1928-02-22

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 49, to incorporate the Canadian Credit Institute.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 50, to incorporate The United Theological College, Montreal.-Mr. Cahan.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move:
That 1,000 copies in English and 400 copies in French of the report of the royal commission appointed to investigate charges of political partisanship in the service of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at Toronto, London and Ottawa be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to move:
That 1,000 copies in English and 400 copies in French of the report of Gordon W. Scott, Esq., chartered accountant, of Montreal, on the activities and "modus operandi" of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. ALLAN:: 1.	What was the total amount paid for pensions in each of the years 1925, 1926, and 1927?
2.	What was the cost of administration of the Pension department in each of the years 1925, 1926, and 1927?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Net disbursements on account of pensions-
Fiscal year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 1924-25	1925-26	1926-27
European War	$ 33,630,189 78 $ 35,822,629 11 $ 36,614,989 52
Northwest Rebellion	
34,796	36	33,961	34	35,264	16Fenian Raid	
466	25	662	91Militia Long Service	
695,249	27	697.215	79	743,626	44Civil Flying	,, ..	144 05	240 00	240 00
$ 34,360,845 71 % 36,554,709 15 $ 37,394,120 12

Questions
2. Cost of administration-
Total turnover of Department of S. C. R.
and Pensions	
Cost of administration including B.P.C.
commissioners and Medical advisers.. .. Percentage of administration

2,049,835 40	1,714,442 50	1,546,891 643.816	3.086	3.142
The cost of administration indudes cost of administering all activities of the department, as work of treatment and pensions, etc., is so inter-related that accurate determination of cost of administering pensions only cannot be made.


REPARATIONS COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	When will the investigation of the reparations commissioner be completed and final report made?	.	,	, ,
2.	How many claims have been made:
3.	How many claims have been fully investigated?
4.	What amount was claimed by all claimants?
5.	What amount is represented by claims not yet fully investigated?
6.	What amount has the commissioner recommended should be paid in cases in which investigation is complete?
7.	How many claims have been paid (a) in
full, (b) partially?	,
8.	How much has been paid under 7 (a), and 7 (b), respectively?
9.	Has any provision been made for dependents of the civil population who lost their lives as a result of illegal warfare of the enemy?
10.	What is nature of provision, if any, referred to in paragraph 9?
11.	What amount has been collected by Canada for reparations?
12.	What amount is payable to Canada for reparations and how is it payable?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	The investigation has been completed. The report of Commisisoner Friel has been made and is in the hands of the printer.
2.	1615.
3.	1613.
4.	856 039,893.42.
5.	Approximately 850,000. (There are two claims, one for 850,000 and the other for an unstated amount.)
6.	84,246,868.76 plus 5 per cent interest on all awards, calculated to March 10, 1928, 82,042,520.59, making a total of 86,289.389.34.
7.	Nothing whatever has been paid either in part or in full of any claim whatever.
8.	Answered by 7.
9.	In case of loss of life, claims were allowed only when on behalf of dependents, and the extent of the dependency was considered in making the awards.
10.	Answered by 9.
11.	$10,175,071.44.
12.	Subject to certain priorities. Canada receives 4.35 per cent of the reparations receipts
allotted to the British Empire and payments are made quarterly to Canada by the British treasury. The British Empire's allotment is 22 per cent of the whole. The amount payable depends upon the operation of the Dawes plan, under which the annuity is fixed at 1,750,000.000 gold marks for the year 1927-8 and 2.500,000,000 gold marks for 1928-9 and subsequently.


PROCEDURE
Mr. MANION:: 1.	When and how were reparation claimants
first advised to submit their claims to the government?	.	.
2.	Who was the first reparation commissioner, what was the date of his appointment and what was the scope of his duties?
3.	Who was the second reparation commissioner, what was the date of his appointment and what was the scope of his duties?
4.	Who was the third reparation commissioner, what was the date of his appointment and what was the scope of his duties?
5.	What procedure was adopted to bring to the commissioner's attention the evidence in each case?
6.	Did not the claimants appear personally before the commission and at^ their own expense try to substantiate their claims?
7.	Were not a large number of claimants represented at their own expense by counsel?
8.	What article of the treaty deals with reparation?
9.	Have not Canadian claimants under other articles of the treaty of Versailles been already compensated?
10.	If so, what were the total number of claims and the total amounts paid under and by virtue of such articles, and can any reason be given for such preferential treatment?
11.	It is not a fact that the United States of America adopted corresponding provisions dealing with debts, property and reparations in the treaty of Berlin
12.	Is it not a fact that American claims for (a) debts, (b) property sequestrated in Germany and (c) reparations are receiving equal consideration, and that no preference is being shown to any one class of claims?
13.	Has not legislation been prepared to pay all such American claimants?
14.	Have not some of the claimants in other allied countries already received compensation?
15.	Has the reparation commissioner's report been printed?
16.	When will it be brought before the house for consideration?
17.	How much has Canada received to date on account of reparations?
18.	Is not a large reparation payment from the British government expected soon and what will the amount be?
Questions


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	By order in council, P.C. 2822, dated the 15th November, 1918, Thomas Mulvey, Under Seeretaiy of State, rvas appointed an officer to take such steps as may be necessary to make a complete list of:
(a)	Claims of persons residing or carrying on business in Canada who have been subjected to loss and pecuniary damage, arising from the destruction of life and property through the illegal warfare of the enemy, and
(b)	Claims for damages to which persons residing or carrying on business in Canada have been subjected for breaches of contracts, which contracts were prevented from being carried out owing to the operation of the statutory list of persons in neutral countries with whom such contracts were declared illegal, and to examine and report upon all such claims as aforesaid.
A notice appeared in the Canada Gazette, dated 30th November, 1918, asking claimants to submit their claims.
2.	The Hon. Sir John Douglas Hazen. K.C.M.G., was appointed on the 31st October, 1921, " to be a commissioner to conduct an enquiry under the provisions of part I of the Inquiries Act, Chapter 104 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1906, and to investigate the following claims:
(a)	Claims of persons residing or carrying on business in Canada who have been subjected to loss and pecuniary damages arising through the destruction of life and property through the illegal warfare of the enemy, and
(b)	Claims for damages to which persons residing or carrying on business in Canada have been subjected for breaches of contracts, which contracts were prevented from being carried out owing to the operation of the statutory list of persons in neutral countries with whom such contracts were declared illegal for the purpose of determining whether they are within the categories set forth in annex I of part VIII (reparation) section I of the treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919, and the fair amounts of such claims and to make such findings as may be of assistance to the government of Canada in determining which, if any, of such claims should be paid and the extent of payment thereof".
3.	The Hon. William Pugsley, K.C., LL.D., was appointed on the 13th March, 1923. The duties are' set out in the answer to question 2.
4.	James Friel, K.C., was appointed on the 19th June, 1925. The duties are set out in the answer to question 2.

5.	All claimants were called upon to submit by declaration full particulars of their claims and to substantiate such by all documentary evidence in their possession. Subsequently the claimants were notified to appear before the commissioner at various centres nearest to their places of residence in order to give evidence before him upon oath, and to produce such witnesses that may be necessary to substantiate their claims.
6.	Yes, but in some cases claimants submitted travelling expense claims, which were paid by the Department of the Secretary of State out of the appropriation for the adjustment of war claims.
7.	Yes.
8.	Articles, 231 to 244, and the annexes thereto.
9.	Yes.
10.	1,009 claims were filed of which 686 were paid amounting to $7,849,824.81. Special provisions were made in the treaty for the payment of claims under articles 296 and 297.
11.	Yes.
12.	Yes.
13.	It is understood that a bill for this purpose is now under consideration by the Senate of the United States having been passed by the House of Representatives.
14.	No information.
15.	It is in the hands of the printer.
16.	Under consideration.
17.	$10,175,071.44.
18.	Subject to certain priorities. Canada receives 4.35 per cent of the reparations receipts allotted to the British Empire and payments are made quarterly to Canada by the British treasury. The British Empire's allotment is 22 per cent of the whole. The amount payable depends upon the operation of the Dawes plan, under which the annuity is fixed at 1,750,000,000 gold marks for the year 1927-8 and 2,500,000 000 gold marks for 1928-9 and subsequently. The payments to which Canada was entitled for amounts paid for reparation prior to the Dawes plan have been received.


UNITED STATES BOATS ON GREAT LAKES
Mr. COWAN:: 1.	How many grain boats registered in United States were engaged in carrying grain on the great lakes during the seasons of 1926 and 1927?
2.	By what authority were such boats allowed to engage in carrying grain?
3.	What are the regulations under which boats of a foreign registry are allowed to engage in trade between Canadian ports?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	In so far as boats registered in the United States are concerned, which were engaged in

Questions
carrying grain between one Canadian port and another Canadian port on the great lakes -four United States vessels were used for winter storage in Canadian ports during the *winter of 1926-27, and carried their cargoes to Canadian ports on the opening of navigation in 1927. As the winter of 1927-28 is not yet over, we can give no information in regard thereto.
2.	By authority of order in council of November 5, 1926, P.C. 1721, and November 24, 1926, P.C. 1942.
3.	Order in council P.C. 1721 dated 5th November, 1926, and order in council P.C. 2159 dated 9th November, 1927.


LIVERPOOL, N.S. PUBLIC BUILDING EMPLOYEES
Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Who were the applicants to the Post Office department or to the Civil Service Commission for the position of caretaker or janitor of the public building at Liverpool, Nova Scotia?
2.	By what persons or organizations was each applicant recommended?
3.	Which applicants were appointed or recommended by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	Were any of the applicants recommended rejected by the Post Office department or any other department of the government?
5.	Which appointment or recommendation was accepted ?
6.	Were any of the applicants returned soldiers and in receipt of pensions?
7.	Were representations made by any person or persons against the appointment of any such applicant, and, if so, by whom?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	E. R. Corkum, Conquerall Banks, N.S.; H. J. Lake, Liverpool, N.S. C.M. Schupe, Liverpool, N.S.; G. W. Spurr, Liverpool, N.S.; D. F. Winters, Liverpool, N.S.; G. S. Winters, Liverpool, N.S.
Mr. E. R. Corkum was eliminated from the competition as he was not a resident of Liverpool, N.S.
2.	H. J. Lake-no recommendations received; C. M. Schupe-J. J. Cameron, Esq., c/o Messrs. Hall & Cameron, Barristers, Solicitors, etc., Liverpool, N.S.; Robie Millard, Esq., c/o Millard Brothers, Liverpool, N.S.; His Worship, Mayor D. W. MacKay, Liverpool, N.S. G. W. Spurr-S. R. Forbes, Esq., c./o Madden's Pharmacy, Liverpool, N.S.; A. W. Hendry, Esq., General Shipping, Liverpool, N.S.; J. Ross Byrne, Esq., Barrister, Solicitor, Liverpool, N.S. D. F. Winters-no recommendations received. G. S. Winters-no recommendations received.
3.	No appointment has yet been made.
4. Answered by No. 3.
5. Answered by No. 3.
6.	Five of the applicants are returned soldiers; two are in receipt of pension.
7.	No.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER POWER COMPANY
Mr. MANION:: Has the Aluminum Company of America made application to the International Joint Commission to raise the temporary weir which they are maintaining at Massena, and to make such weir permanent?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The St.
Lawrence River Power Company, of Massena, has made an application, addressed to the Secretary of State of the United States, for authorization to raise, from its present level at El. 200.0 to El. 206.0, sea level datum, the crest of its submerged weir in the south channel of the St. Lawrence river at the mouth of its power canal. The application was transmitted to the International Joint Commission, which has arranged to hold a hearing on the application on April 3.


RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS-CLASSIFICATION
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	What are the changes proposed regarding the grading or classification of railway mail clerks and their runs?
2.	What will be the maximum salary?
3.	What will be the minimum salary?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	The grading and classification of railway mail clerks and their runs is now under consideration, but no decision has been reached.
2 and 3. No information.


CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: 1.	When the chief electoral officer, Mr. O. M. Biggar, resigned last year, was the position given to the French-speaking assistant?
2.	Has any English-speaking assistant been appointed to fill the vacancy?
3.	Was the salary for such assistant voted in the estimates?
4.	Does the government intend to appoint any English-speaking assistant?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	On April 14, 1927, a motion was unanimously passed by the house providing for the appointment as chief electoral officer of Mr. Jules Castonguay, at the time the assistant chief electoral officer; the position of chief electoral officer having been rendered vacant by the resignation of the former incumbent of that office.
2.	The position of assistant chief electoral officer has not yet been filled.
3.	Yes.
4.	It is the intention of the government to fill the position in question.

Questions


LETTER CARRIERS SALARIES
Mr. ROBINSON:: Does the government intend to provide increases in the salaries of the letter carriers at the present session of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say just a word in regard to this particular question? It reads:
Does the government intend to provide increases in the salaries of the letter cariers at the present session of parliament?
There are several other questions on the order paper which ask as to the intention of the government in respect to particular measures. All of these questions could be answered to the effect that the matter is under consideration, or by words of like import, but hon. members will doubtless prefer t-o know the mind of the government as regards questions of the kind. In a word, it is that the government must be its own judge as to the time at which it will announce its intentions with respect to legislation, with respect to increases in salaries and the like. The questions for example with regard to the Post Office department might well be asked and answered in the consideration of the estimates of the Post Office department. Failing that the government's intention will be apparent when the supplementary estimates are brought down. The government will announce its intention in advance in regard to any matters in which such a course is deemed expedient. From the fact that the government's intention has not up to the present been announced it may be assumed that there are good and sufficient reasons why no announcement has been made.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS-RESTRICTED AREAS
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to establish a bovine tuberculosis restricted area in the whole province of Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the total number of signatures of cattle owners to petitions asking for establishment of such area received to date?
3.	In pursuance of this policy, how many head of cattle have been subjected to the tuberculine test in Nova Scotia?
4.	How many head of cattle have been slaughtered as a result of reaction to the test?
5.	What is the number of cattle so slaughtered in each county in Nova Scotia?
6.	What is the number of signatures received to petitions, as referred to, from each county in Nova Scotia?
7.	What is the total cost to date of the establishment of restricted areas in Nova Scotia?
8.	What is the total amount paid or due owners of cattle slaughtered in Nova Scotia under this policy?

9.	What is the result of and report on the immunilogieal preventive, curative and trans-missibility work of the research councils and other bodies in reference to tuberculosis?
10.	Is it the intention of the government to continue to aid such research work?
11.	What was the amount expended during the last fiscal year upon such research work?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Here again the first part of the question asks as to the intention of the government in the matter of establishing a bovine tuberculosis restricted area in the province of Nova Scotia, That part of the question we would like to have dropped until the matter is under discussion on the estimates.


Hewitt Bostock: All but the first part of the question stands.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BRANCH LINES PROGRAM
Mr. SPENCER:: Does the government intend to introduce a three-year branch railway program for the Canadian National Railways this session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is another question of the kind to which I have alluded. I would ask that this question be dropped, and the same with respect to the next question, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren), with respect to the intention of the government as to a system of statistics of trade in the maritime provinces.


Hewitt Bostock: Dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	How much coal did the Lady Laurier, Arleaux and all other government steamers on the Atlantic coast government service use during 1927 and up to the present, in 1928?
2.	What proportion was United States coal?
3.	What proportion was Canadian coal?
4.	What are the names of individual persons, or firms, supplying this coal?
5.	What price was paid?
6.	Was the coal supplied by tender, contract, or otherwise ?
7.	Where and when was the coal delivered?


IMPORTED MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS-FIXED VALUATION
Mr. FANSHER (East Lambton):: 1.	Under the authority given in the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, chapter 42, section 43, has a fixed value, for duty purposes, been placed on any manufactured products imported into Canada during 1927?
2.	If so, what were the products and what was the fixed value in each case?

The Mexican Situation
3.	On what natural products imported into Canada during the year 1927 was a fixed value placed when calculating the duty thereupon?
4.	What was the fixed value placed on each product ?
5.	For what period of time did each fixed value apply?


PREVENTIVE SERVICE-NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. MacNUTT:: 1.	How many preventive officers of all classes were engaged by the government or any department thereof in the province of Nova Scotia during 1927?
2.	What are their respective names, addresses, and salaries?



THE MEXICAN SITUATION

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and all other communications between the government of Canada or any member thereof, or any other Canadian official, and any person or persons concerning the utterances and letters of the Mexican consul at Toronto, L. Medina Barron, arising out of the recent visit to Mexico of Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National Railways.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to repeat what I said the other day when a similar motion was called, namely, that I do not think it is in the public interest that this correspondence should be brought down. May I say that the correspondence, in part, consists of resolutions from Orange lodges and, in part, of resolutions from Catholic organizations, practically all of which have already appeared in the press. So far as that part of the correspondence is concerned, it is already public. As to the remainder, much of it I regard as extreme in its phraseology and of a character calculated to provoke unnecessary controversy, and calculated to be very much misunderstood both in this country and abroad.
I have the correspondence here. I shall be very glad to have my hon. friend opposite, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) look it over, and if he wishes to have it tabled, well and good. I make the same suggestion with regard to the member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner)-or for that matter any other member of the house. But I do not think so far as the general public and outside world are concerned that it is desirable that this correspondence should be made public, and I hope in view of what I have said that my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church)-I shall be glad to let him see the correspondence-will see the wisdom of dropping the motion.
56103-44J


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is a starred
motion and not debatable.


Hewitt Bostock: It is not debatable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. One of two things
should now happen. The motion not being debatable, we are precluded from discussing it in any sense. The Prime Minister therefore should agree to it or ask that the hoe. member for Toronto Northwest make it a motion for papers, so that it would be debatable. That is the obvious answer to the position now taken. Since no one may debate this motion, clearly the only way in which it could be debated would be on a motion for papers which is not a starred motion. On the other hand, if I might be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the observations made by the right hon. Prime Minister offering facilities to every member of the house to inspect the correspondence if he so desires, in my judgment more than amply meet the situation, and I trust my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest will adopt the suggestion.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what has been said this afternoon, I submit that the rules of the house as laid down for parliamentary procedure require the production of these papers. I have now one motion-all I am allowed-on the order paper. No doubt the Prime Minister-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I have allowed observations to be made with a view to reaching a certain solution of this question, but the motion is not debatable. The hon. gentleman was asked if he would withdraw his motion. If he is not willing to do so, I have only one duty left-to put the motion to the house.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I want to find out if this is a free parliament. I will not withdraw my motion. The other day when my motion was opposed by the government, as a matter of courtesy I agreed to amend the second part, and I submit that I am now within the rules of the house. But, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling if you still declare that this motion is not debatable. Some have debated it already and some not.


Hewitt Bostock: Under standing order 51 the motion is not debatable. As a matter of courtesy, and following the time-honoured practice of the house, I have allowed the two leaders to make certain observations across the table with a view to facilitating matters, but there can be no debate of the subject matter. Is the hon. gentleman willing to
The Mexican Situation

withdraw the motion, or does he leave it on the order paper? I will put the question to the house.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to standing order 51 at page 135 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Orders, second edition? The last sentence of this rule reads as follows:
All such notices-
That is, for the production of papers.
-when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it shall be transferred by the clerk to the order of notices of motions.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I do not think that debate is desired. We want to proceed with the motion immediately.
Mr. BENNETT; The other man has his rights.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I was asked by the leader of the opposition to withdraw my motion. I certainly will not withdraw iny motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Then I will put it to the house. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Some lion. MEMBERS: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Those in favour of the motion will please say, aye.


Thomas Langton Church: Aye.


Hewitt Bostock: Those opposed:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Hewitt Bostock: Lost.
Motion negatived.



DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT TABLING OF EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the government a question arising out of the tabling of the Hunter report on Monday last. Was all the evidence presented at the Hunter inquiry tabled; if not, will it be tabled? Are all the affidavits that were taken before the inquiry tabled; if not, will they be tabled?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: I understand that all the evidence taken at the inquiry has been tabled, but I will ascertain if that is so. As

to the affidavits that preceded the investigation, I do not think they have been tabled. If it is the desire of the house I will have them tabled.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 21, 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, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Cahan.
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, within the limited time at my disposal I shall not be able to go minutely into the budget or the proposed tariff changes. However, limited as my time is, I should like to devote a moment or two to put myself on record-as a Liberal member from western Ontario, representing a constituency where we have a good deal of manufacturing, but which perhaps largely rural-and say that I endorse the budget. I will go further; I will take the opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). Running true to form, he has brought down a budget that again we can safely call a people's budget-a budget for the masses of this Dominion.
Summarizing the budget' briefly, Mr. Speaker, it can be divided roughly under three heads: Nineteen million dollars cut from taxes-


Mr. IRVINE:: Which taxes?


Frederick George Sanderson: 
Robert James Manion: A very small one.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry, because
it is good stock. This is what that journal says:	[DOT]
Shareholders in the Monarch Knitting Company, Limited, have reason to be gratified over the progress that has been made since its organization. The company, in 1903, the first year of its operation, had net profits of $3,995.74-
Very small.
-and these were increased to a peak of $380,686.99 in 1919. In the twenty-five years of the concern's existence the net profits have aggregated $2,826,185.12. Since the reincorporation of the company, when it was transferred from private ownership to a limited liability organization, there have been expended in improvements and extensions the sum of slightly over $1,000,000.
I do not think, therefore, that any shareholder of the Monarch Knitting Company, Limited, need have very much fear about his holdings. If I were inclined to offer any advice to my hon. friend from Fort William, I would say, hang on to the few shares you have.


Robert James Manion: I cannot do anything else because no one will buy them. The company is not paying dividends and has not done so for some years.
The Budget-Mr. Sanderson


Frederick George Sanderson: If the hon. gentleman will possess his soul in patience I will tell him why they have not. I had the curiosity to look up, in the same Annual Financial Review, July 1927, the statement concerning the Monarch Knitting Company, Limited. I find in the Review their last financial statement, issued 1927. It is a very long statement and therefore I cannot read it all. However, I quote the following:
The Monarch Knitting Company Limited Was incorporated by Ontario charter to take over the business of the company of the same name which commenced operations in the year 1903 and operated up to May 1, 1912.
Tile company's business consists of the manufacture of knitted goods; comprising sweater coats for men, women and children, and a complete line of fancy knitted goods such as sweater coats, skirts, toques, scarfs, hosiery, etc.
The factories owned by the company at Dunnville, St. Catharines and St. Thomas are modern in structure and equipment and excellently adapted for the business.
Then below that there is a footnote:
The Buffalo property and plant was finally disposed of, in 1925.
Reading the statement, you will find that nearly all the adversity which the Monarch Knitting Company, Limited, has suffered is to be attributed to the operation of its Buffalo plant in the state of New York. Nevertheless, the fact is that the rate of duty on woollen goods going into the United States runs from 40 per cent to 55 per cent, while the Monarch Knitting Company enjoyed a protection here of 37i per cent. I would like to ask my hon. friend from Fort William if he purchased his shares knowing that the company had a plant in the city of Buffalo? Surely he would not put money into any concern operating in the United States.


Robert James Manion: In reply I might say that
I do not pretend to be so loyal that I would object to making money in any country.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am glad to hear that, but this statement will show, Mr. Speaker, that the losses of the Monarch Knitting Company were made in the United States and not in the Dominion of Canada.


Robert James Manion: But what my hon. friend
has said has not changed at all what I stated yesterday.


Frederick George Sanderson: Of course not; I might talk here until doomsday without changing the opinion of my hon. friend, knowing how biased he is.	[DOT]


Robert James Manion: You would not change the dividends either.


Frederick George Sanderson: So much for the knitting industry. Now I just want to say a word or two about the linen industry. That is something of which I have perhaps a fairly accurate knowledge, because it is associated with the business in which I happen to be engaged, the growing and working up of flax for the spinner. The small change which has been made by increasing the preferential on fine linen will not affect the linen industry in the Dominion of Canada, nor will it affect the flax industry in Canada, for the reason that there is no fine linen made in this country or in the United States, with all the great progress they have made in manufacturing. I have not time to go into the reason for that in detail, any more than to say it is largely due to climatic conditions, which are most nearly perfect in Ireland where the finest linen is made. In the case of the textiles, cottons, woollens and linens, there is no harm done by the proposed changes in the tariff.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: What about the weaving industry?


Frederick George Sanderson: Is my hon. friend referring to linens, cottons or woollens?


Alexander McKay Edwards: The weaving of woollen cloth.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend will
have forty minutes in which to discuss the budget, and I would rather he did not take up my time just now.
Before I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was closing my remarks with regard to the textiles, and now I want to go back to the speech of my good friend the hon. member for Fort William, because he is in a genial mood this afternoon. I always like to hear him speak; he has such a genial smile, but I have come to the conclusion that beneath that smile there is a stratum of political bitterness which he does not succeed in hiding. In the course of his speech yesterday he touched on the woeful condition of affairs in this country and made what might be considered during an election as a fairly good campaign speech, considering his side of the story. But I want to ask him and to ask this house if the speech delivered by the hon. member yesterday, decrying this country, repeating the old story of the boys and girls going to the United States and telling of the hundreds and hundreds of factories closed, is a good advertisement for the Dominion of Canada? It would be bad enough if it were true, but it is not; the statements are not correct.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker-


Frederick George Sanderson: I object to these interruptions; I only have forty minutes.

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has stated first that something I said is not true ,and secondly that I decried this country. I neither decried this country nor made any untrue statements. The hon. member may disapprove something I said, but no statements made by myself were untrue.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement. He is not permitted to say of another hon. member of this house that he made a false or untrue statement; that is not parliamentary language. This is an assembly of gentlemen, and it is not permissible to say that the statement of any other member is not true.
Mr. SANDERSON; As one of the younger parliamentarians, Mr. Speaker, I want to abide by the rules of the house, and if I have said anything contrary to those rules I willingly withdraw it. Nevertheless, Hansard will speak for itself with regard to the remarks of my hon. friend from Fort William. However, I have one or two further matters to take up with regard to the hon. member. He dwelt at length on the unemployment in this country, and stated that instead of decreasing it was increasing.


Robert James Manion: No; I said that our people were going to the United States.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry I have not a copy of Hansard here in order to read the speech of the hon. member.


Robert James Manion: I wish you would.


Frederick George Sanderson: All this time is being taken out of my forty minutes, Mr. Speaker, so I would simply advice hon. members to read carefully the speech of the hon. member for Fort William and see just what he said, because he certainly referred to unemployment.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, indeed. Well,
Mr. Speaker, I do not say this unkindly, but my hon. friend is pretty well employed; he is not only holding down one job but has two positions at fairly good salaries, if I am informed correctly. And then, not satisfied with being a member of the liquor control board of Ontario, which position he is filling very efficiently; not satisfied with being a member of this house, which position he is also filling efficiently, he attempted to get a third position in Winnipeg last October. Now, I ask him in all fairness whether, if he had been fortunate enough to secure what he went after in Winnipeg-and he made a fairly
good run, among others-he would have attempted to hold all three of those positions, or whether he would have given some of them up?


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend wish an answer now?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, I will give my hon. friend a moment in which to answer.


Robert James Manion: Then I will tell my hon. friend that I would have decided what to do after I had obtained the leadership.


Frederick George Sanderson: But my hon. friend did not get the leadership.


Robert James Manion: I do not cross any bridges until I come to them.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend was like Barkis; he was apparently willing-we will just leave it at that. But my hon. friend had better not dwell too much on unemployment in Canada, I think. Two years ago in this house, speaking on the budget, he very frequently referred to Providence, and said Providence was taking care of this country in spite of the fact that we happened to have a Liberal government in power at Ottawa. I quite agree with him; Providence is over us all individually and collectively, political parties as well as everything else; but perhaps my hon. friend forgets that Providence has been guiding .the affairs of this country since 1921 by permitting a Liberal government to remain in power.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was the Progressives who did that.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not catch the interjection. Speaking of Providence in connection with the hon. member for Fort William, I think he has a strain of religion in him, and I commend him for it. In his youth he must have thought of going into the ministry. In later years he has tried twice to get into the ministry; he succeeded on both occasions but did not stay there very long. I hope he will continue to place his faith in Providence, and remember that if a Liberal government happens to be in power at Ottawa it is because a kind Providence has placed them there.
My hon. friend referred to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and again I hope that- in what I am going to say I am not misquoting him; I will cheerfully withdraw any remarks which transgress the rules in any way. From my recollection of what he said yesterday the hon. member was criticizing the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment. He said that the expenses
The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

in connection with the administration of that department were increasing, and that the increase had been some $35,000 last year over the year before.


Robert James Manion: I should like to correct my hon. friend; he is misquoting me again. I am sorry to take up the time of the house but I do it in good faith. If my hon. friend will permit me, what I said was that the two departments, the Department of Health and the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, had this year $35,000 more estimates than the same two departments had last year. That is all I said.


Frederick George Sanderson: I understood my hon. friend to say that the $35,000 was charged against the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


Robert James Manion: No; my hon. friend read my speech too hurriedly.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was under the impression my hon. friend had made the statement. However, getting back to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, as a returned soldier I want to say that if there was inefficiency in the administration of the department, and it was necessary to increase the expenditure in the interest of efficiency,
I am quite certain that my hon. friend, also a returned soldier, would not object to that increase, and that if it cost the country not $35,000 but a still greater amount, to give the returned soldiers a fair, square deal, I think my hon. friend will agree the expenditure should be made.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: Again, if I have misquoted or misrepresented the hon. member for Fort William in any way I am verry sorry. The hon. member for Fort William indulged in prophecy as to what was going to happen at the next general election. I think he is a false prophet. I have heard him prophesy before.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have heard him prophesy from the opposition benches, and I heard him prophesy from the government benches for a matter of a few hours. In both instances his prophecies were wrong so that I would not put too much dependence in any prophecy my hon. friend from Fort William may make concerning what will happen at the next general election. I am not going to indulge in prophecy further than to say it is a pretty safe bet that in all probability after the next election the Liberal party will 
come back here with a larger following than they have now. That is as far as I will go in the matter of prophecy.
The chief critic for the opposition, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) whom I am sorry not to see in his seat at the present moment, made a speech here the other day that covered a very wide range. I do not know just why the leader of the opposition called on the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to act in the capacity of chief financial critic. It is none of my business, and it does not concern me very much, but I thought that one reason, perhaps, was that he had an opportunity of exceeding the forty minute limit. At any rate the hon. member pursued a course in that speech which I do not think should go unchallenged in this house. He made what appeared to me to be an attack on the Canadian National Railways, and on Siij Henry Thornton, the general manager of the system. I do not hold any brief for Sir Henry Thornton; he is well able to take care of himself, but if there is one thing in Canada for which the people today should be grateful more than anything else it is the fact that Sir Henry Thornton and his able assistants have pulled the Canadian National railway out of the mire in which the Conservative party left it when they handed it over to the Liberal party.
My good friend the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) made a speech here last night, and as far as I could follow him his chief grievance was against the tariff advisory board. I wish to say that in my humble opinion the tariff advisory board is functioning in a way which is for the benefit of the people -of Canada. It is doing good, efficient and faithful work, which perhaps will have a tendency to take this vexed question of the tariff out of politics.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not if the government keeps on this way.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am glad that I am drawing fire this afternoon from all quarters of the house. The tariff advisory board is doing a work that will be of benefit to incoming governments whether they happen to be Liberal or Conservative. The hon. member for Toronto Northwest spoke of the tariff advisory board as "a travelling minstrel show." He repeated the statement two or three times. He not only repeated it in this house last night, but he repeats it occasionally in the city of Toronto. I do not khink the advisory tariff board is a travelling minstrel show, but I do think

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
this: if the government in Ottawa wanted to go into the minstrel show business 1 could recommend them a man from Toronto Northwest who would perhaps fill the bill pretty well and he need not blacken his face either.
I do not agree with my hon. friend the hon. member for Toronto Northwest when he calls the tariff advisory board a travelling minstrel show.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up.
I want to say in conclusion, getting back to the budget and to the financial condition of Canada, that under the wise and able leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the Liberal party

whether they remain in power four years, or eight years, or twelve years-will leave a record behind them of efficient, honest and economical administration that will redound to the credit of this Dominion.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know
what the hon. member for South Perth would have done if the hon. member for Fort William had not supplied him with material for his speech. While the hon. gentleman was speaking I could not help recalling a phrase uttered by a former finance minister of Canada in this house upon one occasion when a similar question was raised, when he said, "I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel." When the hon. member made the statement that the Conservative party left the national railways in a mess, he was speaking without a knowledge of the facts. If the hon. member will read the history of the railways of this country he will find that the great Liberal party were responsible for the mess in which the national railways found themselves. I ask him if he remembers when the Liberal party guaranteed the bonds of the old Canadian Northern from Fort William east and when they built the National Transcontinental costing this country some $160,000,000. Those two incidents alone were responsible for creating our railway problem and both of them were attributable to the Liberal party.
As I have only forty minutes at my disposal I cannot spend too much time upon the speakers who have preceded me. This is the first time in my life that I have seen a Minister of Finance, in presenting his budget, take for himself and his government credit for all the blessings of Almighty God and the products of the labours of man. As I listened to him delivering his budget speech on Thursday last, I could not help thinking of the words of Cassius: "Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he is grown so great?" The picture that he painted is one that
no other man in Canada can see to-day.
I wondered at the time if he thought he was another John in the island of Patmos viewing a new heaven and a new earth, because the picture that he painted is not to be found in this country to-day. As he proceeded he took credit for his government for the bountiful crops which nature has provided and for the products of our mines and forests, and I wondered if he, like Joshua, could command the sun to stand still, the winds to blow and the rain to fall.
Then I thought of the great mass of the working people who have not a full dinner pail, of the farmers who have little left over after their year's work, of the march of that great army from Canada to the American republic, and I wondered what was the cause of those delusions and hallucinations in the minds of the government. With a courage worthy of a better cause and with a touch of tire dramatic instinct in him the Minister of Finance rose in the house and challenged anyone to say that Canadians were not returning home. I wondered then as I wonder now whether any member of this government or any member of the Liberal party, who talks about Canadians returning home, had ever gone beneath the surface and studied the reasons why a few people are returning across the border from the United States. I would ask them to remember what the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said yesterday, namely, that the great bulk of the people coming back are not Canadians at all. I would ask them to investigate that great organization created three years ago in the United States and called the border patrol, an organization that has headquarters in Seattle, Spokane, Grand Forks, Buffalo, Detroit and Montreal, and I would ask him to view the workings and study the returns of that organization. If he does so he will find out that that organization last year kicked back, so to speak, into Canada some nineteen thousand men. Those are the men that are returning to this country. Those are the immigrants that this government is taking credit for.
A few weeks ago I placed on Hansard figures showing that, since this government came into power, more native-born Canadians had gone to the United States republic than the number of immigrants we had received from all quarters of the world. That statement has never been and cannot be disputed. The matter is more serious when it is realized that since 1924 none but a native-born Canadian can migrate to the United States. I ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), who to-day is occupying one of the most important
69S

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
portfolios in this cabinet:	How is he going
to find work in this country for the British-born he is bringing in and to whom he is giving greater favours than Canadian-born citizens can secure? That is a question which he must answer. The Minister of Immigration is to-day sitting upon the government benches; he is drawing the salary and emoluments as a reward of his apostacy to the Progressive party. His policy and that of his party in the past has been one that has closed the factories of this country and to-day he finds that he is being crucified on a cross of his own construction. I ask him and I ask this house:	How is he going to get work
here for the people he is bringing in from Great Britain? He cannot, except to a limited extent, place them on the farms, and pursuing, as he is and as this government is, a policy of closing down our factories, I ask them where they are going to place these men. The Minister of Immigration can expect and deserve no consideration from- us on this side of the house. The very policy that he and his party have advocated in this house, and that this government looks upon as its polar star of power, is the one which is making it difficult for people to get work in Canada today. I have however, many subjects to cover and I must not spend too much time on this.
I desire for a moment to speak about what this government has done for the labouring people of this country. Two years ago we saw them muddling up the automobile industry and as a result there are about five thousand -fewer jobs in Canada to-day than there were. A few years ago they did the same thing with agricultural implements and to-day we are importing $30,000,000 worth of agricultural implements from the United States. They did the same thing with the steel industry and to-day there are thousands and tens of thousands fewer jobs down in the maritime -provinces. But the government have not been content with their devastating influence in the past and they have once again put their knife into the great woollen industry, which should be one of our most flourishing industries. Coincidentally they have injured the farmer and the sheep growing industry. Why should there be only about 2,500,000 sheep in Canada while Australia, a similar country, has nearly 90,000,000? The reason is this, that ever since this government -came into power they have been knifing and putting the stiletto into that industry as well as other industries in Ontario, always being careful to protect their friends in Quebec and, in this present budget, taking pains to protect some of their friends in Ontario. I ask why the Prime Minister, the Minister of

Finance and the Minister of Justice should to-day pursue a different policy in connection with the woollen industry from the policy pursued in the regime of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Those who know the history of this industry know that in 1900 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, through the British preference, reduced the protection from 33 per cent to 22 per cent. They know also the disastrous effect which that had on the woollen industry in this country, and in the following year the tariff was raised to 30 per cent, and that increase was supported by the present Prime Minister, the present Minister of Finance, and the present Minister of Justice. The tariff stood at that point all through the regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and up until 1922. When this government came into power, they reduced the rate to 27i per cent. Not content with that, although it closed mills and looms by the . hundred, in the year following this government took a further ten per cent off and reduced the tariff to 24.8 per cent. And now they come back and drive the stiletto into it again. They go at it in an underhand way, and possibly the woollen mills have given them some pretext for doing so because they have laid stress on the number of looms that are standing idle through the policy of this government. Now the looms, of course, have to do with the final product, and no doubt what is in the government's mind is that if they can start these looms they will be able to say that they have cured the ills of the woollen industry in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, I am told on good authority that every loom that starts up will give employment to only one girl, but behind that, it will put out of business some four or five who are doing the preparatory work. There we see again the baneful influence of this government, and how its policy is going to strangle the woollen industry and possibly drive more mills out of business. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I ask any man of intelligence and common sense, why do we crucify our Canadian industries that are giving work to our own people? For the life of me I cannot understand it. I have studied the matter and I have studied the government, and the only conclusion I can come to is that it is done in order that this government may retain power. I say in all seriousness that the only hope for our people in this country is in one of two things-either that the American republic apply the quota system against Canada, or that this government be turned out of power.
I want to say just a word in reply to the Minister of Finance on the matter of taxa-

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
tion. In bringing down his budget he boasted, as usual, of the reduction that had been made in the national debt. His followers on the back benches have since been getting up and repeating in a parrot-like way just what the minister said, in spite of the fact that the departments of the government itself furnish figures which belie the minister's statement.
I am not going to put them on Hansard, because they have already been put on a number of times. Suffice it to say that since this government came into power there is $62,000,000 more owed by the people of Canada. After I heard the minister boasting about the reduction in taxation that this government had made I took the trouble to figure it out and I found that when this government came into power we were paying $42 odd per head in taxation. In the few years this government has been in power that taxation has risen by over $4 per head; we are now paying over $46 per head. Compare that with what has been done in the American republic. After the war the American people found they had a national debt of $26,000,000,000, so they inaugurated a definite debt retirement scheme, and to-day their national debt is down to $16,975,000,000. They have reduced their taxation from $50 to $25 per head. [DOT]Compare that with what Canada has done. President Coolidge in his address to congress a few weeks ago stated that his government had taken $212,000,000 of the burden of taxation off the people every year since 1925, and that is reflected in their present taxation. We look in vain in this country to see any reflection in our taxation of the economy of which this government boasts.
Looking a little further into the question of what this government has done for the workingman, I took the trouble to look up the income tax returns, and let me say to my friends of the Progressive group that only 1.02 of the people of this country are paying income tax to-day. I also figured out what the reductions that the Minister of Finance is proposing in the income tax schedules will amount to, and I find that people with an income of $100,000 will get a reduction of over $2,000 per year. Compare what this government is doing for the rich man with what it is doing for the farmers of this country. The man with an income of $100,000 gets a reduction of over $2,000 per year, while so far as the farmer is concerned, his protection is indirectly taken off the wool that he grows. The three per cent sales tax is retained on the Shoes and clothes he and his family wear. The man with an income of $200,000 is given a reduction of $6,000 per annum, and the man
with an income of $300,000 gets a reduction of $9,000. In contrast with that, this government takes out of the pockets of the farmer, through the operation of the Australian treaty, from twelve to fourteen cents on every pound of butter that he makes.
But there is worse than that. While the government makes this enormous reduction in the income tax for the rich man, it places a tax of forty per cent upon some articles of food that everybody in this country uses.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder we have bolshevists in this country when you have a government managing the people's affairs as this one is doing?
I want to pay a little attention now to another department of this government, to that still-born corpse that has been represented at the council table of this government for the last six or seven years; I refer to the Department of Health. With my good friend from Fort William I acted, so to speak, as the accoucheur at the birth of this institution. We spent days and nights trying to whip the thing into shape so that it might serve some useful purpose, and I remember coming out of the chamber one night after we had put up a strenuous argument for a department of scientific research, and having a cabinet minister say to me, "McGibbon, forget it; you will only be creating positions for friends of the government, which will be a great detriment to the country and to the party." I was young in parliament then, and considerable water has flowed under the bridge since. At that time I held cabinet ministers in a great deal of respect. I thought they were a kind of supermen, and that when they had spoken the judgment of the final court of appeal had been pronounced and there was nothing more to be said. But after ten years, after seeing how the mantle of power has made some little men great-I am not speaking in any personal sense, of course-after seeing how the livery of knighthood has turned men of mediocre standing into men of influence and power, I have changed my mind, and I bear witness in this house to-day to the fact that on that particular occasion the minister was right and I was wrong.
I have looked over the reports of the Department of Health for the last six or seven years, and the only thing I can say about them is that, in the words of the late member for Red Deer to me on one occasion, they are a catalogue. I cannot see one thing the department has ever done to justify its creation or its existence. I have a few things that I want to say to the minister, a few things that we have not been able to say about his de-
The Budget-Mr. McGibbon

partment for a number of years, because generally the estimates have not been brought down until the dying hours of the session, when they have been slipped through with nobody present to scrutinize them. I hope there will be some way in which we can get at the department before the session comes to an end.
I know of no department of government that offers such great possibilities of service to this country as the Department of Health, if properly manned and properly organized. But it has been sterile, it has done nothing that will justify its existence or the expenditures voted on its account. I ask you, Sir, I ask the country, what has the department done to curb the tremendous illicit traffic in narcotics that is destroying tens of thousands of the best men and women of the Dominion. Why, Sir, the department has done nothing; it has been impotent. I hope the Minister of Health will bring down his estimates so that they may be scrutinized in the light of day,-


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I shall be glad to.


Peter McGibbon: -and thus let this house know something about him and his department. At the time of the organization of the department, Sir, we pressed for a department of scientific research, and it was promised to us. What has been done to redeem that promise? True, the Department of Health undertook a few routine duties, made a few good positions and increased the salaries, but as a scientific organization the body of men assigned to that work have done nothing; the organization has been futile, it has been dead. I should like to see somebody put some life into those dead bones and make the organization as useful to this country as undoubtedly it could be made.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a few things in that connection to which I want to refer. Particularly do I want to refer to one subject that has never been taken up in this house to my knowledge-the enormous economic loss to Canada through premature death and preventable illness and unemployment. I do not think the country has ever grasped the enormous economic loss that is suffered year by year, and to the Minister of Health I would point out this as one of the avenues where he can make himself and his department useful to the nation. I have some figures here. They are taken from a report by Professor Winslow and others of the university of Yale after investigations of conditions in the United States, but I have applied them to Canada in relation to our population. These figures disclose, as applied to this country, that 42 per cent of the deaths are of external origin, and consequently preventable. Cutting that in two and taking the figure of 20 per cent, and [Mr- McGibbon.]
putting the value of life per year at $2,500, which is not excessive, we find that annually this country is losing from premature deaths no less than $47,000,000. Those premature deaths could be postponed-at least for a time. Then I come to decreased efficiency due to minor and major ailments. We find that advanced impairment of health affects from 10 to 24 per cent of our people, and minor impairment of health from 18 to 40 per cent. Taking 20 per cent as the average, estimating the working days in relation to our population at 3,510,000, and putting the average earning power at $750 per year, with 20 per cent inefficient to the extent of 25 per cent, we find that the loss to this country from that cause alone is another $63,000,000 odd. Then taking into consideration the loss of wages based on the same schedule, and again dividing the percentage by two, we find that 10,500,000 days are lost in this country every year. At three dollars a day, which is not an excessive estimate, this country loses annually in wages $31,500,000. If we add the cost of nursing, food, medicine and medical care, and so forth, we find that the Dominion is losing yearly through inefficiency, impairment of health and premature death nearly $250,000,000. I give those figures to the house and to the country. As I have said, they are not mine; they come from Yale university; but I have checked them up and applied them to Canada. I present them to the Minister of Health to show him where there is an avenue of usefulness and economic value to this country for him and his department. With a population of eight or nine millions we cannot afford to have a preventable economic loss every year of a quarter of a billion dollars. I would remind the house that I have figured out only the preventable part of this loss. This is the problem that I submit as worthy the attention of the Minister of Health and his department.
I see my time is about up, Mr. Speaker. I make one last appeal to this government. I make it on behalf of the sixty thousand soldiers who are dead in France; I make it on behalf of the forty-six thousand pensioners in this country; I make it on behalf of the mothers and fathers of Canada whose families have been broken up and their sons and daughters compelled to make a living in the United States. I say to the government, with all the vast natural resources of this country to be developed, bring down a policy to have this work done in Canada to keep our people at home. I say to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Immigration, that that is the biggest problem, that until the policy of the administration provides work to keep our people here, he can bring in
70V

The Budget-Mr. Fan-sher (Lambton)
immigrants from the end of the earth, but m another ten years he will be no further ahead than he is to-day in regard to population. I make that appeal on behalf of the people of Canada. Let it not be said of the government as it was said of the Shulamite maiden. They made me keeper of my father's vineyard, but our own vineyard have we not kept.


Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that some words of commendation are due the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), for the character of the budget that he has presented to the house. A statement that shows a balance on the right side, a surplus of receipts over expenditures, is always a pleasant one to hear. As the Minister of Finance announced, he is able this year to reduce the public debt some $38,000,000. But while a measure of credit is to be accorded the Minister of Finance, I think a word of congratulation is also due the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). It will be observed, from an examination of the finanical statement, that during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1926, the revenue was, in round numbers, $382,000,000, while in the year ended March 31, 1927 it was $400,000,000, roughly, an increase in revenue collections of some $18,000,000. As I say, words of commendation must be given to the efficient manner in which the Minister of National Revenue has administered his department. I must not stop there, however, in my commendation of those who have contributed to the satisfactory state of our revenues: I must congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), who made it possible for the Customs department to be checked up and to be administered as it is at the present time. I believe this country owes a debt of gratitude, which it will never be able to pay, to that hon. gentleman.
As I said before, the increase in revenue is $18,000,000. The expenditures for the financial year ended March 31, 1926 were $335,000,000, and they were practically the same for the year ended March 31, 1927. That is an additional proof that whatever surplus is shown in the financial statement which is submitted to us is due to the increased collection in revenues, because the expenditures were practically the same in the two years.
While I am bound to compliment the Minister of Finance on his financial statement thus far, I am not in sympathy with him as regards the proportion in which the various taxes are levied. Prior to the war our revenue was derived practically from two sources, customs tariff and excise duties. During the war new taxes were levied; new forms and systems of taxation were inaugurated; the income tax was adopted as were also the sales tax and the stamp tax. This became necessary in order to meet the interest on borrowed money on war account and for the re-establishment of returned soldiers, as well as to provide funds for pensions. I have always been of the opinion-and I am not alone in this regard, because the statement has been made before in the house- that there should have been devised and presented to this house a system of war accounting, a statement showing the exact amount of revenues provided by war taxes. Alongside that, we should have a statement setting out precisely the extent of our war expenditures. Only in one year, I believe, did we have from the Minister of Finance a statement of that sort, and that was during the hectic session of 1926. And that statement reveals that in the year ended March 31, 1925, there was collected $147,000,000 on war account, while in the same year there was expended, also on war account, $167,000,000, leaving a deficit of some $20,000,000. For the succeeding years we have no account of the expenditures. We have had, however, an account in each succeeding budget of the a.mount of revenue provided by these war taxes, and I have tried to figure out as best I can what has been expended on war account. I find that in the year 1926 $157,000, 000 was collected and $164,000,000 expended, leaving a deficit of $7,000,000; while in the year 1927 $156,000,000 was collected and $164,000,000 expended, or a deficit of $8,000,000. For the year 1928, as estimated in the budget, the revenues from war taxes will be $146,000,000, while the expenditure on war account will be $164,000,000, leaving again a deficit of $18,000,000. All told, in these four years, war taxes have failed, by the sum of $53,000,000, to provide enough money to pay expenditures on war account.
It is my firm conviction that war taxes should year by year provide for war expenditures and that the details should be set out in the financial statement. There are two reasons for this: this is a special account and should be treated separately; and, further, it is well for the country to realize as the years go by what war, so far as Canada is concerned, costs our taxpayers. Following this line of argument a step further, I wish to give to the house a statement showing the amount of debt reductions accomplished in the last five years. In the year 1924 the national debt was reduced $35,993,593.86; in 1925, $345,589.29; in 1926, $27,706,586; and in 1927, $41,896,729.33. So far as 1928 is concerned,
702	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Fanshcr (Lambton)
it i9 estimated that the debt will be reduced $38,815,000. So that the total in these five years will have amounted to $144,700,000. The point I wish to make is that during past years we have failed to provide enough money through war taxes to pay war expenditures; we have fallen short by about $53,000,000, and yet our debt is purely a war debt. In five years we have paid off about $144,700,000, but that has not been provided by war taxes. It has been provided by the older forms of taxation, the customs and excise taxes. I was sorry to hear the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) say that as far as he was concerned he was prepared to see the income tax gradually eliminated together with the sales tax. I hope those sentiments are not held by many hon. members opposite. If this were done we would be placed under the necessity of meeting our war debt from finances collected entirely from customs and excise taxes, and this is where I take exception to this budget. As I have already indicated, we have not raised enough money by war taxes to provide for war expenditures, yet year by year we are proceeding to reduce the income tax. You will note that in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance this year he says:
it is proposed that the Dominion shall continue gradually to lighten the load in the income tax field.
From that we cannot take any other meaning than that the government intends to proceed year by year to reduce the income tax, and I wish to say that I am unalterably opposed to such procedure.
When I first entered this house in 1921, I subscribed to certain principles known at that time as the Farmers' platform. Among other things that platform called for an immediate and substantial all round reduction in the customs tariff; a reduction in customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff; for all foodstuffs, agricultural implements', farm and household machinery, vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumber, cement, gasoline, illuminating fuel, and lubricating oils to be placed on the free list and for all raw materials and machinery used in their manufacture also to be placed on the free list; for an effort to be made to secure unrestricted reciprocal trade in natural products with the United States along the lines of the reciprocity agreement of 1911. I believe those principles are sound to-day, and I want to assure this house that I still adhere to them.
As many hon. members know, that platform was adopted in 1918; one year later a somewhat similar platform was adopted by the

Liberal party in convention assembled in Ottawa. Perhaps there was a reason for that similarity at the time. I wish to read the part of that platform which deals with the tariff:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made, with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance; first, diminishing the high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people, second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
That to these ends, wheat, wheat flour all products of wheat; the principal articles of rood, farm implements, and machinery farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof, roughly and partly dressed lumber, gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, nets, net twines, fishermen's equipments, cements and fertilizers should be free from customs duties as well as the raw material entering into the same.
That a revision downward of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption other than luxuries, as well as the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
And listen to this.
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
That is the Liberal platform as adopted in 1919.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that information
to you?


Burt Wendell Fansher: I am sure the hon. member likes to hear that platform read and re-read. I believe in the tariff principles laid down in that platform; I could not believe in the former if I did not believe in the latter, but now I ask what progress has been made in implementing that platform since 1919? It is true that in some years small reductions have been made. I well remember the budget which was brought down in 1922; there were practically no reductions, and the Progressives on this side of the house voted against it. That year the majority in favour of the budget was sixteen. The next year the budget was again brought down with practically no tariff reductions; the Progressives again voted against it, and the majority of the government was only eight. The third year of that parliament the budget was brought down embodying substantial reductions on farm machinery and other lines and that budget received the support of the Progressives.

The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)


Edward Joseph Garland: Had the
government a majority in the house that year?


Burt Wendell Fansher: They
had an overwhelming majority; the Progressives supported the budget.


Mr. FORKE:: Half of the Progressives
Boots and shoes other than rubber
Imports for the year ending
March 31, 1927	
Amount of duty collected (less
sales tax)	
Percentage of duty	[DOT] [DOT]
Manufactured in Canada in the
year 1926	
Exported	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Balance for home consumption..

voted against it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Burt Wendell Fansher: For the
information of my hon. friend I will tell him that I voted for that budget, as he may possibly remember. The final budget of that parliament contained practically no tariff reductions. Then came the election, and the Liberal party did not have a clear majority in the house. What was the result? We had the most genuine reductions in the tariff that have ever been made in the history of this country. It seems to me that extraordinary conditions must prevail before we can get a tariff reduction in any substantial form. Of course in the election that followed, and in the campaign which preceded it, the budget played a large part.
Before I proceed further into that line of argument, I wish to take up just a few items that are enumerated in the Liberal platform. You will notice that it calls for a revision of the tariff downward in the matter of footwear. Cement and fertilizer are also enumerated in the list of articles to be free from customs duties. Fertilizer was the last one mentioned, and cement was the next one to it. As far as I am able to learn the last mentioned article in the list, fertilizer, is the only one which has been placed on the free list. Now I wish to suggest to the government and to the Liberal party that proceeding upwards from the bottom of this list they take the next article cement and place it on the free list on their next budget. I will give some arguments to show why I think that should be done, and I will place upon Hansard a few figures with respect to certain industries. I will take first the boot and shoe industry. This is one of the industries enjoying a high protective tariff, and we were promised in the Liberal platform that the customs duty should be reduced. Yet during all the intervening years since the Liberals were returned to power this particular tariff item has remained practically untouched. I applied to the Bureau of Statistics in Ottawa for a few figures showing the imports of boots and shoes, the duty collected thereon, and the value of the output manufactured in Canada, and I am going to give them to the house:
It is obvious that when $100 worth of goods is imported the sum of $24.05 is collected in duty. Therefore every $100 worth of goods manufactured in Canada for home consumption means that an amount of $24.05 is provided in protection to that industry. We only have to base our calculations on the amount manufactured in Canada to find that there is a protection of $11,011,312.70 provided for the boot and shoe industry.


Ernest Lapointe: Is my hon. friend taking the British preferential rate or the general tariff?


Burt Wendell Fansher: I wish
to inform the hon. Minister of Justice that I am not quoting the rates under either of these tariffs. I am taking the actual importations, and the duty collected thereon, and getting my percentage in that way.


Ernest Lapointe: But the rate is not 25 per cent under the British preference


Burt Wendell Fansher: What I am taking is the average percentage of duty. I will read the figures again for the benefit of the hon. minister. The amount of duty collected on all boots and shoes, whether they came in under the British preference or the general tariff, is $640,299.81. That amount is collected on imports to the value of $2,662,754. It is a simple matter of computation to get the percentage of 24.05.
Now we turn to rubber footwear and I have the following figures:
Imports for 1927	[DOT] [DOT]
Duty collected (less sales tax)..
Percentage of duty	
Manufactured in Canada	
Exported	
Consumption in Canada	
1	116,264 00
29,016 08 24.97 24,541,324 00 6,569,885 00 17,971,439 00
By the same process of reasoning we find that when $100 worth of rubber footwear is imported $24.97 is collected in duty. So that in the case of every $100 worth of goods manufactured in Canada a protection of $24.97 was afforded and the total protection granted to that industry was $4,474,888.06. The other day the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), in the course of a speech, gave some statistics showing the importance of the rubber industry of this

The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)
country, and said that it held fourth place among our industries. In view of the figures that I have given I do not wonder at it.
In the case of the cement industry I wish to place on record the following figures: Imports for year ended March 31,

,,	I 77,886 00
Duty collected	 5,018	00
Percentage of duty	 16.20
Manufactured in Canada	
13,013,283	00Exported	
358,231	00Home consumption	
12,655,052	00
By the same process of reasoning protection in the sum of 82,050,118.42 was provided for the cement industry. For all three industries the total duty collected was $674,333.89, and for the same industries the total amount provided in the form of protection was $17,536,319.18, a ratio of 1 to 26. Which means that for every dollar that goes to the treasury $26 is provided for the manufacturers in question. Is it any wonder that we are opposed to this budget, to a reduction in the income tax, and to the maintenance of the customs tariff at the level where it has been for years past? It is my belief that facts such as I have cited here, viewed in relation to the advantage which accrues to the various industries, has a great deal to do with what is known as our emigration problem in this country. If our system of taaxtion were such as to give to the primarv producer larger earnings than he now makes, he would not be so eager to seek other fields.
I have a few words to say upon the position of the government as regards this budget. During the campaign of 1926 an appeal was made to the public on the Robb budget which to my mind was really a Progressive budget, what the Progressive party had been advocating for years. The Conservative party on the other hand warned the country that if the Robb budget came into effect or if the King government was returned, this would mean the ruination of the country. Fair warning was given by the Conservative party. The Liberal party appealed as the low tariff party and they said:	Why divide the low tariff element?
They were returned to power and this is the second budget that has been brought down. After being pledged, in their platform and in the election, to a low tariff, they selected an advisory tariff board to assist them in better fulfilling their policy of low tariff. One budget has come down with no tariff reductions. A second budget is now down which is nothing more or less than a reclassification of the textile schedules, and which amounts to scarcely anything beyond a few classifications. The great majority of the benefits go to the large industries and the consumers get but little.

As I say, the government appealed to the country saying:	Why divide the low tariff
element? But in this budget they have simply tinkered up the old tariff wall, taking off a stone here and replacing it somewhere else, and taking one from there and putting it in the place of the one they took away. They have given the old tariff wall a coat of whitewash and they have still kept the old barbed wire entanglement known as the dumping clause on top of the tariff wall. I thought when I came to this house that the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), was intent, with the aid of the Consumers League, upon removing that barbed wire entanglement; but somehow or another somebody advised him that if he attempted it, he might get his hands torn and he has not as yet proceeded in that direction.


Edward Joseph Garland: They stole his wire nippers.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: He may be a little leery about putting his pliers into it. Why should the country not expect that in this second budget the Libera! party would come forward and fulfil its pledges? The country is looking for that and member after member from Ontario was returned on the strength of the Robb budget. The government were taken at their word and the country expects them to fulfil their pledge. It is because I believe in the principles enunciated in my party's platform and because I want to see them brought into effect that I speak as I do to-day. I desire to place myself unmistakably on record in this matter. I desire, therefore, to move as a sub-amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans):
That all the words after the word "regrets" m the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"That the government proposes further reductions in the income tax, thus making a serious departure from the principle of direct taxation: that the proposed revision of the customs tariff is inadequate to bring effective relief to the consuming public; and that the sales tax on the necessaries of life has not been eliminated."


Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the
house I wish to refer first to this sub-amendment. I do not agree with the" mover and the seconder of it in regard to the first paragraph thereof and I will refer to it at greater length in the remarks that I have to make. The second paragraph states:
That the proposed revision of the customs tariff is inadequate to bring effective relief to the consuming public.
That is a debatable question and in the remarks that I have to make I shall probably

The Budget[DOT]-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
cover that matter. The last paragraph is practically the last clause of the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan).
A good deal has been said, not only by members of this house but by many people who are supporters of this government and by the press, regarding prosperity; and this was referred to also this afternoon by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Evidently the hon. member for South Perth felt the effect and influence of the arguments that were advanced yesterday by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), as he spent the whole of his time in endeavouring to refute them, or, if he could, to ridicule that hon. member. That class of argument does not carry us anywhere. The hon. member did not attempt to answer, either in detail or in reality, the arguments set forth by the hon. member for Fort William.
The hon. member for South Perth referred to prosperity. I do not know exactly what conditions are in the constituency which he represents. It may be one of the constituencies in Ontario in which prosperity may be shown to exist to a considerable extent. The constituency which I represent, which is part of the city of Toronto, is largely industrial. As I said once before in this house, I think seventy per cent of our people, although they may not all be directly interested in industry, depend upon industry for their living. One can judge better as to whether there is real prosperity in this country by looking at the question from the immediate standpoint of the home. True it is that many of our citizens are enjoying a great deal of comfort and some of the benefits of the accumulated wealth of the country, but there are many who are not enjoying that measure of comfort which the wealth of our country should give to them. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) referred in his budget address to the leaders of finance and industry and to the reports that they had made at various times during the year as being good evidence of the prosperity of the country. I do not know to whom he was actually referring when he spoke of leaders of finance and industry, but by leaders of finance I assume he meant the men in charge of our banks, trust companies, investment trusts, and probably insurance companies, because they have control of the greater part of our moneys that are on deposit with them as trustees for the people. Now, with all due respect to the bright statements that are sometimes made by these financial institutions in their annual reports, it is necessary I think for us to scan them with care.
In this country we have several banks all competing for business. These banks are doing business, it may be said, for the benefit of the public generally, but in reality they are doing business for their shareholders. The banks are privately owned; the shareholders own the bank, and the managers of these banks are anxious to make the best showing they possibly can. Competition is rife among the banks themselves, and they are always endeavouring to put forward the brightest statements they can. That is also true of our trust companies and our insurance companies. But when we come to look at what they are doing with the money that is entrusted to them in the form of deposits, what do we find that they are doing with a large part of it? When we begin to look at it from that standpoint, we notice that the stock exchanges of our country use a great deal of that money. The amount of money that is advanced by these various institutions to the stock brokers throughout the country, and the same is true of the United States, is something enormous; it represents a large proportion of the deposits that are entrusted to their care. Now if that money were used on the stock exchange for the buying of stocks, treasury stocks, the proceeds of which would go into the treasuries of these industrial companies, then I would say that that money was going in a direction in which it might help industry in this country and might help to make times better. If that money were invested in the bonds of these companies and were used for the extension of their business, I would also say that that would be for the benefit of industry, and probably of the country as well. But, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I know, and every hon. member of this house knows, that the bulk of the money that is used on the stock exchanges of this country and of the United States is used in what are practically gambling operations. We may not call it gambling; we may say it is an investment, but whatever you call it the element of chance is there, and we find that our banks, our trust companies, our insurance companies and some of our investment trusts are using their moneys for this purpose. A striking instance of that came to my attention not long ago when one of our largest insurance companies in Canada published, and in rather a boastful way, the fact that it had bought a very large block of stock of another industrial concern in this country-International Nickel. The manager of that insurance company made the statement that they had bought that stock as a permanent investment. Now that stock

706	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
was not bought from the treasury of the International Nickel Company. Had it been bought from that source it would have gone into the industry and helped business generally. But no; it was bought on the stock exchange. It may be that it was all paid for in cash, but the money went not into the industry, but into the hands of other men who put it into their private purse or into their bank account, and it did not help the industry at all.
Now where does this insurance company hope to make profits if it is not that they are going to gamble or take a chance on that stock advancing in price on the market? That does not help the industry in this country. If we are to depend on the statement by that insurance company that everything is prosperous, you and I, Mr. Speaker, being probably insured in that company, have to conclude that the profits likely to come to its treasury are to depend upon chance; and that chance is not at all unreal. It may not be out of place for me to say that International Nickel was quoted on the stock exchanges of Montreal, Toronto and New York less than two weeks ago at 100, and to-day it is quoted at 80. Now that is a very great chance. I do not think that International Nickel is a concern that has any fear for the future. I believe it is good, but when we look at it we find that that stock is to-day paying two dollars per share of S25 par value, and yet it is selling on the stock exchange for from 80 to 100. At the price of 80 it pays only per cent, and it is clear that the insurance company is not looking at it from the standpoint of an investment paying them 2| per cent; but they have bought that stock on the possibility that it will enhance in value and the profits go into the treasury of the company. If that is an evidence of prosperity- and the same thing applies to other companies as well-it is not a fair and just evidence of prosperity. These companies, as a matter of fact, very frequently refer to reports prepared by the government on public matters, so that the one refers to the other; they are working in a circle, but when we come to find out what is behind it all we have good reason for believing that the greatest care is not exercised in the reports which these institutions put out to the country.
Investment trusts have come into being in Canada during the last two years. They have been in the United States for a number of years. They buy stock of companies, the same as insurance companies are doing, until they gradually accumulate a large holding, and their profits are dependent solely upon the future advance of the market. Is it fair

to say that the country is prosperous because these companies happen to make a profit on chance transactions of this kind? I say not. I think the information which is given to the country in general by the two great railroads of this country is probably a great deal better. The annual reports of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways both show decreased earnings and increased expenditures. These companies are working on the capital that is actually invested in them. True, the Canadian National Railways stock is not on the market, being held by the government; but the Canadian Pacific stock is on the market. The latter company pays a dividend of 10 per cent. Were it dependent upon freight and passenger earnings it might not be able to maintain that dividend, but by wise investments outside its regular railway business it has been able to do so, with the result that the stock to-day is quoted on the market at a high premium. But these railroads both say that the business of the past year is not as satisfactory as it might have been, and not in keeping with the development of the country.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the true prosperity of the Dominion can better be judged by the individual, by yourself in your constituency, by myself in my constituency, and similarly by other members of this house. In my opinion, wherever there is an element of unemployment not in keeping with the amount of wealth in our respective constituencies, then economically there is something wrong. The unemployment that is rampant throughout the urban portions of Canada, and also to a lesser extent in the rural districts, is the best evidence that prosperity does not exist to the degree that it should in view of the declarations that we have heard respecting the general prosperity of the country.
One is led to consider why our industrial development is not more active and prosperous. I do not suppose my friends to my left will agree with me, but I thought the other day we had from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) something suggestive of a change of heart. He gave voice to a sentiment which, it seems to me, might form the basis of cooperation with the view of securing a better industrial development over the whole country. I refer to the statement that his party were not free traders, but were in favour-not necessarily because they like it, but because of existing conditions-of a tariff system, and that it was necessary and advisable that the various parties should get together on the question.

The Budget-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
The government has always proclaimed itself a low tariff party. My hon. friends to my left have made it quite clear that they are free traders. The party to which I belong is wedded to a policy of protection. That does not necessarily mean protection to such a degree as to be harmful to our proper national development; it means protection which is constructive in its nature. In brief, it involves the development of all our resources from the raw product through the various stages up to the finished article that goes on the shelves of the retailer and thence into the hands of the consumer. The government by this budget and by its recent legislation is trying to show that it is a low tariff party. But unfortunately for that argument, the government is leaving the manufacturer in practically the same position as before. I do not object to this except as to the degree in which it interferes with the processes of manufacture in the earlier stages.
There can be no doubt that the low tariff legislation of last session injured the earlier stages of domestic manufacture, fabrication or conversion of our natural products, and this budget will be equally harmful in its effects. Let me cite the automobile industry as an example of what happened last year. A large number of the parts that enter into the construction of automobiles are manufactured outside of Canada, and under the budget of last session, they are being admitted free or at such low rates of duty as to interfere with the parts industry in Canada. True, it does help to some extent the secondary stage of manufacture in this country, but it has changed our automobile industry altogether, and to-day it has become to a great extent an assembling industry, with the result, as has been pointed out by other members, that a lesser number of Canadians are now being employed in our automobile industry. The importer of these automobile parts-the automobile manufacturer or assembler-probably is not losing. He handles as many automobiles, probably more than he did under the conditions that prevailed before the introduction of last year's budget; that is, he has become simply an assembler and a sales agent, and in that way he is making his profit. In fact many of the automobile industries are making big profits. But what about this industry in Canada? We are getting to be manufacturers of a partial product only, and if anything should happen in the future to interrupt the entry of those automobile parts, we would be in a very difficult position.
Now, this budget is proposing to do this year in regard to the woollen industry what 56103-45J
the budget of last year did to the automobile industry. I can only refer to this in a general way. A part of the woollen product is admitted free in order to assist the secondary process of manufacture, that is, the weaving industry in this country. It is going to have the effect of reducing the number of our sheep, and it will reduce, if not obliterate, that portion of the industry which deals with the raw product up to the time it is fit to put into the loom for the purpose of weaving. And further, it will result in the scrapping of a large amount of machinery and a large number of plants in which has been invested a great deal of good Canadian capital. That, it seems to me, is a very unfair way to deal with the Canadian who is courageous enough to invest his money in a real home industry. Of course, what will happen is hard to predict. My own opinion is that the woollen industry will be affected in the same way as the automobile industry, that is, the secondary part of our woollen manufacturing will be dependent wholly upon the United States and other countries for the primary products. It will also result in eliminating to a great extent our sheep industry. In short, the whole woollen industry of the Dominion will be very materially injured.


Robert Forke: Sheep are the best thing
going.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have lost only about thirty per cent.


Robert Forke: We have received the best
price for wools this year, and during the last five years.


Peter McGibbon: Not due to the government's policy.


Alexander James Anderson: I have before me some statements concerning the iron and steel industry and a reference to them will show, by analogy, how the woollen industry is likely to be affected in the future. As a result of a highly improper method of dealing with the iron and steel industry in Canada, we find this enterprise to-day in a most unsatisfactory condition. This matter was referred to by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and I will not go over the same ground. But supple menting what he said I may quote from a paper on Iron Smelting and Steel Making in Canada, by F. W. Gray, taken from the publication Iron and Steel of Canada of January, 1928. This writer points out the effect upon different sections of the iron and steel industry of allowing a certain percentage of the manufactures in iron and steel,
708	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
in their earlier stages, to come into this country either free or under a low tariff. In 1920 the number of persons employed in the blast furnaces and steel mills of Canada totalled 13,874, who were receiving wages and salaries aggregating $22,824,530. These blast furnaces and steel mills are the parts of the factories that handle iron and steel in their earlier stages of manufacture. In 1926 the number of persons employed had dropped to 6,014, while the total wages and salaries paid out amounted to only $8,934,536. It will be seen that the number of employees was reduced by half while the wages and [DOT] salaries paid out were more than cut in two. This meant a direct loss to the labour element of the country, both as regards the number of workmen employed and in the matter of wages paid. The secondary plants do not show so disastrous an effect. In 1920 the number of persons employed in secondary plants was 101,887 and the salaries and wages paid them amounted to $135,860,417. In 1926 the number of employees in these plants had declined to 75,400 while the aggregate of wages and salaries paid was $125,229,867.
What has happened in connection with iron and steel will also take place in the woollen industry. We shall find that the primary plants will dwindle if indeed they are not eliminated altogether, while the secondary plants will be face to face with serious competition from outside; and the only way I can see in which we shall be able to stave off disaster is to provide a reasonable and fair protective tariff which will give the home manufacturer a chance to cope with foreign competition. Something might occur some day whereby we should not be able to get from outside those parts of iron and steel construction that enter into secondary manufacture, and the same prospect faces the woollen industry. Let me quote from Mr. Gray:
It is also fairly well established that the importation of these raw or semi-finished materials has been aided by lowering or complete omission of import duties in the most important instances of usage; but it is not true, as has been stated, that this favouring of importations from outside-so far as the products of blast furnaces and rolling mills are concerned-is required because of the inability of Canadian plants to furnish them. The record of idle blast furnaces, of unemployed men, and of declining production of primary products within Canada is sufficient proof to the contrary.
So far as I can see, this is the condition to which the woollen industry and possibly cottons will be reduced. Mr. Gray says further:
The point now reached, and the question that the secondary steel industries in Canada

must answer from their own viewpoint of supply, is whether the primary plants are to be further pressed into decline and eventual extinction, or whether, for the protection of the secondary industries per se, the remnant of the native blast furnace industry shall be kept alive. It is possible, of course, that a steel industry of sorts-
And this will be said of the woollen industry also-"a woollen industry of sorts."
-can be built up in Canada entirely on imported materials. But such an industry will not be a Canadian industry, and it will cease to exist the day that importations of the primary products from outside cease.	It
would be a reflection upon the intelligence of iron and steel men in Canada to attempt further to emphasize the elementary necessity of blast furnaces, and rolling mills connected therewith, to any civilized country that essays to possess an iron and steel industry, and that desires to have a national status above that of a helot nation, or to be more than an appanage and vassal of nations that have realized the importance of iron and steel, and in doing so have achieved an independence in industrial affairs that is actual and not merely an unreality.
That is the condition to which the woollen industry and others will be reduced under this new proposal.
Something has been said in the subamendment in regard to the reduction in the income tax. This is-a matter in regard to which I wholly disagree with my friends to the left. The income tax is levied only upon a very small part of our population. I took the trouble to-day to inquire of the income tax office as to the number of persons in Canada who have paid income tax in the last year. We have a population of 9,300,000 and the number of persons who paid income tax was 116,029, while the corporations that contributed numbered 5,777. In other words, a total of 121,806 individuals and corporations paid income tax. Now, the reason the number of taxpayers in this class is so small is the fact that only this number of persons and corporations in Canada receive incomes that exceed the amount of exemption-$3,500 and upwards, or whatever the figure is. Those who receive an income may fairly be asked to pay a tax to the country, in view of the benefits they derive from the general industry. When I say that, without making it unnecessarily personal I may also say that I happen to be one of those who pay income tax, and I am quite prepared to continue paying it. But when we consider that the reduction of the income tax affects only 121,806 entities in this country, individuals and corporations, and that the other 9,000,000 people do not have to contribute in any way, you can imagine to what extent a reduction in the income tax will benefit the people of Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)
For my part I think the government are simply making a gesture of a political nature. Some people have described it as a tricky affair, and have said that it is being done for the purposes of propaganda, in order to secure votes in the future. At all events it is not helping the people generally at all. If the government had gone the whole distance in regard to the sales tax I would have quite agreed with them, although I believe on the whole the sales tax has been very fair because it affects everyone according to the amount purchased. It has been a very annoying tax, however, almost as much so as the stamp tax, which has since disappeared. The sales tax should be wiped out altogether if the government really have any disposition to assist the consumer. We hear a great deal about the government trying to do that. They say, "We are trying to help the consumer; we are reducing taxes of every character with that end in view." The tariff board have been asked to do work in this connection, but we have no report of what has been accomplished by that board. We do know, however, that an individual has been appearing before that board calling himself counsel for the consumers of the country. I do not know by whom he is engaged; he may be doing the work voluntarily out of the kindness of his heart, although I doubt it. He claims to represent the consumers, and that includes every person in the country, because we are all consumers. If the government are particularly desirous of doing so much for the consumer, why do they not start right in and cut off the sales tax which is imposed against our own manufacturers, and thus bring home their good intentions to every individual in the country? The amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) asks that that tax be cancelled as of January 1, 1929. I believe the government might well agree to this, and if they did so they would be entitled to the credit of doing something for the Whole of the people rather than helping only an infinitesimal number of them.
Referring back to the question of income tax, I find some interesting figures appearing in the Toronto Telegram of recent date. I do not refer to this paper very often, but immediately after the budget speech was delivered the Toronto Telegram published a compilation showing how the reduction in the income tax would affect the city of Toronto. And according to that statement I find that in the Toronto district there are about 25,000 individuals who pay income tax. That is interesting, as compared with the 116,000 who pay income tax throughout the whole
Dominion; it would appear that Toronto is bearing its share of the burden. In addition to that, in that city there are about 2,000 corporations paying taxes. Sixty per cent of those who pay income tax in Toronto are in the class taxable on an income of $5,000 or under, and at the most their saving is only $3. Twenty per cent of the total includes those with incomes from $5,000 to $15,000, and the man with the latter income will save about $75. Ten per cent of that total represents incomes from $15,000 to $30,000, and at the latter figure the saving is about $350. Only ten per cent of this total have incomes in excess of $30,000. Then, at another place, it is shown that 30,000 people of those reporting have an income of less than $1,000;
5.500	people have incomes up to $2,000, and
2.500	people have incomes up to $3,000. That means that 38,000 people have incomes of $3,000 or less. The remainder of those reporting, numbering 5,570, have incomes ranging from $4,000 to $50,000. These figures are on the basis of the most recently available figures of the assessment department of the city of Toronto.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I am sorry,
but the hon. member's time has expired.


Alexander James Anderson: I regret that, my time is up; I should have liked to make some remarks in regard to the public debt and the necessity of a sinking fund to meet it, but that is now impossible.
On motion of Mr. McMillan the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without-question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 23, 1928