proportion of $90,000,000,000, for the last calendar year. This represents a volume of production and trade far in excess of that which any other country ever reached. It is the zenith of our prosperity. All of this should be considered in any appraisal of the worth of our long-established policy.
While we have placed the enterprise of the country unreservedly in private hands, we have adopted a system of government regulation and denounced by law- restraints of trade and unfair practices in trade, in order that the public might have the full benefits of all fair competition and the opportunities of our commerce be equally free to all. Privilege has no place in either our political or economic system.
I quote further from the newspaper called the South Dakota Chief, published in Iroquois, which is a farming community, to the following effect:
What Protection Has done
Here is a voice from the west (The Voice of the Iroquois, S.D., Chief) raised in championship of the present tariff law:
. As a matter of fact, things have turned out just as the protectionists predicted. Wages have gone up because the workers have been protected from cheap European competition. And the great assured home market has permitted the manufacturers so to increase their production and reduce manufacturing costs that the cost of living has not increased. We have therefore at this time what would seem to the theoretical economist an impossible condition- an increase in wages and a reduction in the cost of living. The theorist told us that it couldn't be done, but the theorists as a rule are free traders, internationalists and whatnot. They fail to give due weight to the American idea of standardized production.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to give a few facts regarding the Canadian Steel Corporation in Ojibway in my riding, as it has
been mentioned two or three times in this house. I can assure you that I know whereof I speak because I had the honcfur to succeed the late Hon. W. C. Kennedy in the council of Ojibway. When the United States Steel Corporation located at Ojibway, in Essex county, and formed the Canadian Steel Corporation, it was their intention to manufacture chiefly iron and steel products, which at that time were not being produced in Canada. After expending some nine or ten million dollars, work was stopped in 1922 owing to the fact that the present government were pledged to carry out their platform of 1919, and the subsequent tinkering with the tariff in the iron and steel industry confirmed their judgment of 1922. The corporation is at the present time removing its wire mill from Hamilton to Ojibway, the only development which has taken place in recent years, to the detriment of the former city. This factory will employ from one hundred to two hundred men when working at full capacity. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that if the tariff on iron and steel is stabilized and the industry receives the protection to which it is entitled against unfair competition the Canadian Steel Corporation is only too anxious to go ahead with its project which will involve the expenditure of millions of dollars and the employment of many thousand men. My opponent in the last election stated that if the Liberals were returned to power they would force the Canadian Steel Corporation to go ahead and produce. And to use his own words they would have to "play ball or get off the diamond." This attitude influenced a large number of votes in the locality of the steel corporation. I should like to ask the government whether it is its intention to carry out that promise and if so when? I will give the government credit for carrying out the Liberal candidate's promise in the by-election of 1923 in North Essex. Mr. Healey promised at that time that if he was elected the government would construct a breakwater at Belle River. After his election the government promptly carried out the work at a cost to the people of Canada of $30,000.
There has been a good deal of publicity lately in connection with the subject of a new post office at Windsor, and I sincerely hope the government intends to go on with that work. The present post office was erected, I think, in 1879 or 1880 when Windsor was a town of 5,000 population. Now it is a city of over 65,000 and yet our postal facilities are the same as they were forty-seven years ago. Those facilities are really
The Budget-Mr. Robinson

a disgrace when you consider the importance of Windsor and its proximity to a large city like Detroit. There are thousands of people who come over from Detroit and send mail from the Windsor post office. Sometimes the people are crowded there like sardines in a box. The office does not possess even the necessary facilities for the writing of postcards. If I can do anything to bring about an improvement in the conditions I shall be most happy to do so. I am in accord with my colleague and friend from East Essex (Mr. Odette) who stated, I believe the present site can be sold for a price that will pay for the construction of a new post office.
There is just one more subject I wish to refer to and then I shall be through. That is the removal of the duty on coal in the interests of the salt industry. We all know that most of the salt used in Canada comes from Essex county, from the Canadian Salt Company's works, but I do not think that company ever begged the government to take the duty off coal. What they wanted was a duty to keep foreign salt out of Canada and to preserve the salt market for Canadian manufacturers.
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) :	Mr. Speaker, I read somewhere that
the Right Hon. Lloyd George, in the course of a lecture given in an English university, advised those who destined themselves to politics, to first begin by being good listeners. Since the outset of this debate on the budget, I endeavoured to listen well, I tried to note all the arguments which were put forth, both for and against the budget proposals. As it would take me too much time to discuss them fully and do them justice, I shall content myself with the time allotted by the new rules of the house, to review as briefly as possible the contentions of the various speakers who followed one another during the course of this debate.
I shall abstain myself from adding further compliments to the torrent of congratulations with which the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has been overwhelmed.
I shall only say that he simply did his duty towards our country, and that is for him the greatest satisfaction.
As every business man does, it is well to consider what have been our revenues and our expenditures during the course of the last fiscal year. I must say, together with all those who have impartially considered the state of our finances up to date, that the sound administration of the Minister of Finance has given us what all business men

first expect: a surplus of revenues over expenditures. Our finances are therefore in a very sound condition.
With regard to the budget proposals, the general approval of the country amply proves that it has given satisfaction to everybody. No doubt there will be found-and that is so to speak the continual enforcing of the old proverb which says the fortunes of one make the misfortunes of another-there will be found critics who, notwithstanding the general approval, will always find fault simply for political purposes.
The wiping out of the sales tax, whatever may be said against it, has given satisfaction to the business people of this country; and as recently as last week, a great financier of Montreal told me that the gradual reduction carried out by the hon. Minister of Finance, would certainly prevent a great number of dealers suffering very appreciable losses in the sale of their goods.
The income tax was a measure imposed owing to uncontrollable events, and a great number who are at present victims are not responsible for it. I do not wish to go back and discuss war events, I never have recourse to such arguments in the course of my political campaigns, yet during the great war, I have seen in my riding some of those large manufacturers, of those so called patriots of that period, who now so loudly call for the entire wiping out of the income tax, trying to shelter themselves by paying their employees, from the president down to the humblest secretary, large bonuses, and thus avoid paying the government the necessary amounts for the upkeep of the country.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) was telling us yesterday that the owners of large fortunes should especially be called upon to pay. I fully agree with him I even would go one step further. May I ask the hon. Minister of Finance to take good note of the remark I am now making. Young people, in my native province, are advised1 to practise economy, parsimony is recommended to them so as to shelter them when rainy days come. Now, I state that the limit of exemption from taxation under the income tax, should be higher than $4,000. And this is why: in our province and especially in the workmen's quarters of Montreal-I say it to their praise-the small property is held by workmen, it belongs to people who have saved, who have denied themselves all the luxuries that simple life can afford to the humblest citizen of this country, and from this taxable $4,000, the person taxed on said amount must economize for the future. He must pay from

The Budget-Mr. St. Pere
that amount the insurance policy in prevision of rainy days, which amount he deducts so as to provide for his family in case of misfortunes. He must foresee many things. He must especially set aside savings to meet the taxes for local improvements in cities. Perhaps, you will say that these taxes for local improvements which you state he must pay each year, are deducted from his annual budget. I deny this, because in the city of Montreal, as elsewhere, local improvement taxes are payable sometimes only three or four years after the work i3 completed. Take the amount of $160 per year which small property owners are called upon to pay, calculate that amount for ten years ahead with compound interests, and I ask you if truly the Dominion government by taxing that little income does not by this fact give a premium to carelessness and work to unroot among us the spirit of economy which is a trait of the French Canadian people.
I now come to the remittance of the income tax to large corporations. I have never been, sir, an extremist. I consider that the large corporations should not be treated as outcasts, but to infer from this that we must, at each claim they put forth, bow our heads for political purposes and grant their claims, I say no. Quite recently, a delegation composed of the municipal authorities of Montreal and a great number of representatives of our public corporations came up to Ottawa to interview the hon. Minister of Finance. I must state that, at first, I appeared to approve the request of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, but as soon as I learned the details of their operations, I changed entirely my opinion. It matters little whether it is the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company or any other corporation which come to us to obtain a reduction in taxes, I clearly state and without restriction that I am opposed to such reduction. And why this great company known as the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, that large corporation distributor ol power, which producing but little power- buying it as it does from various corporations and then selling it at a profit to the consumers of the city of Montreal-why this company, I say, should not pay taxes like the others. I am at a loss to say. This large industry does not limit its operation simply to the distribution of electricity, but it sells moreover a great number of house commodities, etc. It sells coal-and I shall deal squarely with it on this matter-I admit that the coke which it sells obliges in some way our population by allowing it to purchase fuel at lower prices than American anthracite. But basing ourselves on such a principle, why should we not exempt
from the income tax the small merchants of Montreal who sell electric stoves, toasters, beside all the coal dealers who supply the population with the fuel needed for heating purposes?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance deserves our congratulations for having taught that delegation, which came up here sometime ago, a lesson that, no doubt, made it understand that the Minister of Finance for Canada was well posted on the operations of this company, and on no account would he change his opinion that those who should pay taxes to the country-there is an economic principle involved-are those who are most capable of doing so.
One word on the tariff question. I am no more an extremist as regards the tariff than I am on other matters. I do not consider the tariff as a doctrine, but as a policy which adapts itself to circumstances. And since I am free to state it from my seat in the House of Commons, there is an industry in my riding-one making cotton goods-an industry which notwithstanding the tariff reduction of 71% will not lose any of its profits. It is an industry very highly protected. I am speaking of the Dominion Textile Co. This year, that company made very large profits, and as from time to time it makes changes in its mills, I trust that it will not take advantage of such a circumstance to tell its employees-and, sir, its employees are for the most part people of my race-'"This lowering of the tariff will bring about a decrease in your wages". When these workers threaten to strike, the company sends to the counties of the lower St. Lawrence, a new kind of recruiters who use to entice to the county of Hochelaga poorly paid workmen. It is often said that corporations have no soul. I admit it, but I ask of those who profit-I shall not say of government money-but I ask of those who profit from a protective tariff, which is a guarantee against the invasion of American cotton goods, and I shall even say against the English cotton goods, to show that they are human and pay their employees wages, which will allow them to exist and not wages which, on an average-these are statistics taken from the department of Labour- amount for each of these workers to the pitiful sum of six hundred and a few dollars per year. Our opponents, whom I take the treedom of always calling friends, like to state a little everywhere that protection, which should be adopted, would stem the tide of emigration towards the United States. I would advise them to consult the leaders of the labour unions, and ask them if they
The Budget-Mr. St. Pere

agree with the assertions which the Conservatives advocate at present and which they always advocate, assertions which made the subject of their electoral campaign.
Strictly speaking, I represent the largest riding of workmen in Canada, and I am still wondering if some day I would receive a protest of that kind from my electors. I state that protection never safeguarded the interests of the workmen. No, protection never protected the workman. If the workman, today, receives protection, he owes it to the excellent organisation of the workers' unions, he owes it to his spirit of work, to his initiative, to the constant improvement in the machinery which he uses in his work and which facilitates mass production.
Our opponents further tell us that the United States are an Eden for those who emigrate there. I shall not quote to them a page of ancient history; I shall not even tell them that their arguments are refuted by statistics of a year old; let me, sir, quote from an article published on March 4 last, in the Sunday edition of the World of New York, and signed by Charles Stelzle, organiser and past superintendent of the Temple of work of New York. I shall give the English text, so that our opponents will not charge me with misrepresenting the facts and still less the text. I kindly ask my hon. colleagues of the English language to listen to it. The text reads as follows:
Based upon reports received from the Welfare Council of New York City, the President of the State Federation of Labour, the President of the Central Trades and Labour Council of New York City, the Commissioner of the Department of Licenses of New York City, the Superintendent of the Municipal Lodging House, and various welfare agencies, as well as from figures produced by the Department of Labour itself, it was demonstrated that there is "an extensive amount of unemployment, and serious distress has been caused on this account."
That there is a considerable amount of unemployment in New York City is reported by practically every agency of a social, industrial and philanthropic character. An increase in the number and the length of breadlines, the crowding of the Municipal Lodging House, the growing number of respectable-looking beggars on the streets, the great excess of situations wanted over help wanted advertisements in the daily newspapers, particularly as compared with those of recent years, the filling up of the poorer class of lodging houses, the increase in the amount of relief given by social agencies to families suffering because of the unemployment of bread-winners, the unusual amount of credit being asked for in neighborhood stores are a few of the signs which point to an increase in unemployment.
Serious Distress Caused by Situation
We are told by the Urban League, which looks after the Negro population of the city, that while in January, 1927, it had 365
TMr. St. Pere.]
applicants for every 100 jobs, in January, 1928, there were 1,175 applicants for every 100 jobs. The Y.M.C.A. and the Vocational Service for Juniors report much the same kind of a situation. Commercial employment agencies placing office and clerical help report a 100 per cent increase in the number of applicants for jobs; and the agencies for hotel and restaurant workers say that there is a stream of applicants, with no jobs available. This lack of employment is found not only among the unskilled, but in many of the skilled trades. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers, with a membership of 45,000, reports
15,000	out of work.
As is the case during every winter, large numbers of men have come to New York from rural districts and labour camps with the expectation of finding jobs. A considerable number have come from the coal fields of Pennsylvania and Ohio because of the strikes in these regions, and from New England towns where the textile industry has for so long a time been demoralized.
No One Prepares For the Cycles
In spite of the fact that unemployment comes regularly in cycles-from seven to ten years apart-scarcely anybody seems ever to get ready for its recurrence. We have conferences of the same "experts", but by the time that their program has been formulated the necessity for putting it into operation has gone by. Even the cause of unemployment seems to remain a mystery. At any rate there is a greatly diversified opinion as to what is responsible for it. Some authorities believe that it is a purely psychological situation; the Socialists charge it up to the competitive system; the politicians out of office attribute it to the Administration that is in power; at various times Wall Street has been held responsible; for a good many years it was charged up to our excess immigrant population.
Mr. Speaker, here and there, we hear that we must see that a great flood of immigrants flow's into the country so as to bring back prosperity among us. I do not believe in intensive immigration. Such immigration lends itself greatly to unemployment, and as I am first a Canadian, I would ask that the immigrants-it is of little import where they come from, whether it is from England or elsewhere

who come to us disguised as farmhands and who for the most part conceal able mechanics, must not come here-and this I have the proof every day in my riding-ready to replace at a moments notice our able mechanics, Irish, French Canadians and English, who are in this country.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: Hear, hear.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	We have
established everywhere in our various provinces technical schools; we encourage young people to follow the courses given there, and on the first occasion-I may say that sometimes partiality and unfairness has something to do with it-one of our electors or a friend that we consider and his employer considers as an able mechanic, finds himself replaced

The Budget-Mr. St. Pere
without notice by a mechanic who hails from Leeds or elsewhere. Canada for Canadians, always! That is why I am opposed to an intensive immigration; the cries of those who tell us here and there that Canada must be peopled by English-speaking subjects, is of little import; Canada is sufficiently vast to welcome individuals of every language and nationality. Canada will increase its population, the west will increase its population when the synods from Kingston, etc., will cease their cries that people fear French Canadian immigration in the west, when certain Canadians ill-advised, who are far from advocating national unity, will cease to try and root out, as they would do a plague, the French Canadian element from the population of certain provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to an intensive immigration. It is quite right that we should bring in farm-help. On that score, I congratulate the Canadian National Railways for its spirit of initiative in bringing, for the farmers of Quebec, farm help speaking the language of the majority of people in that province. I also wish to congratulate certain other organizations for their efforts to increase the population of our country by bringing in desirable settlers.
The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) whom I might designate a sower of fear-they shot those people during the war -was saying the other day that he often met on the streets of Montreal people who asked for charity. I grew up in Montreal, I know my city better than the member for St. Antoine and I want to tell him, unfortunately for the argument which he seems to bring in support of his contention, that the only people we meet and who beg a ten cent piece for a nights' shelter or five cents for food-rihat is called a plate of beans- are immigrants; because those among us who are in want have no need to have recourse to begging; our splendid philanthropic societies amply suffice for their needs.
One further word on emigration. Why so much bewail over the emigration of our people. The French Canadian loves, from time to time, to change his abode. If our people had not emigrated from Quebec to other provinces, and especially to the western provinces, I am wondering if the people of the west would have large cities like they have to-day. If there had not been a Lacombe to help the Canadian Pacific in laying its steel ribbon across the western provinces, I wonder what they would have done. A kind member,-a harmless chap hailing from British Columbia-told us-and I wish to refute this error-that he also deplored the emigration of the people from
Quebec to the United States. Well! that province of Quebec how one likes it eadh time it is required to point to it to prop up a poor argument. It is said:	The people of the province of Quebec emigrate to the United States, and once there, forget their religion. Another political falsehood, another trick of politics. It is of little import that they emigrate to the United States or elsewhere, the first thought of a French Canadian is to have a home near his church, and the institutions of the French Canadians in New England and everywhere amply prove that they do neither lose their faith nor language, notwithstanding their emigration to foreign lands.
Before resuming my seat, allow me, sir, to make a few remarks with regard to our farmers. At election time, one comes to them, one endeavours to tell them that their conditions are pitiable. But under whose rule have our farmers emigrated to the United States, if it is not under that of the Conservatives? Let me put the question to the Conservatives of to-day: what have your predecessors done to stem this emigration? Nothing. Whatever was done for the farmers, to improve their lot, was done under the Liberal governments. Recently, our farmers came up to Ottawa, as a delegation, to ask the Minister of Finance, when he brings down his supplementary estimates to kindly include an item so as to meet the request presented by the association of breeders of the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec and the French Canadian members of this house are not here to beg for sympathy. We listened attentively and we generously made grants to the people of the Maritime provinces when they put forth their claims. And I tell the people of the west again that we did the same thing for them. Quebec only claims its due. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say so, in many parts of my province, prosperous villages are entirely deprived of railway communication; Gaspe, Bonaventure, Yamaska, and I shall even add Joliette, my native place-need railways to help in their development. I would ask the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), to kindly accede to our just claims. During many years people from Quebec were asked to go and settle the New Ontario and the Canadian west. There aTe certain districts in the west where our people settled and-I am proud to say-they are considered as farmers very much attached to their lands and hard workers. These farmers are deprived, after years of hard labour, of communication which would help them to give their families appreciable ease. I trust that the Minister of Railways will listen and grant them their just claims.
The Budget-Mr. St. Pere

Mr. Speaker, there is another question-and I broach it with all the necessary reserve-it is the St. Lawrence waterway scheme. The government has not come to a decision in regard to this matter. Opinions in Montreal are divided on this question, and as the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), stated last night, if by chance we decided to build that St. Lawrence waterway, I would ask- for that part extending along the shores of Quebec and which would supply power to many of our industries and electric light to our population-that the rights of developing these powers rest with the government, it is of little import whether it be federal or provincial. The consumers of Ottawa pay a minimum rate for lighting purposes while those of Montreal are being imposed upon.
I want to point out to this house that the statements made recently by a senator in no way pledges the members from Montreal. Let us not so quickly be led to believe that this St. Lawrence waterway scheme will join the waters of the Pactole to those of the St. Lawrence. Let us await events before coming to a definite conclusion on the subject. I shall close my remarks. From what I have heard up to now, Mr. Speaker, the party which sits to your left is a party of negation. It denies the general satisfaction of the people of Canada; that party denies the prosperity of our country; lastly it denies the worth of all competent persons who have given the government a certificate of honesty and good administration. It is the party of negation. I gladly rally to the party which is open to evidence, which is aware that Canad'a is not a perfect nation, but that all is susceptible of being perfected; I rally to that party which believes in not letting the light under the bushel but rather wants to have it enlighten the more, those to whom the people confided, since 1921, the care of guiding the national destinies of this country.


Mr. A. D. McRAE (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I feel impelled to take up the time of the house this afternoon because so little of a constructive nature has been brought forward by the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) either this year or last dealing with the very serious question of population, that I fear the country at large and even some of the hon. members might reasonably conclude that this, the greatest issue before parliament, cannot be successfully solved.
My good friend, the Minister of Immigration, in the committee on agriculture yesterday expressed his great disappointment that we on this side of the house had not put

forward definite proposals for him to consider. His sincere expression indicates to me his despair,-after two years, of getting any real suggestions from his own associates. His appeal has not fallen on deaf ears.
In response to his request, I propose this afternoon to disregard all political strategy and run the risk of criticism in submitting for the consideration of the hon. minister and this house a program which I believe will restore our immigration to the favourable figures we enjoyed in the years immediately preceding the war.
The limited time at my disposal-forty minutes-permits me to submit only a general or skeleton outline of the development which I think the government should undertake I will be prepared, however, as opportunity offers to support the practicability of my proposals.
Hon members treat our population problem as a dual one-immigration and emigration. As a matter of fact, we have only one problem. Give us satisfactory immigration and we will have no emigration to worry about. In 1913, when 400.000 immigrants entered Canada, 139 000 of them came from the United States. That year only 14 165 of our people went to that country. We gained
125.000	on them in 1913. We will do it again when we get a real immigration movement under way.
In order that they may enjoy a higher status in life, over 185,000 Canadian boys and girls attended high school last year;
65.000	students were registered in our universities and colleges. Our universities are not turning out farmers. Higher 'education is taking our boys and girls off the farms. If they cannot find useful employment in the business structure of their own country they can always go to the United States. There- thanks to the sterling qualities they inherit from their forefathers-they receive a preference over others and are welcomed as new citizens in every city from New York to San Francisco.
I will confine my remarks to-day to the development of our unoccupied lands-our greatest natural resource. A steadily increasing agricultural population will demand and support a growing national business structure. More people on farms necessitates a corresponding increase in our cities and towns resulting in a demand for more business and professional men and women-more employment for labour of all kinds. Only in this way can our young people find the opportunities they must have if they are to remain in Canada.

The Budget-Mr. McRae
Let us be practical in these matters. We must have some one to do the basic work of the country if the boy or girl of this or future generations who graduates from our educational institutions is to find congenial employment at home.
I entirely agree with the policy of confining our immigration efforts to prospective farmers and domestic servants. It is my humble opinion that we should not encourage the immigration of men or women only qualified for city life. The drift to the cities, which is one of the things we will have to contend with, will supply our city population for many years to come. In common with the United States our problem of the future will be to keep our people on the farms
Our immigration records clearly show that we must provide employment for our incoming immigrants to assist them to get on their feet. From 1881 to 1885, when we were getting very satisfactory immigration for those days, the Canadian Pacific was under construction. Hon. members will recall that when we enjoyed our greatest prolonged period of successful immigration, from 1903 to 1913, we were carrying on a tremendous program of railway construction in this country. The National Transcontinental and the then Canadian Northern were built from coast to coast.
There is no big construction program before the country at this time. Something must be attempted if we are to take care of a large immigration. The question is what development program can we undertake which will be safe, sound, and ultimately pay the interest on the capital invested-which will not add unduly to the present burden of taxation and will at the same time afford the necessary grub-stake for our incoming settlers.
I suggest that the only program available is the development of the land on which we propose to put these new settlers, and the work which will inevitably follow such as the building of branch railways, roads, schools, villages, and the many other capital expenditures which accompany the march of settlement.
I propose that the government inaugurate on a large scale a program which will bring about the settlement of the more or less scrub and lightly timbered land which we have in such abundance in our three prairie provinces -land with wonderful, almost inexhaustible soil, and easily reached by branch railways. In provinces like Manitoba, large areas easily drained might also be included. A most conservative estimate of this character of land easily available would be 10.000.000 acres capable of supporting 65,000 families, or roughly a quarter of a million farm population. This does not, of course, include Peace River. Here there is a minimum of 30,000,000 acres, even more fertile and more easily cleared that awaits development. The Peace River can and eventually will accommodate 175,000 families or nearly three-quarters of a million farm population greater than the entire population of the province of Alberta to-day. When considering these huge figures in connection with farm settlement we must add at least one-third more for the city, town, and village population which such development will necessitate and support.
I am sure that hon. members have in mind that we should first attempt to settle the 10,000,000 acres of vacant lands adjacent to our existing railways, and with this I agree.
I will deal with it later. For the moment, suffice to say that these lands when settled will add an additional 250,000 to our farming population and will mean much to the towns and villages on the existing railway lines where all modern conveniences now exist and where no new towns are necessary.
Summing up my proposal, hon. gentlemen will see that it contemplates the ultimate settlement of 50,000,000 acres of land by some
250,000	to 300.000 farmers. These, with their families, and the urban population which will be required, and the consequent developments which will follow will add 2 000,000 new people to the prairie provinces. I propose we start out to double the present population of the west. Do this and the rest of Canada will grow and prosper.
The title to the scrub lands I have referred to rests in the crown. This affords an opportunity to again advertise free homesteads. There is no inducement which compares with this: " One-hundred-and-sixty-acre farm free."
I suggest that these lands be given as homesteads to new settlers, free from all taxes for the first five years and subject only to ihe cost of clearing and the building of modest farm buildings.
I propose that only 80 acres, the easiest half of each homestead, be cleared leaving the balance to supply the needs of the farmer for building and for fuel. This he can clear himself later as opportunity offers. He will, however, to begin with, have 80 acres under plough, sufficient to support himself and family.
As to the cost of clearing, I have made careful enquiry into this question. It is no longer practical to clear land in the old fashioned way. The grub hoe must give way to the heavy steam breaking plough which walks through ordinary brush and scrub like so much
The Budget-Mr. McRae


Mr. CAHILL:: Who pays it?


Alexander Duncan McRae: When Canadians manage
the world's greatest transportation system, the Canadian Pacific Railway; when we own and successfully operate the Canadian National Railways, with the largest mileage of any railway in the world; when we have in this country huge, successful, industrial enterprises in many lines of business, need any hon. member fear that we have no man in Canada big enough to give effect to the program for national development which I have outlined?


An hon. MEMBER:: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


Alexander Duncan McRae: No; I have been listening
for two years to you fellows and I want you to listen to me for forty minutes.
I might point out to the government, however, that Providence cannot do this job for them. The success of such a large proposal is entirely a question of management, organization and administration. Worked out on a unit basis, this plan can soon be built up to locate 25,000 or 35,000 families a year.
It should be borne in mind, however, that once a good immigration movement gets under way it rolls up like a snowball. People will come along on their own and make their own arrangements. In a big movement probably not over 50 per cent of the immigrants would have to be provided for under the project I am suggesting. The others, attracted by the development and consequent prosperity, will locate themselves throughout the Dominion. If we handle 200,000 people a year under this government colonization program a total immigration may be anticipated of easily twice that number or equal to the maximum immigration the country ever enjoyed.
The settlement of the unoccupied lands adjacent to our railways is quite a different matter from the settlement of the crown lands with which I have been dealing. The title to the land adjacent to railway has passed
from the crown to private ownership. With a big colonization movement under way the best of these lands being near railways would be taken by incoming farmers with money. However, most of the acreage is the residue after years of settlement, and some other method must be adopted if they are to be colonized within a reasonable time.
The co-operation of the provinces is essential to settle these lands. It would be unwise to adopt any scheme by which the government would purchase them from the present owners. The practical method of colonizing them is under the crop payment plan, which gives the new settler a chance to pay for the farm out of the crop.
Two things are essential, first that the price be reasonable and that the settler have a few years to get considerable acreage under crop before being called upon to divide with the owner. Three years might be a reasonable time to grant him.
The provinces can do much to popularize the crop payment plan by passing legislation which will protect the owner of the land and relieve him from the necessity of sitting on the job when threshing time comes around. Absentee landowners cannot do this. A system of government supervision might be inaugurated in this connection.
In the second place as an inducement to encourage the owner to list his land for sale at a reasonable price, the province might well offer to waive the unoccupied land tax for those who listed their land for sale at an agreed price on the crop payment plan.
The province should work out some arrangement with the municipalities whereby these new settlers would be relieved of all taxes on their land for the first five years, thus putting them on a par with the homesteader. The prospect of being relieved from having to pay taxes on his land would also go a long way to make the scheme popular with the owners. This is a small price for the province to pay for a solution of its unoccupied land problem.
A well devised crop payment plan worked out in co-operation with the province is the only logical way of settling these lands by newcomers who have their wealth in brawn and muscle and not in cash.
New settlers need help and guidance when settling in their new home. The practical and inexpensive method, the one which proved so successful in the western United States a decade ago, is the organization of community clubs. The government should encourage these local associations by an allowance based on the number of new settlers located in their
The Budget-Mr. McRae

area. The compensation should be sufficient to enable the community club to maintain a paid secretary where the number of new settlers arriving justifies it. The community club can look after the needs of new settlers in their district very much better and cheaper than government inspectors. Experience has shown that these clubs develop into real colonization agencies. Enthused by the work, their members soon become active in soliciting immigration from their old homes. Something like this is necessary now that there are no longer large land companies at work keeping up interest in the community. The government might well make use of the enthusiastic residents of the towns and villages throughout the west along this line.


Mr. FORKE:: We do so now.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I am surprised that the
hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization-a very successful farmer himself- has not seen fit to make use of the outstanding successful farmers throughout < the west as colonization agents, instead of the impractical brigade he now has on the pay roll. I say "impractical" for if my information is correct, many of his men have never lived on a farm, and others have never seen the district they are trying to settle. Compare their efforts with that of a successful practical farmer, sent back to his old home to solicit immigrants among his former neighbours, asking them to come and locate in his district. Many men in the towns and villages throughout the west are qualified to make equally competent colonization agents.
Picture these men as colonizers, with definite information of the available land in their community, the people, climate and conveniences, and what is even more important, a thorough understanding of the psychology of their old neighbours. Their word would be accepted, and well it might be. There would be no misrepresentation as frequently happens in colonization work. Hon. members will appreciate there is no comparison between the effectiveness of these practical men and the immigration agent from the city who either writes from his office or at most makes only an occasional trip into the country.
This is not a new idea. We employed it in the land business in western Canada years ago. It worked then. It will work now. The present chief land commissioner of the Canadian National Railways was this kind of a farmer colonizer when he was taken off the ranch twenty-five years ago.
It should be possible to send several hundred of these colonizers to Europe and the United States every fall. Most western men

have little to do in the winter. They would welcome an opportunity to visit their old homes. The cost would be small compared with the results-probably $1,500 each. Returning in the spring with their new settlers they would not only actually locate them on the land they had arranged for in advance but would continue a fatherly interest in them.
Here we have the real selection of immigrants. What chance has a ne'r-do-well to get over with this practically colonizer who knows his "no-good" friend would be sitting on his door step as soon as he got to Canada? This method of selecting immigrants is particularly applicable to those countries in Europe which do not welcome or permit our government to maintain an immigration office -countries we are now leaving largely to transportation companies. I have discussed this matter with Canadians, formerly Scandinavians, who assure me that they can go back to their old homes and bring out on an average twenty-five men, many of them with families, to settle on farms in the west.
It should not be difficult to get at least 300 of these colonizers at work every winter. Costing $1,500 apiece, it would require to finance them, less than half a million annually. These men should get at least 10,000 farmers a year including families, a total of probably 25,000 added to our population.
Hon. members should bear in mind that we now maintain all the staff that is necessary to instruct, supervise and direct these new colonization agents and to look after transportation for this increased immigration. Our principal trouble to-day is that we lack real practical men possessing the knowledge which is so necessary to get satisfactory results. Successful colonization is now an individual matter and must be conducted on that basis.
Referring to the question of provincial and federal co-operation in immigration matters, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is high time that our efforts in London were co-ordinated. Federal and provincial colonization officers acting on their own, competing with each other, do not make for the best results. Neither does it always place the new settler in that part of Canada Where he is most likely to succeed. Not a few of our immigrants fail because they have been misplaced in this far-flung Dominion.
It has always appeared to me that our High Commissioner in London should take a much more active part, and in fact should be the overseas head of our immigration and all other overseas work. Provincial immigration agencies, if necessary or advisable, should be

The Budget-Mr. McRae
housed in the same building as our federal immigration office. The High Commissioner should see that all our immigration work is harmonized and that Canadians are not unduly competing with each other.
One of the great problems in our immigration is practically disregarded. I refer to our unbalanced population-the excess of men over women-a situation which is rapidly growing worse. Immigration since the war has brought to us 170,000 more males than females. In the three prairie provinces in 1921 there was 185,000 more men than women. To-day it exceeds 200,000.
Anyone who travels through our prairie provinces; sees the desolate looking bachelor shacks by the hundreds from Winnipeg to the mountains, if he notes the adjacent more prosperous-looking homes of the farmer with a family, will realize what this unbalanced population is costing the country. On the farm one married settler is worth to the community as much as three or four bachelors- and I disclaim any intention to depreciate the honourable bachelors in this House. It is much more important to-day to bring a hundred thousand women to the prairie provinces than it is to bring in 100,000 men. Of course, it is more difficult. Nevertheless, a real effort must be made to get more women immigration.
So far no satisfactory scheme has been devised to meet this situation. A few domestic servants are brought in but not in numbers worth talking about. I suggest to the minister that he work out a real comprehensive plan and so far as humanly possible balance our immigration. He need have no fear of overdoing it.
The local colonizers I have suggested can bring back as many women as men and easily place them in their community. This, however, will only balance their effort and not help out on the 200,000 discrepancy which now exists.
I suggest to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization that he might with adequate1 financial assistance induce the Daughters of the Empire to take up this great work. They have chapters in almost every hamlet throughout Canada. What nobler effort could they be engaged in than transplanting throughout the Dominion, ten per cent of the two million surplus of their sex, now languishing in the British Isles. The necessity of this migration should particularly appeal to those who fear for the maintenance of British supremacy in the W'est. Give us British mothers and we need have no worry about the loyalty of our future generations.
Ever since the war we have discussed the problem of Imperial migration. So far little indeed has been accomplished. The London Morning Pest, a very conservative English paper states the case well. They say "Very little is done, and that the situation is a standing reproach and perpetual danger to the Dominion of Canada."
They express the willingness of Great Britain to take her share in schemes for Imperial migration but that the main responsibility for doing the greatest possible service to Canada, and to the empire, is upon us, and that matters cannot rest where they are without serious consequences. Quoting from the editorial, they say:-
An adequate scheme of settlement would involve considerable sums of money. But it is perfectly possible to solve these and other formidable difficulties when once the Dominions resolve to make it a part of their national policy to develop their resources with men of the British race.
Migration was doubtless the subject of much discussion at the last Imperial conference. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us why in this respect the conference has been so barren of results.
It should be possible to work out an adequate Imperial colonization scheme, when we have millions of acres of good land we want settled, and Great Britain has available both men and money.
I suggest to the government that no place in the British Empire affords a better opportunity for a big successful British migration than the Peace River country.
I want hon. members of this house, particularly from the east, to get an idea of the magnitude and the desirability of that great empire. In length it is about the distance from Windsor to Montreal with an average width of a hundred miles. In fertility and productiveness the soil is unequalled in any similar sized area in North America. The summer climate over a period of twenty years, is identical with Edmonton. The long summer days in the Peace River make it a safer crop country than much of the province of Saskatchewan already under cultivation. As for ;its winter, suffice to say that the hon. the Minister of Interior (Mr. Stewart) will, unless settlers interfere, soon be the largest rancher in the world. His buffalo, which roam the park-like country north, of Fort Vermilion, have increased to eight thousand and I am informed had a natural increase last year of twenty-five per cent. There need be no fear of the winters in a country where 'buffalo and their calves can thrive throughout tlhe year.
The Budget-Mr. McRae

1 fear, Mr Speaker, that many hon. members do not appreciate the proximity ol this country to the sea, which accounts for its climate. With good direct railway service, the heart of this district would be little over a calendar day's ride from the city of Vancouver. The Peace River country has been unfortunate in that two provinces undertook to provide it with transportation facilities. Neither of them completed their program and the country has been allowed to stagnate.
Railway facilities for this vast empire should be undertaken with a view to its ultimate development. Do not let us make the mistake we have made so often in the past, of building only with a view to the very near future. Peace River wants a trunk line to the sea-not a branch line outlet. We should broaden our vision. With a million people, the Peace River country will require not a single track to tide water but a double track railway to carry the product of its farms to market. Supported by proper development, the railway enterprises of both western provinces are worthy of completion.
I suggest to the government that in cooperation with the Imperial government and the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia the Peace River be developed as a great Imperial settlement.
Alberta and British Columbia together could furnish the land required for homesteads, thirty million acres The Dominion government could finance the cost of clearing the land and erecting the necessary buildings on the basis 1 already proposed. Great Britain as its part in the undertaking should finance the temporary requirements of the settlers, which it does now in part.
It would be a reasonable proposal for all partners in this British migration scheme to w'ork out. on some equitable basis, a joint guarantee of the interest for a period of twenty years of the bonds which our national railways would have to issue to enable them to take over and carry to completion the railway program of both Alberta and British Columbia including the branch lines which would be later required as settlement progressed. This would relieve the national railways from any danger of a deficit on account of this railway construction for a generation to come.
I share with my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) his great confidence in the British race, and his belief that they can and will make good fanners. I believe, however, that the preliminary training of these Britishers should be done at home so that the misfits would be largely eliminated there. To this end the British government

might see fit to transfer some of their dole funds as bonuses to induce farmers to train these prospective migrators.
Under an arrangement of this kind, almost a million men now on the farms in the British Isles could be made available for Canada. The lure of free homesteads, in a country British to the core, would attract them in large numbers.
It is not easy to establish a settlement of this magnitude, but this is the day of big undertakings. Many difficulties will arise, but the two great races who share this great Dominion have iD the past solved problems much more formidable. Peace River, with all its advantages, supplied with proper railway facilities, affords us our best opportunity for development. Have we the courage to undertake it? Where are our nation builders-the worthy successors of the Macdonalds, the Cartiers, and the Lauriers of yesterday?
An article appearing in the Financial Post as of March 2nd, indicates the probable immigration program of the government for the next few year3. Hon. members will see that the "Three thousand family scheme." is to be given a new dress and is to be known as the "Pioneer land settlement scheme." What hope would there be in this revamped plan with a government that has failed to complete the movement of only three thousand families in three years under the present scheme? How long is it going to take them at this rate to bring in 20.000 families as proposed? To appreciate the feebleness of this new effort it is only necessary to note that although the British wanted to send us five hundred families this year the Canadian government was unable to take care of them, and their movement is posponed until 1929. Let us be done with camouflage and makeshift. I appeal to the government to bring in an immigration program in keeping with the needs of the country.
The countries from which we will accept immigration have been dealt with very fully by hon. members during this debate. I want to say, however, that I believe it is the inherent right of every nation to decide its own racial status. I believe it is our bounden duty to posterity and to the fathers of confederation to see that, in the melting pot from which our future Canadians will be moulded, the blood of no race is allowed to enter which might undermine or weaken the blood passed down from our forefathers. Canadians must maintain the high standard they now enjoy. Ours is the right to choose; ours is the right to barr, and we should not hesitate.

The Budget-Mr. Senn
In his speech earlier in the session, the Prime Minister expressed a fear that if we prohibited Japanese immigration we might interfere with the development of our trade in the far east.
Mr. Speaker, I am supposed to be a business man. interested in trade, particularly in the orient, but I have not yet reached the stage- and I hope I never will-where I am prepared, in the interest of trade or commerce, no matter how important, to jeopardize the racial status of the Canadian people. I want to see all undesirable races absolutely barred, let the price be what it may.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house must have been very strongly impressed with the constructive speech which has just been delivered by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae). He speaks on the subject of immigration with some authority, because I understand that for a considerable length of time prior to the war he was actively engaged in the settlement of western lands, and in particular the settlement of the Saskatchewan valley. While thus employed the hon. gentleman conducted what was perhaps the most successful land movement that has ever occurred in the west. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) having during his two years of office failed1 to evolve any progressive policy, I would com-mendl to his favourable consideration the suggestions which have been offered by my colleague, as coming from a gentleman who is eminently qualified to speak on this matter and to speak with authority.
It would be difficult at this stage of the debate to mention any phase of the tariff proposals which has not been discussed from some angle or other. Any contribution to this discussion, therefore, must necessarily be a repetition of arguments, and of facts and figures, which have already been advanced by my colleagues on this side of the house. The remarks which I have to make, consequently, will necessarily be very brief, and I can assure you, sir, that so far as I am concerned there will be no need to invoke the forty-minute rule.
Everyone I am sure must admire the clear and concise manner in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) always delivers his budget address. Unfortunately however, his budget proposals and his method of accounting are not so worthy of commendation. If I were to try to describe those proposals I would say that they were haphazard changes made in the tariff, without any consideration as to the results upon the industries affected, and not in pursuance of any governmental policy other 56103-74
than that of reconciling differences of opinion and quieting dissatisfaction in the Liberal ranks.
The record of succeeding budgets which have been brought down by this administration is one of constant and irritating changes in the tariff. The worst result of these changes which are constantly being made, is the lack of confidence which is evident in business circles throughout the country. Just the other day I was talking to a gentleman who is at the head of one of the large textile industries in Canada. After conversing with him for a while he told me he thought that by careful management and some changes in their methods of operation they would be able to carry on even under the handicap which has been placed on them by the present tariff changes; but there was a real note of anxiety in his voice as he told me two or three times during the conversation that he hoped these changes would be final. If there is one thing which is needed more than anything else in business circles and in industry throughout the country it is a feeling of security, but this cannot possibly be maintained unless we have permanence and stability in our tariff schedules. No business man can lay his plans for the future with any hope of sucess if he has no guarantee that his business is not likely to be disturbed and his plans thwarted by such tariff changes as have constantly taken place under this administration.
I should like to mention for a moment a fact which is so often referred to by hon. members on this side, that the Finance minister did not take into account the guarantees which have been given to the Canadian national railways when he was reckoning our national debt. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), if I am not mistaken, when speaking the other day, argued that because the government had never been called upon to pay any of the interest charges on these guarantees they should not be included in the debt. However the preliminary report of the Canadian National Railways which was tabled recently showed very clearly that the funded debt of the system had increased this year by something like $55,000,000, while the net revenues of the company were only sufficient to pay the interest charges on the bonds held by the public. On the other hand the interest on the million and a quarter dollars which has been advanced by the government in times past to the Canadian National Railways is still being added to the obligations of the system. So long as the road is not a paying proposition it is going to be very difficult for the Finance minister, or any other member

The Budget-Mr. Senn

of the government, to make the public believe that these guarantees should not be included in our national debt. They know well that if these obligations were included the debt would be very much greater than the Minister of Finance has indicated, and would be many millions more than it was when this government assumed office.
It has been very amusing to me, Mr. Speaker, to listen to ton. gentlemen opposite constantly repeating the statement that the country is prosperous. Listening to this constant repetition of the word " prosperity " one would be inclined to think that the Liberal members had become disciples of that famous man, Doctor Coue, who always told his patients that they should repeat over and over the old formula, " Every day in every way I am getting better and better ". Hon. gentlemen opposite may think they will lead the people to believe that Canada is prosperous, but I doubt it very much. Nevertheless by this constant repetition they may be able to induce some of their own number to believe the statement. Even a casual reading of speeches which have been delivered on the other side of the house would lead one to believe that those hon. members are not quite as confident in that respect as they would endeavour to lead the house and the country to believe.
I should like to mention very briefly one or two of the speeches which have been delivered. The hon. member who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Ilsley) congratulated the government upon what he chose to call the abounding prosperity in the country, but before he had proceeded very far with his remarks he made it clear that, at least in the section of the country from which he came, prosperity was not nearly so much in evidence as some would have us believe. Again the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) congratulated the government on the prosperous condition of Canada and in the next breath told the house that he represented a rural riding and that agriculture in that particular riding and district was not at all prosperous.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) the other day made an excellent address in the house, but I am afraid she somewhat lessened the effect of that address by her statement that members of the Conservative opposition were a party of snobs or words to that effect. I have been in this house for some years and I am sure that the hon. member who spoke in that way has always been treated by members on this side with every courtesy, with all the courtesy which has been due to her as an hon. member.

Indeed it is possible she has received a greater amount of deference than the average member on account of the fact that she is the only lady member of the house. I think therefore that her remark was not very well advised, and if she had time to think it over she would never have made it. During the course of her remarks she mentioned the fact that the hon. member for South Huron had stated that the rural districts are not in a prosperous condition and she agreed with him. I find myself this afternoon, for once at least, in agreement with those two hon. members. I cannot however agree with the remedy proposed by the hon. member for South Huron for the unsatisfactory condition of agriculture in Canada. His remedy, as I understood it, was to have freer trade relations. The constituency which I have the honour to represent lies in close proximity to one of the largest manufacturing centres in this Dominion and much of the produce of the farms in that community is taken to that city and consumed there. In the constituency which I represent we have four large creameries and one of them of which I have been a patron for quite a number of years disburses annually to its patrons, the farmers of that locality, something like a million dollars in cream cheques. The bulk of the produce of that creamery is taken to that city and other cities in the vicinity where it is sold and consumed. Not only the produce of those factories but other produce of the farms is taken to those cities where it is consumed-butter, milk, cream, eggs, poultry, apples and other fruits of all kinds, potatoes and other vegetables; and considerable quantities of the meat products which are produced on the farm are taken to that city and others for consumption.
The value of the home market cannot be over-estimated. It is the greatest asset which the farmers, particularly of the province from which I come, possess to-day. Lower duties such as were suggested by the hon. member for South Huron would inevitably mean injury to industry and consequent unemployment and a lower wage Beale. That lower wage scale in the end would' mean considerably less in the way of buying power on the part of the people who purchase our commodities. There is no doubt that at-the present time marketing is one of the most serious problems which confront the Canadian farmer. That is proven very clearly by the fact that co-operative organizations are springing up all over the country for marketing home products, and perhaps the best example which we have of that in Canada to-day is the western wheat pool. I for one

The Budget-Mr. Senn
am glad indeed that the western wheat pool has proved a success, but the very success of that enterprise forms perhaps a real danger to it and to other enterprises of a similar nature. It has been the history of co-operation throughout Canada that up to a certain point in their operations organizations of this kind have always been successful; but after they have attained some measure of success their directors possibly think they have reached the point where they can branch out and undertake other lines of operations which very often lead to disaster. We have in Ontario a form of co-operation which has been successful for many years. I refer to our farmers' mutual fire insurance companies. I believe the reason for their success has been chiefly that they have been under strict government supervision and inspection and that their powers have been clearly defined by law. I would suggest to my hon,. friends from the west, who are interested in the wheat pool and other similar organizations, and to the government as well, that the time must come in the near future when the operations and powers of these organizations must be defined by statute and their books must be subject to government supervision and inspection. That would add very much to the security which they would have and people who are interested in those organizations would, as a result, have greater confidence in them.
I want just for a moment to mention something that has been so often repeated in this house that it may seem like foolishness to refer to it. In connection with the problem of marketing agricultural products we have had a real case where marketing has been interfered with by freer trade relations. I refer to the Australian treaty and the preferences which have been extended to New Zealand whereby butter is coming into this country at a nominal duty of one cent per pound, where originally the duty was considerably higher. The duty on butter coming into Canada to-day is lower than similar duties in any of the other British dominions. For years prior to the ratification of this treaty the surplus of butter exports from Canada was constantly increasing; but in the three short years which have passed by since this treaty came into effect the surplus of exports has been on the decline until to-day we find there is a surplus of imports, and the change in the past three years has been approximately 35,000.000 pounds of butter. These figures have been enlarged upon at considerable length by hon. members who have already spoken and therefore I do not intend to go any further into the matter.
56103-74i
The great danger to the industry in my judgment is not that butter is coming into Canada from these other sister dominions but that the price of butter in this country to-day is controlled by cables which are coming from those particular countries. It really makes very little difference to us whether butter is coming into the country or not so long as our farmers have to sell their butter at prices which are being quoted to Canadian dealers by cables from Australia and New Zealand. It is a common axiom of the dairy industry that producers should receive at least ten cents a pound more in the winter months than in the summer months for their butter. It is known of course that production costs are much higher in the winter than in the summer, and it is manifestly unfair to ask our farmers to compete with farmers in New Zealand and Australia who are producing butter under summer conditions the year round. So far as this treaty is concerned, I am afraid that the farmers of Canada will not agree with the member for South Huron in his contention that we should have freer trade relations to benefit agriculture.
But, Mr. Speaker, the tariff schedules as brought down in the budget proposals in regard to the woollen industry are calculated to injure another branch of agriculture, namely, the sheep industry. The placing of yarns on the free list will mean a consequent loss to the wool growers of the Dominion. It is only during the past few years that the wool growers of Canada have been able to realize a reasonable price for wool, and this is only because the sheep industry has declined to such an extent that Canadian wool is at a premium. It is estimated that the people of Canada use about eighty million pounds of wool annually. This is calculated on a grease basis, or as the wool comes from the back of the sheep. Of this, about half is used by the woollen and knitting mills of Canada, and the remainder is imported in the form of yam, manufactured goods, or goods that are further advanced than yarn. This means that there is a demand at the present time in Canada for approximately forty million pounds of wool, of which there is produced in Canada less than eighteen million pounds. Unfortunately, as a result of the changes proposed in the budget, many more pounds of yarn are likely to be imported, which will mean a consequent diminishing of the needs of our woollen mills in the matter of raw wool, so that the present proposal to admit certain yams free of duty will be a real detriment to the sheep industry of Canada. This is particularly unfortunate in face of the fact that the Ontario government is taking special steps and spending
The Budget-Mr. Senn

money to build up the sheep industry in Ontario and induce farmers to keep more and better sheep.
Anyone who is conversant with the woollen industry will admit that the mills in Canada are just as up to date and as well equipped as those of any other country in the world. Last year while the house was in session the woollen manufacturers' association placed an exhibit of goods produced in Canada in the Chateau Laurier. Many bon. members took advantage of the opportunity to examine these goods, and I am sure that everyone was firmly convinced that the products of our Canadian mills stand second to none in the matter of quality. Yet we find that because of the cheap production costs and low price of labour in the British Isles and in France, there are lines in which our woollen mills are unable to compete with Great Britain and France because of our higher standards of living and the higher wage scale. Our wage scale is dependent very largely upon the price of labour in the country to the south of us. From time to time many of our best woollen operators have been induced to go to the United States because the mills in that country are able and willing to pay the price.
During the past year the woollen manufacturers' association made certain representations to the tariff board. In his annual address the president of the woollen manufacturers' association stated that briefs had been presented to the tariff board, showing that of woollen and worsted cloth there is a market in Canada for about 5540,000,000 worth each year, and that only one third of this market is now being supplied by Canadian mills, the remaining two-thirds of the market being supplied by workers in mills in other countries. Another brief showed that of white blankets of a total of $906,000, the Canadian production was approximately $275,000 as compared with $631,000 imported-33 per cent produced in our own Canadian mills, and 67 per cent imported. Socks and stockings of wool show a total consumption in Canada of $5,396,000, the production in Canada amounting to approximately $2,800,000, while the imports amounted to approximately $2,600,000-55 per cent produced in our own Canadian mills, and 45 per cent imported. Of yam, of a total Canadian consumption of $6,400,000, the production in Canada amounted to $2,860,000, while the imports amounted to $3,545,000-45 per cent produced in our own Canadian mills and 55 per cent imported. In regard to knitted outerwear, while it was impossible to arrive at the exact figures owing to the way in which import and production statistics were prepared, it was clear that the

importations of certain classes of knitted outerwear were very heavy indeed.
There is no reason to suppose that our mills could not produce practically all of these goods which are required to meet the needs of the Canadian people, and this in turn would not only give employment to many hundreds more of our people in mills which are now either entirely or partly idle, but would also be a boon to the sheep industry.
The British manufacturer is pretty well satisfied with the tariff changes which have been proposed in regard to the woollen industry. I have before me a periodical published by the woollen industry of Great Britain, called the Weekly Wool Chart and Private Business Report, of the week of February 23, 1928, published in Bradford, England. It contains on editorial on the tariff reductions which have been brought down by the Minister of Finance which I should like to quote. It says:
A revision of tariffs is embodied in the new Canadian budget. Greater protection has been obtained for the Canadian manufacturing industry, not by increasing the duties on fully-manufactured goods, but by reducing the duties on yarns and grey goods. Imports of yarns for weaving from the United Kingdom (formerly charged 10 per cent) will be admitted free. Dress goods, and so forth, in the grey will be admitted at 10 per cent (against 15 per cent), which automatically increases the preference from 7J to 124 per cent. Dyed goods continue to pay as before, except that dyed cloths weighing under 5 ounces per square yard (lustres, linings, and so forth), are to pay 5 per cent less than the present rate (24J per cent), the reduction also applying to France. It will be remembered that last year the Canadian manufacturers applied for increased protection, and Mr. J. H. C. Hodgson and Mr. George H. Wood went out from Bradford to give evidence before the tariff board against the application. The educational work which they did has evidently been of good service.
That is how the British manufacturer views the changes that are being made in our tariff. The British manufacturer knows as well we do that these changes mean an increased preference for British goods in the markets of Canada, with a consequent diminishing of the sale of our own goods.
There are several changes made in the present budget which will work out very harmfully to the woollen industry, one or two of which I would like to mention. The placing of yarns for weaving, on the free list will without doubt have the effect of very seriously injuring the spinning industry in Canada. Many mills which are to-day spinning their own yarns will have to purchase the cheaper yarns coming from the British Isles if they are to compete in our markets with foreign made goods. But there is another

The Budget-Mr. Bancroft
danger which is perhaps not quite so apparent and which the minister cannot have taken into consideration. It is that there are certain mills in the country which are both weaving and knitting. These yams are supposedly admitted free of duty to be used for weaving alone and great care should be exercised to see that they are not used in the knitting business in competition with other mills which are spinning their own yams for knitting purposes. Might I suggest to the minister that if he insists upon having worsted yams for knitting coming into the country free of duty, his intention should be carried out by means of a 99 per cent drawback when it has been clearly demonstrated that these yarns have been used for weaving purposes alone.
Another tariff item which will work a great deal of harm to certain industries in the country is the placing of a duty of 15 per cent on mercerized cotton yarns coming from the Uinted States, where formerly these yarns came in free. This will be of no advantage to either the Canadian or the British manufacturer of mercerized cotton yarns. Under this item imports must still be made from the United States because even with the additional 15 per cent duty, these yarns can be imported from the United States more cheaply than they could from the British Isles.
As an example, may I furnish a quotation on what is known as double forties of C. P. mercerized cotton yarns landed from England, duty free and quoted at 89A cents per pound, while the same goods from the United States, after paying the 15 per cent duty, are quoted at 76 cents per pound. I am told that the larger concerns using this material will be compelled to pay anywhere from ten to twenty thousand .dollars a year extra for their material, and that there will be no benefit derived by any Canadian industry.
These are some instances in which the woollen trade will be adversely affected in Canada and there are others which I hope to bring to the minister's attention when the tariff resolutions are before the committee. The placing of machinery for these factories on the free list is viewed as a farce by the companies, many of which have a large amount of machinery already standing idle.
Taking into account these few features of the present budget which I have endeavoured to present to the house, I am fu'lly in accord with the amendment to the budget as moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I cannot believe that the budget will improve the unemployment situation in Canada or relieve the position
in which agriculture finds itself, and I therefore intend to support the amendment and to vote against the budget.


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate until I heard on Monday last the speech of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys). In that excellent speech he dealt with the binder twine industry, but from one angle only, and because of that I feel called upon to present what might be termed the other side of the case.
He asserted that the removal of the duty on binder twine in 1898 had ruined this industry. He intimated that more binder twine had been imported each year than had been consumed in Canada. He said that, of nineteen companies manufacturing binder twine in 1908, only two are manufacturing binder twine at the present time and that the Brantford Cordage Company was being forced out of business because of imports of binder twine from Holland and Germany. It might be well at this stage to look into the history of the binder twine business in Canada. Previous to 1895 binder twine carried a tariff of 12J per cent, in 1895 this was reduced to 10 per cent; in the budget of 1897 the tariff was wiped out entirely, becoming effective January 1, 1898. In 1893 a wealthy American from New York city came to Canada and decided that the protection, 12J per cent, was sufficient to warrant the formation of a twine and cordage combine. There were eight twine factories in operation in Canada at that time. They were merged into one corporation and six of them were closed. This all happened under 12J per cent protection.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And the Tories were in
power.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Yes. The combine immediately increased the price of twine about 50 per cent. Shortly 'after this the federal government purchased some of the idle machinery from one of the closed factories and began making binder twine in Kingston penitentiary. About the same time the Patrons of Industry formed the Farmers' Binder Twine Company at Brantford. From 1894 to 1900 this company never paid less than 10 per cent dividend annually and in 1901, three years after the tariff had been wiped out, they paid the enormous dividend of 250 per cent. They were able to pay this abnormal dividend on account of conditions resulting from the Spanish-American war and its effect upon the stock of raw materials on hand. This large dividend paid to farmers in all parts of Ontario gave rise to the opinion that large profits could be made from the
The Budget-Mr. Bancroft

manufacture of binder twine. Two promoters from Montreal capitalized this temporary condition in the binder twine industry by promoting companies and selling stock for the erection of binder twine factories at Walker-ton, Ontario, Chatham, Ontario, and Brandon, Manitoba. Before this idea of making easy money from the manufacture of binder twine had subsided, companies were formed and mills erected at Ayton, Peterboro and Brantford. Many of these new mills were conducted by men who new little or nothing of the business, and most of them were shortlived.
As I do not intend to take the full forty minutes allotted to me, and as I iam discussing only one subject, I should be very pleased, Mr. Speaker, if you would call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Leland Payson Bancroft: April 1st to September 30, 1927, being the first six months of the fiscal year 1927-28 the imports from Holland rose to 11,964 300 pounds. But, Mr. Speaker, during those three years the imports from the United States had decreased. The imports from the United States for 1925-26 amounted to 39,184,480 pounds, while for 1926-27 the imports from United States dropped to 18,061,000 pounds, and for 1927-28 they fell still further to 6,910,200 pounds. So that during the past three years the total imports into Canada have decreased considerably each year. The Brantford Cordage Company Limited has had a splendid record. It began in a small way in 1901, and to use its own words, " has steadily increased and expanded its business and extended its factory from time to time until 1925 ". Since then it has claimed to be in difficulties. These difficulties are of their own making. They are trying to pay dividends on too much watered stock, and the Canadian farmer is not willing to pay for such folly.
The hon. member stated that free trade had not reduced the price of binder twine, but that as a matter of fact the price was raised and is now much higher, and he has put upon Hansard a table showing the price of binder twine beginning with the year 1913, He shows binder twine to have cost 9 cents a pound in 1913 and 14 cents in 1926. Now the whole level of prices has risen in the same period.
The index number of wholesale prices in Canada, as compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, shows that prices rose generally during the whole period he covered. If we take prices in 1913 as 100, prices in 1926 are represented by the number 156, or, in other words, the purchasing power of money declined between 1913 and 1926 in the ratio of 100 to 156. Binder twine costing 14 cents a pound to-day would be of the same actual value as binder twine costing 9 cents a pound in 1913; so that the rise in price shown in the hon. gentleman's table means nothing so far as free trade in or protection of binder twine is concerned. The price of binder twine bore the same relationship to general wholesale prices in 1926 as it did in 1913, and in 1927 the price was 12 cents or two cents lower than 1926. In other words, binder twine was actually cheaper in 1927 than in 1913, having regard to the variation in the purchasing power of money in these years.
That leaves out of account the great improvement in the quality of Canadian binder twine since 1913. Any hon. member who has used a grain binder over that period will bear me out in this. This improvement in quality has been brought about through the use of a better quality of fibre, and the use of improved machinery in the factories. I have a small list of figures here which I would like to have placed on Hansard in tabulated form. The table is as follows:
Canada's Production, Imports and Exports of Binder Twine
Years
1895	
1900	
1905	
1910	
1915	
1920		
1921		
1922		
1923		
1924		
1925		
1926		
1927		
1928	(April to Sept, of fiscal year 1927-1928).
Establishments
making
Binder
Twine
No.
(a)
(a)
7 2
6 6 6
6
Production
Binder
Twine
(Calendar
year)
Lb.
(a)
(a)
9,719,259
18,400,842
969,673
40,548,845
37,206,502
31,891,713
43,145,520
57,420,864
48,224,782
58,431,083
Imports
into
Canada
(Fiscal
year)
Exports from Canada (Fiscal year)
Canadian
Lb.
2,036,409
8,017,688
11,404,052
22,161,179
28,577,030
16,304,479
34,755,071
46,758,792
49,990,387
54,427,211
26,576,587
47,629,886
28,281,400
19,428,300
Lb.
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
12,281,708
28,091,500
18,612,400
3,369,300
7,519,900
13.919.300 13,383,800
9,514,400
13.603.300
14,029,900
(a)	production statistics are available in these years
(b)	No export statistics are available in these years. '
Foreign
Lb.
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
35,850
4,300
29,500
47,300
317,000
Total
Lb.
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
12,317,558
28,091,500
18,612,400
3,369,300
7,524,200
13,948,800
13,383,900
9,561,700
13,920,300
Prices Sisal Binder Twine
Cent3 per Lb. 3-51 11 -10
10-	7
7-	6
8-	6 20-2 17-3 12-4
11-	4
12-	5 14-0 14-1 12-8
The first year for which the Bureau of Statistics had figures showing production was 1905. These figures show that production has increased about six and one-half times 
between 1905 and 1926, while imports have increased only two and one-half times during the same period. Exports have increased a little comparing 1926 with 1905.

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
A study of the trade figures and the reports issued by twine manufacturers shows that this industry has expanded and prospered under free trade. Its growth compares quite favourably with other industries operating under protection over the same period of years. No mergers have been formed. The quality of the product has improved and the farmers are being supplied with a high quality twine at a reasonable price. The companies engaged in this industry have had periods of expansion and periods of depression, similar to those experienced in other industries. Naturally the binder twine industry is directly affected by the acreage sown and the character of the season. Disinterested study of conditions affecting the binder twine industry must lead to the conclusion that it has benefited from the removal of the duty as much as any single industry, operating in a country where protection is the general rule, can benefit. Its experience supports the contentions of the advocates of a low tariff and there can be no question that the results have been of considerable advantage to the grain growers of the Dominion, so much so that the imposition of a protective duty on imports of binder twine would arouse very great resentment among the farmers of Canada.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: tralia, New Zealand and Canada. While apparently there have been, some difficulties in the last year or two in regard to management, I believe the fact is that all the dominions have earned a handsome income and surplus from the use of that cable, something like $300,000 or more a year having come to the Dominion government.
In regard to telegraphs, there are three telegraph systems in Canada, the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific, and the Western Union. The Canadian National, starting at Vancouver, where it has cable connections, runs across the country and ends at Moncton. The Canadian Pacific, starting at Vancouver, where it has connections, runs across the country to Nova Scotia, where it has cable connections. One' difference between the two lines is that the Canadian Pacific terminates on the eastern seaboard, while the Canadian National terminates at Moncton. There is a gap of 198 miles between Moncton and Halifax, where some of the cables are. That gap is not completed by the Canadian National, but the Western Union comes in there and continues from Moncton to Halifax, picking up the communications. The Western Union is the sole telegraph system in Prince Edward Island; it algo is the sole system in a portion of New Brunswick and in a portion of Nova Scotia. The Western Union is an American line; it is not Canadian. If one wishes to send a cablegram from Ottawa to London and goes to the Canadian National office, the message will be sent by the Canadian National to Moncton, where it is transferred to a foreign company, the Western Union, and transmitted over an American cable. If the message is sent by the Canadian Pacific, it proceeds from Ottawa and later passes over a considerable mileage through the state of Maine, and finally reaches Halifax, where it connects with the cable. In the ordinary course, messages sent from Ottawa going Canadian Pacific are transmitted over an American cable, and messages sent by the Canadian National are transmitted over the Western Union, and go over an American cable. If the sender thinks about it and wishes it done, both companies will send the message over British cables if the sender so specifies, but it is only on request that the cable messages are sent in that way.
Three years ago, when I had the opportunity of speaking to the house, an arrangement with the Canadian National could not be effected; that is, at that time the Canadian National could not transmit a message across the Atlantic by the imperial cable because they had no connection, and they had to use the Western Union. To that extent there has been a 
change since that day. Messages from London to Ottawa are sent over the imperial cable, a government-owned cable, and are then transmitted over the Canadian Pacific, although it passes through a large section of the state of Maine.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I am asking this question for information; but is it not a fact that the Canadian National have a working agreement with the Western Union, as a part of which agreement they have the option of taking over the lines of the Western Union in the province of Nova Scotia at any time they desire to do so?


Murray MacLaren: I would have to refer that question to the government.


Mr. VENIOT:: They are valuating them
now in the negotiations to take them over.


Murray MacLaren: I did not hear what
the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) said, but so far as I know, that arrangement has not yet been completed. I am perfectly aware that I urged three years ago that it be done, but the Minister of Railways of that time did not accept the views I was putting forward, nor did he accept my criticism of his attitude at the imperial conference.	'
I have stated the position of the cable companies and of the telegraph system and I have pointed out what I believe to be a highly unsatisfactory condition at the present time. The Western Union, after all, is a foreign company and should not be exercising telegraph rights in (this country,; as contrasted with a company under British or Canadian control; and furthermore, the system is limited so far as the Western Union is concerned. It has been stated that during the past twelve months or more negotiations have been proceeding between the government and the Western Union. I hope that those negotiations will be carried to a successful conclusion, but I have not yet heard that that has been accomplished; it has certainly not been announced to the house. It is a highly important matter, and I trust that the government will go on, under all the circumstances and acquire the Western Union. This is important from our own national standpoint. The telegraph system is one around which all possible safeguards should be thrown. From diplomatic standpoint and even from a business standpoint there should be a privacy and a safeguarding against leakage which cannot be ensured under the present circumstances.
I hope the Postmaster General assured the house that that wias going through. I did not hear his answer.

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren


Peter John Veniot: I said that negotiations
were being still carried on.


Murray MacLaren: That is my understanding, that negotiations have been under way for a year or more-naturally, for it is a large proposition. I believe the country will approve the action of the government in taking over the Western Union, and under no ordinary circumstances should that system continue as it is. It should be linked up with our Canadian National telegraph system across the continent, and so give us direct connection with the imperial cable and the Pacific cable.
I would also draw attention to the fact that while the participation of the Canadian government in the Pacific cable has been remunerative and successful, we have no interest in any Atlantic cable.


Peter John Veniot: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to correct him? I know he does not wish to convey a wrong impression. During the last three years our participation in the Pacific cable has not been remunerative.


Murray MacLaren: But previously-


Peter John Veniot: Yes, during the war it was remunerative.


Murray MacLaren: -there was something
like $250,000 profit.


Peter John Veniot: During the war years.


Murray MacLaren: That will help to make up the average.


Peter John Veniot: I do not wish to interrupt
my hon. friend, but I think he should have this information. During the war, profits on the Pacific cable accumulated to the amount of eleven million dollars, but this money was all spent in the construction of a new cable. Consequently Canada and the other contracting parties are still faced with the whole deficit.


Murray MacLaren: And they have a new
cable. Surely that represents a good deal as an asset; and, as I say, there were periods when the cable was operated at a. handsome profit. Now a new cable is being constructed, and in any event, whether there is a profit or not, this cable is necessary from a national standpoint.


Peter John Veniot: Certainly; you are right
there.


Murray MacLaren: I speak now of the
Atlantic. Canada has no interest in any Atlantic cable. Look at the position Great Britain is in to-day in this respect. The
pioneer country in cable 'service, lat one time owning five cables under British interests, to-day she has but two-one captured from the Germans, and the other a sixty-year-old cable bought from one of the American companies. We hear a good deal about equality of status. If we take that stand we must accept greater responsibility than we have shouldered hitherto. Surely that is clear. I venture to express the hope that the government sometime in the near future, while claiming equality of status, will also take what I might term proportional participation with Great Britain in an Atlantic cable.


Peter John Veniot: Would the hon. member
advise that in view of the developments in the beam system of transmission?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: I am asking for information for the benefit of the house. Would the hon. member advise the participation of Canada in an Atlantic cable in view of the developments in the beam system of radio transmission?


Murray MacLaren: Yes, I would.


Peter John Veniot: That is not what they are doing in England; they are advising against any further cable commitments.


Murray MacLaren: After all, while radio
transmission is an important adjunct to cable transmission, it is a variable system; that is, it can be jammed. We need both systems, for you cannot yet depend entirely on radio. Certainly it makes an excellent supplementary method of transmission, but those who have experience in these things declare that the cable system is absolutely dependable. Therefore in reply to the question of the Postmaster General-and it is a perfectly proper one-I do hope the government will go on and make such arrangements as will ensure our having a new up-to-date cable with proportional participation by Canada in the expense incurred.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, as this debate has continued several weeks it is becoming very difficult to develop any subject which has not already been pretty thoroughly discussed. I have noticed that hon. members from all quarters of the house have expressed a wish for peace, happiness and prosperity for the people of Canada, but the methods they suggest for securing that happy condition of affairs vary very much. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) a few days ago pointed out that hon. members opposite of the Conserva-
The Budget-Mr. Gershaw

tive party and of the Progressive group had expressed entirely divergent views as to how the varying interests of Canada could be harmonized, and it seems to me that the government occupies a central position, being pushed in one direction by our Conservative friends and in the other direction by our Progressive friends.
We have in this house representatives of the two great historic parties and as well the representatives of the Progressive and Labour groups. The Liberal party has a traditional fiscal policy, as I understand it-to maintain the lowest tariff possible. True, the' government is not working in that direction as fast as some of us would like, but that, I submit, is the fiscal policy of the Liberal party. And I believe that the great majority of the people are in favour of such a tariff policy. For instance', the representatives of the Progressive and Labour groups, who have been sent here by those producers and workers who did not feel that they were being properly represented by either of the old parties,

those representatives favour a low tariff. Then we have the Conservative party, who retain their traditional fiscal policy of protection. I take that for granted after reading an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on Monday, definitely stating that the policy of the Conservative party is one of protection. True, it is noticeable by the tone of the resolutions that passed at the Winnipeg convention and by the remarks of some members of the official opposition that they are to some extent departing from the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, a policy which he contended was admirably fitted to fully develop the Dominion of Canada as it was in his day.
Now, I am convinced that a great number of our people believe that the tariff should be- kept as low as possible, for very good reasons, one of these being that, as is pretty generally conceded, the price of any article or commodity increases as the tariff thereon is raised; and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft) showed conclusively this afternoon that as the tariff is reduced on any article or commodity its price decreases accordingly. It seems to me that competition from within too often is not sufficient to maintain prices at their proper level, and that we need outside competition to attain this end. Then again, Canada has great natural resources, and if our industries are to be prosperous they must be based on those natural resources. It is scarcely fair for any industry to ask that it be protected to the extent of 35 ot 40 per cent, for this enhances prices and the people under present conditions should not be forced to buy the products of that industry. 
I had intended to discuss the question of immigration, but it was so thoroughly dealt with this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae)-and no one is better qualified than he to speak on the question-that I do not deem it necessary to do so. I was glad to hear the applause which greeted his statement that in any policy of land settlement our own young men should be given as good an opportunity to participate in its benefits as any immigrant.
WTe have been told that the national revenues are buoyant, that Canada is in a good position financially, and that there is very general prosperity throughout the country; and the reason I made bold to rise to-night was to suggest some1 ways in which those revenues might be used to great advantage. We desire to encourage the tourist business in every possible way, because it is very profitable for the Dominion, and in the near future large expenditures will be required on highways. We shall also require to continue branch railway construction. In many of our outlying districts the people have to go many miles to a market, and there is very great need for railway facilities, especially in the western part of this country. Further branch lines have been definitely promised, and the people of those districts have tried again and again to secure their fulfilment, but they are still living in hope that something will be done at no distant date. I believe much money will need to be spent in this direction. During the war and the years immediately following the war very few public buildings were constructed, and I noticed when the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) was trying to get his estimates through, several members pleaded for poat offices and other public buildings in their constituencies. It seems to me that in the near future a great deal of money will have to be spent for this purpose. Then again technical education will have to be supported by grants from the federal treasury. The government in the past has done a good deal in this direction, and I am sure that many of us will be sorry that the grants are not being continued. Another source of expenditure which confronts us is in aid of the various provincial governments. Many of them to-day are having great difficulty in balancing their budgets. The government of the province of Alberta has had to report a deficit in spite of pretty careful management.
An hon. member remarked the other day that Canada suffered a great deal from the war, and that around our tables there are at least fifty thousand vacant chairs. But besides those who made the supreme sacrifce we

The Budget-Mr. MaeNutt
see on our streets many returned men who still bear the sears of war service, and we know that many of them are suffering now from diseases attributable to their service overseas. The stress, the strain and the anxiety of those days is now beginning to affect the health of many of those who were fairly sound at the	conclusion of hostilities.
It is quite -clear that more money will have to be spent for pensions. I have been told by a reliable authority that during the month of February just passed eleven hundred new claims for pensions were filed, 96 per cent being from men who had never before taken that step. Canada went wholeheartedly into the war, and took her full share of responsibility. No one regrets that, and surely no one is unwilling to do his or her share in recompensing those for the personal sacrifices which they made overseas.
No one will challenge the assertion that those best able to pay should bear a greater share of taxation, and at the present time I do not think any of us would object to paying the present rate of income taxation. In view of the great need of money to meet the expenditures to which I have drawn attention I think taxation should be reduced very gradually. It seems to me that as taxation can be reduced the customs tariff should first receive attention, then the sales tax, and last and least of all the income tax. It is hardly fair for us to compare our income tax with that of the United States. There the government obtain about 65 per cent of their revenue from income tax, while we obtain only 14 per cent. Besides, Canada was in the war from the very beginning until the armistice.
Now, as to the subamendment proposed by hon. members directly opposite, it contains much that appeals to me. The fact that the income tax has been reduced certainly is a matter for regret. The fact that the sales tax has not been eliminated is not quite so clearly a matter for regret, for I believe it would be a hardship to remove this tax all at once. It would deprive the treasury of a great deal of revenue, and it would be unfair to many retail merchants who have goods on their shelves on which they have paid the sales tax, and they would have to sell these in competition with goods purchased after the removal of the sales tax. It is true some reduction has been made in the customs tariff but, as I said before, I should like to see a greater reduction in that direction. There is much that appeals to me in the subamendment, yet I should not like to vote for it if it meant turning the government out of office.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: It will not
turn them out; you can safely vote for it.


Frederick William Gershaw: Then much less would I be inclined to vote for it, if it means nothing. The government has a policy in which 1 believe, and I am fully persuaded that the country have full confidence in every membei of the government.


Mr. G. T. MacNUTT (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to discuss the subject now before the house I desire on behalf of the bon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) to read a letter which he had not finished on Wednesday last when his time expired. This letter is from the Oxford Manufacturing Company of the town of Oxford in the county of Cumberland, and is as follows:
We were stunned to read the portion of the Robb budget dealing with the textile industry. We were suspicious that the Tariff Advisory Board was but a gesture, and it has so worked out. The agricultural interests of this country were entitled to have counsel before this board, but there is no good cause why the * Bradford Chamber of Commerce, representing the woollen manufacturers of England, should have anything to say as to the regulation of tariff matters of this country. From 1878 to 1897 this industry was developed to great proportions, but the demise since then has been gradual under the bane of constantly decreasing protection. The application of the manufacturers before the Tariff Advisory Board was very complete, and in addition to this a brief was presented to Hon. Mr. Robb by the Canadian Woollen and Knit Goods Manufacturers' Association, reference No. 42, touching on the tariff and conditions in this and other countries for more than one-half a century back. It should be only necessary to show that in this country we make only 30 per cent of the woollens used, but evidently the discrimination against this industry must go on. It is impossible to believe that the Tariff Advisory Board, if unfettered, could otherwise than recommend some measure of help for the manufacturers of woollen cloths. Instead of protecting the employees of this industry against foreign labour, Mr. Robb has wiped away the duty on weaving yarns, which means, but for the small number of workers employed in the weaving and finishing of the cloth, this commodity can be brought in now absolutely free. We doubt very much if the minister of the department realized this. In any case, the blow has been struck, and the end is not far away for the average woollen manufacturer. Not in twenty years have the changes in the tariff endangered the life of the woollen industry as this one.
You will note that in the case of 40's and finer yarns a small duty has been added. This is no help, of course, as only the worsted mills spin this fine. In the medium size yarns which are commonly made here the duty has been cut. We need to have our case placed before the government through a royal commission. The manufacturers should combine together and elect one man to fix prices, wages and other conditions and to see that these are adhered to.
Yours very truly,
The Oxford Manufacturing Company, Limited.
The Budget-Mr. MacNutt

I can quite understand, Mr. Speaker, why the hon. member for Cumberland was anxious to place this letter before the house and the country, representing as he does a constituency which has been struck harder than perhaps any other portion of the province of Nova Scotia. I am sure that as a representative of that county he does not wish to see any more smokeless chimneys left standing as monuments to the tariff tinkering of t;he present government.
In looking at the budget in general, as it affects the whole country, I think we should congratulate ourselves that as it has been presented it is not very revolutionary. The general public attitude seems to be that it will neither kill nor cure anybody or anything. Being a canny Scot, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has developed the habit of playing safe, but on this occasion, with so many widely divergent views to meet, his task has not been one of [DOT] sun clear simplicity. He had to prepare a budget the chief Object of which was to glorify the King government, and for this purpose there had to be more shadow than light in his financial statement. The arts of concealment and manipulation, the drawbacks and shifts made to get around awkward facts, make this tissue of tricks a very shallow performance. With a Barnum like belief in the general gullibility of mankind, the minister has endeavoured to ride two horses and serve two masters, and of course he will come to the inevitable fall. Someone said long ago that you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time, and I think that is a very true saying at this time in our history.
We regret to observe that the minister is beginning to show signs of the strain of his office, in endeavouring to reconcile the many conflicting elements which surround him. Some of these hon. members want a low tariff, some want a high tariff and some want no tariff at all. On this side of the house we are very fond of the Finance minister; we like his geniality, and1 we very much regret to learn that he is desirous of relinquishing his portfolio. May I make the prediction that if the minister can retain his portfolio for one or two years longer the people of this country will probably give him a much needed holiday.
I read a letter concerning the textile industry in Nova Scotia, and I think the changes in the textile schedules are the most extensive and drastic contained in the present budget. The whittling and nibbling at the steel and coal schedules have been so ably dealt with by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) and many other hon. members that at this time I will not attempt to make any ex-
tended reference to them, except to remind the Prime Minister once again that we in the maritime provinces accepted his pledge in good faith when he stated that the assistance recommended by ,the Duncan commission would be given, or at least dealt with, during the present session. It is a very disappointing situation which we face to-night. A few weeks ago the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) journeyed down to the city of St. John and made an announcement which is reported as follows in the press:
The government had implemented all the recommendations of the Duncan report except two, the Valley railway project and the bounty to Sydney steel plant. The two matters were, however, receiving the serious consideration of the government, and with in a few weeks the policy would be divulged, which he thought would make every maritimer feel proud.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) speaking last year in the city of Sydney and elsewhere, boasted that the government had fulfilled the recommendations of the Duncan commission one hundred per cent. The utterances of these two ministers remind me of the practice which exists at present in our northern country where for a good many months of the year transportation has to be carried on with dog teams. The owners of those teams in that northern country, I am told, always have one or two loose dogs.which are trained to go out unharnessed in advance and bark in order that their barking and their activity should encourage the team doing the hauling. The barking of the two ministers referred to were given, doubtless, for the purpose of encouraging the government to do what they were pledged to carry out but which pledges I am sorry to say have not been fulfilled.
I feel disappointed that the Minister of National Defence, speaking from his place in this house a few days ago, should have stated that the government would give serious consideration to granting the assistance to the steel industry of Nova Scotia which the Duncan commission had recommended whenever the following conditions would be met:
First, there must be unity between the coal and steel companies.
Second, there must be a shrinkage of the capital so that the industry will have an opportunity of earning dividends on some reasonable investment.
Third, the unwieldly organization should be simplified. It now consists of some fourteen companies.
Fourth, there ought to be co-operation between the provincial and municipal authorities in the work of building up this great industry. With the litigation ended and these conditions met, the way will be open for serious con-

The Budget-Mr. MacNutt
sideration by the federal government of the presentation of the real and legitimate needs of the industry.
That, Mr. Speaker, was the most disappointing announcement I have heard since coming to this house three sessions ago. A year ago among the maritime members there was a diversity of opinion regarding the action we should take at that time, and some of us dissociated ourselves from the ideas that others had expressed in that respect. To-night, after the recent statement of the Minister of National Defence, 1 must say that the majority of us who urged giving the government more time, in other words, to hold out the olive branch and afford the government further opportunity to deal with this question, were wrong, and those who opposed that course were right. Let me say that down in the province of Nova Scotia we all admire the Minister of National Defence as a brilliant lawyer, we admire him as a gallant soldier, but after his recent announcement we cannot admire him as a statesman or a politician. I believe that had the Minister of National Defence and the Postmaster General said to the government in regard to these great basic industries-which in my judgment means more to the people of Nova Scotia than all the other industries dealt with in the recommendations of the Duncan commission-that they would pack their trunks and go home, we would have had before us to-night legislation which would have given that industry the same fighting chance as other steel industries in Canada enjoy. I believe that the assistance which the Duncan commission recommended should be given that industry as it is the only assistance that would place it on a footing with other steel industries in Canada.


Mr. RALSTON:: Will my hon. friend
permit a question? Is he aware that the boards of trade and all those who made representations in connection with the Duncan commission's report stressed, as the most important part of that report, the lowering of the local freight rates?


Thomas Cantley: That is only one portion of the recommendation.


George Taylor MacNutt: The question of freight
rates is a separate question altogether.


Mr. PARENT:: That is a case where
ignorance is bliss.


George Taylor MacNutt: I have here a resolution
passed a few weeks ago by the board of trade of the town of Truro in the county which I have the honour to represent.


James Layton Ralston: Was not the lowering of the local freight rates what was emphasized by boards of trade all over the provinces, who took the ground:	If you can only get
that it is the biggest thing of the lot?


George Taylor MacNutt: May I read the resolution to which I have referred-as I do not get the minister's interjection:
Whereas in the year 1926, Canada produced 16,457.484 tons of coal and imported 18,056,139 tons, for which importation over $100,000,000 was paid;
And whereas in the year 1926 the steel plants of Canada produced 649,390 tons of iron and steel products (less than one-half their capacity output) while in the same year 922,482 tons of foreign iron and steel Were imported into Canada for which some $50,000,000 was paid;
And whereas the Duncan commission on maritime claims recognized the coal and steel industries as important national assets and recommended certain measures necessary to help establish these industries;
Therefore resolved that the parliament of Canada should adopt a national fuel steel policy which recognizes Canada's need of coal and steel and Canada's ability to fill that need, the aim of which policy being to produce in Canada the coal and steel consumed in Canada so far as that is at present possible and to take the necessary steps to secure expansion of these industries so that there may be ultimate and complete fulfilment of this national policy;
And further resolved that the recommendations of the Duncan commission on behalf of these industries should be immediately implemented.
That is all I wish to say at the present time regarding the existing situation as to the nonfulfilment of the recommendations of the Duncan commission in reference to steel. May I also refer briefly to another matter to which previous speakers have made very little reference? The Duncan commission advises the apointment of a minister or a deputy minister of fisheries, but I have heard no reference whatever by the government in regard to this appointment. It cangot be that the government lack men on that side of the house who are practical fishermen. Possibly the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) has more knowledge of the fish business than any other hon. gentleman sitting on that side of the house. I remember a few short years ago that the hon. member for AntigonishjGuysborough accompanied the Premier on a speaking tour throughout Canada to the Pacific coast, and I am sure that if at that time the hon. member was of such calibre that he could occupy a position on the platforms of this country with the Prime Minister, he should be capable of filling the position of deputy minister or minister of fisheries. The people
The Budget-Mr. MacNutt

of the maritime provinces are looking forward to the appointment of someone to fill this position, They believe that will solve many of their difficulties and, as before stated, I cannot think that it is for any lack of suitable members from the maritime provinces on that side of the house that the position has not been filled. May I suggest that before many weeks pass the position which I have indicated, that of a deputy minister or a minister of fisheries, should be filled?
I should like for a moment to refer to that portion of the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), which transcends all other questions in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, as a matter of fact, in the whole province of Nova Scotia. I refer to the government having made no provision in the budget for the preservation of our domestic markets for Canadian farm and dairy products, nor any reference to legislation for the effective development of the natural resources of this country. Let me first point out that dairy farming in Nova Scotia, and particularly in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, is carried on most extensively, and notwithstanding the fact that hundreds of petitions and resolutions from all Canada have been forwarded to the government praying that the duty be increased on importations of butter from Australia and New Zealand, the government thus far have turned a deaf ear. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair)-and I regret he is not in his seat to-night-who followed me a few weeks ago in the debate on the address, contended that prices of daily butter had not been decreased by the importations of butter from Australia and New Zealand. In this view the hon. member for Queens is entirely at variance with the dairymen in his province and, indeed, throughout Canada. I have before me a most interesting address delivered a few %ays ago by Mr. J. A. Macdonald, of Charlottetown, dairy superintendent for Prince Edward Island. I think it was the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald) who referred to this matter in his speech a few *weeks ago. The address is such an admirable one that I should like to see it printed and sent out to the people of this country. Mr. Macdonald, who is in the employ of the Liberal government of Prince Edward Island, closed that interesting address in the following words:
At the present time our markets have received quite a set-back, owing to so much New Zealand butter being dumped into Canada. Up to November first, 100,000 boxes of New 
Zealand butter was exported to Canada, and one boat in November delivered 34,000 boxes in Halifax.
New Zealand and Australia are producing, under summer conditions, and are bonused to the extent of six cents a pound. So you see why we cannot compete with that trade, and make a profit with our type of cow.
That is a statement by the dairy superintendent of Prince Edward Island.


Georges Parent: Where did the hon. gentleman get his statistics?


George Taylor MacNutt: I can furnish the hon.
gentleman with a full copy of this speech if he will apply to me after the house adjourns.


Georges Parent: I do not want the hon.
gentleman's speech. I should like to find out whether the statistics he is producing are correct or not.


George Taylor MacNutt: If the hon. member will
contain himself a little longer I will give him some statistics from the national dairymen's association if he doubts this. Mr. Macdonald filling the position he does in the service of the government of Prince Edward Island, a position which places him in constant touch with the dairymen of that province, I will leave it to the house and to the country to decide which judgment would be most reliable, that of the dairy superintendent of Prince Edward Island, or that of the hon. member for Queens. How can that hon. gentleman honestly urge a policy so diametrically opposed to the interests of his constituents and of Canada? My hon. friend-and I regret his absence to-night-is known in that portion of the province as "Honest John".


Thomas Cantley: Formerly known.


George Taylor MacNutt: I may say, formerly
known. Of course this was before he went into politics.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He is still called Honest John.


Thomas Cantley: No, "Simple John" now.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, "Honest John."


George Taylor MacNutt: I should like to have placed on Hansard some statistics which were given in answer to some questions by the hon. member for South Oxford' (Mr. Cayley) dealing with importations of butter; but I find that Hansard has already been loaded up with a great deal of the same statistics and I will let that feature pass for the present.
A few weeks ago in this house I stated that in the constituency which I represent 1,400 of our best milch cows had been shipped away, mostly to the United States. I had some doubt whether my figures were correct, so I

The Budget-Mr. Peck
wired to one of the leading dairymen in my county, and the day after I made that speech I received the following reply:
Over three thousand shipped out of province Colchester alone shipped two thousand.
(Signed) C. P. Blanchard.
That was some weeks ago. Mr. Blanchard, I may say, is one of our leading Nova Scotia dairymen, a good friend of mine, and a good friend of the Liberal government. I also have a letter here from him informing me that the Borden Milk Company in the town of Truro have announced that if the farmers continue to dispose of their herds, the company, being unable to secure the quantity of milk that they require in their factory, will be forced out of business. The Borden Milk Factory, I may add, is the oldest condensing plant on the American continent- not in Canada alone, but on the continent of America-and I say that if such an old-established plant is driven out of the country because the fanners of the district are unable to make a profit from their herds, due to the importation of New Zealand butter, it will be another tragic addition to the already large number of silent factories and smokeless chimneys.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair), speaking in the debate, said that the reason the Americans were buying cows in Nova Scotia was because they could buy them cheaper. I confess they can buy them cheaper, but why is that so? It is simply because the farmers are going out of the dairy business, and their cows are being sent to the United States, where the farmers are protected to the extent of 12 cents a pound on their butter, 20 cents on a wine gallon of cream, and 2i cents on a wine gallon of milk; and there is a bill before congress to-day proposing to increase the duty from 12 to 16 cents a pound on butter, and on cream not over 45 per cent butter fat from 20 cents, which is the present duty to 30 cents a wine gallon, and from 2} cents, the present duty, to 7i cents per wine gallon on milk. That is why our ccws are going to the United States.
I promised an hon. gentleman who interjected a remark a while ago to give him certain figures, which I will now do. At the ninth annual meeting of the national dairy council of Canada, held in Toronto on November 21, 1922, the council voted to ask the government to terminate the Australian treaty. Only three days ago a delegation of the National Dairymen's Association of Canada, which has a membership of 250,000 and is representative of all the dairying interests
in this country, waited on the government at Ottawa, and I had the pleasure of meeting the president of that association and discussing this question with him. Incorporated in the memorandum which they presented were resolutions from every dairymen's association from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, all referring to the great injury that was being done the dairying industry of Canada by the large amount of Australian and New Zealand butter which has entered Canada since September last. It was shown that at the port of Vancouver, 386,340 pounds of Australian and 6,738.000 pounds of New Zealand butter, and at Halifax 5,704,440 pounds of New Zealand butter, had arrived in this country, making a total importation of nearly
13.000.	000 pounds. In addition to that, it is expected that a boat load will arrive at either port every two weeks until the end of March, w'hich means that Canada will receive more than 15,000,000 pounds of Australian and New Zealand butter in this session alone. It was also shown that this had the effect of lowering the price of butter fat to producers from 3 to 5 cents a pound.
The memorandum also estimated that the
15.000.	000 pounds of imported butter, had it been produced in Canada, at 200 pounds per cow per year, would require 75,000 cows, averaging 10 cows per farm, and would require 7,500 farms giving employment to as many farmers and their families. Canada has the lowest tariff on butter and cheese of any dominion in the British Empire, it being one cent per pound as against 12 cents per pound in Australia.
I desired to speak on the question of the natural resources of this country, but time will not permit, and I shall therefore discuss it at a later date.


Mr. E. A. PECK (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I venture to tender to you my congratulations upon the change made in the rules of debate, chiefly, I believe, upon your recommendation. There has been some criticism of the new rules, but I believe they have been of considerable advantage. They have had two results: One is the elimination of the long and tedious speeches to which we were accustomed to listen, and the other is the advantage, if it is an advantage, of introducing into the debate the newer and younger members.
I wish to address a few remarks to the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke), who I am sorry is not in his seat at the moment, but perhaps I may venture to address him through Hansard. I want to appeal to him, as other hon. members

The Budget-Mr. Peck

have done, to reverse his decision with regard to the MeConachie child. As the matter now stands, unless the minister changes his decision, the result will be that husband and wife are separated, and the children do not get the advantage of the mother's help and comfort at an age when they so much need her care. The only reason why these people are compelled to be separated is because of the fact that the youngest child, a mere infant, is said to be weak-minded. If this is so, is there any harm in allowing that child to enter Canada when we get the advantage of receiving immigrants whom we need to the extent of a man, his wife, and four other children? There are weak-minded people in this country at the present time, and we are not suffering a great deal; and it will not hurt very much if another weak-minded person is allowed to come in. The minister's reason for his decision, as stated in the house, is that he is tied by regulation, but the Immigration Act is the only legislation controlling the situation, and section 4, which has already been quoted in the house, reads:
The minister may issue a written permit authorizing any person to enter Canada or, having entered or landed in Canada, to remain therein without being subject to the provisions of this act.
The act is clear; surely there is nothing in it to prevent the minister from issuing that permit if he sees fit.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: That question
came up a day or two ago and it was suggested that it be referred to the Department of Justioe for a ruling. I am informed that the department has given its ruling, maintaining that section 18 is the controlling provision; and under that section the minister is not permitted to exercise discretion.


Edward Armour Peck: I should be very glad to see that decision. At any rate, the act seems to me to be clear enough. One would think that any lawyer or layman would infer, when an act says something, that it means what it says. It is suggested, however, that the matter is also affected by a regulation, but the regulation could scarcely be of greater force than the act itself. But even if there is a regulation that can very readily be overcome, because it must be confirmed by order in council and an order in council could be obtained changing the regulation to meet this particular case. This case is one that has excited a good deal of interest, and as the matter now stands it is a reflection upon the Dominion if these people are to remain separated. Some effort should be made to

reverse the decision, and I submit that the minister should make it possible for these people to be brought together again.
I want to refer now to the question of population, and also unemployment-two matters which are closely related. There is no doubt that the country stands in need of population; everyone agrees with that. It has been stated by many leading citizens that what is needed for the development of the Dominion is an addition to population. The railway officials are strongly of that view; Sir Henry Thornton has referred to the matter several times in public addresses. Here we have two railways, efficiently managed, excellently equipped, running on time and giving good service, the officials all endeavouring to do what they can to promote the interests of their respective companies. Yet we find the Canadian National actually unable to meet its financial engagements for lack, as Sir Henry Thornton has said, of a larger population to provide increased freight and passenger traffic, which would enable him to put the railway on a better footing. Along the same line we hear from the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Not only is our population stationary, but in the past few years a great many people have moved to the United States. That is a fact which is uncontradicted; indeed it is borne out by the government statistics. The matter is therefore one deserving the careful consideration of the government. Why should so many people in this rich country find it necessary to move to another land to make a living? It is said that we are unpatriotic in pointing out these facts. It seems to me that we should be unpatriotic if we did not point them out, the facts being as they are, with a view to obtaining, if possible, some solution for the problem Which is presented to us.
The people of Canada are very favourably treated in having had assigned to them such a substantial portion of the earth's surface for management and development. Canada is a oountry of which we are all proud, a country embracing the northern half of the American continent, bounded by the Atlantic and the Pacific. Yet with all its wealth and untold resources, its large timber limits, its arable lands and its minerals, we seen to be at a standstill and cannot attract the population we have a right to expect. Those who have left Canada for the United States have done so for what they considered good reasons; and the foremost reason was that they were unable to find employment at home. The crying need of this country is

The Budget-Mr. Peck
an opportunity for people seeking employment to obtain suitable work whereby to earn enough to maintain themselves and their families. The labour problem is a most important one for the country to cope with. And in so many respects this government has failed to give to the labourers, to those seeking employment, the protection they should have.
Let me point out how in three substantial respects this government has failed to deal with the question of labour, and failed thereby to maintain in the country the population which we should have. In the first place, Canada fails to manufacture for its own people, to the extent that it should, the natural supplies which are needed. Secondly, we allow the removal from the country, in raw or only slightly manufactured form, of the natural resources of the Dominion. And we fail to encourage the manufacture of our raw material for our own use. Let me illustrate what I mean when I say that we fail to manufacture in this country, for its own use, the natural supplies which the country needs. We imported for consumption last year over $500,000,000 of manufactured goods, a large portion of which should have been manufactured in Canada. We have been discussing the woollen industry at some length, and the claim made by those engaged in that industry for protection. Apparently the protection which existed before the proposed change in the tariff was not sufficient to conserve the woollen industry to the manufacturers of Canada, for we imported last year in woollen goods, not including raw wool, products to the value of $43,000,000. Of iron and its products out imports totalled $248,000,000. That includes automobiles and parts, $65,000,000; machinery $46,000,000; farm implements $26,000,000; engines and boilers $16,000,000. We also imported electrical apparatus to the extent of $18,000,000. All these goods, or at any rate a very large proportion of them, could have been manufactured in Canada, and as a matter of fact they would be manufactured here if the government would only give to the industries engaged in their production reasonably sufficient protection. These goods to which I have referred amount in all to $300,000,000. If only half of that amount had been manufactured in this country, estimating at 50 per cent the wages which would enter into their production, there would have been expended in Canada in employment and wages $75,000,000.
Even the farmers of Canada are not protected as they should be. One would have
56103-75J
thought that this country was the last word in agricultural production; yet we find that under all the trade treaties, which apparently will not prove satisfactory, we imported last year, of the three items, eggs, meat and butter, $9,500,000 worth. Tobacco has been discussed in this debate; and of tobacco, unmanufactured, we imported $7,000,000. Of fresh fruits we imported $24,000,000. Of course many fruits included in these exports we do not grow in Canada; I have been unable, therefore, to make the necessary classification. At any rate, the imports of fruits of the varieties produced here form a substantial part of this amount, and certainly we could produce them in Canada.
Now I come to the question of exports. We export far too much of our raw material, material which should be worked up and manufactured in this country. Here again Canada has lost considerably by its failure to provide opportunities for labour in the manufacture of these goods. I notice that our exports of grain products amounted to $447,000,000; while metals amounted to $154,000,000; wood, unmanufactured, $101,000,000; and paper, $129,000,000, making a total export in these four classes of $831,000,000. The paper represents resources which are certainly not inexhaustible, and unmanufactured wood is in the same category. This exportation of wood and paper means a drain on our natural resources, which we shall not be able to replace within a limited time. The metals of course have gone, but we have so many opportunities of investigating the possibilities of our hidden metals in Canada that possibly we shall not feel this very seriously. Of grain, our main export was wheat, $339,000,000, and wheat flour, $60,000,000, making a total of $399,000,000. Only 8 per cent represents the manufactured article; the rest is exported in the raw condition to other countries where the work of preparing it for use provides employment for foreign labour.
Under the third head, there are industries which should be developed in this country. If this were done a large amount of employment would be provided for labour here. The coal industry is one that should be dealt with; in fact, it must be dealt with. It has been much discussed but apparently no solution for the question of moving coal from the eastern and western sections of the country to Ontario and Quebec has yet been proposed. It is, however, only a question of time before this will have to be done. It seems most unfortunate, however, that in the meantime we should be purchasing in another country the coal which we need to maintain our industries and supply our homes. We

The Budget-Mr. Peck
imported last year from the United States $53,000,000 worth of coal, which under proper management could have been taken from our own mines and applied to our own industry.
I shall discuss only one of the many changes which are proposed in the tariff resolutions before the house, and I refer to this matter only because it affects an industry in my own city. I have reference to the weaving of yam. We had some assurance last year from the government, represented at the time by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), that no attempt would be made to interfere with existing industry. The statement which was presented to the house had been carefully prepared and it was read by the Minister of Railways representing, as I say, the government. I presume it was intended to appease the Liberal-Progressive element in the house. This is what the Minister of Railways said:
We shall move forward cautiously with the aid of knowledge of the facts secured by the tariff advisory board toward the goal of making our tariff structure bear as lightly as possible on production, industry and the people generally-
That is something of which probably all of us could approve; it is a vague, general statement. But this is more specific:

having always in view the greater prosperity of all the legitimate industries of Canada.
With the present proposed tariff changes before us, can it be said that these changes are made with a view to the greater prosperity of all the legitimate industries of Canada?	_	,
There has been a good deal of discussion during this debate in connection with the woollen industry, and the proposed reductions have met with a very general opposition. I refer particularly to the weaving yarns, because that is an industry which exists in my own town, employing some 180 people. There are other workers engaged in that line in my city, but they are employed in the carpet and rug business, which I understand is not affected by this tariff. What does this mean? Certainly it means that this industry in Canada will have to face increased competition, which will be a hardship on the manufacturer but will result in a greater hardship on those engaged in the shops carrying on that business. The working man is the one affected most by these tariff reductions which interfere with that industry. To the manufacturer it means a reduction in salary, a reduction in dividends and perhaps even the passing of a dividend, which is a very serious matter to him. To the worker, however, it means a reduction of wages or a lay-off from work, because he is the 
primary sufferer from anything which interferes with the production of the article in the manufacture of which he is engaged, and it is the workmen for whom I feel the greatest regret. I know many of them in Peterborough and I know how they have been affected already by the conditions obtaining in the woollen industry. They have not been working full time as it is, and this is simply going to add an additional hardship to those under which they have been labouring for some time past. I trust that the matter will receive further consideration before these tariff changes are adopted by the house; I believe something should be done to help those people to whom I refer.
I can only say in conclusion, Mr. bpeaker, that I intend to support the amendment proposed 'by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan).
On motion of Mr. Laflamme the debate was ,adjourned1.
On motion of Mr. Robb the house adjourned at 10.05 p.m.
Monday, March 12, 1928