1928-03-01

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 54, to amend the Excise Act.
Railway Act Amendment
Mr. CAHAN:: Explain.


Mr. EULER:: The object of the bill is
merely to make certain changes in connection with the better administration of the Excise Act. There are only three clauses in the bill, the chief of which is to give to the department the power to cancel licenses of brewers and distillers. That power we did not have before, and it is proposed now to take it. That is practically all there is in the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. H. PETTIT (Welland) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 55, to amend the Railway Act.
Mr. DUNNING:: Explain.


Mr. PETTIT:: The object of the bill is to amend section 308 o'f the Railway Act, chapter 170 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, by providing that the whistle shall be sounded twice more than is provided by the section. The section now requires that the whistle shall be sounded at least eighty rods from a level railway crossing, and the amendment proposes that the whistle shall be again sounded midway, that is, 660 feet from the crossing and also 330 feet from the crossing.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at St. Paul de Buton, county of Montmagny, Quebec?
2.	When *was he appointed and on whose recommendation?
3.	Did any returned soldier apply for the position?
4.	And if so, why did he not receive the appointment ?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Joseph A. Talbot.
2.	(a) January 16th, 1928; (b) As a result of local competition.
3.	Yes, one Joseph Elzear Adam.
4.	Unsatisfactory reports received regarding character and financial standing.


JOLIETTE POSTMASTER
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Why is the permanent appointment of a postmaster at Joliette, Quebec, still delayed?
2.	What were the recommendations, if any, made by the Civil Service Commission in relation thereto?
3.	Has the Postmaster General been informed that the present acting postmaster at Joliette, Quebec, is otherwise employed as a merchant and manager of a wood company, and that he is not devoting himself to the work of the said post office?
4.	Have complaints been received against the said acting postmaster at Joliette, Quebec, and if so, will an enquiry be ordered in respect thereto?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Awaiting the report of the district superintendent on the oral examination of the applicants.
2.	That all the candidates must be examined by one inspector in order that the ratings may be uniform.
3.	Inspectors' reports state:	September 9,
1926, Mr. Breton "actually conducts tea, crockery and wood business"; August 16, 1927, Mr. Breton "has been and is now a successful business man with interests in Joliette and other parts of the province"; February 8, 1928, "Mr. Breton reported early in April at the Joliette post office to learn duties and was sworn in as acting postmaster on the 28th of the same month. Since then, the office has been in his full1 charge and under his constant control." Also: "Mr. Breton is in charge and has been since April, 1927. He apparently is giving all round satisfaction, will hand over his business affairs to his son."
4.	Yes, inquiry has already been made.


DUTY ON NURSERY STOCK
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	What is the rate of duty against nursery
stock entering Canada:	(a) from the United
States; and (b) from Holland?
2.	What is the rate of duty against the
following Canadian products entering the United States:	(a) nursery stock; (b) fresh
fruits and vegetables ?
3.	Is there at present any embargo against nursery stock or fresh fruits and vegetables entering the United States from Canada?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.
Extract-Tariff item 79:
Seedling stock for grafting, viz.:
Plum, pear, peach and other fruit trees
Holland	United
States
Free	Free

The importation into the United States of currants and gooseberry plants and five-leaved pines from all portions of Canada, is prohibited on account of the white pine blister rust disease. (U.S.D.A. Quar. No. 7.)
Native grown nursery stock, other than plants indicated above, may be imported into the United States, provided the importer has secured a permit from the federal horticultural board, Washington, D.C., and the shipment is accompanied by a certificate of inspection indicating that the plants covered by the certificate are free from pests and disease, and also a certificate of origin. (UJ3.D.A. Quar. No. 37.)
Fresh fruits and vegetables.
There is no restriction on the importation into the United States of fresh fruits and vegetables of Canadian origin, but such importations may not be forwarded by mail. (U.S.D.A. Quar. No. 56.)
Other products.
The importation into ihe United States of corn, broom corn, sorghums and other related plants is prohibited from all portions of Canada on account of the European com borer. Provision is made, however, for the importation of clean shelled corn, clean seed of broom corn, and broom corn for manufacturing purposes, provided the importer secures a permit from the federal horticultural board, Washington, D.C., and the shipment is accompanied by a certificate indicating that the products covered by the certificate have been inspected and found free from infestation by the European com borer. (U.S.D.A. Quar. No. 41.)


RETURNED SOLDIERS ON HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF
Mr. PRICE:: 1.	How many returned soldiers are employed on the permanent staff of the House of Commons ?
2.	How many temporary employees are engaged during the present session?
3.	How many of them are returned men?


Mr. SPEAKER:: No. 1. 7; No. 2. 333; No. 3. 55.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What is the total number of signatures of cattle owners, received to date, to petitions, asking for the establishment of a bovine tuberculosis restricted area in the whole province of Nova Scotia?
2.	How many head of cattle have been subjected to the tuberculin test in Nova Scotia?

3.	How many head of cattle have been slaughtered as a result of reaction to the test?
4.	What is the number of cattle so slaughtered in each county in Nova Scotia?
5.	What is the number of signatures received to petitions, as referred to, from each county in Nova Scotia?
6. What is the total cost to date of the establishment of restricted areas in Nova Scotia?
7. What is the total amount paid or due owners of cattle slaughtered in Nova Scotia under this policy?
8.	What is the result of and report on the immunilogical preventive, curative and trans-missibility work of the research councils and other bodies in reference to tuberculosis?
9.	What was the amount expended during the last fiscal year upon such research work?


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I should like to direct the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to an item published by a very reliable news service bureau at Washington which reads:
American Letter 495
February 25, 1928.
We learn from Ottawa that the Canadian government has notified Washington of its readiness to go ahead with conversations preparatory to the signing of a convention looking toward construction of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway. The Canadian note contains no important stipulations to which the American government is likely to take exception.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister
whether such a note 'has been despatched, and if so, if he will lay it on the table at the earliest possible moment on the theory that the Canadian people are more entitled to this knowledge than a news bureau.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: In reply to my hon. friend I would say that the item which he has just read is without foundation in fact.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Might I interject that I was informed on pretty good authority, not that this had gone through judt in the way the despatch says, but that the Canadian government had sent a communication to Washington, and that a reply was on the way from Washington. If such is the case, would the Prime Minister have both notes tabled as soon as possible?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will tell me his authority, I will tell him whether it is worth while. No communication of the kind indicated exists to my

Forty Minute Rule-Interruptions
knowledge, and I know of no note of the kind on the way back. The whole thing is imaginary.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS REPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), now that two months have passed, when we may expect the report of the Canadian National Railways for 1927 to be tabled. It should be done at an early date.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways): I was asking the 'president, about the report just this morning. The audit is proceeding as rapidly as possible, and the president informs me that he hopes to be able to supply me with the accounts early next week. As soon as he does so, the report will be tabled. This is a little earlier than it is usually tabled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is two months now. PRIVILEGE-MR. EDWARDS (Frontemw)
On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forked questioned the accuracy of certain statements which I had made in my speech of the day before and intimated his regret that under the rules of the house he was not permitted to express his opinion in language as strong as he would like.
I wish also to express regret that under the rules of the house I have no other alternative at the present time but to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. Time will disclose whether his statements or mine are more worthy of credibility.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege- and I think it is one that is really in order, for it affects not only myself personally but every member of this house, except possibly two. It refers to the interruption of the rules of the house as regards debate. In Hansard of yesterday -at page 889 we find an hon. member asking the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) a question, to which he replies:
I am ready to answer the question, if I am allowed the extra time.
Mr. Speaker: It is not within my privilege to extend the time of any hon. member. I have to see that the forty-minute rule is observed.
My point of privilege is, that that is in direct contradiction to the understanding under which the rule was passed last session. By referring to Hansard of last year, repeated references will be found to the understanding that interruptions would be allowed for. Hon. members will remember that I opposed the introduction and passing of the rule, and I canvassed members in support of my opposition, but I was met with this objection: The rule won't hurt us because we have been told that interruptions will be allowed for. At page 1437 of Hansard of March 22, 1927, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is reported as follows:
I desire to know if, under this ride-
That is, the forty-minute rule.
-a member is to be allowed for the time taken up by interruptions.
Mr. Speaker: I may be allowed, not to take part in the debate, but to explain. Whenever closure is invoked the time taken up by any interruptions of a member is credited to his twenty minutes. It is an unwritten rule in congress, for instance, where similar restrictions are in force, to allow a congressman extra time for interruptions.
On the strength of that and other similar statements, with which I will not detain the house, there is no question that these assurances were a material factor in getting the forty-minute rule accepted, and I submit that they should be given effect to now.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, in support of what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said, I may add that that was the understanding in the committee last year when we discussed the rule for a considerable time. Not only so, but this understanding to my mind is impliedly confirmed by the rule itself:
No member .... shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
Well, if a member is interrupted by questions being put to him, he surely cannot be said to be speaking at that particular time, and therefore I do not see how the time so taken from him should count in his forty minutes.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


George Halsey Perley: 
Hewitt Bostock: May I be allowed to
remind the house that there is another rule, No. 12, section 3 of which states positively:
When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.
Now, I am familiar enough with the amenities of debate to know that when the member who has the floor accepts an interruption, and is willing to answer it, there can be no objection to the interruption. Furthermore, it goes without saying that he must be credited with the time lost in answering such interruption. But I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that when interruptions become-shall I say?-riotous, that is, when they come from all parts of the house, the hon. member who has the floor cannot make an intelligible speech, and therefore I would ask the house to see to it that the debates are carried on in such a manner as to obviate confusion. For my part, I do not object to an interruption, but when the hon. member addressing the house has to meet so many interruptions that he does not know where to begin or where to end, I think it is time for the Speaker to intervene. Let us not defeat the forty-minute rule. It is a good rule.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways): On the basis of your ruling to-day, as contrasted with your ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled to about ten minutes more time.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I was only asking that the rule be enforced in accordance with the assurances given last year.


Hewitt Bostock: To give effect to the
forty-minute rule I shall have to prevent all interruptions according to section 3 of rule 12.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 29 consideration of the motion of Hon.
J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Cahan and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Fansher (East Lambton).
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock last night I was advocating that more Dominion notes be put into circulation to take the place of the bank notes of our chartered banks, and so save considerable money to the Dominion. I also recommended that a higher rate of interest should be paid on deposits in the post office savings banks, with the idea of effecting a saving to the government on their borrowings.
I come now to the last phase of my address. This seventh budget of a Liberal administration is, I think I am safe in saying, fairly satisfactory to the hon. members of the Conservative party, but is not at all satisfactory to a very large number of the government's supporters, and certainly cannot be accepted by the members of the groups in this corner of the house. Several hon. members have said that the government has tinkered with the tariff in the latest budget proposals. No less than 122 items of the tariff have been struck out and 159 substituted. Taking it all in all, a study of the tariff discloses that whatever benefit is to flow from this tinkering will be to the advantage of the manufacturers rather than the consumers of this countiy.
As a basis for what I am about to say, may I be permitted to read a resolution which was passed at the convention of the Liberal party held in Ottawa in 1919. It is as follows:
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 hving 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 food, 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, fishermens equipments, cements and fertilizers should be free from customs duties as well as the raw material entering into the same.
That a revision dowmward of the tariff snorilci 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.
That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution ivhen returned to power.

The Budget-Mr. Spencer
I want the house to visualize for a moment the extent to which that important resolution has been carried out by the Liberal party since they came into power. I admit that a portion of it has been carried out, but only under pressure from certain groups in this house when the government found themselves in a very difficult position and were struggling to keep power. This resolution, this program, this platform, has been preached day in and day out, year in and year out by the Liberal party from one end of the country to the other. It has not been preached very much in this house. It is a good device for getting votes, but so far as the government is concerned it is not something upon which to base legislation.
I desire to put on record the tariff clause enunciated to the house a few days ago by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Paragraph 5 of his statement reads:
5.	The reduction of the customs tariff or the imposition of higher excise taxes, whenever and wherever necessary, to prevent the immoral use or abuse of the existing tariff, or any unfair advantage being taken of the tariff, as for example by those who would resort to profiteering by exacting unduly high prices for their products from domestic consumers, under the protecting elements of the existing tariff.
I know perfectly well that hon. members on the government side will say, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) said yesterday, "Oh well, they don't mean that; they won't keep their promise." If that is so, I ask, what is the difference between the two parties? The Liberals say that the Conservatives will not keep their promises, but we know full well as a matter of fact, from the experience of the last few years, that the Liberals do not keep theirs.
The Minister of Railways, in addressing the house yesterday, said some pretty harsh things with respect to the smaller groups in this house. Other hon. members have also said harsh things, and bitter things were said in 1926 when the small group of twenty-three were in a most difficult position, holding, to use the common phrase, the balance of power. It was said that these twenty-three would be entirely wiped out at the ensuing election. But the people of this country are realizing that more and more they must turn to independent groups, and so much is that the fact that at the following election, not only was every one of those members returned, but eight more were added to their number. Of the thirty-one that were returned, ten of them, for reasons best known to themselves, took their seats on the government side of the house, not as part of the government members but
among them. In my opinion, if those members had stayed in their old position we should to-day have a very different budget from that which we are now discussing. To use the words of the Minister of Railways,
I suppose log-rolling is a good deal easier on that side of the house. We hope our confreres who have left us, temporarily as we trust, will some time come back. I am very much afraid, however, it is another case of the old story about the lady who took a ride on the tiger.
There is not the slightest doubt about this fact, that the budget is not at all acceptable to the majority in this house, had hon. members what they consider real freedom in the expression of their opinions. If, for instance, we had a set term of years for parliament and there was no possible chance of going to the country in the event of the budget being defeated, if moreover each hon. member had the opportunity, and took advantage of it, of expressing his absolute opinion with regard to this budget, I am confident that it would not meet with the approval of the majority. Unfortunately, however, under our present parliamentary rules and usages I do not suppose there is a single member on the government side belonging to the Liberal party, irrespective of the degree in which he dislikes the budget, who will stand in his place and vote against it. I say, therefore, that there is a tremendous responsibility at the door of those ten members who sit on the government side of the house because, whatever we do from this corner, we cannot without their support, be successful in trying to get the government to carry out its own program. As this budget does not carry out the expressed promises of the government in the past, and does not give relief to the masses of the people. I find myself compelled to support the sub-amendment.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: It is not my intention to discuss at length the merits of the Robb budget. Our colleague in the government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), has been, I think, particularly fortunate in all his budgets, and the Robb budget to-day is looked upon by the Canadian people as probably no budgets have 'been under other administrations in times gone by. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Spencer) read a resolution which was brought before a convention of Liberals in 1919 and I am very glad he did so. He suggested that the government had nibbled at this resolution but had not carried it out. We know better than that, and the people of Canada know better, because the items mentioned in that resolution
908	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
have all, I think, been dealt with by this parliament during the time the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been leading this party. I know, coming from the province of British Columbia, that those engaged in the saw milling business, in mining, in fishing, and in agriculture do appreciate the fact that the government acted upon that resolution, and that their action has been helpful to these primary industries. And it is due to the fact that these primary industries have been thus enabled to flourish that we have to-day in Canada the condition of prosperity that exists.
The resolution to which my hon. friend has referred, and which Liberals can claim to have received throughout the country the endorsement of those engaged in primary industries, brings to mind the peculiarities of this debate. Experience is supposed to be a good teacher, but apparently hon. gentlemen opposite will not be taught, because during this debate we have heard the same arguments as were advanced every year from 1921 to 1925, all attempting to show that on account of the Liberal party Canada was not a good country to live in and that therefore many young Canadians were going to the United States. Hon. gentlemen opposite have advertised that fact through the medium of the press of this country, the United States, and abroad, and have left the impression that they as a party advocate that our young people should leave Canada to go to the United States and enjoy greater prosperity there.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not correct.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: That is the only assumption to be taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is untrue.


John Warwick King: That point was
very well dealt with by my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). One peculiar thing about history is that it repeats itself, and fortunately for the Liberal party history is now repeating itself again. The only time during the history of Canada when our young people were not seeking employment in the United States was when Sir Wilfrid Laurier headed the government of this country, and we have reason to believe that the policies instituted by this government are bringing about a repetition of that very important condition.
My hon. friends opposite held a national convention during the fall of last year in the city of Winnipeg.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was a dandy,
too.
[Mr. J. H. King,}


John Warwick King: I agree with my hon. friend; it was a dandy convention, and as a result we now have our good friend the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) as leader of the opposition. With the Prime Minister and other members of this government I congratulate hon. gentlemen opposite on their selection of the man who now occupies that position. But is it not rather amazing both to the people of Canada and the members of this house that during the course of this debate we have not had one reference, to my knowledge-and I have been fairly constant in my attendance-t-o the resolutions passed at that convention as indicating the policy of the Conservative party? Our friends opposite are here to advocate the policies of their party, but we are told by one who is in close touch with them that these resolutions were not intended to outline the policy of the Conservative party but were merely passed for the purpose of being used in those localities where they would receive popularity. To prove my assertion I have only to refer to the resolution passed by that convention with reference to oriental immigration, which was sponsored by the Conservative members from British Columbia. I make that reference because there never has been an election in British Columbia since 1900, provincial or federal, during which the Conservative party have advocated a white British Columbia, and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot point to one act of the Borden government or of the Meighen government either before or after the war by which they undertook to control that immigration.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Do not all speak at once.


John Warwick King: No, they will not speak. But despite the advice of some of the older statesmen who had some knowledge of conditions within the empire, this convention passed the resolution in order that the Conservative party might go to British Columbia and say, " Here is what we stand for."


Mr. ESLING:: What would you say in British Columbia?


John Warwick King: I have always stood for a reasonable and sound policy in that regard.


Mr. HOCKEN:: We have not found that out.


John Warwick King: It will be found in the history of Canada that the only party which attempted to deal with this question was the party led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
later by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to go into the question of the budget, but during the debate several references have been made to a service recently established in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe.
I refer to the medical examination service which was established by the Department of Health of Canada in cooperation and in conference with the Department of Immigration. This service was not entered into hurriedly but was undertaken in the light of experience and suggestions coming from the various provincial governments to the effect that they were not satisfied with the service which was then engaged in this work Under the Immigration Act we have a section known as the prohibited classes, and section (a) deals with those known as idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, insane persons or persons who have been insane at any time previously; these people are prohibited from entering Canada under this section. Section (b) prohibits those who are suffering from certain diseases, which it is not necessary for me to enumerate. Section (c) prohibits the dumb and blind, but makes provision that these people may be allowed to enter Canada if, in the opinion of the board of inquiry, they have sufficient means or an occupation which will permit them to establish themselves in this country. There are a number of sections, running from (a) to (o), all under these prohibited classes.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Tell us about the permits.


John Warwick King: I am coming to that shortly; my hon. friend made a statement yesterday with which I propose to deal.
The provincial governments have complained from time to time with regard to the service rendered. Previously we had been examining the immigrants at the point of debarkation; they came off the ship and the railway trains were waiting for them. It was the duty of the officers of the department to examine these immigrants before allowing them to board the trains, while it was naturally' desired to get them to their destinations as quickly as possible, and it was found by experience that that examination could not be satisfactory or complete. From time to time the Department of Immigration as well as other departments of the government received complaints from the various provincial governments, and I am going to place on Hansard some of the statements made by various officers of the provincial governments. First we have a statement by Dr. Laidlaw, now deceased, who was formerly an officer of the Department of Health of Alberta, in which he says:
We have at the present time in our mental hospitals in the province of Alberta 1,076 out of a population of 588,000. Of these, roughly speaking, 70 per cent were foreign born. Of this 70 per cent, 29 per cent came from Europe and 40 per cent from Great Britain, Ireland and the United States. The cost of maintaining these people in our province was about $250,000 or about $235 each for the year.
Dr. Seymour, of Saskatchewan, who is well known in public health circles throughout Canada made this statement;
The conditions in my province-
That is his province-
-are very similar with the exception that I believe the proportion of foreign born in our mental institutions in Saskatchewan is a little larger.
Then we come to Dr. McCullough, of Ontario. He cannot give the figures showing the proportion of foreign bom in the institutions of Ontario, but he says:
I do know that in the unorganized territory of the province where we are obliged to take care of contagious diseases, nearly all the people who appeal to us for admission to the sanitorium for tuberculosis have foreign names.
Then we have a statement from Dr. Dunlop, who is in the hospital for the insane, feeble minded and epileptic of the province of Ontario. He says, speaking of the year 1922:
The proportion of those admitted born in Canada was 62 per cent. The proportion of the foreign born was 32 per cent. Many of the foreign born came from southern and eastern Europe. In 1922, we had 110 persons admitted who came from that part of the world and the cost of maintaining them was over $40,000. Very few of this class have any means, but become public paupers to be supported by the taxpayers of Ontario. One wonders, when dealing with this subject, how long such an immigration policy should continue, and why the people of Ontario should be taxed to maintain such an alien element, who rarely become permanent assets but are simply floating liabilities.
Dr. Desloges, of the public health service of the province of Quebec furnishes figures showing that in the St. Jean de Dieu insane hospital, there were 93 foreign born patients whose mental abnormality could have been detected prior to embarkation, and that at the Verdun insane institution there are 60 similar cases. Then we have a report by Dr. Young, British Columbia, in which he says:
During the fiscal year w-hich closed March 31, 1925, there were 461 patients admitted to the provincial mental hospital at Essondale, B.C. Of these 38.8 per cent were born in the British Empire outside of Canada, 4.3 were Orientals, all other countries contributing 23.2 per cent.

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
The following is an extract from British Columbia's report of the mental hospitals for the year ended March 31, 1924:
We hear from time to time discussion as to the nationality of our mental eases and find it linked up in many erroneous Ways. Of those admitted during the period of this report 133 or 29.7 per cent were born in Canada; 314 or 70.3 per cent being born in other countries. As much has been said about immigration and the open door for new citizens from other countries, I have analyzed tliis 70 per cent and find they were contributed as follows:
Great Britain
England	 110
Scotland	 45
Ireland	 21
A total of 176 or 39.3 per cent of the total admissions.
Oriental
India	 1
China	 20
Japan	 2
A total of 23 or 5.1 per cent of the total admissions.
United States	 45
Or 10 per cent of the total admissions.
Then we have a statement made by Dr. Edward Ryan. My hon. friend from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) will recognize who Dr. Ryan is. He is an officer of the provincial government, a psychiatrist of note, and he has this to say; I am reading it especially for my hon. friend's benefit:
May I direct your attention to what doubtless has been brought before you and often, namely, that a large number of patients in our hospitals are foreign born defectives. Many of these have been brought out by the Barnardo Home, St. George's Home and various other organizations of this character. In the vast number of cases, the stigma of degeneracy and defectivity are quite apparent.
Under the system formerly used we were not giving the protection which they recently asked for to the provinces who have to maintain institutions of this character, and it was on their suggestion that the question of medical inspection at the point of embarkation instead of the point of debarkation was considered by this government. We had representations from the various provincial governments, with statistics that could not be refuted, showing that th'ere were many coming to our shores who were not entitled to admission under our law. Conferences were held between the Department of Immigration and the Department of Public Health to see if some plan could not be devised under which those who could not be permitted to enter under our regulations could not be detected at the start and would not have to be returned from the point of debarkation. I think all will agree that in principle this idea is sound. The government 
did not approach the consideration of this matter without realizing that there were difficulties in the way, and we asked that there should be a conference between the public departments interested and those who are directly interested in the transportation of these individuals, that is to say the steamship and railway companies. Accordingly a conference took place on May 7 in the office of the Minister of Immigration at which the following departments and companies were represented:
Department of Immigration:-Hon. Mr. Forke, Mr. Egan, Mr. Blair and Mr. Jolliffe!
Department of Health:-Dr. Clark, Dr. Page and Dr. Jeffs, our London representative.
Canadian National Railways:-J. S. McGowan and A. A. Gardiner.
Canadian Pacific Railway:-Mr. Walter Maughan, Mr. W. G. Annable, Mr. J. N. K. MaeAlister.
Cunard. Anchor and Anchor-Donaldson Lines: -F. J. McClure and A. Randles.
White Star Line:-H. Bjorldand.
North German Lloyd:-P. Stenz and J. Eykman.
Holland American Line:-Fred M. Vaz.
French Line:-A. Labelle.
Swedish-Ameriean Line:-Arne Holquist.
At that conference it was agreed that this service would be established. The point was raised that in the establishment of such a service there might be delay in the medical examination, that it would not be found feasible to place men in Europe and in Great Britain who would be able to conduct the examination with efficiency and despatch. That possibility was recognized not only by those engaged in the transportation of these people but also by the departmental officers. When the matter was brought to my attention I recommended that the officers who were placed at various points should be able to obtain the assistance of local men if conditions so warranted them. This plan has only been in operation since November last and we have placed some eighteen or twenty men in Great Britain and on the continent. We have met the difficulties that were anticipated. Wherever there is congestion and it is not possible for our officer to act with sufficient expedition he is employing extra assistance. I believe the service now rendered will be to the advantage of the transportation companies and of the people of Canada.
Why do I say this? Because under our old system we found that in 1923-24 the number of rejections on arrival at Canadian ports was 130. Then we find that some 649 immigrants who had gone to their proposed residences were deported. This was not only a great expense to the country but also a great inconvenienoe and hardship to those

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)
who were being deported. The same thing is true in 1924-25 and in 1925-26. In each year it was found that there were certain individuals detected at the point of deportation and others who were deported after they had arrived at their point of destination.
Under the assisted immigration scheme whereby the immigrant from Great Britain was assisted not only by the British government but by the government of Canada, we established a form of medical inspection in Great Britain for that class of immigrant, employing a rostrum of local doctors. The evidence as brought out by the operation in the year 1926, will, I think, confirm the action of the government in establishing this service abroad. We find that out of approximately 115,000 immigrants who arrived at Canada's ocean ports, 33 were certified as being mentally defective, 41 as having loathsome or contagious diseases, principally tuberculosis or trachoma, and 619 as being physically defective, representing in all a little more than one-half of one per cent of the total number passing medical line inspection. I wish to contrast this with the 20,000 who came forward under the assisted passage scheme and were inspected in Great Britain. It was shown that of the prospective immigrants medically examined overseas prior to embarkation, who were required to undergo compulsory examination because they were receiving financial assistance, 182 were certified as being mentally defective, 195 as having loathsome or contagious diseases, and 1,784 as being physically defective. In other words, under the intensive examination, proportionately nearly twenty times as many mentally and physically defective persons were detected prior to embarkation as were detected on arrival in Canada through the medium of medical line inspection.
Certain references have been made in the past to the service that we are endeavouring to install or develop in the old country to control this condition of affairs. The London Times has taken exception to the Canadian people having medical representatives in London. They have indicated 'that this will probably slow up the emigration of Britishers to Canada, and in an article published within the last few days they state:
It is feared in the coming season as a result of new regulations, emigration from Great Britain to Canada will be reduced by as much as from thirty to fifty per cent.
The article goes on to state that we are carrying out those examinations in unsuitable places. I will deal with that in a few words. They seem also to take exception to the installation in Great Britain of Canadian doctors who would pass upon the prospective emigrant.
I do not know why this exception should be taken. If we are to be represented abroad in order that the provisions of the Immigration Act shall be carried out, surely we are entitled to have our own officers to interpret and make effective that act.
There have also been suggestions in the press that harsh treatment has been meted out to one poor unfortunate person who came to this country as an assisted immigrant in December of last year. I am referring to the case about which the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hoeken) spoke yesterday. I am not going to repeat the name, because I think it is unfair to that family that their name should be canvassed abroad in Canada as having one mentally defective child. I propose however to give the history of that case in order that we may see whether the Department of Health and the Department of Immigration have fallen down, or whether they have maintained not their law but the law this parliament has passed. These individuals arrived in Halifax in December last. The medical officer, following the usual practice, boarded the ship and examined the passengers. He found a family of five children, one child, as he put it, for the cause of detention, "observation mental and impetigo." The child was fourteen months old, the oldest member of the family being twelve years old. The other four children were apparently mentally and physically normal.


Mr. GOTT:: That is the age of the
McConachie child.


John Warwick King: If my hon. friend wants to advertise it he can do so. I do not propose to do so.


Mr. RYERSON:: Just as well not.


John Warwick King: I think it would
be better if my hon. friends opposite would not advertise it.


Eccles James Gott: It would be better for the
government.


John Warwick King: No. My hon.
friends are entirely wrong and I think I can show that they are wrong. I think the people of Canada will agree that the officer of the Department of Health did his duty in reporting this case to the immigration department. My hon. friends will not take exception to that. If they are prepared to take exception to it, they should move for the deletion from the Immigration Act of that section which deals with the mentally defective. They will not do so.
912	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)


John Wesley Edwards: Is that
section 3?


John Warwick King: The examining
physician, Dr. Rutherford, found that this type was what is known as the Mongolian type. It is not necessary for me to describe that type in the house. He certified that this child was feeble-minded, would continue to be, and there was no hope for recovery.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: How does he know that?


John Warwick King: On account of the type. He also recommended that a fine be imposed on the steamship company for bringing this child because it could be easily detected as that type on embarkation or on the way over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What do the medical
men in Great Britain say?


John Warwick King: I will give that
in a moment. This child, as I understand and am informed, was not allowed to land in Canada. The mother and the child were transported back from Halifax on another steamer, and on their arrival in Great Britain they were examined by our officers in London. I will give my hon. friend the reference in regard to that. Medical evidence was given before the board of inquiry at Halifax-there was a board of inquiry-and the report of Dr. Rutherford was sent to Dr. Jeffs, a representative of the department in London, England. A wire was sent to Dr. Jeffs, as follows:
Referring correspondence re this party last December. Strong representations made to immigration against Halifax decision. Wish you could arrange soon possible to have competent re-examination made and report.
These people arrived back in London, and then we have this letter from Dr. Jeffs:
I examined the above named in this office yesterday in the presence of Dr. Clark-
Dr. Clark is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health. He, Dr. Jeffs, and Dr. Parney were the three Canadian doctors who made the examination when the family got back to the old country:
-and we concur entirely in the report submitted by Dr. Rutherford.
It may be all right for my hon. friend to express his sympathy, and he has no greater sympathy than I have or the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) for this family in the circumstances in which they find themselves-


Mr. McGIBBON:: I hope you have a better way of showing your sympathy.


John Warwick King: I do not know
that my hon. friend has really grasped the point yet. Does he think it was a better way of showing sympathy to get up in the House of Commons and deal with this case as it has been dealt with here? I will be able to convince him and convince the house I think that that was a mistake, and was not a service to that family.
Now why did Doctor Rutherford refuse admittance to this child? He did it under section 3, paragraph (a), of the Immigration Act, which absolutely prohibits that type of individual from coming into Canada. My hon. friend from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) said yesterday that under section 4 the minister had the right to admit the child under special permit. He read part of the section, as follows:
The minister may issue a written permit authorizing any person to enter Canada, or having entered or landed in Canada to remain therein without being subject to the provisions of this act.
The act goes on further to provide:
Such permit shall be in the form A of the schedule to this act, and shall be expressed to be in force for a specified period only-


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I read that.


John Warwick King: It goes on:
-but it may at any time be extended or cancelled by the minister in writing. Such extension or cancellation shall be in the form AA of the schedule to this act.
That is subsection 1 of section 4. Subsection 2 of section 4 provides, and I ask my hon. friends to get this section:
A return of all such permits with particulars and names therefor, issued during the year, shall be made by the minister to parliament within thirty days of its meeting.
Why is that provision there? It is in order that parliament may judge whether that section of the act is being properly carried out.


Robert James Manion: And not abused.


John Warwick King: Then section 18, which is the controlling section, and which my hon. friend failed to read, deals with cases where no appeal is allowed from the board. That is the section under which the Minister of Immigration dealt with this case, and he is quite right in saying that he had no authority to admit the child. Section 18 provides:
There shall be no appeal from the decision of such board of inquiry as to the rejection and deportation of immigrants, passengers or other persons seeking to land in Canada, when such decision is based upon a certificate of the examining medical officer to the effect that such immigrants, passengers or other persons are afflicted with any loathsome disease, or with a

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall
disease which may become dangerous to the public health, or that they come within any of the following prohibted classes, namely, idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics and insane persons: Provided always that Canadian citizens and persons who have Canadian domicile shall be permitted to land in Canada as a matter of right.
The history of this case is this. That child arrived on the steamer. The officer went on board and detected the child and said: This child cannot oome in under section 3. Having given that decision, and the board of inquiry having made their inquiry, the minister was precluded under section IS from exercising the discretion he might have had if the medical officer had failed to report and do his duty.


John Wesley Edwards: What then is the purpose of section 4 in the act?


John Warwick King: It has been found in practice, and I suppose this section was put in for that purpose, that people have passed through our lines of medical inspection and have gone on to their points of destination, and there have made associations which were able to bring from time to time certain suggestions to the minister that it would be a great hardship and very unfortunate. and not in the public interest, to deport an immigrant. That is why section 4 is there, to give the minister discretion. But this case having been detected on the steamer, and the medical officer having made his report, and the board of inquiry having made their report, the minister was precluded under section 18 from exercising the discretion he would otherwise have had under section 4.
I make this statement because I think the attack that has been made on the Minister of Immigration is very unfair. As far as I am concerned as Minister of Health I am prepared to take full responsibility for the decision of Doctor Rutherford in this case. I will go further and state for the benefit of those who may have any doubts about this case that if it is considered necessary I will have another examination made by competent men in Great Britain who are outside of our service altogether, and if it is found that this child should be admitted to Canada under our laws and regulations, there will be nothing put in the way of allowing that child to enter Canada and join the other members of the family.


Peter McGibbon: Was this child not
examined previous to coming to Canada?


John Warwick King: No. The curious
thing about that is that the report shows
and the mother states that although the mother and the four children were examined, the baby was not examined.


Robert James Manion: Even in these circumstances could not the Minister of Immigration have overruled the regulations because of the special circumstances regarding the family and permitted this child to remain here for six months?


John Warwick King: I do not think
so. It is an unfortunate condition. This is not the only case in Canada; there are other cases. On account of the medical officer having detected this child on shipboard and having reported the condition to the officers of the Immigration department, and the board of inquiry having sat on the case, the Minister of Immigration was precluded from exercising his discretion and it was necessary to return this child.


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: Before I essay to offer a comment on the budget presented to parliament by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) I desire to refer briefly to the address delivered in this chamber yesterday by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning). I do so not to criticize him for of all the men who sit on the government benches there is none for whom I have a higher regard than for the hon. gentleman who occupies the portfolio of railways and canals. Yesterday during the course of his very excellent speech, and all his speeches are excellent, he made a very vitriolic attack on the members of the Progressive group. As I listened to that attack the thought passed through my mind, How fleeting is memory, and how base is ingratitude 1 We who sat in this house in 1925 listened to far different speeches from hon. gentlemen opposite. Neither the Minister of Railways, nor any other supporter of the government down to the humblest back-bencher, in reference to that group took the position which the hon. minister himself adopted yesterday. From every comer of the government side there were flung at that group bouquets, panegyrics and laudations. Some of them went so far as to say that the Progressives were more advanced Liberals than the Liberals led by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, that their own party had strayed away from the narrow path of rectitude, and that the Progressives represented the real Liberalism so sorely needed by this country. Our friends opposite were so accommodating that they were willing for the Progressives to vote lack of confidence in the government, but they implored them not to vote the Liberal party out of



The Budget-Mr. Macdougall
power. As a result of those very friendly advances I am afraid that some members of the Progressive group were actually spoiled, as to-day we have, for example, the spectacle of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) arrogating to himself a monopoly of all public morality and all private virtue. Nevertheless, those blandishments were effective in 1926 when the government, in defiance of the popular will, were attempting to hang on to power by their eyelashes. But to-day the mask is thrown off, and we are told by a responsible spokesman of the government, the Minister of Railways, what the Liberal party really think of the Progressives. Henceforth my friends to the left and my friends in the Labour group know that whenever an organized labour or farmer nominee appears in an election his head will be hit by a bludgeon wielded by the Minister of Railways and his associates in the Liberal ranks. However, that quarrel is between the government and the Progressives.
May I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the masterly-might I say?-[DOT] adroit manner in which he has presented his budget. It is said of individuals that they mellow with advancing years and their prejudices become less pronounced. Well, that is hardly true of the hon. minister, because in the presentation of his budget he made ai excellent political speech, and I can well understand that my hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) will be quoting some of the figures there given-not for the information of the Canadian people, but rather to baffle them-whenever he is addressing the electors of his riding. As I say, I admire the adroit manner in which the Minister of Finance presented his budget. Speaking of the national debt, for example, he made no reference whatever to the first year and three months of office of the Liberal party-during which, making no allowance whatever for the obligations incurred on behalf of the Canadian National Railways, we had an increase in the national debt of $49,000,000. No, he commenced his five-year period after the lapse of that year and three months.
Then he declared that taxation had been substantially reduced. I saw my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) smile blandly as he heard the announcement-he always does smile blandly, but I think he smiled rather more blandly than usual on that occasion, because he knows differently. And there was tumultuous applause from the back benchers on the Liberal side. fMr. Macdougall.]


Mr. CASGRAIN:: And the front benchers
too.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Yes, and the front
benchers also. Now, what is the situation in regard to taxation? First, what are taxes? They are merely the amount of money collected by the government from the people either directly or indirectly. If you compare the amount of money taken from the people by the government that held power from 1916 to 1921 with the amount collected during the five-year period selected by the Minister of Finance, you will find that in this latter period the Liberal government extracted from the people in the form of direct and indirect taxes $416,000,000 more than was collected by their predecessors between 1916 and 1921-and two of those were war years. In other words, Mr. Speaker, for every single day that this government have held office they have increased the volume of taxation by $189,000. It is quite true that they did reduce certain specific taxes, but it is also quite true that in the majority of cases they had first raised those taxes. For instance, the Minister of Finance announced with great satisfaction that the government had brought the sales tax down to 3 per cent. That is, after labouring for six years they have brought the sales tax down to the point where they found it under a Conservative government in 1921. Then the minister says, in effect, to the Canadian people: Behold me, may I not stick a feather in my cap and crow, for see what I have accomplished in six years.
During the course of this debate we have had frequent references to the condition of the country, whether or not it is prosperous. In this connection certain hon. gentlemen opposite took a very extreme stand. According to them the millenium has at last arrived- Canada is literally a land overflowing with milk and1 honey; we are basking in the sunshine of prosperity. Certain other hon. gentlemen on this side of the house, not so friendly to the administration, seemed to adopt the ancient attitude that "no good can come out of Nazareth."-that no good works can be performed and no progress achieved under a Grit government. May I be pardoned. Mr. Speaker, if I dissociate myself from both of those views? In medio stat virtus is an ancient dictum, and probably as true as it is old. Whether Canada is prosperous or not will depend very largely on what constitutes a prosperous state. To say that Canada is prosperous because of a reported surplus in national bookkeeping is a dangerous, and oft times a fatal, mistake. A surplus is often illusory like Paddy's flea-when you go to put your finger on it you find it is not there.

The Budget-Mr. Mc.cdougall
Nor, sir, must we judge the prosperity and progress of a country by the annual reports of its large financial institutions. When all is said and done the only correct norm by which to judge real national progress and prosperity is by the conditions existing in the average humble home of the masses. If you want to find a proper standard of living by which to judge the prosperity of a land, you must go, not to the mart, to the financial institution or the mansion of the rich: you must go rather into the homes of the poor. Scotland's national poet might have had nations as well as individuals in mind when he penned these words so full of wholesome philosophy:
To make a happy fireside clime To weans and wife:
This is the true pathos, and Sublime of human life.
Let us see how much happier this government has made the fireside climes of the poor people of this country? There are only two ways in which they could have assisted the poor, namely, by inaugurating and keeping in force policies which would ensure to these people a continuity of employment at good wages, and also by instituting policies which would tend to reduce the cost of living in this land. Let us inquire what has happened in this regard. In 1922 the cost of living for a family budget, including foods, rent, clothing and so forth, was $20.67 per week. In December of last year it was $21.37, a slight increase. In other words, the government have not made happier fireside climes for the poor people of Canada so far as the cost of living is concerned. Well do I remember how the right hon. the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) used to bewail the condition of the poor. His heart used to bleed for the poor when he was in opposition, and he deplored the condition of the masses of the people who had such terrible burdens strapped to their shoulders. But what about wages? Someone may say that even if the cost of living has increased during the last six years wages have increased also, and that consequently the million industrial workers in Canada are better off. Let me point out in this respect that only 2 per cent of the industries of Canada employing over 200 men have not reduced wages during the last six years under this government. There were reductions in wages in 98 per cent of the industries employing more than the number of men I have stated, and some of these reductions ran as high as 50 per cent. That is the situation in regard to wages. Sixty per cent of the one million industrial workers in Canada to-day are receiving on an average only $17 a week, while the cost of living is $21.37.
That is the happy fireside clime which this Liberal government has made for the poor people of Canada during the last five or six years.
We talk a lot about immigration, but it is impossible for us to stimulate immigration, it is needless to expect immigrants to come to Canada, until we are first in a position to take care of our own industrial workers. Let us institute in this country a policy which will revive and tone up industry, a policy under which the working men of Canada can secure continuity of employment and receive good wages. That would be the best immigration advertisement we could give the world. After all, when you go to look for immigrants you do not expect to find them in the ranks of plutocracy; you do not expect wealthy men with large estates in Britain and other countries to come to Canada. You are looking for the poor man who is coming in search of work, and if you cannot provide him with work you will not get him. In the matter of immigration, as in all others, charily should begin at home. Let us first take care of our own industrial workers. Then if we have work to offer in this country, let us go to the United States where there are thousands of Canadian boys and girls, in Boston, New York, Detroit and other cities, and let us try to bring them back. If we have anything in Canada to offer, let us offer it first to our own people. I say that without wishing to disparage those who come from other lands. We want the right kind of immigrants to come to this country, but employment should be provided first for our own people before we undertake to recruit the ranks of the unemployed by bringing in immigrants when we have nothing for them to do. I would suggest that we make an earnest effort to bring back the boys and girls who have left the country. Let no one say that these young people went away because of the wanderlust. A very small percentage of them may have left through that impulse, but the real reason for the departure of the majority of them was the fact that they could not get employment in their native land. Offer them that employment to-morrow and they will return; and I am sure they would make better citizens than any immigrants we could bring from any foreign country. They have that spark of patriotism which they derive from being sons of the soil. After we have stimulated industry by means of a policy which will give employment to our own people, then in the matter of immigration I would urge that we make a thorough study of the work of our immigration agents in all parts of the world. Let us see what they are doing or whether they are doing

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall
anything, and let us have a report on immigration. Let us take immigration out of politics. I do not wish to be in any way offensive; I do not wish to wound the tender sensibilities of any man in this house; I do not wish to be caustic in my remarks regarding the Minister of Immigration. But I do submit that you cannot get blood out of a turnip; you cannot get constructive ideas from a tabula rasa. If, therefore, we want to get results let us have at the head of the immigration department a man who is alive from the neck up.
Coming from the maritime provinces, I can say that conditions there are somewhat better to-day than during the last six years. I am glad to be able to make that statement and I am prouder still of the fact that I wac one of the number who started the movement to secure the rights of those provinces, which movement to some extent has resulted in improved conditions. There is no doubt that the recommendations of the Duncan report which have been so far carried out have assisted the people of the maritime provinces very materially, and more important than anything else, perhaps, has been the psychological effect. But I notice that hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces supporting the government in this house-they are very few and they will be fewer the next time-when speaking, both in the house and outside, seem to take to themselves the whole credit for the movement which culminated in securing for the maritime provinces some of the rights to which they are entitled under confederation. I do not wish to play politics in this matter because, while the movement was given the support of the Conservatives in the mari-times, it also received the support of many Liberals. It was not, however, at first accorded the support of those who are the political leaders of Liberalism in the maritime provinces. It was not given the support of a single Liberal newspaper there, and from 1920 on, when the rights of the maritime provinces were being urged, those who said that conditions were deplorable, those who pointed out that our rights within confederation were 'being denied, were criticized, abused and derided in the Liberal press. We were depicted as pessimists, as blue ruinists, as maritime wreckers, and in the words of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), the whole business was Tory propaganda. But, sir, those who started that fight went into it with determniation, and they saw it through; they crystallized public opinion throughout the length and breadth of Canada in favour of the legitimate rights of the maritime provinces within confederation. That public opinion could not be ignored even by

the government, and as a result a commission was appointed to investigate the needs of the maritime provinces. The head of that commission was Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, who was first introduced to the maritime provinces by Hon. Edgar Nelson Rhodes, Premier of Nova Scotia, who had previously brought him to Canada to settle the coal strike in Nova Scotia. That commission was appointed; it went down to the maritime provinces, and I would remind this house that the commission did not pluck its findings out of the atmosphere, but went there as a tribunal to hear the case of the maritimes. A good case was presented, and every bit of evidence given before that commission was presented by representatives of the Conservative party in the maritimes. The only Liberals who appeared before that tribunal were a few men who came to plead the cause of secession, and I do not believe they were even representative of the Liberal party in the maritime provinces, at least, to be charitable I hope they were not.
At all events, as a result of this agitation and the masterly presentation of the case by Hon. Edgar Nelson Rhodes, Hon. J. B. M. Baxter, and the then Premier of Prince Edward Island, the findings of the Duncan commission were made and presented to the government, but as yet they have not been all fulfilled. One of them is of primary importance to the province of Nova Scotia; it vitally affects the industrial life of that province, and as yet it has not been dealt with in any shape or form. The Prime Minister gave his assurance that the recommendations contained in the Duncan report would be carried out in full; that has not been done as yet. Then, as though to make assurance doubly sure the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), the Don Quixote of New Brunswick politics, went down to St. John and delivered a speech in connection with the proposed bounty to the steel industry as recommended by the Duncan commission on page 38 of the report. In that speech the Postmaster General said that within the oourse of a few weeks an announcement would be made which would make every Nova Scotian feel glad. This announcement was to be in connection with the steel industry, and everyone interpreted that to mean an announcement to be delivered in the budget. It may be that the hon. gentleman was misquoted, as public men sometimes are; perhaps what he intended to say was that the budget would be brought down and that it would make every maritimer mad. However, we had the assurance of the Postmaster General that something would be done, and we had the assurance of the Prime

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall
Minister that something would be done with respect to the steel industry. So far nothing has been done.
Just at this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the house the importance of the steel industry to Canada or to the industrial life of any nation. It will be found that the industrial life of a nation is bound up with its steel and its coal. If we consider the industrial history of those nations which to-day occupy prominent places in the world with respect to power, influence, wealth and population, we will find that in every case they owe their commercial and industrial greatness to their vast deposits of coal and their steel industries. I might also point out that the Nova Scotia industry is the only steel industry having all its roots in British soil, the only one indigenous to the British Empire. As great and important as that industry is in times of peace it is much more so in times of war, and are we going to allow that industry to suffer atrophy and die? Would this government or any other Canadian government care to have the iron ore deposits of Newfoundland taken over by Americans? That is a situation which may come about if the industry is not properly fostered and protected. We are demanding that the plighted word of the Prime Minister be carried out with regard to the Duncan report; we demand that the assurance given by the Postmaster General be put into force and that this industry be assisted in the manner suggested by the Duncan report.
Let me point out the situation, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the steel industry in Sydney. My hon. friend the Postmaster General said an announcement would be forthcoming which would make every maritimer glad. Well, the budget does not contain anything for the Nova Scotia steel industry. Will it make the people of Nova Scotia glad, or will it make them mad, to know that six out of seven blast furnaces situated in Sydney are to remain idle, as has been the case ever since this government came into power? Will it make the people of Nova Scotia glad to know that the Sydney steel industry, which to-day is working at only thirty per cent capacity, will continue so to work? Will it make the people of Nova * Scotia glad to know that the shutters will remain on the windows of the homes of those workers who have invested all their savings in their little houses at Sydney Mines and Trenton? I fail to see that this budget will do very much for the steel industry of the maritime provinces, and before it is too late, before that industry is completely ruined, I appeal to the government of the day to do
what they should do and what they are decently bound to do by the professions of the Prime Minister of this country. I appeal to the government to assist this industry in accordance with the report of the Duncan commission.
In the province of Nova Scotia, as in the province of Alberta, we are very vitally interested in the question of a national fuel policy. A short time ago the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning)) asked what a national fuel policy was, just as his leader once asked what maritime rights were. I wish I had been in the house at the time, but I will answer that question now by saying that a national fuel policy is one under which Canadian coal will be burned, as far as humanly possible, by Canadian railways, Canadian industries and on Canadian hearthstones. In advocating such ia policy we in the maritimes join with you in Alberta; it is a crying shame and little less than a disgrace that $100,000,000 of good Canadian money should be sent to the United States year by year to give employment to American miners while our own miners in Alberta and Nova Scotia go idle, often leaving their wives and families without bread. I say that is a situation which should be corrected, and I sincerely hope that some effort will be made by this government to cope with that question. They have done nothing so far; we have brought up the question in this house time and time again, but absolutely nothing has been done. This government should go into conference with the accredited representatives of the Nova Scotia and Alberta governments and find out just what could be done to widen the zones of distribution for Alberta and Nova Scotia coal. I throw this out as a suggestion in the hope that the government will bestir themselves and do something for the solution of this problem which is, in the truest and best sense of the word, a national one.
Now although we are a little bit better satisfied in the maritime provinces on account of the somewhat more or less successful issue of the fight which we put up for maritime rights, I may say that the people of the maritime provinces have other requirements to be met besides those which have received attention under the report of the Duncan commission. We need an extensive program of branch line railway construction. In Nova Scotia four different branch lines at least are a necessity, because our transportation facilities are altogether inadequate. One is needed in the county of Richmond, one in the county of Colchester, one in Guys-

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall
borough, and one particularly in the county which I have the honour to represent and of which I wish to speak for a moment. I have the privilege of representing in this parliament a county which, perhaps, is just as rich in potential wealth as any county in this Dominion. It is estimated that we have in that county over two billion tons of coal, we have a variety of other mineral wealth, we have agricultural wealth, and our fisheries are very important. But unfortunately, there are in that county only sixty miles of railway extending from Point Tup-per to the town of Inverness. The other half of the county, containing extensive mineral wealth, important fisheries and excellent farming facilities, has no transportation facilities whatever. I appeal to the government, when they are making provision for the construction of branch railway lines, to give some consideration to the question of extending the railroad in question from Inverness to Cheticamp in order that the great deposits of mineral wealth already-referred to may be developed, and that the people may attain a greater degree of progress and prosperity than it is now possible for them to enjoy owing to the lack of transportation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my time is about up. But before I conclude there is one thought which I wish to express; it comes to me. perhaps, on account of the reference to my native county. If you visit that county you will not be impressed with industrial development owing to the failure of the government to adopt any policy calculated to bring that about. You will not be struck with the transportation facilities because the present government has failed to provide them. But there is one thing with which you will not fail to be impressed, and that is the spirit of cooperation, of amity, and of friendship which exists between the different races in that county. Four races are represented among the people-Irish, French, English and Scotch. Although of different racial origin, the people always co-operate and work together; and perhaps the most edifying thing is to see the rose, the fleur de lis, the thistle and the shamrock side by side and giving their sweetly blending aroma to that county, which claims those races as its own. That is the picture I should like to draw of Canada as a whole. We have different races, we have different groups, and different views; but when all is said and done-although we may not think so with the government at present in office-we have certainly a great country, a country of vast possibilities, a country which should present a myriad of op-
portunities to young Canadians so that they may play their part in helping this country to achieve its great and exalted destiny. I would ask in conclusion, that no matter to what party we give our political allegiance in Canada we should spread the message of confidence in our own country, the message of faith in its resources. I would ask further that we should try to spread the message of goodwill amongst our people so that no matter how they may differ in their outlook they may live at peace with their neighbours and cooperate to achieve the happy realization of our common hopes and wishes.
Mr. EDMOND G. ODETTE (East Essex): Mr. Speaker, before I entered the portals of this house I used to marvel at the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite in criticizing the budget brought down by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). This year I have marvelled anew at the contentions of hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly those on the front benches, who have undertaken to criticize the budget we are now considering. For instance the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), criticized the head of the Canadian National Railways. That hon. gentleman is an outstanding member of the legal profession, an ornament to the Canadian bar. Nevertheless he undertook to delve into the realms of railroad administration. Then there was the hon. member for Fort William, a soldier of renown, who criticized the department charged with the reestablishment of returned soldiers on the ground of increased expenditure. The same hon. member, who is a physician of distinction, and who saw service overseas, attempted to make a diagnosis of the ills of the automobile industry. We thus had two professional gentlemen criticizing the administration of public business in channels foreign to those with which they are supposed to be familiar. Finally one of the Toronto members, an outstanding business man, while engaged in the criticism of the budget, entered upon a consideration of the restaurant business.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It sounded pretty bad too.


Mr. ODETTE:: I shall have a word to say to the ex-minister from Lincoln before I conclude. The argument has been advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite that there is no surplus, and that our debt has not been reduced. These contentions were dealt with very effectively yesterday by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning). Now, in business, we are interested in quick results and tangible assets. Not one member opposite stated that the surplus of $55,000,000 did not

The Budged-Mr. Odette
exist. Well, it is a fact that that surplus does exist, and the estimates brought down cover appropriations to the extent of only $7,000,000 more than last year. Any school boy with a rudimentary knowledge of arithmetic can see, in the face of existing conditions, that this country is in a pretty healthy condition.
We find the hon. member for Fort William criticizing the government for appointing commissions and the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) asking the government to appoint another commission to study unemployment in his county. How is the government going to please hon. gentlemen opposite when one of them asks for a reduction in the number of commissions and criticizes them for appointing such bodies at all, and another gentleman on the same side asks for the appointment of still another commission with respect to bis own district?
The hon. member for Fort William took credit to himself for uttering a "destructive" speech, as he called it. I may say that as a new member I am amazed that any member of the Canadian parliament would take credit to himself for uttering a destructive speech. I want to tell the hon. member that the people of Canada would be inclined to consider his speech humorous rather than destructive.


Robert James Manion: The only way to deal with this government is humorously.


Edmond George Odette: I regret very much the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) was not in his seat when the hon. member for Fort William quoted the lines " Me and Gott."


Eccles James Gott: What does the hon. gentleman mean to be inferred from that?


Edmond George Odette: The hon. member for South Essex was not in the house or he would know the inference.


Eccles James Gott: What inference does he wish to draw?


Edmond George Odette: The hon. member for Fort William-


Eccles James Gott: I should like to have that retracted, Mr. Speaker.


Edmond George Odette: I will answer the hon. member for South Essex. The hon. member for Fort William in his speech the other night-


Eccles James Gott: That is not the point at all. What is the inference?


Edmond George Odette: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. I will tell the hon. gentleman the inference later on.


Eccles James Gott: That is an insult to the intelligence of this house. I ask that the remark be retracted.


Mr. SPEAKER (Mr. Marcil):: Unless the
hon. gentleman wants to rise to a point of order, he cannot interrupt now.


Eccles James Gott: I want to know from the hon. member for East Essex what inference he wishes the house to draw from his remark.


Edmond George Odette: The hon. member for South Essex can draw his own inference.


Eccles James Gott: I rise to a point of order. I demand that this remark be withdrawn.
M|r. SPEAKER (Mr. Marcil):	I do not
think there is any point of order.


Eccles James Gott: What right ha3 the hon. member to ask this house to draw an inference?


Edmond George Odette: If it will appease the hon. member for South Essex, I want to say that I think the hon. member for Fort William can disabuse his mind if he thinks that I have anything but the kindest feelings for both of my hon. friends.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. gentleman has no desire to answer the question I ask.


Edmond George Odette: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker; all my time will be taken up with interruptions from the hon. member for South Essex.


Eccles James Gott: The hon member for East
Essex will not use nearly all his time, have no fear.


Edmond George Odette: The hon. member for Fort William was particularly concerned in regard to the motor car industry and (he quoted statistics proving, I imagine to his satisfaction, that the motor car industry in Canada was not in a healthy condition. Not wishing to have happen to me what happened to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) when the hon. member for Fort William appealed to the chair, I will recall to the recollection of the house the figures quoted by the hon. member for Fort W'illiam and the words used by the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George and I will say they were the truth but not the whole truth. The hon. member for Fort William stated' that motor car production in Canada had decreased by 13 per cent. That is true. He stated that the export of motor cars from Canada had decreased by 23 per cent. That is true. He further stated that the importation of motor cars into Canada had increased by 28 per cent. That is true. The production of motor cars in Canada decreased during the last year
The Budget-Mr. Odette

for one reason and one reason only. The largest manufacturer of motor cars in the British Empire, the Ford Motor Company, was engaged in the gigantic task of bringing out an entirely new model and for nine months of last year the factory did not produce a single new car. Therefore, when we study these figures and when I tell the house that the production of the Ford Motor Company in 1926 amounted to over 50 per cent of the entire motor car production in Canada; that the Ford Motor Company produced more than all the other manufacturers combined, it will be realized that this apparent decrease of 13 per cent is really an increase on the part of the other motor car manufacturers of Canada. The decrease in exportation of cars is explained in the same way. More than 50 per cent of the production of the Ford Motor Company is for export and, consequently, if they were not producing cars, the exportation of cars from Canada naturally slumped'. The increased importation of cars is explained likewise. Canadian purchasers of motor cars, being unable to purchase Ford motor cars, purchased cheaper cars made in the United States and brought them here.
The motor car industry at the present moment seems to be in very good shape. The Ford Motor Company is increasing its production daily and of course is increasing the number of men employed by it. General Motors last year spent nearly $2,000,000 in factory extensions in the city of Oshawa, and may I say to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) that the General Motors plant located in the city of Walkerville is now in operation. I was twitted last year and asked why this plant was idle. May I ease his mind by telling him that the plant is now in operation and employing several' hundred men? May I ease the mind of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) who recently paid a visit to my constituency? She said that hundreds of men were standing without the gates of the General Motors plant looking for employment and hoping and praying that the plant would start operations.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I do not think I used
the word "pray."


Edmond George Odette: At all events they were
looking for work. That plant is now in operation and those several hundred men, I imagine, are employed, because I hold in my hand a statement prepared by the Border Cities chambers of commerce which says that employment last week in the border cities was 474 greater than it was the week previous. Therefore I imagine those men have found employment. The Chrysler Motor Car Com-
pany in \\ indsor is engaged at the present time in building new factory additions runnning well over a million dollars. In the city of Toronto the Willys-Overland Company are spending over a million dollars in new factory buildings to build motor cars in Canada. In the town from which I come, a concern engaged in the production of motor car parts has just recently completed a new factory costing between $200,000 and $250,000 to make motor car parts for Canadian cars. Let me relieve the mind of the hon. member for Fort William by quoting a statement by Mr. R. S. McLaughlin, president of General Motors, in regard to the automobile industry in Canada. This is what he said between Christmas of 1927 and the New Year in an annual review prepared by the Montreal Gazette:
_ Important steps were taken during 1927 to increase the content of Canadian labour and materials in cars fabricated in this country. Contracts involving millions of dollars for parts and materials were let for the first time in Canada. In 1926 it was said that 100,000 persons in the Dominion were dependent on the automotive and allied industries. In 1928 it is probable that there will be half again as many, exclusive of the thousands who are involved in the sale and servicing of cars through dealer organizations from coast to coast. There seems little doubt that the coming year will be notable not only for the passing of the million mark in automobile registrations but for the setting up of new records of production in the automotive industry in the Dominion.
I think the people of Canada will be more inclined to accept the opinion of R. S. McLaughlin than that of the hon. member for Fort William.


Robert James Manion: Might I inform my hon.
friend that it was not my opinion, but the opinion of the Department of Trade and Commerce of this government. That is what I quoted.


Edmond George Odette: I have disseminated what
I think is the whole truth.


Robert James Manion: Instruct the minister.


Edmond George Odette: The minister is not in the
motor car business, and I am, and probably I know the conditions existing in that industry. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) spoke of hotels being built throughout Canada to house foreign agents.


Robert James Manion: I did not say that at all.
Someone else may have, but I did not mention hotels.


Edmond George Odette: I am sorry, but the statement was made by some hon. gentleman opposite. Let me say that in Windsor, hotels are being built, and apartment houses, and not to house foreign agents. If hon. gentle-

The Budget-Mr. Odette
men would look closer, they would find that these foreign agents are tourists who have come over to Canada to visit this country, and they have not come here with any idea of robbing us, but rather to leave in this country many millions of dollars. Not only are hotels and apartment houses being built in Windsor and the border cities, but a large ramp garage is being erected there, and a large storage warehouse. A factory manufacturing electric refrigerators has also started in the border cities. A concern manufacturing golf balls is also starting there. Tobacco factories are *being erected in the district from which I come.


Eccles James Gott: How many tobacco factories?


Edmond George Odette: We will say a tobacco
factory. A concern to manufacture aeroplanes was organized last week in the border cities.


Eccles James Gott: Don't forget the new post office at Windsor.


Edmond George Odette: I hope the members in
the southeast corner of the house will not deem the district I represent ungodly when I tell them that a large factory to manufacture playing cards was completed there a week ago, and again with a fear of having my district called ungodly-*


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Do we look as righteous as that?


Edmond George Odette: I hope not. A brewery
has recently started in operation, and may I ask the hon. member for Fort William kindly to remember them when his commission is placing orders. Last but not least the Canadian Steel Corporation, the Canadian branch of the United States Steel Corporation, have started the production of steel in two large factories in Ojibway.	[DOT]


Mr. HEAPS:: Do they want protection?


Edmond George Odette: I do not know that anyone representing that company has been here making representations of any kind. In any event, they have announced that they are starting their plants in Ojibway and will manufacture steel in Canada.


Eccles James Gott: That was years ago.


Edmond George Odette: Would hon. gentlemen opposite -have the people in my district start woollen mills? The industries that I have enumerated are actually in operation or about to commence operations. Would you have us build woollen mills when1 in 1926 the American Woollen Company, of the United States, the largest manufacturers of woollen goods on this continent, lost $12,000,000 in one year?
Concern has been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite that the reduction in the sales
tax will not be passed on to the consumer. Last year when I spoke, the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) questioned whether the tax reduction on matches would be passed on to the consumer. I ask any hon. member if it is not a fact that matches are cheaper in Canada to-day than they were a year ago. I believe that the reduction in the sales tax will be passed on to the consumer, probably not in the case of an article costing ten or twenty-five cents, but let me call the attention of the house to this fact, that a motor car at a wholesale list price of $1,000 can be purchased in the city of Ottawa to-day ten dollars cheaper than it could be bought before the budget was brought down. It has been suggested, and I believe it is proposed in the amendment, that the sales tax should be removed in its entirety. Last year when I spoke on the floor of this house I advocated that the sales tax be entirely removed. Some hon. member may ask, why was it not removed? It was not removed for good and sufficient reasons. The wholesalers and retailers of Canada have their shelves stocked with goods, and if the sales tax were suddenly removed, they would sustain a loss. I want to say, however, that I believe the sales tax will be entirely removed and will be in the limbo of forgotten things before hon. gentlemen opposite ever occupy these benches.
The district from which I come has I think received this budget rather well. My own particular district of East Essex seems to approve generally of this budget, and I think my constituency is fairly representative of the country.


Eccles James Gott: Would the hon. gentleman
permit a question? He has referred at least a dozen times to "my constituency." I wish to tell him that he has only a lease on that constituency; it is not his.


Edmond George Odette: Probably I have a longer
lease on mine than the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) has on his.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member for East
Essex is not sincere in that remark.


Edmond George Odette: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the budget has been well received in East Essex, and I think that East Essex is quite representative of Canada. It is largely industrial and agricultural.
We have heard a great deal of criticism of the budget, but very little has been of a constructive nature. In the district from which I come may I say that politics are forgotten as soon as the elections are over and religion never enters into the picture at
The Budget-Mr. Odette

all. The farmer and the manufacturer get along hand in hand; I think the hon. member for South Essex will bear me out in that.


Eccles James Gott: That is the first real remark
you have made to-day.


Edmond George Odette: I am sorry the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) is not in his seat. I would not enter into a discussion with him as to the management of restaurants, but probably all members of this house are not aware of the fact that the hon. member for East Toronto is president of one of the largest rubber manufacturing companies in this country, and his industry was complimented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) for not taking full advantage of the tariff, for not hiding behind the tariff. That is a most commendable thing, but why should not his company sell their tires for eight or ten per cent above the American price when crude rubber and raw cotton enter Canada free? The hon. member to whom I refer is president of the Dunlop Tire and Rubber Company. May I quote the remarks of another gentleman engaged in the rubber business, Mr. F. A. Seiberling, who has been a leader in the rubber industry of the world for the past twenty-five years. Mr. Seiberling has recently organized a company in Canada, and this is what he has to say regarding Canada's new technique of living:
A short time ago I had the privilege of taking part in the organization of the Seiberling Rubber Company of Canada, and of experiencing the friendliness of a Canadian welcome to a new enterprise.
I had an opportunity to study Canadian life at close range, and to compare my present observations with impressions gained upon a previous visit some years ago.
It seems to me that something has happened to Canadian people-something I can only describe as a new technique of living. They work harder and play more intensely, travel faster, live a fuller, richer life than ever before.
Perhaps all this is due to the fact that life in general is moving at a faster pace. It may be the natural reaction to a national feeling of optimism that comes from good crops, greater industrial developments, enviable achievements in the mining world.
Perhaps it is the result of living in an atmosphere of prosperity pointing to a decidedly promising future.
Whatever is the cause, wherever lie the reasons, Canada gives to visitors a profound impression of cheerfulness, enterprise and lusty, vigorous growth-an impression that is winning for her the pronounced respect and interest of the whole world.
Will hon. members please compare those remarks with the remarks of another leader in the rubber industry, the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman).

During the course of this debate we have heard a great deal about the ills of Canada, and I think something should be said as to how we can cure some of them. In my opinion the main requisite is cooperation. The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher) who moved the subamendment desires, I imagine, to do what he can. for the Dominion generally, and particularly for his constituents. Might I ask him what part he has played in connection with the troubles of the tobacco growers in southwestern Ontario? Members of parliament representing ridings in southwestern Ontario, regardless of their political affiliations, are working hand in hand to assist the tobacco growers to market an unsold crop of nine or ten million pounds of tobacco. The hon. member for East Lambton was notified of meetings to be held for the purpose of finding a solution of these troubles. Members on this side representing West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) and Kent (Mr. Rutherford), and members on the Conservative side-the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson) and myself-joined hands in the effort to solve the problem, with the result that the Ontario tobacco pool, a cooperative marketing organization, was formed1.	Just to show hon.
members in the southeast comer that all manufacturers are not brigands, I hold in my hand a letter from a farmer in Essex county, a director of the new pool, urging me to be present at a meeting of the pool. These are his words:
We must have you present, for in this district you are considered the father of the tobacco pool.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That farmer would not be a Liberal?


Edmond George Odette: I do not think so.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It sounds like one.


Edmond George Odette: Well, probably all the
farmers down there are Liberals. What I mean to imply is this:	I do believe that the
manufacturers and business men generally should cooperate with the farmers of this country, because after all if our farmers are not prosperous the wheels of our factories are not turning. I would ask hon. members to visit Essex county. I am satisfied they would find what I state to be true. We do believe in cooperation, we do believe in unity. We have heard a lot about national and racial unity. Let me make a plea for occupational or vocational unity. In the part of the country that I come from the Border Cities chamber of commerce is working in the closest cooperation with the Farm Bureau

The Budget-Mr. Gott
of Essex county. We recognize no race distinction, no distinction of creed, no distinction of vocation in Essex county; and I trust that that feeling will .pervade the entire Dominion. I believe that if we had more of the spirit of cooperation not only in this house but throughout the whole country Canada would be much better off.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the budget brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance was well received in my district. I believe it was well received throughout the Dominion. May I say to him that if in the succeeding years of the life of this parliament he brings down similar budgets providing for lower and lower taxation, I do not think that hon gentlemen opposite need get ready to move over here for some time to come.
Mr. E OGLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette), in the course of his speech was complaining of not having enough time, I ventured to interrupt and tell him that I did not think he would consume his full forty minutes. I did so because I know him so well-I know how he is inclined to exaggerate.
My first remark in reply to the hon. gentleman, significant though it may be, is the result of the inference that I draw from his words. I tell him that I am not a traitor to tradition, and I think his speech this afternoon is his first preparation for hangman's day.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope that is not to be taken literally.


Eccles James Gott: That is the inference I draw from my hon. friend's speech, and at any time I can convey it to him privately, but he well knows what I mean. The budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), has caused me keen disappointment, due to the fact that the government has failed to take cognizance of, or even to recognize, the most alarming and unfortunate condition that has ever faced the agricultural industry of western Ontario. Although in possession of firsthand knowledge of the deplorable and pitiable circumstances that surround the tobacco growing industry in western Ontario, the government has failed to take action. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) made two personal visits to the tobacco growing section; his deputy, Dr. Grisdale, made three or more visits, and they recognized instantly the appalling situation that confronts our tobacco growers of that section, and more particularly those in the riding that I have the honour
to represent. They were privileged to meet in the city of Chatham five thousand tobacco growers clamouring for assistance. The main meeting held in the theatre was made up of nearly two thousand men, while the overflow meeting in the armouries filled the building to capacity. I do not want to charge the Minister of Agriculture with being insincere-I hold him in too high esteem and regard him as being too sincere to suggest that he and other hon. members opposite would seek to strengthen their political standing through the misfortunes of others. But I do hope that if the time ever comes during my term as a servant of the people that my success depends upon the misfortunes of others I will go down to ignominious defeat.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Explain.


Eccles James Gott: I will explain something later to the hon. member for East Elgin.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Mr. Speaker, there is no member for East Elgin; there is no such constituency.


Eccles James Gott: I am very glad to answer any questions, but in making his interjection the hon. member did not act properly. He did not rise to make it.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Where is the hon. member for East Elgin?


Eccles James Gott: Pardon me if I misname the hon. gentleman's constituency. Is Elgin correct?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: No; the hon. member is not right yet. His geography is wrong; it is West Elgin.


Eccles James Gott: The question is one that should not be tainted with party politics, and I am disappointed that hon. members on the government benches-


Mr. McMILLAN:: I rise to a point of
order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shut up.


Hewitt Bostock: What is the point of
order?


Thomas McMillan: The hon. gentleman is reading his speech.


Eccles James Gott: The question is one that
should not be tainted with party politics, and I am disappointed that hon. members on the government benches, who took such an active part in the tobacco campaign in western Ontario, did not accept the opportunity of drawing forcibly to the attention of this parliament the true condition. I say the true condition, for I believe that had these hon. gentlemen supported me, as I had hoped they would,
The Budget-Mr. Gott

*when they had an opportunity on the speech from the throne, such a strong plea could have been presented- as would have compelled the hon. the Minister of Finance to recognize our just recommendations.
I ask the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford); I ask the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn); I ask the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor); and I ask the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette): How can they justify to their constituents, for whom their hearts bled but two short months ago-how can they justify their silence in this parliament? Was there nothing that the government could do? Was there nothing that the government should do? Apparently my presentation of the situation did not meet with the approval of these hon. gentlemen, and I realized that being in the opposition my effort was wasted unless I could1 stir the representatives of the tobacco growing constituencies either to support or to oppose my recommendations. But not a word. They were loud and outspoken on the hustings, but in parliament, where consideration could be given and remedies applied, they at once became disinterested representatives.
Now let me ask these hon. gentlemen whether they approve or disapprove of the recommendations that I made to the government? Or were they interested enough in the problem to read my remarks? Let me ask them to give an expression one way or the other on the three recommendations that I made:
1.	A more extensive cooperative marketing system;
2.	A reduction of the excise tax on cigars and cigarettes;
3.	A higher duty on flue cured and other tobacco entering Canada from foreign countries.
These are the three major factors that enter into the solution of our tobacco problem. I asked for these conscientiously believing that each and every one was paramount to the solution of our troubles.
The excise on cigarettes is enormous-so excessive that we are sending hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to turn the wheels of industry in a foreign country, and bootlegging in cigarettes is flourishing. The manufacturer loses, the grower loses, the labourer loses, and our money goes out of the country never to return; and our laws force the average cigarette smoker at the border to hold our customs laws in contempt. Newspapers have contained articles from time to time on the desire of our Canadian authorities to cooperate with the United States government- through certain exports-which would facilitate

better law enforcement in the United States. Let me say to our authorities that we can obtain something in return for this extension if we ask it. We could ask that concessions be extended on an equal basis, and thereby we might be able to ascertain who the Canadians are that make such huge purchases of cigarettes in the city of Detroit and elsewhere. We might also be able to obtain from the large department stores information as to who are their best Canadian customers, and the extent of their purchases. Department stores in Detroit have dressing rooms, not especially for Canadians, but practically for them, in which Canadian women, and prominent Canadian women too, change or conceal their newly purchased garments in preparation for the contravention of the Canadian Customs laws, which follows Canadian purchases in American cities.
Getting back to the "bubble" budget-a budget that seems to have had Nero as the fiddler while Rome burned, a budget wherein I fail to see a provision that is of material assistance to any section of Canada-I would ask the Minister of Finance whether he is in any sense governed by the recommendations of the tariff board and if so, to what extent? Did the tariff board recommend a reduction in excise on cigars or cigarettes? Did the tariff board recommend a seasonal tariff on fruits and vegetables? If so, why was the minister not governed by the recommendation of the board? The board had volumes of evidence to substantiate the institution of a reasonable and seasonal tariff on fruits and vegetables. If the board did not make the recommendation, then I say that in view of the solicitation they had, and the evidence that was placed before them, they are an expensive and useless instrument and should be discharged. If the board did not recommend a reduction in excise on cigars and cigarettes, then, Mr. Speaker, I desire to repeat that, in view of the representations they had, they are useless and expensive, and harmful to some of the better interests of our great Dominion.
As regards tobacco products, I quote from the Canada Year Book:
Re: Tobacco Products 1901
Per capita consumption of tobacco: 2.375 pounds.
Per capita taxation on tobacco: $0.86.4.
Taxation per pound per capita: $0.36.4.
Per capita consumption of tobacco: 3.468 pounds.
Per capita taxation on tobacco: $3.11.8.
Taxation per pound per capita: $0.90.2.

The Budget-Mr Gott
Increase, 1901 to 1926 in tobacco taxation per pound per capita: $0.53.8, which is 148 per cent increase.
We therefore find:
Tax increase on liquors, per gallon per capita: 53 per cent.
Tax increase on tobacco, per pound per capita: 148 per cent.
Hence the consumer of tobacco has been severely penalized, and the time has come when, if the tobacco industry is to survive, the government must give some relief in the form of reduced taxation; otherwise the government must admit that they care but little for one of the largest industries in the Dominion of Canada. I will submit statistics to prove the size of the manufacturing section of the industry, and try to impress upon the Finance minister, if such a thing is possible, the handicap under which they operate as regards imposts levied and maintained by our Dominion government, from which the Finance minister has no desire to grant them any relief at the most critical time in their existence.
A spirit of optimism apparently prevailed in the fall of 1927, and the Canadian Cigar and Tobacco Journal, published in Toronto, contained in its October number the glaring headlines:
Cigar Industry Gains Receptive Hearing in Ottawa and Hopes Run High.
The only fault I find with that headline is that the word "receptive" probably should have been "deceptive." The article is as follows:
Hopes now are higher than at any time in recent years for a reduction in cigar taxation which will be sufficiently substantial to reduce prices and increase consumption.
Taking their case for the first time to the new' tariff board on Tuesday, September 20, the cigar manufacturers laid before that body a brief which quite evidently won its sympathy. It was in some respects the most elaborate brief which they have yet prepared and possibly the most elaborate the new board has received. Statistics obtained from a variety of sources have been compiled by Mr. C. S. Richardson into a convincing statement of the cigar manufacturers' case; short, pointed, logical yet complete in every respect.
The brief itself and the drafts which accompanied it are reproduced just as presented on the following five pages of this issue. One little detail which indicated the care taken to make their case impressive is the fact that the applicants W'ent to the expense of having the brief set up in type and printed, giving an ample and readable supply, not only for members and officials of the board, but for members of the customs and finance staffs as well as for press representatives.
So complete was the brief that practically nothing in the way of supplementary oral evidence was needed. A general discussion followed which had more to do with ways and means that w'ith information.
This is too lengthy to quote further.
Canada's cigar industry is back to a production basis of a quarter century ago; factories are reduced in number by sixty per cent; trade is staggering under economic burdens which react adversely to the government and its revenue. This, in brief, is a picture of present day conditions in the cigar business in Canada. By itself, the cigar industry is not a dying one, yet it is being slowly strangled by conditions beyond its control conditions which had their being in 1914 when war time levies were imposed on it for war taxation purposes, levies which have been added to and continued to the present. The proper readjustment of these duties will afford a great measure of relief to the entire industry from grower to manufacturer, without seriously lessening the revenue derived by the government. The schedule proposed by the manufacturers, while not drastic, affords some measure of relief and should go a long way in the rehabilitation of the industry.
A word picture of present day conditions has been presented, and a relief measure likewise has been brought forward for consideration. High lights of the dual presentation tell their own story and bring their own answer. On one hand we have "more than 42 per cent reduction since war tax imposed." There were 253 cigar factories in 1913 and 106 in 1927. and Canadians are smoking only one-quarter as many cigars per capita as Americans. Scores of old cigar firms have been eliminated from business and government revenues seriously curtailed. On the other side, we find United States duties cut in half in 1926, with 500,000,000 increase in production in the first year of the new United States taxes. There was a 50 per cent cut in American duties with a reduction of only 11 per cent in revenue, and Canadian leaf growers are benefiting by the lower taxes.
This is a precedent to support the claim of the cigar manufacturers for lower taxes, and there are records to substantiate their contentions. The United States, like Canada, sought to bolster revenue returns by increasing its duty on cigars, but notwithstanding the comparatively favourable condition of the trade in the United States, the war time levies throttled not only the industry but actually the government revenue. The United States gave relief by a 50 per cent cut in 1926, and to-day the big bulk of the cigars consumed in the United States are taxed at a lower rate per thousand than they were fifteen years ago.
* With this as a precedent, Mr. Speaker, and with uncontrovertible figures of the Inland Revenue department showing a drop from
The Budget-Mr. Gott

294,772,000	in 1913 to 173,912,000 in 1927 to back their claim they have confidently placed before the tariff board a long list of requests, all of which are reasonable. I am unable to put them on Hansard; I have not time to read into the record, but they are contained in the brief, given to that wonderful body, the tariff board.
Since the opening of the present century the cigar production of Canada has shown a tremendous fluctuation having gone from
141.000.	000 in 1901 to the high level of
294.000.	000 and back to 166,000,000. The production has been:
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
1916.
1917.
1918.
1919.
1920.
1921.
1922.
1923.
1924.
1925.
1926.
1927.
141.096.000
151.780.000
168.290.000
180.485.000
186.110.000
193.827.000
154.253.000
200.133.000
192.105.000
205.820.000
227.585.000
252.718.000
294.772.000
288.220.000
236.867.000
207.648.000
239.752.000
254.446.000
223.295.000
270.108.000
214.263.000
176.983.000
182.677.000
195.662.000
166.851.000
173.477.000
173.912.000
In 1914, immediately following the entry of Canada into the world war, the first increase in duties was imposed. It was a $1 increase on the previous tax of $2 per thousand. For three years that remained, but in 1917 the duty was doubled to $6 per thousand. This, too, was a direct war measure, specified as such and imposed as such. In the budget of 1922 the excise duty was reduced again to $3 per thousand, but the surcharges of excise tax now in force were
Merchandise cost of goods:
Imported raw leaf	
Domestic raw leaf	
All other tobacco	
Total raw tobacco	
Other ingredients	
Total merchandise cost of goods
Manufacturing costs:
Salaries	
Wages	
Fuel	
Miscellaneous	 ,
Total manufacturing costs [Mr. Gott.l
then imposed. Now everything but the five cent cigars-those which sell to the trade under $40 per thousand-pays a tax even higher than before on account of the sales tax provision, which has been levied in its varied amounts against the duty-paid price of the cigars.
That wonderful responsibility-dodger, the tariff board, also heard the request of the cigarette manufacturers for a decrease in taxes, and a decrease in taxation is the only answer to the smuggling of American cigarettes. It is a question of whether Canada wants to help its retailers earn legitimate profits or whether it prefers to make law breakers out of peaceful citizens. It is certainly doing the latter; thousands of Canadian women as well as men, girls as well as boys, have deliberately defrauded our customs department of duties on smuggled cigarettes. It is being done every day, at every port, and without very much inconvenience to anyone except the Canadian retailer. He is making hardly any money on Canadian cigarettes, and he is losing money on the smuggled United States product.
Canada's merchant marine competes with steamers of other countries on a price basis, and every effort is made to bring down the price in order to get the business. The same principle should be applied in all departments; we should not force on one department the burdens and inefficiency of others. But that will be the state of affairs so long as taxation forces prices in a home country to be so high above the prices of another country that the cigarettes of the latter are preferred, and citizens will wilfully make lawbreakers of themselves in order to obtain them.
Reports of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics show that in 1923 there were 148 factories in Canada employing 8,700 people manufacturing tobacco, the total value of the output being $59,840,010. This represents the total costs of operating the 148 factories reporting:



$ 9,415,291 4,519,690 21,236 $13,956,217 816,487 $14,772,704 2,956,689 4,610,984 135,001 5,982,407 13,685,081 MARCH 1, 192S

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Gott
Wraps, containers, etc.:
Lead and tinfoil	
Cigarette paper, cigar bands	
Cigar boxes	
Shipping cases, etc	
Boxes, cartons, wraps, labels	
All other materials	
Total wraps, labels and containers
Customs and excise:
Customs on imported leaf	
Excise on domestic leaf	
Excise on manufactured	
Excise on smoking tobacco	
Excise on chewing and snuff	
Excise on cigars	
Excise on cigarettes	
Total customs and excise	
276,775
172,854
540,311
319,089
766.358
103,387
3,178,774
6.208,399
31,181
322,954
2,591,017
1,447.312
915^116
13,884,488
25,400,467
Total cost of manufactured tobacco..
[Stage Direction]
The first item in the last group, duty on imported leaf, amounting to $6,208,399, could be eliminated by a higher tariff. There would then be no importation, and our Canadian growers would produce the leaf.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Eccles James Gott: That is not an intelligent
interruption. I am sorry the Liberal members from western Ontario are adopting the attitude they do with respect to such a very serious question as this.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: What was the interruption?


Eccles James Gott: I did not hear it; it was
not audible.
Imported raw leaf. Domestic raw leaf
Products
Chewing-plug	
Chewi ng-other	
Smoking-plug	
Smoking-package	
Smoking-twist	
Smoking-leaf	
Smoking-other	
Snuff	
Cigars (number)	
Cigarettes (number)	
Stems and cuttings	
All other products	
Total	
The values just given are, of course, factory values. The price to the consumer would include these values plus the cost of distribution through the wholesale and retail trades. The per capita consumption of


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Then what are you complaining about?


An hon. MEMBER:: It was not even
sensible.


Eccles James Gott: My hon. friend sitting neat
me suggests that it was not even sensible. Continuing my subject may I say that the amount of capital invested in the industry is given as $44,348,333. Of this only $8,213,094 was in fixed assets such as land, buildings, fixtures, machinery and tools. The balance, $36,133,239, was in materials on hand, stocks in process, cash, and trading and operating accounts.
Some idea of the cost of the raw leaf to the factories and of the prices received for the manufactured product is shown by the following quotations of the 1925 business:
Lbs. used	Price paid	Price per lb.15,234,855	$ 9,415,291	61.8 cents15,259,693	4,519,690	29.6 cents30,494,548	Lbs.	Valuemanufactured	Value	per lb.5,707,632	$ 5,711,878	$1.0007356,671	372,372	3,134,342	3,393,820	1.082711,247,195	13,595,674	1.208855,348	27,248	.49234,015,006	1,272,575	.316919,000	7,760	.4084724,429	872,985	1.2050174,286,000	10,442,351	.0599 each2,079,036,000	23,964,031 25,425 153,891 59,840,010	.0115 each
tobacco in Canada is given by the Canada Year Book as 3.12 pounds.
As shown by the figures which I have quoted, the cost of manufacturing tobacco in Canada for 1923 was $57,037,026, the cus-
The Budget-Mr. Gott


Eccles James Gott: The state of Ohio has recently presented what is known as a farm relief plan, which was advanced by the Ohio farm bureau federation. The plan seems to have real merit and, in addition to being sponsored by the Ohio farm bureau federation, has the backing of the executive committee of the Ohio state grange. The plan is for giving equality to agriculture. It is claimed:
1.	That the plan would give benefits to farmers on crops of which a surplus is produced.
2.	That it would discourage over-production.
3.	That it would afford protection against competing commodities.
4.	That it would not discriminate against some groups of farmers in favour of others.
5.	That it would not set up intricate machinery for its operation.
6.	That it would encourage cooperative marketing.
7.	That it would safeguard the treasury and the cooperatives against loss.
The outline of the plan is as follows-and I would suggest that in the interest of agriculture in our Dominion a study of the newly instituted Ohio plan be made to ascertain its merits:
1.	A federal farm board, headed by the secretary of agriculture, to act (in like manner as the federal reserve board) in the stabilization of markets, in general supervision of other boards set up, and to be in charge of federal funds appropriated for marketing purposes.
2.	Advisory councils for each commodity, to be selected by the federal farm board, members to be nominated by recognized co-operatives. These councils to find the facts as to each particular commodity and present them to the public and the farmer-grower.
3.	Commodity stabilization corporations to be set up for each commodity to centralize control and responsibility. These to be formed from the co-operatives handling the same commodity and be selected by the co-operatives subscribing to the capital stock of the commodity stabilization corporation.
4.	$300,000,000 revolving fund; $50,000,000 to be loaned to co-operatives to purchase plants or loaned on physical properties already owned by co-operatives; $250,000,000 to be ioaned for the purchase of farm products by the commodity stabilization corporations upon approval of the federal farm bureau.
6. The federal farm board to be required to find the average yearly production of farm commodities of which the United States produces a surplus for export and the estimated production for the current year. The full amount of the debenture to apply only in the crop years in which the surplus is the average or below the average. When the yearly production is estimated by the federal farm board to be above the average, then the debenture to be reduced in proportion that the year's production exceeds the yearly average.
7.	All imported agricultural products, which compete with United States agricultural products, either directly or indirectly, to bear a sufficient tariff rate to afford the home product protection, and, at the same time, furnish additional revenues to assist in caring for the debentures issued.
8.	A tariff commission, or some other body, to be created, given the duty of finding the estimated added cost, by reason of the application of the debenture, of the production of animal products, and the president to be given power to increase the tariff on these animal products in the proportion as the debenture plan increases their cost of production.
No country, Mr. Speaker, can be built up on free trade or low tariff. Resources cannot be developed; and to be properly developed they must be developed by those most vitally interested and concerned.
Was there ever a time in the history of the world when a certain section of a great country was crying aloud for industrial expansion and development like western Canada is to-day? Huge coal resources of unknown depths awalit development. It is one of the most fertile and most abundant producing wheat sections in the whole world, producing the finest grade and the finest quality of grade wheat in the world, and millions of bushels leave that great country un ground.
The need of the west to-day is immigration. To have immigration we must or should have employment, to have employment we must have industry and if the God^given, overabundant resources of western Canada are to be properly developed it will be by and through a network of industrial activities reaching to all sections of that land of opportunity.
Go west, young man-go west. How often have we heard the admonition, but that admonition is not so freely given to-day since free trade proclivities took hold of the people there, which is bound to have, if it has not already had, a disheartening and bad effect on a country so badly in need of industrial expansion as much as any section of any country in the world to-day.
The prosperity that has been enjoyed by the western Canadian people has not come through free trade, tariff tinkering, or a lowering of duties, but by and through a protective policy; and what the west needs to-day, as do all farming communities in Canada, is not the removal of the tariff duties but the implementing of certain duties and protection for the produce of the farm and the product of the farmer's labour.
If the fanner is worth having in Canada, his produce and the product of his labour is worth having, retaining and protecting, with a policy

The Budget-Mr. Gott

quite similar in effect to that of our closest competitor, the United States. In 1924, alone $494,349,000 of farm produce and foodstuffs were imported from the United States, and despite this the Canadian farmer is not standing up for his just rights in asking and demanding that these importations, to some extent at least, should cease. These high importations are of produce and foodstuffs which could and would have been produced in Canada had the proper protective policy for the farmer been in operation.
The farmers in Canada, many of them, have taken the wrong view, and it is time that they began to realize that in a protective policy, and in that alone is the only reasonable cure and sure remedy for the serious ills which face them. Heretofore there has been a movement seeking tariff changes, which will wreck the industrial structure of our centres if granted, and which gives not a thought to the proper side of the solution that would revolutionize the most basic industry in our land.
The west is the land of opportunity, a wonderful section of the greatest dominion in the greatest empire the world has ever known, and to 'the people of that great country I say: Do not be led astray through improper conviction, no matter how attained. Study your economic ends from the viewpoint of a sure, certain and sound progress which will ultimately lead to an industrial' expansion, the network of which will make western Canada the livest, busiest and most progressive section of our great Dominion, free from dissension, and content to foe and remain the hive of industry that it should be, taking and maintaining its place along with and among the leading industrial, commercial and progressive sections of the British Empire, where coal can be supplied direct and at short haul from the abundant mines of the province of Alberta.


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I do not propose at the outset to deal at any length with the tariff proposals except, in passing, to express the acknowledgments of the onion growers for the provisions which will enable them to bring onion plants freely into Canada. The reason why this schedule was applied for was that these minute plants, no thicker than a bristle, are not produced in Canada; they are produced in a warmer climate to the south. They are used in lieu of seed, which seed does come in free, and they are used to plant out a certain number of acres in the onion growing district in the southern valleys of British Columbia with the object that a portion of the tonnage may reach the market early, and so reduce the tonnage which has to come forward at the time of the main crop in September and October.

The marketing of our perishable products continues to be the greatest problem. Some progress has been made of recent years, but until that difficulty is surmounted it will not be possible for the producer really to earn a decent living, nor can that development which has taken place be extended lucratively. It is no longer a question of whether these fruits and vegetables can be grown in southern British Columbia; for that has been demonstrated at provincial, dominion and imperial exhibitions. It has even been demonstrated on more than one occasion that the premier dessert apple of the whole British Empire is grown in that country. But the difficulties are not yet all surmounted. Under the cooperative movement, progress was made, but from the very fact that the cooperative movement received a considerable amount of support, and that the smaller amount of crop to be sold was handled by the independent shippers, an unfair share of the difficulties of marketing remained with, the cooperative shippers. Let me illustrate.
British Columbia has always looked upon the three prairie provinces as its domestic market, and it has been the attempt of each of the independent shippers, although marketing but a very small fraction of the total crop, to get rid of their produce in that market rather than have to bear their share of the export market. Our apples, for instance, have to go west to the Pacific cost, round by sea through the Panama, and thence to the European markets, where they come into competition with the apples from the three western states on the Pacific coast. That area where the fruit grows in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon is but a continuation in the United States of the similar area in British Columbia. They produce seven times what we produce and our apples have to compete in the open export markets of Europe with theirs. As a consequenece, the independent, shipper, each marketing so small a quantity, was more than often successful in getting rid of that quantity on the more lucrative prairie market, leaving an altogether unfair burden on the co-operatives with the amount they had to market.
Progress was made also by means of round table conferences between the cooperative shippers and the independent shippers, but the agreements so arrived at always fell down on one point, and that was that there was no means of enforcing the arrangements arrived at. However, in 1925 and 1926 there was harmonious working between the co-operatives and the more responsible of the independents, but no sooner had orderly marketing arrangements been made in the domestic market than

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
some independent within the independents, some grower-shipper marketing but two or three cars, or, worse still, several small shippers marketing small quantities, would send their cars rolling into those markets in regard to which arrangements had been made in an orderly fashion, and chaos resulted. An attempt would be made by telegraph to cut off those rolling cars, to deflect them perhaps to Swift Current or north to Edmonton, but in each of those centres of marketing there was an adequate quantity of fruit coming forward, and chaos followed there also. I think it is quite evident that the only possible mode of success is through orderly marketing. Chaotic marketing never produced any good for any part of the industry, and the trouble almost invariably was that when waste occurred it had to be borne by the producer.
Last winter another scheme was tried. I want to refer to this new plan at short length, because although it has not primary connection with this parliament, it has secondary connection, and it has received a certain amount of criticism, some of which I consider as being founded on a lack of knowledge. A federation of shippers was formed under an act of the British Columbia legislature. The act was not a government measure; the bill was put forward by a private member; it received - a good deal of attention; was hammered into shape in the legislature, and was finally passed by a considerable majority It was a very good thing, I think, that the attempt to include in the measure other kinds of produce, such as milk, was not entertained. This new scheme was the result of work among the fruit growers in the Okanagan valley, and I think it would have been a great pity if other perishable products had been brought within the scope of the act, which of course was of an experimental nature.
The federation of shippers appoints two members to a committee of direction of three, one representing the co-operative movement, the other representing the independent shippers, and the third, who is also its chairman, is appointed by the provincial government. In the few minutes at my disposal there is not time to go in detail into this measure, but I will define the chief functions of the committee under three heads. In the first place, the committee of direction issues licenses to shippers of fruits anid vegetables within its prescribed area without which no shipper may ship; in the second place, the committee directs the distribution of the crops; in the third place, after the most careful examination it announces at what minimum price each variety and grade of fruit or vegetable shall start on the market.
56103-59J
Now, it is evident that before the committee can form an opinion as to these matters it must do a very considerable amount of work, and I think, that undobtedly the main credit for whatever success has been attained in the first year of the committee's operations is due to the Hon. F. M. Black, at one time provincial treasurer of Manitoba, selected by the government of British Columbia to act as chairman. He and his colleagues entered an empty office-empty except for furniture, paper and ink-in Kelowna on May 31, 1927. They there and then prepared their plans to create the machinery under which the committee should operate and endeavour to instil some degree of confidence into the whole industry-the producer, the broker, the jobber, the retailer and the consumer. They had most carefully to examine the territory from which they were going to draw the produce, and they had also most carefully to consider the markets into which they would direct shipments. They had not only to obtain estimates of the crops, they had continually to revise those estimates week by week and month by month, making such alterations as climatic and other conditions might dictate. So well has that committee of direction functioned in its first year that confidence was immediately present in the mind of the trade.
And this has tended towards orderly marketing. As an illustration of what I mean by that term, let me point out that the committee divided the three prairie provinces into certain marketing centres. Taking Regina as a typical centre, in the districts to which Regina distributes, under the ordinary marketing conditions the idea would be to send in a certain number of cars of, we will say, McIntosh apples in regular rotation. Under the chaotic conditions of previous years, no sooner bad such an arrangement been, made than an independent shipper or a grower-shipper, or someone else who had not the general good of the industry at heart, would "roll" some extra cars, and everything would be upset. Under the committee of direction such a chaotic condition cannot prevail, because the shipper is told what he may ship and when he may ship it, and the minimum price at which he may sell. It follows that the broker knows what fruit is coming forward, and -when the jobber knows definitely the quantity and price he is not afraid to buy ahead, for he knows there will be no fruit rolling in on consignments.
Just exactly what the consumer has paid during the last season compared with prices that prevailed in preceding seasons is extremely difficult to arrive at. I had hoped to
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

be able to place on record a comparative statement, but the kinds of fruit are so many, the varieties are so diverse, and the quantity of those varieties has fluctuated so much from year to year that I have not found it possible actually to compare one year with another. However, I think I am within the truth in saying that whereas the producer has received a rather better price in the past than in the previous shipping seasons, the consumer in Canada eating British Columbia fruit has not paid more than the average price of the four preceding years.
As further evidence that there was not very much wrong with the price charged, I should like to record the quantity of the British Columbia fruit which has found its way to the other provinces this year. These figures refer to apples only; it would be impossible to include all the other fruits and vegetables in this statement: British Columbia, 264,971 boxes; Alberta, 550,992; Saskatchewan, 693,077; Manitoba, 355,175; Ontario, 177,994; the rest of Canada, 108,250, or a total of 2,150,459 boxes marketed in Canada. There were 596,250 boxes exported, which is about 20 per cent of the total crop. A less quantity had to be exported in 1927-1928 than in a good many of the preceding years, which is all to the advantage of the producer. Some of the criticism which has been levelled at this worthy experiment came from the mouth of the chairman of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, and one of the pretty strong statements he made was that it did away with competition. Now I do not agree in any sense whatever that it does away with competition. In the first place, had the cooperative movement of past years received the backing of 100 per cent of the growers, or anywhere near it, there would have been just as much control of price under that union as there is under this committee of direction, and I very much doubt whether a cooperative movement amongst one set of farmers would have been described as price control such as would be harmful to the consumer. I would point out also that Ontario is only too anxious to see, as a result of this committee of direction in British Columbia, the price of this produce rising in the prairie markets, because Ontario is sitting on the other doorstep from us of the prairie provinces and therefore is, as I say, only too anxious to get its produce into those markets.
I should 'be glad if the critics of what we are attempting to do to help the producer would realize just exactly what it is that we are trying to do. It is a problem of some magnitude. We are endeavouring to sell, as much as we possibly can, perishable products

which we have to carry very considerable distances at correspondingly high freight rates, protecting that produce from heat in summer and from cold in winter and distributing it without glut or shortage, so that when it reaches the end of its journey it may give satisfaction to the consumer both as to quality, price and variety. I think it is a noteworthy event that a bold experiment such as I have just described-this committee of direction- has been tried out and that in six months the committee did succeed in creating machinery of an entirely novel character, has carried out the direction of one season's fruit and vegetables in very considerable quantities, and has succeeded also in restoring in the whole industry that confidence which was so badly lacking.
To pass on for a few moments to more general matters connected with the budget, it appears to me that after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has given birth to yet another budget it must afford him a certain amount of amusement to sit in his seat day after day and hear criticisms levelled at that budget from all directions. He hears the farmer asking for higher income tax. The farmer as a rule pays but little income tax. The Minister sees in the press of Montreal, for several days prior to the bringing down of the budget, the requirements of industry in the form of reduced income tax, the manufacturers arguing that, as the farmer pays but little income tax, there is no reason why they should pay so much. He hears the farmer appealing for a complete cessation of the sales tax. The farmer has to pay a certain amount to the national revenue on every purchase he makes of clothing, say, for himself, his wife or his children. The manufacturer, on the other hand, asks the Minister of Finance, if he is going to cut the sales tax at all, to shave it very gradually so that the quantities of goods on his shelf shall not be badly hurt and so that the amount that will have to be deducted from the price may be very minute. The consumer, on the other hand, wants to have it cut all at once so that it will be necessary for the manufacturer to pass on to him the reduction in the sales tax. And so the Minister of Finance listens to all of these various requests made of him and he reflects,' amongst other things, what a wonderful aggregation the Liberal party is -the Liberal party which has foundations somewhat similar to the feet of the image that Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream, feet of iron and clay. Forty members from Quebec signed a petition appealing for greater protection on market produce and potatoes; they

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
wanted that protection raised to the height of the United States tariff. They have not got that protection. The seasonal tariff application has never been brought down; no report has been made of it. The government seems to pay very little attention [DOT] indeed to the reports which the tariff board does bring down. We see from the return asked for by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) that of only one case, amongst all these matters reported on, has the government taken cognizance in its budget proposal. I wonder whether there is some connection between that and the difficulty in reporting, which the chairman refers to in his report. He says that:
Difficulty exists as to determining the nature of the advice we are presumed by the order in council to tender to the minister.
To get over that difficulty he finds that the best mode of advising the minister is to pass on the transcripts with only "explanatory comment". What a deadly phrase-explanatory comment. One can imagine a particular application being described as one of no merit whatever-it might even be of benefit to some Conservative industries. This other application, on the other hand, is one of great merit because it is quite possible that Wabasso Cottons may be able to decrease their expenditures and increase their profits. It is truly a wonderful method of handing a report on to a government from a board of inquiry, so different indeed from the method proposed under the Conservative tariff board, which was to publish its findings. Explanatory comment! In much that way, I should imagine, the Cheka gives its views to the bolshevist government in Russia when it is endeavouring to remove some of the middle class workers to more salubrious climes.
It will be noticed that the Quebec fruit and vegetable grower not only is not to receive that assistance from the tariff for which he has appealed, but he finds in opposition to himself, within that wonderful Liberal party, a vociferous, earnest, not very large in number, group of ardent free traders. They lose no opportunity of preaching their gospel, and they probably mean exactly what they preach. That I do not agree with the view they express does not interest them and does not really matter, but it is worthy of note that last session the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) did what he could to bring about the repeal of clause 47a of the Customs Act, as it was then constituted. He did not succeed, so he returned to the charge this session and proposed a resolution which would bring about the repeal of the section now called 43 of the revised statutes, which, if
repealed, would remove the machinery which enables the dumping clause of the customs tariff to operate. I would ask my hon. friends from Quebec whether they are fully satisfied that they are safe with regard to the dumping clause? My own idea is that the hon. member for Weybum is so pertinacious that he would not allow his resolution to be twice called and then pass into limbo unless he had come to an understanding with the government, and I wonder very much whether the forty members from the province of Quebec who signed that petition really look upon the situation with equanimity. That such is not wholly the case I think is evident from a resolution which I believe has been sent to all the federal members from Quebec as well as to myself, and I do not know how many other hon. members. As it is interesting in this connection, when we are discussing the brotherly love which exists between two branches of the great Liberal family, I want to put it on record:
Whereas the vegetable, fruit and poultry industries are entitled to as much protection as all other industries, and
Whereas section 43 of the Customs Act, Revised Statutes, gives them this needed protection by authorizing the Minister of National Revenue to set the fair market values for customs purposes and so prevent the surplus of production being imported from United States at prices below such fair market value, and
Whereas the withdrawal of said section would have, as immediate result, the curtailing of production and would leave the producers of perishable products without the protection against dum^jng which is afforded every industry, and
Whereas we have reason to presume that several prairie members of parliament look favourably at the withdrawal of said section 43 and may move a resolution to this effect:
It is moved and unanimously resolved that the Quebec Farmers' Association; the Quebec Catholic Farmers' Union, as well as the Quebec Market Gardeners' Society, representing an aggregation of over 15,000 farmers, wish to draw the kind attention of the Minister of National Revenue and of the representatives of this province in the federal parliament to the great importance of this section 43 and to respectfully solicit your influence to prevent its withdrawal from the Customs Act.
Quebec Market Gardeners' Society.
Quebec United Farmers' Association.
Quebec Catholic Farmers' Union.
I am naturally at one with my hon. friends from Quebec and with the members of the fruit and vegetable growers' associations which are so much interested in this protection, because I am equally in need of it. I earnestly hope that on this occasion the victory will lie with my protectionist friends from the province of Quebec rather than with that section of freetraders sitting to their right.
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

We do not know anything in particular with regard to the policy of this government in carrying out the development of our natural assets, but I am glad to see that the minister has brought down a resolution which favours carrying on for three years longer the Copper Bounties Act. That act was passed in 1923, and has been made use of. Naturally the maximum results would not be produced immediately, but from the figures showing the amounts which have been paid it is certain that it has had a beneficial effect. It was introduced for the purpose of carrying on the refining of Canadian copper to the very end of the process before that copper is used in Canada, the bounty not being payable on refined copper going out of this country. The figures showing the amount paid under this bounty are as follows:
1924- 25	 $ 14,551 75
1925-	26	
14,822	671926-	27	
164,242	301927-	28	to Feb. 4	
73,604	92
Those figures demonstrate that a considerable quantity of the copper used in Canada has been refined within our own borders. This, of course, has carried with it the advantages of increased employment and the turning over of Canadian dollars, because this means that in all probability some 30,000,000 pounds of copper have been refined and used in Canada.
British Columbia produces more copper than any other province of Canada. In the southwest comer of the constituency of Yale, which I have the honour to represent, on top of the mountain behind Princeton, in the Similkameen valley there is thedopper Mountain mine. You can stand on the edge of the glory hole on top of the mountain and look into the pit and watch the lumps of ore which have been blasted out of the earth guided and barred through the chutes until they get into the mine cars which are run through the tunnel and sent down the wire rope-way to the tipple. There they are tipped into railway cars which run around the mountain to the mill at Allenby, where, first by crushing and then by flotation, the ore is reduced to concentrates. Again I am glad1 to notice that the minister has allowed the free entry of potassium xanthate, which is an obscure chemical for which I endeavoured to obtain free entry a few years ago. This chemical is not produced in Canada; it is only used in this one process and allowing it free entry would tend to knock a fraction of a cent per pound off the production cost of that copper. Sixty tons of ore from the glory hole are turned into three and a half tons of concentrates in the Allenby mill; those concentrates are carried1 by a Canadian railway
fMr. Stirling.]
three hundred or four hundred miles east to the smelter at Trail, where they are put through the refining process and, to use the trade term, turned into one ton of refined copper in the form of wire bars. These wire bars again continue east and are taken to the rolling mill at Brockville where they are rolled into copper bars; from Brockville they continue their journey to Montreal, where they are drawn into copper wire, and that copper wire is used in the different industries of Canada- With that object lesson before them, I hope the government will see to it that that copper bounty is continued at least until the time when a very much increased production takes place in Manitoba and Ontario.
I hope the government will also reveal to us as soon as possible what its policy is with regard to the refining of other of Canada's resources. The fact was revealed to us that when the international waterways treaty was being negotiated, the United States said to Canada: Yes, we will make a treaty with you, but we will allow no discussion whatever on the subject of lake Michigan. They admitted that the waters of lake Michigan were on a level with the waters of lake Erie, but old glory floated over the former lake and they said they would allow no discussion as to that stretch of water. Their attitude did not hide the fact that a certain quantity of water was being taken out of that lake, out of these boundary waters, and turned into another watershed altogether. It passes the bounds of my belief, Mr. Speaker, that the engineers of that day could have been oblivious of the fact that that diversion of water would do damage to the harbours of Canada, and still more to the great waterway that leads to the sea from Montreal. However, the government of that day, whether it could help the fact or not, bowed to the decision of the United States and the treaty was made, and possibly as a quid pro quo an extra amount of water was used by Canada at Niagara. The situation to-day is entirely different. The United States wants Canadian co-operation to develop water power on the St. Lawrence river. They want that water power to increase the power in their industries in the state of New York, a part of the products of which industries will come back into the markets of Canada to compete with our goods. Further than that the United States want our pulpwood, they want our nickel, they want our lead, they want various things that Canada has to offer. Has the government a policy to offer the people of Canada, a policy based on a vision of the future, a policy Which will enable the assets to which I have referred to be retained until

The Budget-Mr. Spotton
a proper return is made, until we can negotiate, until we can barter, so that these assets shall not pass out of our possession without our getting full value for them? I do not think, Mr. Speaker, there is any matter which this government could put forward to the people of Canada which would give greater satisfaction from one end of the country to the other than the declaration of a policy that will tend to increase the production of our resources and effect their ultimate refinement within the boundaries of Canada.


Mr. GEORGE SPOTTON (North Huron):: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to address the house for the first time I am sure I shall have your kindly sympathy, and if I transgress any parliamentary rule I know you will reprove me in a fatherly fashion.
Inasmuch as this is my first appearance in parliament I suppose it would be quite in order for me to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon your re-election as speaker of the house. From what I have observed you have always displayed the most admirable qualities of heart and head, and have always held the scales of justice evenly. May I take this opportunity also to thank all the members of the house for the kindly manner in which they have received me.
A feeling of deep regret and sorrow creeps over me when I realize that I am simply filling out the term of the late lamented John W. King, who was elected for the constituency of North Huron in the federal election of 1926. The late Mr. King and I were opponents in 1921 when the Progressive movement was at its height. We were again opponents in 1925 when the courts had to decide who should take a seat in this house. Whether in the heat of election, or otherwise, I found the late lamented member a man who stood four-square to all the winds that blow. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that in voicing my own feeling with respect to him who was called home I am expressing the sentiments of everyone in North Huron. We feel that our county is the poorer for his death and that Canada has lost one of her noblest sons.
In the few remarks I purpose making I hope that my friends on this side will not expect too much from me, and I trust that even if hon. gentlemen opposite do not agree with me they will at least be sympathetic. I wish to tell them that I am always open to conviction.
We have been hearing a great deal of late about a deliverance which has been heralded from the Atlantic to the Pacific as the Robb budget. It appears that the budget is an
annual event, and opinions differ a great deal with respect to it. Evidently the present government feel that every time the budget comes down there must be some tinkering with the tariff. I should like to see a tariff which would possess some element of permanency and remain in operation for at least a period of five or ten years so that the manufacturers of this country would know where they stood and would not always have a club held over their heads.
When I look into the faces of some of the ministers who visited our riding during the last election I recall the fact that I was told on the hustings that I had some nerve to be a candidate for the great Liberal-Conservative party because that party had no leader. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself when he came to the constituency with his troop emphasized the idea very strongly that it was rather audacious on my part as an humble citizen, a native eon of Huron, to put myself up as a candidate because I had no leader. Well, we reminded him, Mr. Speaker, that he had directed the affairs of this government from the gallery for a time. We reminded him also that we had as temporary leader a parliamentarian of wide experience, and if that gentleman was to be permanent leader I would be quite satisfied and so would my constituents. I was asked whether I was going to follow a man from Calgary or from Montreal or from Guelph.


Ernest Lapointe: Or Fort William.


George Spotton: Or Fort William. But
my people decided that even if we never had a leader they would trust me to come to the House of Commons rather than a follower of the King administration. It was a most childish argument because I had an able house leader who was not going to desert the party and within nineteen days of my election we were meeting in Winnipeg to select a permanent leader, so I was not going to be an orphan for very long. They wanted to know who was my leader. Let them take a look at him now. We have a leader of the Liberal-Conservative party who is a worthy successor to the great leaders of the past, a man of wide business experience, of the highest legal attainments, of ripe education, a trained parliamentarian, a man of whose service the president of one of our greatest banks could say along with the rest of the directors that they had lost a man whose business experience nationally and internationally was such a great asset that they will suffer an irreparable loss; and the people
The Budget-Mr. Spotton

of Canada will say ,at the earliest opportunity that a man of that type will make a good business manager for this Dominion.
It has been heralded throughout Canada that the Robb budgets have been very popular. I am not boasting; neither on various public platforms nor in private have I boasted of our victory in North Huron. I have been defeated and I have taken my defeat gracefully; I was elected and I took my election modestly; but the latest tribunal to which the Robb budget was submitted was in North Huron on September 12 last. When the Prime Minister came to my constituency he was paraded down our streets with the calliope ahead, and there was with him a stripe of cabinet minister to suit every stripe of elector in my constituency. The matter was placed in this way before the electors by the Prime Minister: "You have an admirable county"-and so we have. The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) and I can at least agree with the Prime Minister that the county of Huron is the greatest county in Canada, a little country in itself. We have shipping interests, manufacturing interests, fishing interests; we have great agricultural lands and the finest type of people in this Dominion. There we have practically every class of people that are interested in any great Robb budget. The King administration will not say for a moment that the Robb budget was not fairly placed before the electorate of North Huron. I read this from the Goderich Signal, a Liberal paper:
The ministerial party included the Hon. Lu-cien Cannon, Solicitor General; Hon. J. C. Elliott, Minister of Public Works; Hon. James Malcolm, Minister of Trade and Commerce.
These were just at the one meeting.
Others on the platform were P. G. Sanderson, M.P., South Perth; Wellington Hay, M.P., North Perth; M. F. Hepburn, M.P., West Elgin; W. H. Taylor, M.P. Norfolk-Elgin; Thomas McMillan, M.P., South Huron; W. T. Goodison, M.P., West Lambton: Dr. W. A. Hall, M.P., South Bruce; Senator Rankin, of Stratford; T. Cayley, M.P., South Oxford: W. G. Raymond, ex-M.P., Brantford.
And hosts of others. That was the first shot, Wingham in the afternoon and Goderich at night. We were glad that many of these men stayed in the riding for several weeks. We were pleased to welcome members from all parts of Ontario and even a couple from Quebec. These men were valiant fighters and I have no complaint against them because they had a perfect right to come into our riding. They brought in excellent organizers, some of whom had been there for the six months previous, but as we drew nearer to 
the election there came along those fellows who could not look you just as clearly in the eye as could our good friends opposite. The King administration presented the Robb budget and the jury of North Huron spoke. Of course our friends of the government will say: This was an accident; it was a three-cornered contest; that is, like-minded Liberals and Progressives were split and the Tories slipped in between. That is why they keep on whistling to keep their courage up, like the boy going through the cemetery at night. But the fact remains that in 1925, John W. King, a life-long Liberal, stood on the platform and said he was one hundred per cent Progressive, and the Prime Minister of this country sent in a secret message which was placed in every Liberal home telling them to get behind John W. King; that he was as good a supporter of the government as any Liberal. This was supplemented by Liberal organizers and Liberal sinews of war. The contest was so close that the county judge awarded me the seat and the high court judge reversed his decision. So it was not any great accident that occurred on September 12th of last year. If we turn back to the votes in 1896, 1900, 1994, and 1911 in the municipalities which comprise the new riding of North Huron and in which Judge Lewis, Mr. Bowman and Doctor Chisholm used to run, the results were as near a tie as you could get. Just a few months before our by-election on September 12th last, a Liberal member was elected in North Huron -the identical riding which I represent-in the Ontario elections by over 2,000 of a majority. Therefore our friends can take any cold comfort they like. They may point to the war-time election of 1917, but at that time our citizens, regardless of politics, were supporting the Union government. I mention this just to show that when the Robb budget was presented to the jury of North Huron, it received a fair testing out and the Prime Minister said that he would take it as a commendation or a condemnation. In addition to that we had these high pressure salesmen in the riding.
I was twitted with not having a leader, but the Prime Minister only thinks he is leading. He is just being pushed around. If you ask him were he is going, he says: Ask the crowd behind. This administration reminds me of the "Maid of the Mist" down at Niagara Falls. It starts out and it just goes around in a circle: it is not propelled in any way, it is just carried here and there wherever the current takes it, and it lands back at the place it started from. But they are one of the best advertising agencies that Canada ever

The Budget-Mr. Spotton
had, the best advertising agency that I know, and they are so busy advertising that they forget to do a little work. Abraham Lincoln once said of an opponent in a law court who was making a great deal of fuss over nothing, that his friend reminded him of a boat on the Sangamon river that puffed and snorted about. It had a five-foot boiler and a seven-foot whistle, and every time the whistle blew the boat stopped. This administration, it appears to me, are so busy blowing their whistle that they have not had much time to bring forward any real legislation to assist the people in North Huron or elsewhere.
We are told that we have great prosperity in Canada. After the King meeting at Goderich I met a fellow outside and he was counting his money. I said to him: " What are you doing here, Bill? " " Well," he says, " I was a poor man when I went into that meeting but I am a rich man now." He says, " I know I must be because they told me I was, and I have been looking at my one dollar bills and I thought they would have become tens, and I have been looking at my twos and I thought they would have become twenties, and I have been looking at my fives and I thought they would have become fifties, and," he says, " I had a ten and I thought it would have become a hundred, but " he says, " they are here just as they were." He wrote me afterwards that when he returned home he asked his wife if they were prosperous and she said, " No, there are many things which I would like to get. It is costing more to live and we are not getting any more money than we did a few years ago. It may be all right for the very rich in this country, but so far as we are concerned there is no great prosperity here."
Lest I forget, I would just like to tell right now about a class of people who certainly are not prosperous, and that is the rural mail carriers in my riding. The Postmaster General is prosperous, his deputy may be prosperous, the men in his department may be prosperous, but the rural mail carriers in my riding are not prosperous. I cannot understand how in the whole civil service of the Dominion of Canada the poor fellows who drive the old mare and go over the snow banks every day on his majesty's service are the only ones that have to stand up every four years and be shot at, and hired at starvation wages. I know the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) will say that we put the routes up to tender, and why do they tender if they do not want the job? I want to say that if the postmaster generalship were advertised to-night, I believe the Postmaster
General would take three or four thousand dollars less a year to hold the job.


Mr. VENIOT:: That has always been the case under my hon. friend's government.


George Spotton: But my friends were defeated. They were chastised for their sins.
I am not living in the past, and I commit sins enough myself without having to carry the load of all my relatives. The Conservative party is now in opposition; it has been purged, and we have shaken off the old clothes.
There is one innovation the Postmaster General has made. He has put more politics per square inch into the postal service than all his predecessors ever did. In the town of Goderich, rural route No. 6, Goderich- get that, Mr. Postmaster General-a man there carried His Majesty's mail for fifteen years, and there was not a kicker on the whole mail rou,te; they all love him. He performed little services for them coming in and out of town. He was put up to be shot at. They advertised this job. A new man comes along and applies at the same salary as the old faithful servant was receiving, and the Postmaster General has not backbone enough and is not British enough to say: " Well done, you good servant. You have been with us a long time, and I will give you the job." No, sir, his department writes to the defeated Liberal candidate in North Huron to ask, Who shall get this job? If the Postmaster General wants any more concrete examples, I will give them to him. I am going to be very modest with him to-night, because I have not had time to dig and delve very much.


Peter John Veniot: He is not asking to be spared.


George Spotton: I will leave it to this house and to the people of Canada if a man who has carried his majesty's mail for fifteen years, and is prepared to go on doing it as cheaply as a new man, should be thrown aside, and the department write to the defeated Liberal candidate to see who's who.
I see the member for North Perth (Mr. Hay), in the house. I do not know whether this route lies in North or South Perth, but I noticed in the press an article that a man was brought up in the city of Stratford by the society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His horse was in such a condition that the Humane Society took action against him. But when the case came up in the police court and the magistrate found out that he was carrying his majesty's mail daily, keeping up a horse and rig and trying to support a
The Budget-Mr. Spotton

family on $1.75 a day, he dismissed the case. This is no hearsay. I wrote the police magistrate at Stratford and asked him to send me an authoritative clipping from the newspaper, and I have his letter and the clipping here. The same thing has happened on the suburban routes around the city of London, where men have been brought up who were carrying his majesty's mails franked by cabinet ministers and the rest of us who are receiving more salaries than we are worth. With these poor, fellows who are carrying the mails, it is just another case of the man who does the most work getting the least money. The Postmaster General, of course laughs at this. I remember in the chemistry room we used to manufacture a certain thing which caused laughter. But, Mr. Speaker, this is no laughing matter.
As I may not be in the house when the estimates come up, and as the sky seems to be the limit, I should like to make a little plea to the cabinet ministers present on behalf of Goderich harbour. No doubt the country has heard that Goderich has a harbour. That is not part of the Robb budget, but it assisted and supplemented the support given to the Robb budget in North Huron. At a meeting in Goderich Mayor MacEwan presented an address of welcome to the Prime Minister, and this is what the Prime Minister said, according to the Liberal newspaper:
The government of which I have the honour to be the head has paid considerable attention to Goderich harbour-
Then, of course, some of the cabinet ministers sitting there smiled very graciously, you know, as he was speaking; they did not say a word:
*-and in the future the government must continue to pay considerable attention to the harbour here. As head of the government I am pleased, however, to note in the address with which you have welcomed me words of appreciation of the government's work in this connection. Usually things of this kind are taken for granted.
And they should be, Mr. Speaker. Just at this point I wish to say that I hold no brief for our friends to my left, but an unkind attack was made on them yesterday by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). Oh, how kind and sympathetic he was with like-minded people so long as he needed them, during that period of log-rolling and dickering and dealing, to keep him in power in this house, but the moment he did not need them he scolded them most roundly. On behalf of my friends to my left, I wish to say that the campaign for the United Farmers erf Ontario candidate was conducted largely by the brilliant and able lady who represents Southeast

Grey in this house (Miss Macphail), and they fought in the open; they said the same thing in the country school house that they said at Goderich and in the town of Wingham. But not so with my friends opposite. The Minister of Railways stands up and characterizes us as high protectionists. I was branded as a high protectionist in the campaign; I am not. Some say, as the Globe says that: "follow your convictions" is just as good a slogan as "follow your leader." There have been times when I have not been able to follow my political leader, and that time may come again.
I wish to say, sir, that in my riding, owing to the high pressure salemanship of cabinet ministers cailling on all local manufacturers with that bludgeon called the Robb budget, this Liberal paper was able to say that all the manufacturers and captains of industry, regardless of their politics, were behind the King administration. And yet they had their friends going in and1 out of the farmers' homes calling me a "high protectionist", and a "friend of the manufacturer", and, as I say, the Liberal paper boldly stated that all the captains of industry of Goderich were supporting the King administration. I think the time has about come when this advertising agency will not be able to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds; that they will not be able to pose as protectionists in the towns and cities, and then try to hold us up to ridicule in the rural sections as high protectionists. I represent a farming constituency, and of 274 delegates at our nominating convention I suppose 240 were farmers. I was opposed by a farmer, but the farmers of the constituency said they would trust me to present their case in the House of Commons. I believe that the manufacturer and the farmer are interdependent, I believe that what is good for one will eventually be good for the other; but let me say, as I have said1 in North Huron, if there ever comes a time when their interests Clash, then I am on the side of the farmers and the labouring men of my riding.
I was reading, Mr. Speaker, what our Prime Minister said, that usually these things were taken for granted, but of course they were gifts from a benign government. Let me give his words:
Usually things of this kind are taken for granted, and it is pleasant therefore to have the government's efforts appreciated as you here [DOT] in Goderich have appreciated them.
Another gentleman who followed the Prime Minister said:
If you expect the government to be sympathetic with you, you should show your sympathy with them.

The Budget-Mr. Spotton
As the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maephail) knows, it was a joke throughout the riding as to whether the Goderich harbour was to receive one quarter, one half, three-quarters of a million, or a million a year. Anyway, the people of Goderich were canvassed from house to house and told that industry would ilag if the Liberal candidate was not elected, so much so that in the town itself a change of nine hundred votes
was made in favour of the Liberal candidate. So you cannot blame Goderich for what the rest of the riding has done. Everything you promised Goderich, Goderich deserves. Goderich harbour is the greatest receiving port in the upper lakes. These figures, taken from the records of the lake shippers' clearance association, bear out my statement that Goderich leads among upper lake ports:
Buffalo	
Chicago	
Cleveland	
Duluth	
Erie	
Fairport	
Toledo	
Depot Harbor.. ..
Goderich	
Midland	
Montreal	
Owen Sound..	..
Fort Colborne.. .. Port McNicoll.. .. Port Stanley.. ..
Quebec	
Sarnia	
Tiffin	
Local elevators.. ..
Bushels
Wheat 79,827,085	Oats 1,138,273 51,524	Barley 9,008,448
		
	73,470	
4,815,912 4,647,184 1,972,839 748,751 9,639.807 6,654,662 4,130,179 3,232,193 31,044.204 6,286,722 266,000 250,679 1,726,347 4,175,434 4,709,674		134,556 105,000
		
	281,186 300,253 844,389 708,699 1,650,461 209,045 54,544 76.428 10,964	222,582 144,416 796,726 370,248 3,484,562 60,000 55,216 91,342 122,889
164,127,672	5,399,236	14,595,985Flax	Bye	Total227,070	2,137,213	92,338,089175,665	227,189236,000	236,00073,4704,950,4634,752,1841,972,839863,926	1,612,677480,680	302,535	10,926,790145,000	7,244,331130,121	279,664	6,181,07960,000	107,996	4,479,136507,284	2,883.318	39,569,829197,604	6,544,326321,216459,72433,874	1,906,10750,000	271,589	4,573,4512,615	4,846,1421,866,820	7,225,334	193,215,047
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, Goderich harbour is the greatest receiving port in the upper lakes. It needs public money spent upon it, no matter what political party is in power. Everything that these gentlemen promised publicly, and everything their cohorts promised in private canvassing is all right; I have no objection to it. Goderich needs to be dealt with liberally-and I find in the estimates they have allotted us $9,000! Why, sir, they spent more than that in one ward of my riding. There is a revote of $66,000, making with this $9,000, a total of $75,000. That $66,000 is what the government at another time told the people of Goderich they were to get, but they did not get it. But I know that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) appreciates the position. I do not believe that either in public or in private he made any promise about what the government would do about Goderich harbour. But I do know that hangers on, canvassers land other cabinet ministers who had to make good smiled and let it be known that money would be spent there in plenty. Now we ask for Goderich harbour an expenditure which its national importance demands. We ask the government to keep faith to honour their campaign managers' pledges. I am not speaking now unkindly of the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). We are proud of the three cabinet
ministers from western Ontario. Their constituencies all border around mine, and they are all estimable and capable gentlemen; we are proud of them; they are the best men that could be found within the Liberal ranks. But I cannot forbear a comparison of what is contained in the estimates for public works in North Bruce. Kincardine, where there is nothing but a couple of fishing boats and a few canoes-a passenger boat or a freight boat never enters the harbour except to bring in a little bit of coal-Kincardine got about $16,000 last year. Port Bruce-I do not know where it is, although I know every foot of North Bruce-got $1,023.68. Saugeen river, Where they fish only with pole and line, got $8,994.48. Southampton-never a cargo went out of there since Adam was a boy-got $4,999.21. Stokes bay-where a man has a saw mill-got $3,950.60. I have no ccmplaints about these expenditures, but if the riding of North Bruce is entitled to that amount of money, with no shipping whatever, what should Goderich harbour receive? Judging by what North Bruce got last year and again this year, I may tell my friends in confidence that it looks like a general election. These expenditures are a pretty good barometer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word about immigration, but as the committee on agriculture and colonization will deal with
The Budget-Mr. Spotton

that-and at the present rate of going it will be the last couple of days of the session-I had better not attempt to deal with it. I have been attending the committee, and I may frankly say that no progress is being made, the work is not being taken up seriously, and it looks to me as though the government was not very anxious that we should reach an investigation of the Immigration department. Immigration is a big problem that will take a long time to consider. A good many people will have to be called tc give evidence, and therefore I think that a more permanent committee would be better able to deal with it.
We are told that there is a great deal of prosperity throughout the country, but each member, regardless of politics, says it cannot be found in his constituency. My hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said that while in his riding the people are equally as prosperous as hon. members opposite would have us believe is the case in the country generally, the boys in his riding went to the United States to make money so they could come back and pay off the mortgage on the old man's house.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He said they were coming back.


George Spotton: We have also been told that we are emigration agents for the United States. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I had a son twenty-one years old, fully equipped for life, and he came to me and said: "Dad, all my friends who have gone to the United States have made good, and those who have remained here are getting along indifferently with no bright prospects," I would be torn between my love for British institutions and the material welfare of my son. But why should I? For I fancy that about the only time the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) ever went out to seek a living he went to the United States.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: After I heard the splendid address of the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton), I could not help believing but that the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) had been dropping a lot of orange peels in the path of the various ministers of his own cabinet.


Mr. ERNST:: Banana peels.


James Charles Brady: In rising to offer my contribution to the debate on the budget I do so at least after some study and reflection, and any criticism I now offer has not for its object personal aggrandizement nor party politics. My remarks will be in strict accordance with the rules of debate, the purpose of which is
[Mr. Spotton. J
a contest between two opposing sides on a definite question, in this instance a question of such vital import to the people of Canada that every representative in parliament has a moral obligation to discuss it.
The immediate purpose of the debate which has now continued for a few weeks is to find out as far as is humanly possible whether the budget on which the present government has staked its reputation is one that satisfies the needs and aspirations of the Canadian people at the present time. The question, therefore, is clear and well defined: Is this budget, which was praised so loudly last evening by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) as well as by other government supporters, a budget which by its excellence, and its promise of economic expansion, in keeping with Canada's possibilities Is it a budget that will receive the support not merely of this house but also of the people of Canada? After studying it, I contend that the budget defines nothing, convinces no one, and confuses many. Even the most ardent devotees of the government, who in this house and in the press support it, do not, if we are to judge by their comments, endorse the budget as if it were intrinsically sound. The great mass of the Canadian people, when they come thoroughly to understand it, will not be satisfied with it. Nor do I think that the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) who sponsored [DOT]the budget considers it sound himself. As the minister read the budget speech the other day I felt that he was merely the instrument of master minds who had! for their object not the good of the people of Canada but the desire to remain in office and hold the reins of government. That was the thought that struck me, and there came to my mind at the time a verse in Spencer's Faerie Queene wherein Archimago, the enchantor, could confuse all who came within his environment. The words that I recall appear in canto 2, and I think they will be understood by everyone in this house:
He then devised himself how to disguise;
For by his mighty science he could take As many forms and shapes in seeming wise,
As ever Proteus to himself did make. Sometimes a fowl, sometimes a fish in lake, Now like a fox, now like a dragon fell,
That of himself he oft for fear would quake, And oft would flie away.
The conviction that this budget is not in keeping with the spirit of the Canadian people in this great moment of need deepened as I heard more of the debate. When I heard the hon. member for St. Lawrence^St. George (Mr. Cahan), the hon.- member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards), the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), and, later on,

The Budget-Mr. Brady
members to my left, particularly the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), I was more convinced that the budget would never attain the limit of the possibilities which the government expects of it. There are members of this government and sections of the Liberal press who are accusing the Conservative party of injuring the Dominion in the eyes of the world by daring to assert that Canada is not enjoying to the full the prosperity which is suggested in the budget. That there is prosperity in Canada we all admit; that it is as general as the budget, implies we deny. I contend, and I hope to prove my contention in the few minutes at my disposal, that under the present Liberal government Canada's prosperity is neither as general as it is painted nor as widespread as it should be. Canada should be a land of opportunity for all and not a land of opportunity for some, as the present government- and hon. gentlemen opposite know it-is making her. We on this side of the house as well as members of the government take pride in our country; we as well as they want our children to live in Canada and enjoy to the full the blessings of life. We deplore the fact that the future of this country is being endangered by the lack of policy of the present government, or rather the destructive tendency of that so-called policy which, is certainly not constructive. The onus of proving this prosperity lies with the government, but so far they have failed to prove their assertion, and the consensus of public opinion is against their contention. Anyone who has a knowledge of the conditions prevailing today throughout a great part of Canada-I might even say over the length and breadth of Canada-must admit that our young industries are being strangled, our settlement checked and our sons and daughters driven to take up foreign citizenship by force cf circumstance. I therefore believe, sir, that the hour has come when the people of Canada should know once and for all whether the Liberal government is the working man's government, as they desire to be known. I am going to make a statement now which no member of this house can contradict, and I think once it is established it will decide exactly the difference of policy between the opposition and the government. That statement, sir, is that any policy which by its operation is sending our people out to assume foreign citizenship, by which our country is made the poorer, and the other country "irridentist" stands condemned; while any policy which keeps our man power within Canada and adds to our population the best type of immigrants from other countries, must receive universal approbation.
I ask this house and the people of Canada which of these policies is now in force. Prosperity has been spoken of not only to-day but in the years past. In the palmiest days of the Roman Empire prosperity was often mentioned; Rome was the centre of wealth while the common people were kept in poverty, little more than slaves. The same was true in France before the days of the French revolution.
I wish to say here that the policy of the Liberal government with regard to immigration and the development of our natural resources is a setback to the future of this country. I ask any right thinking man or woman to ponder this question for a moment; upon what do our provinces depend? They depend upon their natural resources and their development. From Nova Scotia with its coal, its iron and its steel to British Columbia with its forest products, its mines and its fisheries, this is true. What is the government doing to help Canada develop these resources to the utmost and produce the finished article in our own country? My answer is that the government is doing very little. Under our present immigration scheme we are taking in raw material in shape of unskilled labour from other countries, but we are sending out to foreign countries our highly trained, technical young men and women. They naturally go to the United States where greater opportunities exist, and there they assist in the finishing of our raw materials. After this is done the finished products are sent back to us, and our country is thus prevented from developing as it should and we do not reap the benefit of the initiative, vigor and scholarship of the products of our schools and universities.
We must remember that we are spending millions of dollars to-day in the education of our young people. We only need to consider the nine provinces to see how much money is being spent in training our boyhood and girlhood in our universities to take up technical work, particularly in science and industrial chemistry. After they have received this training, what happens? They go to these places where their knowledge will be of service, and I say that any policy which does not have as one of its main attributes the retention of these highly trained young men and women deserves the censure of all right thinking people.
Referring to the question of immigration, which was lightly touched upon a few moments ago, as an echo of the McConachie case which occupied the attention of the people of this country a week ago I have another example which is very interesting. I
The Budget-Mr. Brady



OOMMONIS

[Stage Direction]
have the name and address of the father, and will give them to the Minister of Immigration if he so wishes. When this record is given to the house to-night, and when it reaches the outside world, the people will stand amazed to see how far we have gone along a path which is making us a shame and a disgrace to the thinking world. Here is the case. The father came to Canada from Scotland as a high class engineer and entered the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway. He has a wife and three children, and they sold their home and also came out to Canada. The little boy was four years of age; I saw his photograph to-day, and it can be shown to any member of the government who may desire to see it. For twenty-eight years I was a teacher in this country and other parts of the British Empire and I think I should know at least something about boys and their mentality and intelligence. What happened!? A lady doctor and her supernumerary put that child through an intelligence test to determine whether or not he was fitted to enter Canada. Four tests were given him, and I challenge any member of the government to say that the answers of that child were such as to indicate that he was subnormal. The lady doctor, whose name was given me, took a one cent piece from her purse and showed it to the child bom in Scotland.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Charles Brady: As I say, she placed the cent before the child and asked what it was; the child answered that it was a penny. That was one black mark. The second test was this: A medical or surgical instrument was placed by the lady doctor upon the table, and the child was asked what it was. The child looked with intent eyes at the outline of the mechanism and said "It is a pipe." It was very much like a smoking pipe to that child. That was black mark No. 2.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the instrument?


James Charles Brady: I do not know what it was. The third test was the display of a picture of a kangaroo. The child was asked what it was and he answered that it was a dog. Black mark No. 3.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How old was the child?


James Charles Brady: The child was four years of age. Now, sir, in the light of this farce in which we are becoming the laughing stock of the world, I ask any member of this house what faith they would place in the Mc-Conachie test. If such things happen here

and happen there it is apparent the hour has come when we should demand the adoption of a different policy. We should show that we possess intelligence and know how to handle cases of this sort.


John Wesley Edwards: Was the
child shipped out of the country?


James Charles Brady: The mother was kept in the deportation quarters for three weeks. She had to pay her board bill and was finally shipped back with her child to Scotland. This was the information given to me. I have the name and address of my informant, and if the government desire any further information it will be forthcoming.
Now, sir, I wish to deal with some statements made by the Finance Minister. I should like to quote his actual words because I feel that out of those words I shall foe able to condemn the government for not carrying out what they say is sound administration. In delivering the budget speech the Minister of Finance quoted the opinion of a British economist named McCulloch:
The greater productiveness of industry and the greater well-being of the community are the real sinking funds which a wise government should exert itself to build up and encourage.
And again:
Thus by policies beneficial to all parts of Canada, national development both in industry and population, has been encouraged. Canadians are returning home ... and Canada is once more building solidly for the future.
And again:
Work and thrift are the only sure roads to success.
Now, sir, I think that the Minister of Finance was the victim of some master mind, as is evident in these words just read, because I declare to-night that as regards British Columbia, and as regards the constituency that I represent, the fulfilment of that program has not taken place. I will prove, when the estimates come up again, that instead of looking to the well-being of the community, and looking to the development and support of our industries, the government pursued the very opposite course, or at least those did who were responsible for carrying out the very things suggested by the policy as enunciated above. The greater productiveness of industry 1 I want to tell the house to-night that I live in the heart of one of the greatest fishing communities as well as one of the greatest mining districts in Canada. Further, I say this,-that the day is not far distant when British Columbia will play a part on the Pacific similar to the part played by Great Britain on the Atlan-

The Budget-Mr. Brady
tie as a great centre of commerce. We have got the great Pacific along our coast, we have got -the Orient at our door. Prince Rupert is 480 miles nearer the orient with its 480,000,000 of population in the Chinese Empire, and its 65,000,000 in Japan. I say, sir, that if ever the hour comes when I shall be called upon to decide between the working people, the common people, as we say, and any class my lot shall be cast with them to the end. What is this government doing? They say they are the friends of the working man. Sir, they took out from the estimates the necessary appropriation to give to the fishing folk of Prince Rupert a little paltry shelter for their boats during the: winter season. Where is the romance which should exist in the hearts of the government ministers? Where is the love of adventure with which they should be inspired? Have they never thought for a moment of the fishermen out on the deep amid grave dangers and perils, constantly risking their lives, their families never certain that they will return to their homes? I stand here as a representative of those people. Is it possible that in a country like ours that the word democracy, painted in vivid colours on the emblems of all who claim to represent Liberalism, is misunderstood by the Cabinet ministers. Is it possible that this government refuses to give to these people the things so necessary to render their lot less hard? Sir, the failure to minister to the wants of these people is a crime.
I went through the mining districts in my constituency. I did so because I wished to give to this house statements which could be substantiated and not statements which were untrue. I will give you an outline of the conditions which prevailed (written down on the very day I went there) at Stewart. I went up to Stewart because the people asked me to come and see the congestion at their wharves. I went so that I might honestly note and report the conditions which prevailed there, and here is what I found:	The Mogul, a
large ore carrier, had been in midstream for twenty-four hours. Five times the boat had to leave the wharf to go out to mid stream, each removal involving an expenditure of $48, besides great loss of time, because the Union steamship boats and the Canadian National Railway boats were coming in on their regular service, and these boats are not always on schedule time. Furthermore, that same boat could not deposit on that wharf the necessary supplies so essential for the mines. A thousand cases of gasoline could not be landed there owing to the congestion which prevailed, The wharf was laden with coal, steel for the mines, concentrates, and
gasoline cans, and the Mogul had to take back for the next trip, five days later, 500 cans of gasoline that could not go on the wharf. And yet the government call upon the people to work and to practise thrift. The pioneers up there are fighting to-day for their very existence. They work long hours, they toil from early morn until late at night; and I say that if this government had the heart to recognize what was necessary for those people, we the representatives would not be compelled to stand up here and demand these necessities; we should be doing something else and legislating along other lines for the improvement of the public welfare.
I have still a minute and I have something more to say. I come from a great country, a land where the old British stock is practically predominant. In the old days, long before the birth of Vancouver or Victoria, there were along the Skeena and the Stuart rivers, great Hudson Bay forts, trade routes. These were there a hundred years before the Canadian National thundered through the Yellowhead pass on its way to the port of Prince Rupert. I should like to let the people of Canada know that this particular part of central British Columbia is replete with wonderful natural resources. It is only fourteen years ago that this particular part of British Columbia was connected up by the Canadian National from the port of Prince Rupert to the outer parts of Canada, and yet we have in that city a port second to none in this Dominion. We have there a port that, when the St. Lawrence was closed last winter, was open for grain boats to come and go all the winter months and it is an open port at all times and all hours throughout the whole twelve months. We have a great dry dock costing some millions of money but lying practically idle because of the fact that the government do not see fit to realize that they could, through that port, capture the oriental trade, a goal which today should be the ambition of the Canadian people. We have there a great ocean dock eight hundred feet long, but practically no use is made of it. What should we do? Do you not think, sir, the one great thing today in a national policy is the development of our seaports? The whole history of the world centres around its waterways. Study the history of rivers, harbours, lakes and seashores and you find the history of the world and of the progress of civilization. It Should be the bounden duty of every government; it should be one of the chief platforms in any policy, to make use to-day of the gifts that we possess, where much money has been spent and where the conveniences are available, to develop our ports and make use of them as a means of
The Budget-Mr. Cotnam

encouraging foreign trade and building up our domestic markets. This, I think, is the chief duty of any government.
In conclusion let me say that whatever little good the budget possesses, has been recognized. The income tax and one or two other things have been reduced, but there are throughout Canada many people who never had the chance of having a reduction in their income tax.


Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House of Commons on the present budget I wish to state at the outset that I will vote against it. Like so many other things that this government has presented to this house, it is a dud. It is a milkless, ereamiless, butterfess and breadless budget for the great masses of the working people. I have been in the house now for three sessions; I have listened to three speeches from the throne and to the delivery of three budgets by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). In the three speeches from the throne and also in the three budget speeches this government has been endeavouring to tell the people that this country is in an exceedingly prosperous condition. This reminds me of that old adage "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Why, this very afternoon, in an address delivered by the hon. member for Bast Essex (Mr. Odette), he tended to stress the fact that there was a great industrial boom in his constituency. I hold in my hand a report taken from the Border Cities Star of Windsor under date of February 13, 1928, and stating:
So many people are applying for work at the city hall these days that the mayor's office has become pretty much of an employment bureau.
That is right across the line from the hon. member for East Essex. Furthermore, the man who made that statement is a Mr. Blake Winter, who, I understand, ran on the Liberal ticket in East Essex in 1925; consequently I assume the government will accept that report as true. Yet we have the hon. member trying to tell us in the house this afternoon that in his constituency everything is in a condition of industrial boom. I fail to see where you can have an industrial boom with everything prosperous and at the same time have an exLiberal candidate telling us that there is practically a bread line and people seeking for employment right across the border from the hon. member's own city.


Edmond George Odette: Is the hon. member sure of the name? I do not know of any Mr. Blake ever running in Essex counity.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Alderman E. Blake Winter, acting mayor.
[Mr. Brady. 1


Edmond George Odette: That is different.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I presume my hon. friend will accept him even on that name. Whle all the members on the government side who have spoken in this debate and members of the government themselves have stressed the prosperity which they allege to prevail in this Dominion, I have noticed that all this prosperity is present in the abstract. Not a single member has stood up in his place and said that in his particular constituency industrial conditions are excellent; that the people are busy; that the working men have full pockets, and that the larders of the women are well stocked with food and the other necessaries of life. This government is a government by statistics. When you try to pin them down to hard facts, every member of the government immediately turns to statistics to support the spurious case which they want to present to the people. Why, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his first address in the house this year took almost three and a half hours, and most of that time was consumed in giving statistics to prove to the people of this country that they were prosperous. I, for one, prefer the method of the late revered leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said that if a people were truly prosperous it was not necessary to quote statistics, that when the man in the street put his hand in his pocket he knew whether or not he was prosperous. While banking institutions may be prosperous, while certain sections of this country may be prosperous, while the farmers of this country, due to their own work and thrift, may be in a more or less prosperous condition, while the pulp and paper industry is probably prosperous to-day, by the test of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the working people of this country, the great mass of the people, are not in a prosperous condition, or are not as prosperous as they should be.
Why, this government says, we are reducing taxation. But, Mr. Speaker, if you look over the estimates for the last five years you will find that year after year there has been a steady increase in expenditure on the part of this government. Year after year this government has been collecting more and more money from the taxpayers. True the government have taken off some of the nuisance taxes which they themselves imposed. They have brought the sales tax back to three per cent, the point where it was when they came into office in 1921. But I maintain that if this government economized as they should do, and economized as the people of this country demand, they could have taken off the sales tax entirely and have got rid of

The Budget-Mr. Cotnam
the nuisance tastes years ago. Anyone who looks over the estimates even for this current year will agree, 1 think I am quite safe in saying, that this government could cut down their expenditure by fifty to seventy-five million dollars a year without one public service in the country suffering thereby, if they were willing to cut out their political patronage to political heelers and hangers-on and give the country a good straight square and honest deal in the matter of government. It is a strange thing how the government can expect this country to grow and prosper-and to me it seems impossible-in the face of the fact that in the last five years they have spent over two billion dollars in administering the -public affairs of only nine millions of people. I cannot understand how we can prosper when this government are spending at least $40 per capita per annum for every man, woman and child in the Dominion. It does not matter how they get the money out of the pockets of the people, whether by direct or indirect taxation; the fact remains that the people of Canada must pay the bill. You can cut down your sales tax, cut down your income tax, cut down all your taxes, but if you continue in the aggregate to collect more revenue than you have been collecting in the past, the people of Canada must eventually pay the piper, and they are paying it to-day.
Yes, the government have reduced the income' tax. I do not think that helps the labouring man in this country very much. The bon. member for East Essex, when speaking this afternoon, said that if you bought an automobile in the city of Ottawa to-day, now that the reduced sales tax is in effect, you could buy it ten dollars cheaper than before this budget came into effect. But I ask you, how many working people in this country are to-day living on less than $1,000 a year? I venture to say that probably sixty per cent of the labouring classes in this country are earning less than $1,000 a year, and they are not buying motor cars, I can tell you, to say nothing about benefiting by a reduction in the income tax. I do not believe in this reduction in the income tax. I believe the income tax should be collected, and collected from the people who are able to pay. The people who have the money in their pockets have the right to pay; it is their duty to contribute to the running expenses of this country instead of the government collecting a sales tax from the little fellow who can earn only $2 or $2.50 per day.
In 1921 we had the Prime Minister-at that time he was leader of the opposition-in my c mstituency. He came there all arrayed 56103-60
in battle armour, equipped with sword and shield, and he was going to slay a number of dragons that were then in the way. The present Prime Minister in opposition was a wonderful filter at imaginary evils. They must slay that dragon, he said, of the high cost of living. The poor consumer in this country was paying more than he should have to pay for the necessities of life. Where is the cost of living to-day? Why, it is higher to-day than when the Prime Minister was touring the Dominion in 1921, and I do not now hear him raising hia voice against the high cost of living.
Another thing of which he complained was that the Conservative government was a government by order in council. But yet this government, which, according to a return tabled last year, had passed 25,000 orders in council from the time they came into power up until last year, have I presume up to now passed 35,000 or 40,000 orders in council, and the Prime Minister never raises his voice against that evil which was so rampant in thi3 country in 1921.
The Prime Minister was also going to reform the senate. He has been in office now for six years, and reformation of the senate so far as the Prime Minister and his cabinet are concerned, is as far away as it was at the time of the flood. However, he did perhaps take one step towards the reformation of the senate when he appointed the ex-Minister of Customs and Excise in this country, a man who had assisted in defrauding-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. It is not permissible to reflect upon any hon. member of the other chamber.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Well, Mr. Speaker, he was appointed to the senate. He was accused- if I may use that word-of bringing the department of which he was the head into disrepute.
We have another problem to-day, a problem that has been mentioned over and over again, and with which is interwoven all the future life of the Dominion, a problem which we cannot get away from however much we may try. I refer to the immigration problem. According to a return tabled the other day, we have brought into the Dominion, during the years this government has been in office, over eight hundred thousand immigrants. To this number must be added the natural increase, which should give a very largely augmented population. But has our population increased? On the contrary, there is a net loss of 60,000 to the U.S.A. in the past year. Where are those immigrants? The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning),

The Budget-Mr. Cotnam

speaking in this debate yesterday, said that we, in mentioning the fact that certain of our people were going across the line, were acting as advance agents for the immigration authorities of the United States. Well, that does not say much for the personnel of this government: How does that state of affairs fit in with' their prosperity cry? I would give the Minister of Railways or any of his colleagues credit for a little more sense than to 'believe that, although we suffered a net loss last year of sixty thousand Canadians to the United States, everything is prosperous here, wages are good, industries are booming, and agriculture is about 'as profitable as it would be made. Why were these sixty thousand Canadians foolish enough to forego the pleasant conditions depicted by the government and move across' to settle in such a country as the Minister of Railways painted yesterday with the help of newspaper reports? Well, it is the same old story; when the government want to cover up their deficiencies and ignore the facts they quote statistics and newspaper reports. Yet it cannot be denied that last year we lost sixty thousand Canadians to the United States. What are we doing to make good this loss? We are bringing in people from outside, people who in many cases know nothing about our traditions, our language, our customs. This is a sin and a shame, and I say it is a reproach to the government that they cannot find a solution of the problem. It is not up to us to find a solution; it is up to this government. I claim that the fiscal policy of the administration and their attitude generally towards our industries are responsible for driving our native-born across the line. The government must provide the remedy for this evil, otherwise the Dominion can never grow and develop as she would if we had in office a party capable of dealing in a statesmanlike way with this and other national problems.
I have in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, English, Irish, Scotch, French-Canadians, Germans, Poles and people of other nationalities, and they are living and working together in peace and harmony. I wish we had more of them. I should like to see more German immigrants brought in since the ban has been lifted on their entry, because they make most desirable citizens. They are thrifty, honest, hard-working, and they make a success of whatever they take in hand. I repeat, I wish I had more of them in my constituency. But no matter how many immigrants we may bring in, or what nationality they may be, they cannot in the nature of things make good the loss of our native-

born. I believe this is a problem for the mothers of Canada, and that they are going to have a great deal to do with its solution. It will be for them to say whether their children are to get at the hands of this government a square deal, whether conditions are to be such that their children when they arrive at adolescence will be assured an opportunity of securing useful and profitable vocations which will enable them to remain in the land of their birth. The government accuse the Conservative party of not having any policy to prevent this exodus to the United States. Well, what is the policy of the Liberal party in this regard? Have they any solution to offer that will be satisfactory to the people of Canada?
I can heartily sympathize with the hon. member for North Huron- (Mr. Spotton), for in my last election my riding also was invaded by cabinet ministers. I think the first minister to come in was the genial gentleman who presides over the Department of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). Let me tell it to the marines: he did not do me very much harm. The next minister to arrive was his good-natured colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals. Harm? No, I think he did me some good. He spoke about the customs scandal something along these lines: The customs scandal does not amount to very much -why, you know, you ladies would all like to smuggle a pair of silk stockings or a, few little handkerchiefs, or something like that, so really there is not very much in the charges after all. I suppose he meant that if the crime was not very serious it was not much of a sin in his eyes; but he shocked the moral sensibilities of the people by preaching such a doctrine.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually object, but my hon. friend is quoting me entirely wrong. As a matter of fact, in the course of several speeches, I discussed the moral attitude^ of the public towards the whole question, and not at all along the lines indicated by my hon. friend.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Perhaps the Minister of Railways was only discussing it in an ironical fashion.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, Mr. Speaker. I must protest. My speeches are of record, and my hon. friaind did not hear them. I made speeches, and they were reported correctly, and they were not along the lines indicated by him.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I took the report from the Liberal paper published in the constituency.

The Budget-Mr. Cotnam


Charles Avery Dunning: Has he got it?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Perhaps the minister will repudiate his own newspaper?


Charles Avery Dunning: If you read it incorrectly, yes.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I think I can read correctly-


Charles Avery Dunning: Go ahead.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: -most of the time. In passing, let me say that I always like to see the Minister of Railways get up in a debate, because he is a fighter. I am Irish myself and I like a scrap.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is the best part of yourself.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: But the Minister of Railways is imbued with some peculiar ideas. I think he must have brought some of his free trade ideas with him when he came to this country and he has not yet been able to adapt himself to conditions such as he finds them even in the great western land. I thought he went rather out of his way yesterday to make a somewhat wanton attack on the members who sit in the southeast of the chamber. I have had Progressives in my riding and I will always give them credit for this, that in whatever else I may not be able to agree with them I do believe that they are honest in their convictions and that they try to do what they think is right.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: And the Minister of Railways yesterday impugned the motives of the group who sit in that corner.


Charles Avery Dunning: I used no words capable of such an interpretation-no such words at all.


Mr. CANTLEY:: You are thin-skinned.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a matter of truth, a matter of record.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He merely stated bare facts.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I have only forty minutes, and interruptions curtail the time at my disposal. I am quite willing to leave it to the house, and even to members on the minister's side, to read Hansard and see what he did say. Perhaps the minister himself has not read Hansard and is not aware of what he said yesterday. I should not wonder, if he read Hansard, that he himself would be surprised to discover what he said. He went a little too far and said just a little bit more 56103-60*
than perhaps some of his colleagues were anxious to have him say. However, that is my personal opinion.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: It sounded all right here.


John Wesley Edwards: I3 that your private or your public opinion?


William Richard Motherwell: Both.
Mr. COTNAM;: I do not know what the people would have done if the genial Minister of Agriculture had told the agricultural community of my constituency just how the Australian treaty worked out to their advantage. Possibly, had he done so, it would have meant three or four hundred more of a majority for me. I should like him to go into my constituency and tell the mixed farmers of that riding how the treaty is operating to their benefit.


William Richard Motherwell: I am busy elsewhere.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I have here a report of a conference of the National Dairy Council of Canada and I find, looking over this report, that there were present at that meeting of the council the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. W. D. Euler, Minister of National Revenue, the Hon. J. A. Robb, Minister of Finance, the Hon. Charles A. Dunning, Minister of Railways, the Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior, the Hon. J. C. Elliott, Minister of Public Works and the Hon. James Malcolm, Minister of Trade and Commerce. An appeal was made to the members of the cabinet asking them to rescind the trade arrangement which had been made with Australia in that treaty. I wonder what the government intends to do about it. I notice in this report that in the Minister of Agriculture's own province over twenty dairy organizations closed their doors last fall.


William Richard Motherwell: There are not twenty in it.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The report of the council says so.


William Richard Motherwell: Not in my constituency.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I did not say in your
constituency.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, you did.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I said, in the province of Saskatchewan. At any rate, the dairy farmers and the mixed farmers of this country have not been getting a square deal from this gov-
The Budget-Mr. Cotnam

eminent. The farmers of my constituency have not been getting a square deal from them, and I submit the time has come when the government should look after the interests of our own farmers first and not the interests of the farmers of Australia and New Zealand. This government, through their ratification of the Australian trade agreement, have practically turned the Dominion of Canada into an importer, so far at least as butter is concerned. Whereas we had an exportable surplus of 24,000,000 pounds of butter in the year 1925, this year, according to this report from which I have read, this country will be importing in the neighbourhood of 10,000,000 pounds of butter, to the detriment of the dairy farmers of Canada. In order to give concessions to automobile parts manufacturers and to the pulp and paper industries of the country, the government penalized the dairy farmers. They also penalized the consumers, for whom their hearts bleed so often, making them pay, instead of a duty of two-thirds of a cent per pound on raisins, a duty of three cents per pound. The result is that we have brought in no more Australian raisins, but about 40,000,000 pounds last year from the United States, to the great disadvantage of the bakers and consumers of Canada. I received circulars from bakers in my town pointing out that on account of the increase in the price of raisins they were compelled to pay so much more for their product that they had to take the additional sum out of their own pockets because they could not raise the price of their product. The fact is that the consumers of Canada paid last year in round figures $1,500,000 more than they should have done in order to make possible the trade agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia for which the people of this Dominion received practically nothing in return. The Conservative party in this house fought that Australian treaty in 1925 and again in 1926. Indeed, the ex-member for South Oxford brought in an amendment to the budget calling on the government to repudiate the treaty.
Another gentleman came to my riding during the election to tell the electors how to vote. I refer to the present Canadian minister at Washington, a man who could not get a constituency of his own in the country. A man who could not represent the people of one constituency is sent by this government to represent all Canada at Washington. I wonder where he got his mandate, and what was the reason for his appointment. I listened to him as he tried to explain at that meeting how it was that the agricultural implement business had not been interfered with by

the tariff tinkering of this government. He did not tell the people that he got back in protection, through drawbacks, as much as he had or more than he had before, while the little fellow was obliged to pay for the concessions which were made to allow the Massey Harris implement works to carry on. Exactly the same method was adopted in connection with the automobile industry when the duty was lowered on automobiles.
Then last, but by no means least, we had in my riding the Prime Minister himself in the year 1926. I shall always be pleased, and I am sure the people of that constituency will also at all times be pleased, to receive with open arms the Prime Minister of this country, to whatever party he may belong, because we hold the office in high respect. The Prime Minister received a nice bouquet of roses and had a sweet little girl to kiss, but, apart from that, I do not know that he did very much harm or very much good to the cause he represented. He had with him, however, a gentleman whom I will not name but who did us a great deal of good. This gentleman came forward and said, " When in the whole history of this Dominion, or of any other country for that matter, had a man ever received back from the government a cheque for $300 on account of income tax? Well, I had the pleasure of receiving such a cheque the other day as a result of the Robb budget." The people in that constituency, the working people, the masses who are earning not more than five, six or seven hundred dollars a year, came to the conclusion that if that man could receive $300 back from the government on income tax he was well able to pay it into the revenue of the country. They said, " We do not want a government like that; they have retained the sales tax and taken the tax off the little fellow who is earning his $2 or $2.50 per day." In other words, I guess I had the experience of the hon. member for North Huron, and I would just like to add this word of warning to the government for the future. Apparently the people of this country are afraid of the cabinet, when they hunt in packs; if only one appeared it might be all right, but when they run together the people say as the Duke of Wellington said before Waterloo, "They scare me." The voters of that riding and the voters of North Huron were scared of them when they ran in packs.
I wish to draw one matter to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), again following the lead of the hon. member for North Huron. I believe it is a crying shame and disgrace to this country to-day that our rural mail carriers do not receive

The Budget-Mr. Cotnam
more remuneration for the services they render. I have several of these men in my constituency, and I am sure every rural member will agree with me when I say that these men are inadequately paid for the work they do. They face storms and all kinds of weather, travelling over all kinds of roads in order to give the people of this country a mail service, and surely there should be some way of devising a system whereby these mail carriers might receive adequate remuneration for the work they do. I do hope the Postmaster General will find some means of dealing with that problem.
There is just one other matter about which I would like to speak. I think the Minister of Finance first started the cry that the Conservative party stands for higher, higher and still higher protection; I heard the minister make that statement in this house last year and the year before, and as he spoke his voice went up the scale accordingly. Last year and this year I find the Minister of Railways and Canals joining in the same duet; yesterday in the house he stated that this was a part of the policy of the Conservative party -which it is not. This party is not asking and never has asked for higher protection; the Conservative party is asking for a square deal for the Canadian people. We believe that we should have a tariff sufficient to protect the farmers, the labouring people and the great masses of the people, and we believe that a tariff so adjusted and so modified as to give no one an undue advantage will work for the benefit of this country. We do not advocate a high tariff; an adequate tariff is what we desire. We do not ask it for the manufacturers alone but for every class and section of this country, and it is because this government has no fixed fiscal policy that we are to-day floundering in our present condition. We have a tariff board, which was appointed by this government, and how is that board composed? First we had an ex-minister of railways as chairman. Where did he learn anything about matters pertaining to the tariff? For the present chairman of the board we have an ex-lobbyist for the old Mackenzie and Mann interests which were once predominant in this country. What do we get from this tariff board? They have been in existence over a year and a half and we have had absolutely nothing from them; they are simply acting as a buffer between this government and the people, to give the government something behind which they can hide.
And then the Minister of Finance tells the people it is necessary to economize. Why, Mr. Speaker, I always thought economy, like charity, began at home. I should think it
would be up to this government to give the people a few object lessons in economy. The minister says the watchwords must be work and thrift, but the people in my constituency cannot work any harder and they cannot be any thriftier; the farmers and labourers get up at four or five o'clock in the morning, long before the Minister of Finance stirs from his comfortable bed; they work all through the day with perhaps an hour for lnuch and sometimes continue far into the night. It takes them sixteen or eighteen hours a day to make a living and to keep things going.


Hewitt Bostock: Time.
On motion of Mr. Kennedy the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.38 p.m.
Friday, March 2, 1928