1928-02-21

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

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

[Stage Direction]
Report of Gordon W. Scott, Chartered Accountant of Montreal, on the activities and

The Budget-Mr. Manion
"modus operandi" of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.-Hon. Mr. King.
CUSTOMS TARIFF SCHEDULE Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance): On Friday of last week the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) asked for a comparative statement of the changes in the customs tariff as delivered in the budget. I am now tabling this, errors and omissions excepted. The officers of the department assure me that it is fairly complete, but as there are a number of reclassifications we may discover some errors as we proceed. I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Dunning:
That 1,500 copies in English and 500 copies in French of the comparative rates of customs duties enumerated in the lists now tabled be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.
TARIFF ADVISORY BOARD On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he will file a statement showing the applications that have been reported upon by the tariff advisory board?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I think I can. I will look into it and give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.



DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the government to have the Hunter report printed and distributed to the members?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: I had not thought
of doing that. The report was tabled yesterday and I see that it has been given a good deal of publicity in the press. If it were thought essential to publish it, I do not suppose there would be any objection, but I do not think it is necessary.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
think it would be advisable if the minister would agree to printing the report, as it is not a very lengthy one. I am not speaking of the evidence; I am speaking merely of the report. The house would appreciate its being printed.


Mr. PARENT:: I submit that this should
be published in both languages.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: On behalf of the government I would say that a motion will be introduced to-morrow to have the report printed in both languages.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Cahan.
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, in the forty minutes at my disposal I shall not attempt to deal at all exhaustively with the financial aspects of the budget. They were dealt with very ably yesterday by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). He particularly pointed out the fallacy, stated now for two or three years by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), in regard to the supposed cut in the debt of this country when, as a matter of fact, due to guarantees placed upon bonds for the national railways, bonds upon which the national railways are not paying interest, the debt is really being increased rather than decreased. When the railways reach the stage of paying interest on their bonds, then the Minister .of Finance might be justified in taking the attitude that he does. I do not, however, wish to go further into that matter as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George elaborated it very thoroughly yesterday, and I have other matters to deal with in regard to the faults and failings of this government which will take me my full forty minutes, and, if I were permitted, would take me three times as long.
The rest of the budget deals largely with matters such as the income tax, and income taxpayers will no doubt be somewhat pleased. As that affects only 200,000 or 225,000 people in this country, it does not affect 97 per cent of the people at all. The corporation tax is another of the same sort. If the reduction in the sales tax had been ample; if it had been along the lines proposed in our amendment, it might have made some difference in the cost of living; but as it is merely a reduction of the sales tax back to the point at which it stood when we went out of power, a reduction of only one per cent from the present rate, I fear that not very much of the reduction will be passed on to the consumers of this country, and, therefore, I am afraid that, as the tax stands to-day, the public generally will not benefit much.

The Budget-Mr. Manion

While the tariff changes may seem minor when one looks at them first, already from reports coming in to members of this house who have in their constituencies mills which are affected by these tariff changes, it looks as if serious injury was once again going to be done by this government to the industrial life of this country. I have incidentally in my hand a report which I received a couple of days ago in the mail. This is the annual report of the Monarch Knitting Company, a company in which many years ago I happened to take a very small block of preferred stock. About the time when this government came into power-I do not say it was exactly at that time-this company stopped paying interest on the preferred stock, and I notice in their financial report this sentence which is worth reading:
We are hopeful that an adjustment of duties at an early date will enable us to secure the portion of the business which we previously enjoyed, but which is now going to countries with a lower standard of wages and living conditions.
I fear the Monarch Knitting Company among others will not derive much benefit from the present budget. As time goes on, the government and the people of this country will find that the reductions in the present tariff, though minor in appearance, will do more injury to the industrial life of our country and drive still greater numbers of our people to the country to the south of us to earn their living which they are denied here at home.
Let me ask the Minister of Finance this: What is there in the whole budget for the ordinary man in the street? The budget is largely a review of conditions as seen through the somewhat prejudiced glasses of the Minister of Finance with the addition of the usual boasts by the minister and the government that such prosperity as the country is enjoying is the result of their good work in governing this country. As a matter of fact, they know as well as we know, and as the people of Canada know full well, that the real improvements, such as they are, that have taken place in conditions in our country have been due to the munificent gifts of nature, to our fertile soil, a salubrious climate, to deep and rich mineral deposits, to our teeming fisheries, and to the luxuriant growth of pulpwood and timber in our country-all nature's gifts merely awaiting the hand of man to turn them into wealth in this magnificently endowed country of ours. We have made this general statement from this side of the house many times, and it has been denied by members on the other side. I do not like to make a general statement without giving fMr. Manion.l
some proofs. I looked up the values of production of various kinds in this country since this government came into power, and I find that in 1922 the total production in all lines was $2,939,000,000. In 1926, the last year for which statistics are available in the statistical branch, the total production was $3,582,000,000, or an increased production of $643,000,000 net.


Mr. DUNNING:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways says, "hear, hear." I am very happy to agree with him that increased production has taken place, but of that increased production, $304,000,000, practically half of it, was in what are called the primary industries; that is, agriculture, mining, forestry, fisheries, trapping and electrical power, over which even my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will admit that no government has any particular control.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh!


Robert James Manion: The total primary production of this country in 1926 was over $2,000,000,000; that is the production over which the government has no control in these primary producing industries; in other words, it was the result of our natural resources in this country, plus the energy and ambition of our people, and had nothing whatever to do with this government or any other government. If we had been in power I would say exactly the same; and the balance of the riches that have been produced in this country is merely the consequence of those greater riches produced by the bounties of nature. Yet this government boasts continually that the improved prosperity-I do not like to use the term increased prosperity, because I fear from many evidences that that prosperity is largely superficial-the government boasts that the improved conditions are entirely due to their efforts. They seem to be so surprised that their foolish policies in so many directions have not entirely ruined the country that they have become more or less intoxicated .and have formed themselves into a sort of mutual admiration society, and even the Minister of Finance, who is usually rather moderate in his remarks, has now joined that society and elaborated upon the good work of the government in combining with nature. Only the other evening the Minister of Railways was reminded of the bounties of Providence, and with a complacency that was almost unparalleled he agreed that Providence was combining with this government; he even went so far as almost to congratulate Providence on having this government's coopera-

The Budget-Mr. Manion
tion. It reminded me a little of a rhyme I knew some twenty-five or thirty years ago that was made by an American admiral regarding the then kaiser. It was called " Me and Gott." The first verse ran:
The kaiser of this fatherland
And God on high all things command,
We two, ach, don't you understand?
Myself and God.
My hon. friend the Minister of Railways reminded me of that verse the other night, but I should like him to remember what happened the kaiser; it might be well to remember the lessons of history. I add that if there ever was a government which deserves so little of that self-laudation and selfsatisfaction in which this government so easily and so often indulges, it is the present government. What has really happened is that a kindly Providence took pity on an afflicted land-afflicted with a government that lacks leadership, initiative, decision and imagination, a government which seems incapable of deciding for itself and must have everything decided for it by a commission of one kind or another. For example, we have had commissions in the last year or two on the claims of the maritimes, soldiers' civil re-establishment, immigration, the tariff, agriculture, and heaven only knows how many other subjects. I find myself wondering if this government ever has had the courage, decision, and imagination to decide anything without first being told what it should decide by some commission appointed by itself or by this house.
Let me in the few minutes at my disposal analyse very briefly a few of the delinquencies of this government. I will touch briefly on some of its errors of omission, though I could spend just as much time dealing with its errors of commission, but as I have not time to deal with both, I shall deal with the sins of omission of which it is guilty.
I shall not be so unfair as to say that this government in the seven years it has been in power has never done any good thing. I admit that probably it has at one time or another done something that has been useful to this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Each of the ministers is
smiling and taking the credit to his own department. Even my friend the Minister of Finance is becoming afflicted with the habit.
Let me name, Mr. Speaker, a few of the important problems which this country has to face, and which it must solve if it is to become one of the great and progressive nations of the world. The first one I shall name is the immigration problem. Every-56103-42
body who speaks before audiences in this country admits that immigration is one of the most important problems in our country. With our vast open spaces and our great opportunities Canada should be the mecca of all the desirable people in all the crowded portions of the earth, and yet the results which this government have achieved in the matter of immigration since it came into power are nil, or worse. Last year, according to the American figures, we lost to the United States over 84,000 Canadians, and that is in addition to those who crossed the line by underground routes and consequently did not get upon the American records. We received 159,000 immigrants, of whom 53,000 were from Great Britain-these figures are taken from the Immigration department itself -24,000 from the United States, and 82,000 from continental Europe. I became curious as to the 24,000 from the United States and asked authorities in the Immigration department to give me the figures as to their nationality, and I found that more than half of them were from continental Europe via the United States. So we have received in Canada, after losing 84,000 Canadians to the United States, 65,000 British people, and when I say British I am assuming all Englishspeaking immigrants to be British. We have received also 94,000 continental Europeans. I have nothing to say against them. I have a great many of them in my own part of the country and I like them very much, but they have to learn our traditions, our history, our customs and policies and everything else in this country, and it takes a long time to turn them into Canadians equal to the Canadians bom in this country. That shows what a very slight gain we are making from the standpoint of immigration in this country. There is no sign of an immigration policy from the government or from the minister who holds the portfolio of immigration.
And has anybody in this house any hope of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) giving us any policy on immigration. I say this without any disrespect towards him, but the hon. gentleman finds it difficult enough to answer the most simple questions affecting his department. Of course, everyone knows that he was not taken into the government for his ideas, but for the votes he could bring to their support. There is no more hope of getting a real immigration policy from this government than there is of turning snowballs into grapefruit.
In the forty minutes at my disposal I can touch only very briefly on these questions. What is the attitude of the government in regard to the St. Lawrence waterway scheme? Nobody knows. Reports have been coming

The Budget-Mr. Manion

in since 1922, but apparently they have been pigeonholed and forgotten. After all, the government is supposed to give some leadership to the country, they are supposed to tell the country to some extent what steps should be taken, whether right or wrong. But so far we have heard nothing from the government on what is one of the most important questions affecting the Dominion-important not only nationally, but important internationally, because it affects both Canada and the United States. Again I ask, what is the attitude of the government on this very important question? Have they any attitude in regard to it? Nobody knows.
Then what attitude is the government going to take in regard to the development of the hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore which we have scattered throughout this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific? A United States engineer has estimated that there are three thousand million tons of iron ore, of 35 per cent or better, located along the north ^hore of lake Superior. At the present rate of consumption in the United States we have enough ore to last a hundred and fifty years, and yet we are mining not one ton of it to-day. Although the government have been approached by the Ontario government and by the government of Quebec, offering to unite with the federal authorities in a scheme for the development of our iron ore deposits, no move is being made by this administration. The cost of sending a more or less useless ambassador to Japan would at least be sufficient to try out such a scheme. It would give a chance also to lessen to a certain extent the imports of two hundred million dollars' worth or more of iron and steel products from the United States.
Associated with this is the question of the deplorable conditions in the iron and steel industry of Nova Scotia. That industry today is being run at only 30 or 40 per cent of its capacity. But no move is being made by the government to develop a policy to help the iron and steel industry. And yet this industry is the basic industry of commercial progress of every industrial country in the world.
Next I come to the coal question. What has the government done to give us a national fuel policy? We have the second largest coal deposits of any country in the world, yet last year we imported sixty-two million dollars' worth of coal, largely from the United States. Our miners in Nova Scotia are idle, our miners in Alberta are idle, but they are not any more idle than this government so far as a national coal policy is concerned. The people of this country, Mr. Speaker, are ready to make every effort and sojme sacrifice to

get this important problem solved. Surely the government should make some effort to bring about a solution.
And what are the government doing regarding the development of our natural resources within the Dominion?-not permitting Ahem, as at present, to go across in the raw state to our neighbours, from whom we are graciously allowed to buy them back at a much enhanced value in the shape of finished products. In this as in everything else the government are doing everything to favour the foreigner, and as little as possible to favour Canadians, because so far as anyone can see not a move is being made by the government to solve this great national problem.
Then I ask, what is the government doing to open the thousands of closed plants from the Atlantic to the Pacific? I have in my riding a number of closed plants. I have brought their condition to the attention of the government, but without result. Yet the imposition of a duty of a fraction of a cent a pound would open at least one of those plants and give it the Canadian market. But not a move has been made by the government to reopen that plant or any of the other closed plants throughout the Dominion. This budget instead of opening some of these plants will either close down more or compel them to lower their production.
What is the government doing regarding the exodus of our people to the United States? Last year that exodus amounted to over eighty-four thousand people. True, that is not as many as went across in the previous years, simply because there are fewer to go. That is the main reason, and in addition we have to thank a bountiful Providence, which, plus the exodus of hundreds of thousands in other years, leaves fewer at home for the jobs which now remain. That is the way the government has cured the unemployment problem-by exporting our unemployed to the United States. The cure for this undesirable condition, Mr. Speaker, is to provide more work and wages so that our workingmen may remain in Canada. Let us do this instead of benefiting the foreigner by increasing our imports. It is only by a policy that will encourage the greater production of all kinds of commodities in this Dominion that we shall build up a broad national life, and so give our sons and our daughters the opportunity to remain in their native land instead of being forced to go to the United States, as they are at the present time, to get those opportunities which are denied them at home. Those boys and girls of ours desire to remain Canadians. They want to utilize their talents.

The Budget-Mr. Manion
employ their energies, and fulfil their ambitions here, but the government are doing their best to force them across the line and so turn them into good citizens of the United States.
And what about Senate reform? Not a very important subject, I admit, although the Prime Minister at one time made it a prime subject, in fact his battle cry, when appealing to the electorate. What has happened to Senate reform since the people were hoodwinked by that battle cry of the Prime Minister? I am afraid that having served its purpose it has gone into the limbo of forgotten things.
The cost of living was another battle cry.
I remember the eloquence of the Prime Minister, ten years ago, when he was leading the opposition. Backed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) he used to tear us to shreds and rip the silver off the clouds in their denunciation of what they termed our criminal folly in not cutting down the cost of living. They used to do that.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: And Mr. Murdock.


Robert James Manion: Yes. but the people
attended to him. They used to move an amendment each session condemning us for not cutting down the cost of living. I have looked up the cost of living for the past few years since my right hon. friend has been in office. This information I secured from the department of the Minister of Labour. It show-s that in July 1922, a few months after this government came into office, the average cost of living for food, fuel, light, rent, etc., was $20 67. Last year in July it amounted to $21.10, five years after the government came into office, and in December. 1927, the cost of living had risen to $21.37. That is, in July, 1927, it had risen 43 cents, and in December, 1927, another 27 cents, or altogether 70 cents since our friends opposite took charge of the affairs of the country. I do not know how the Prime Minister and his supporters can answer the question, why they have not cut down the cost of living, for which they abused us so unmercifully when they were in opposition.
Then what about trade in general? The Minister of Finance has boasted of the increase in our trade, but for the last few years our imports have been increasing and our exports decreasing-the reverse of what all thinking people wish to see in this country. Our trade treaties have not helped us. Take the French treaty for example; under it France has benefited, not Canada.
Next I should like to know what the government have done for our workingmen during 56103-421
the seven years that they have been in power. Little, if anything, that I can think of. Of course, they will claim that they have given our working people old age pensions, but that scheme is only acceptable so far to one province, British Columbia.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Robert James Manion: What other provinces have accepted the legislation?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Manitoba and
Saskatchewan.


Robert James Manion: Do my hon. friends say
that more than one province has accepted that legislation?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure they have.


Robert James Manion: Then the deputy minister of the Department of Labour is misinformed, because I made it my business within the last two days to put the question to him, and he told me that the only province that has as yet accepted the old age pensions legislation is British Columbia. I choose to accept hia information as being correct.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: It is not finally accepted yet, but the necessary bill is now going through the Saskatchewan legislature.


Robert James Manion: In other words, hope springs eternal in the human breast, but hope deferred rnaketh the heart sad. I had disposed of old age pensions by stating the facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I do not know why my
hon. friend^ laugh. The fact is that only one province so far has adopted the scheme.
Another claim by the government is that they have cut taxation for the benefit of the working people. What good will the cut in the sales tax do the working man? In all probability it will not be passed on to him. What good will a reduction in the income tax do him? Certainly no working man will benefit by the income tax cut for the simple reason that he does not pay income tax. Neither did the cut last year in the price of automobiles help him. Nor was the removal of the receipt tax last year-a tax which the government put on and then took off-of the slightest benefit to him. In short, the Canadian working man has less to give receipts for since this government came into power than ever before. I cannot find anything by which the government has benefited the working man. The real criterions of prosperity in this country are not the cost of automobiles, nor the height of the income tax, but the condition of the workingman's breakfast table
The Budget-Mr. Manion

and his clothes line, and his opportunity to get employment when he needs it, instead of being obliged to seek his living in a foreign land. Indeed, the only kindness that I can find this government has shown the working men of this country so far is in giving to them permits to go over to the United States. A great deal of Christian forgiveness is all they owe it.
What is being done by the government for our returned soldiers? We hear more complaints than ever to-day about pensions, and yet the Pension department is being run at a higher cost. The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is 'being abolished, largely, I have no doubt, on political grounds. But the strange thing is that the expenses of that department, added to those of the Department- of Health with which it is now combined are higher by $35,000 this year than when the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment was functioning. For the year 1928-29 the total expenses of the two amount to $8,000,000 as compared1 with $7,965,000 the year before, or an increase of $35,000,000.
An -hon. MEMBER: $35,000.


Robert James Manion: What did I say

millions? I do not want to make it worse than it is; it is bad enough.
Now, what has this government done for the miners, the farmers and the fishermen of this country? The miners of Nova Scotia are idle and the fishermen in many parts of the country are needy. Both for the miners who are out of work and those fishermen who are in straitened circumstances, I presume the reduction in the income tax [DOT] will afford considerable relief. But, Mr. Speaker, for the farmers the government have done nothing; indeed, they have done less than nothing, for they have permitted tens of millions of pounds of butter to be imported to come into competition with and destroy the business of Canadian dairy farmers. Moreover, they have seen the American market practically wiped out; it has been gradually disappearing in the last few years so that to-day there is nothing to look for in that direction. I am not making statements which I cannot back up. In 1921 we exported of farm products to the United States-and I again quote the government's figures-$159,000,000 worth. If hon. gentlemen want confirmation of this statement I refer them to the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Compare that export figure of $159,000,000 in 1921 with our total exports of the same products to the United 'States in the same twelve months of 1927 of $64,000,000, and you have a reduction of nearly $100,000,000. This reduction in our rMr. Minion.]
exports of farm products to the United States within the1 last few years has been due, I admit, largely to the Fordney tariff-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Who says no?


An hon. MEMBER:: It is evident.


Robert James Manion: So is everything else evident that is wrong with this government. But, Sir, what is the government doing to improve the market for the farmers? The United States government puts up a high wall to keep out our farm products, while this government sits idly by and allows this exclusion of our products from the American market to continue without taking steps to offset it. Why should the farmers of the west support this government under such circumstances? Indeed, for that matter, why should any farmer from any section of Canada support hon. gentlemen opposite? Why should not red-blooded Canadians show some spirit of retaliation in self defence against such action on the part of the United States? I do not ask this question with any feeling of bitterness, for I fully realize that the United States government is protecting the interests of its own people. But why do we not assert ourselves and meet them on their own ground with their own weapons, instead of demanding, as some hon. members apparently are doing, that we import still more from across the line than we have done in the past?
But the farmers are not the only class in the United States whom the American government protects. I have under my hand all the facts of a case which I will quote from briefly, as I am bound to do seeing that my time is going. Let me mention this case of a Canadian manufacturer of ladies' garments operating in the city of Toronto. In May, 1925, he happened to be in Detroit and seeing in the windows some clothing with which he thought he could compete he managed to secure an order for $192 worth of ladies' dresses for shipment to that city. He shipped them over a tariff of 50 per cent; that was the rate of duty and the dealer in Detroit who had given the order knew it. This dealer paid the 50 per cent on the goods but the customs officers refused to release them, and practically overnight the duty was increased to 90 per cent, with the result that the dealer was unable to take the shipment and make a profit on it. What was the outcome of this endeavour to export to the neighbouring country? The manufacturer in Toronto, known to many hon. members, had t.o take back the goods after having paid express and other charges. This incident is

The Budget-Mr. Manion
illustrative of the treatment which the Americans mete out to the producers of Canada. The only thing to which they give free entry from Canada as the brain and brawn of our country; they will admit, free, the best of our young men and women-the greatest natural resource of any country. Yet our imports from the United States are on the increase.
What is the situation so far as the automobile industry is concerned? And this is another matter in respect of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) frequently tries to hoodwink the Canadian people. I have heard him say quite often that the automobile industry has not been impaired as a result of the reductions which have been made in the tariff. He has many times so stated. I notice he does not just now interject any denial, but he keeps on reiterating that the automobile industry has not been injured by tariff reductions. Well, I can only again quote the government against itself. I have here a document entitled Monthly Report on Automobile Statistics for Canada, published by the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and dated 60 recently as 1928. It therefore gives the facts for the year 1927. I will quote just a few sentences. First:
In review-
That is after a brief summary of the situation,
-a comparison of statistical data covering the Canadian automobile industry for 1927 with the figures for the corresponding period of a year ago shows the following features: (1)Production was lower by 13 per cent; (2) exports were lower by 23 per cent; (3) imports were higher by 28 per cent.
Has the automobile industry been adversely affected? The answer is obvious. Let me quote further:
During December, 1927, the production of automobiles in Canada amounted to 3,435 cars. This was the lowest output reported for any month during the past three years, being only slightly over one half the number of 6,617 cars made in the previous month and less than one half the number of 7,752 cars produced in December of a year ago.
I quote still further:
Imports of automobiles into Canada during 1927 totalled 36,630 cars, an increase of 28 per cent over the 28,535 cars imported last year which in turn was almost double the 14,632 cars brought into Canada during 1925 . . . Exports of automobiles from Canada during 1927 amounted to 57,793 cars, a decrease of 23 per cent from the 74,553 cars shipped to foreign countries in 1926.
I trust that with these facts from the Department of Trade and Commerce staring the Minister of Finance in the face he will
not have the effrontery-because his oft repeated assertion that the industry has not been injured as a result of tariff reductions is utterly unwarranted-to declare in the future that the interference with the tariff is not injurious to the industry of the country. But other associated industries as well have been similarly injured. Free trade England protects the automobile industry tp the extent of 33jr per cent under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and this i-s one of the few industries in England which is prosperous today.
There are other changes in the budget which will tend to ruin our industrial life, further increase unemployment, and take away from us our best boys' and girls' opportunities to remain Canadians. Apart from the serious blow struck at our woollen mills, what about the sheep industry? Canada is admitted by agriculturists to possess a country ideally adapted to the raising of sheep, and yet whereas there are two and three-quarter million sheep in Canada, Great Britain, as large as a postage stamp in comparison, has twenty-two million, New Zealand, about the same size as the British Isles, twenty-seven millions-nine times as many as we have in Canada-and Australia ninety-seven million. Canada, with two and three-quarter million sheep, is having its woollen industry materially affected by changes in the budget so that the sheep industry, instead of being encouraged, is in jeopardy, with the government a blight upon it.
We talk about national unity to Which we pay a good deal of lip loyalty. But if you go into Quebec-and I say this in no spirit of bitterness whatsoever-you will find that issues have been raised there in the last three elections to create prejudices and antagonisms enough to last the country for another generation.
What has the government done to economize? Look at the estimates. Whereas the year before last the total estimates amounted to 8348,000,000, last year they were 1366,000,000, or an increase of $18,000,000, while this year they are increased still further by $8,000,000, the main estimates being $374,000,000. And this without the supplementary estimates, which will probably amount to another $10,000,000 or $15,000,000. Every country in the world-England, France, the United States, Italy and Germany-is practising economy; Canada alone seems to care naught for the future, Canada alone seems to think that there is no bottom to her treasury. The government seems to think that there is no limit
The Budget-Mr. Manion

to the resources of the treasury. It is true that money has been freer in this country, but the old adage is just as applicable to governments as it is to individuals. Governments as well as individuals should prepare for the proverbial rainy day. It is true that the revenues of this country have been higher, but while the Minister of Finance claims to have lowered taxation he has actually increased it though he has lowered the rates of taxation in some instances
I was rather amused the other day when the Minister of Finance pointed out that the government is collecting $12,000,000 more from customs than it did last year. At that statement his supporters applauded noisily, whereas they should have been hanging their heads in shame when they remembered that this increase in revenue was the result of the efforts of my hon. friend the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who insisted upon an inquiry into the affairs of the Customs department, with the result that a commission of inquiry was appointed and certain findings arrived at and partially carried out.
It is no wonder that there have been many demands in the press asking for the inauguration of economy. It is indeed time that the people of this country paused and thought of the future, paused and prepared for that proverbial rainy day which I mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, my time is nearly up, but before I sit down I wish to relate a little historical incident. It took place away back about one hundred years ago and it applies in a sense to this government. There was a government formed in England which contained many unknown parliamentarians, if you will-I shall not say mediocrities because I do not wish to be disrespectful to my hon. friends-so many people who were unknown, [DOT] that one day when the Duke of Wellington was being told by a friend of his in the House of Commons who the members of the new government were, the duke being somewhat deaf, did not recognize the names and he kept asking "Who? Who?" That government from that day became known as the "who, who government."


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It was another "shadow" government.


Charles Avery Dunning: What about the "shadow" government?


Robert James Manion: I presume the shadow
government as my hon. friends term it had many faults. Apparently the people thought so, but the faults of the shadow government were nothing to the faults of this government.
I was going to say-in view of the questions 
I asked as to what this government had done to solve the various problems of the country, and to which the only answer I got was the echo "what?" throughout the halls of parliament-this government might be called, not the "who who government," but the "what what government"-perhaps I should say the "whatnot government."
Now, I am certain that I shall be taxed with having made a "destructive" speech, but what is the use of delivering any other kind of a speech in this house? What is the use of delivering constructive speeches to this government when they either do not comprehend them or do not accept them at their proper value? My hon. friend the leader of the opposition last year advanced a constructive suggestion in regard to a method of conducting the finances of the country. Was any attention paid to it?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What is the policy of the Conservative party now?


Robert James Manion: Ask my leader when he
speaks later on in the debate. Last year I offered suggestions to this government in regard to the development of our iron ore resources. I was backed up by the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) and the hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr.' Cowan), and various other hon. members in this house. But no attempt has been made to develop the hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore which extend throughout this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) moved a resolution urging the adoption of a national fuel policy, but nothing has arisen therefrom. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) delivered a constructive speech in favour of a more progressive immigration policy, because we are not getting many immigrants of the right class into this country, but it failed to provoke any response from the government. What is the use then of offering constructive suggestions to this government? The only alternative, Mr. Speaker, is to convince the people of the country that if this magnificent nation is to be developed, if it is to get into its proper stride in the direction of national prosperity it will have to elect a government with initiative, with imagination, and with real leadership, with a strong, virile Canadian policy which will be employed on behalf of our native sons and not on behalf of foreigners in whose favour this government, consciously or unconsciously, seems to be acting all the time. The thinking people of the country realize that whatever improved conditions prevail in Canada are due to a bountiful

The Budget-Mr. Lavigueur
harvest, to the digging of minerals from the earth and to the pulp, paper, lumber and fishing industries.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Providence.


Robert James Manion: And Providence over whose policy this government has no control, because if it had any control it would probably ruin Providence as well as the country. Unless this government awakes from its complacent and self laudatory lethargy I venture the prophecy that at the next election the people will be so aroused and will bring about such an upheaval that a speech such as this will not be needed in Canada in many a moon.


Mr. H. E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec-Mont-morency):: We have listened to a lot of criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) based upon the supposed imperfections of the budget brought down on Thursday last by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). But I should like to point out that in the press of Canada, both Liberal and Conservative, very high appreciation of the budget has been expressed,
' and tihe greatest eulogies have been bestowed upon the government because of the features which the budget contains. There was, at the close of the fiscal year, a surplus of $54,815,000, which, added to the four previous surpluses of this government, represents a total of $150,000,000. Consider the reduction in taxation of $19,000,000 which will be of the utmost advantage to the country in general. The hon. member for Fort William said a moment ago that this reduction in taxation will not benefit the common people, but will be of benefit only to trade and industry. Well, sir, this is the kind of policy we want, because if industry and trade are prosperous the country will be prosperous. The enormous debt of this country has been reduced by a large amount, so we are going in the right direction. _ I heard one of the fluent speakers opposite state a few days ago that we were taking advantage of the prosperity of our country. That may be so, 'but I contend that the prosperity of the country is due to our administration. Take as an example the province of Quebec, which has had a good administration under the Liberal regime for fifteen or twenty years; the prosperity which exists in that province under that administration is recognized all over the country. So it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the best budgets presented in this house since confederation.
I do not wish to speak at great length on these questions, which will be debated by more able members, but will pass on to a matter to which I have directed the attention of the house during the last two or three years. I refer to the Civil Service Commission. I have stated already in this house that I am entirely against this commission; I fail to see the good of it. I am not in favour of patronage, but on the other hand I believe that members should be prepared to accept the responsibility for any recommendations they may make. The Civil Service Commission costs this country over $300,000 each year, and it has been admitted that they do not render the service which was intended. In many cases I think they have made great mistakes, and I think it would be really better if the patronage were handed over to those who are responsible to their electors. I do not see why the head of a department, who is experienced in his work and who knows the kind of employees he wants, should not be more competent to select such employees from the applicants for any position, with the ratification of the minister heading that department. When I nominate a lighthouse keeper or a postmaster in the county of Montmorency, I think I am in a better position to judge the merits of these men than the members of the Civil Service Commission who sit here in Ottawa and pass upon these applications. It is within my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that in some of the examinations conducted by the Civil Service Commission candidates passing the examination have not received the appointment, while others who have tried no examinations at all have succeeded in securing appointments. I also know of the case of a man who presented himself for an examination; he had taken a classical course in a Quebec seminary, but another man who could hardly read or write his own name- was given the preference by the Civil Service Commission. There are many cases where we see that the Civil Service Commission does not serve the object for which it was created, and a change should be made immediately. I have nothing to say about the commissioners themselves; I think they are perfectly honest and are doing their utmost to fulfil their duties, but there is certainly some defect in this commission and radical changes should be made.
I made this same appeal last year; I stated my case then, and I again appeal to the government and to this house. To-day I again ask the government and the House of Commons to study this question of the Civil Service

The Budget-Mr. Lavigueur
Commission and see if any alterations can be made that will improve the situation. I stated that I was not in favour of patronage, but on the other hand I think it belongs to the member who has the confidence of his people to assume, as he should assume, the responsibility of the nominations he has to make in his constituency. This is patronage that belongs to us; it is patronage that should be left to the members and to the minister. When a member recommends someone either to the deputy minister or to the minister, there is the safeguard that he is interested in making the best nomination possible, and as there are always many candidates for the position, the recommendation of the man who is best able to recommend a candidate should be accepted in all cases. As I say, during the last three years I have spoken three times against the Civil Service Commission, in which I have no faith, and unless something is done I will not let the question rest. I know that many other members, I do not care who they are, Liberals or Conservatives or Independents, have had cases similar to the ones that I have mentioned. As I have stated I hope that something will be done to improve the situation, and unless something is done I will come back again next session, if not before.
I wish to say a few words regarding the railway situation in Quebec city. For many years we have been promised improvements and we have adked the railway authorities to give attention to the question as it affects our city. The Canadian National Railways have not furnished us with the proper accommodation that we should have in Quebec city. We have been told on many occasions that the railway authorities were contemplating the construction of a new station in our city and we hope they will do something to improve the situation. We should receive a much better service and on many occasions the Quebec board of trade, the city council and the citizens in general have asked the railway authorities for better service, but we find that things do not move very rapidly. I regret the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) is not in his seat at the present time as I should like to draw his attention to this situation; but we hope that Sir Henry Thornton, who has made such a great success of the administration of the national railways, will spare a little of his time to come down and study the situation in our city.
Since I have had the honour of being a member of this house-and this is my twelfth session-I have every year drawn the attention of the house to some of the needs of my district and more particularly of my constituency. This year I wish to mention the question of

a bridge between the island of Orleans and Quebec city. This bridge was promised some years ago, namely, in 1911, by the hon. gentleman who preceded me in this constituency, the Hon. T. Chase Casgrain, who then promised the people of the island of Orleans that a bridge would be constructed from the island to Quebec city. There are on the island of Orleans six beautiful agricultural parishes which in the winter time, are without any communication. The people there are most deserving and I may say, en passant, that it is very seldom one meets on the island of Orleans a family of less than ten, twelve, fifteen or eighteen children. Those people are asking for better accommodation; they are asking the federal government to help the province of Quebec to construct this bridge. A couple of weeks ago a delegation of more than three hundred of those good people came to meet their member, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, Premier of Quebec, whose colleague I have the great honour to be, and they asked him to come to their assistance by constructing a bridge from the island to Quebec city. Mr. Taschereau's answer was that he was quite willing to do his share provided the federal government also did its share. I know that our worthy ministers from the province of Quebec who are here are most sympathetic to this project.	While I realize it is a
difficult one and the federal government will not build bridges, yet the federal government has on occasion subscribed generously towards bridge construction. I would once more ask our ministers from the province of Quebec to try to induce their colleagues in the cabinet to take action to assure the construction of the bridge on the island of Orleans.
There is another question in connection with the island of Orleans which I wish to mention here again to-day. For a considerable time past I have been urging the department to take control of the telephone system on the island of Orleans. The' telephone system at present is under the control of a private company, which is exploiting the people. The service is very unsatisfactory, and the people maintain that they are being overcharged. What we are asking is that the government take over and administer this-telephone system for the benefit of the people on the island, so that they may receive the service to which they are entitled. I regret that the Minister of Public Works (Mr.. Elliott) is not in his seat at the moment, but I hope he will take note of this demand, for it is a question that must be settled, and settled soon. I would add that I am not simply asking for a settlement of this tele-

The Budget-Mr. Lavigueur
phone question on the island of Orleans; I say to the government that we want this telephone line and we must have it.
I have another demand to make of the government. I was very much surprised and disappointed to see that the necessary amount for the construction of a post office at Beauportville had not been inserted in the estimates. I hope the government will reconsider this question and that the amount required for the erection of a public building, to be utilized as a post office, on the ground purchased by the government in 1913 will be provided in the supplementary estimates, and work be started on the building very shortly.
Before taking my seat I wish to say a word with reference to the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). The hon. member has decided to withdraw his motion protesting against the language of the Mexican consul at Toronto, who has insulted, I may say, half of the people of this country, French-speaking as well as English-speaking-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I may say to the hon. member that what I suspect he is about to say is out of order for that question is not before the house. We are now discussing the budget, with which it has nothing to do.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I bow to your ruling,
Mr. Speaker. I only wanted to say that 1 would have been quite willing to second the motion of the hon. member for Bonaventure.
The name of the Premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Tascliereau, has been mentioned in this house, but I noticed with pleasure that the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) has answered certain criticisms which were made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot.)


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. My point of order is that the matters to which the hon. member is referring were discussed in the debate on the address, when my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavigueur) had every opportunity to reply to those statements. This is a different debate entirely, and I do not know what relation exists between the Hon. L. A. Taschereau, of Quebec, and the federal budget at Ottawa.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay had answered very properly the criticisms which were made by the hon. member for Temiscouata as to the
help given to the Hon. Mr. Taschereau in the last election. I say that there is not a man-[DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: No reference can be made to a debate which has taken place during the present session.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I am not referring to
another debate, Mr. Speaker, but to the speech of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay.


Hewitt Bostock: That was in another debate.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal candidates in the Last election were all returned by big majorities, and that was due to the good policies of the Liberal party. In the Liberal party we have a very able man, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, who has been unsparing in time, energy and influence, which he has used to help the Liberal party. The Hon. Mr. Taschereau, with the cooperation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in this house and others have made the Liberal party in the province of Quebec a great success. I say that the Hon. Mr. Taschereau is one of the most influential men in his province, and no matter what may be said against him, his influence has always counted enormously in the great victories of the Liberal party. It is not necessary for me to say more about the sympathetic help which has always been given to the Liberal party by the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, nor need I refer to the influence which he has exerted in our behalf. That influence is the result of the excellent administration that he has given to the province of Quebec since he succeeded Sir Lomer Gouin as premier.
Before taking my seat, Mr. Speaker, I have just one more word to say. I for one regret the insinuations made against the Hon. Mr. Taschereau by an hon. member in the course of a speech which he recently delivered in this house.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata) : Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate at the present moment, but through the courtesy of my hon. friend from Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher), who was to speak immediately after the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr Lavigueur), I have been given this opportunity.
Last year the editorials in two of the most important Conservative papers published in the province of Quebec, the Montreal Star

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

and the Montreal Gazette, were not very favourable to this government, but since then there has been a great change in their attitude, and I think it is for the better. For example, since the budget was presented an editorial has appeared in the Montreal Gazette describing it as a bountiful budget. That was well-merited praise; but, better than that, it was true. I am very sorry that my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) is not in the house at the moment, for I should like to have brought this change of attitude to his attention and to quote for his benefit what Queen Guinevere once said: They-of course I am referring to the Montreal Star and the Montreal Gazette-have been shamed into wisdom.
Yesterday I listened attentively to the speech of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George, and I noticed he made some rather remarkable statements about the capitalization of the Canadian National Railways. It seems to me that in drawing attention to the fact that the government has guaranteed the issue of Canadian National Railway bonds, he should not have lost sight of the further fact that the liability thus incurred is balanced by ample assets. I am not ready to accept everything that is done on behalf of the national railway system. I think it is a mistake, for example, to purchase new engines and leave the old rolling stock to rust in the engine graveyard. In my view the Canadian National railway management should repair the old engines, and thus give employment to our working people and at the same time effect economy of expenditure. But to return to the point raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I would remind him that the government is not responsible for the bonds that it has guaranteed unless and until the revenues of the railway system are insufficient to meet the payments on those bonds. It is a very clear case, and I am sure every hon. member understands the position.
It should be remembered that the amalgamation of the various railways that we now know as the Canadian National Railways was brought about, not by a Liberal administration but by the Conservative or Union administration in 1919. Against the government of that day I have this very serious reproach:	If at the time of the amalgamation the property was overvalued, it was the fault of those who prepared the legislation for submission to parliament and carried it through by the help of their supporters. I think the present management of the Canadian National Railways deserve credit for having been able to meet the interest charges 
on such a huge capital. But in this respect, although Sir Henry Thornton may be a very able man, I do not think the sole credit for this very fine achievement should be given to him; we should remember that the executive officers under him and the board of directors also contributed their share to the final result, and therefore deserve our thanks. Nor should we forget the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), whose sound advice I have no doubt was very often of great use to the head of the railway system. Again, I say, if the Canadian National railway system is a liability to the country financially, the responsibility must be shouldered by the Conservative or Unionist administration of 1919, for the reasons that I have already set forth. I am glad to say that under the present administration the national railway system is in better shape than it ever was under the Conservative regime.
It is true that parliament has endorsed the liabilities of the Canadian National Railways, and as endorsers we are entitled to know everything about the business they carry on. If, as a representative of the people, I wish to get information from any Canadian National official on any question affecting the railways, I am entitled, I submit, to a decent and a true answer. I am in the same position as a man who endorses a note for another; he is entitled to a statement of that man's business. It is exactly the same with us, not as private individuals but as members of parliament and representatives of the Canadian people. When we go to Sir Henry Thornton or to any manager or superintendent of the Canadian National Railways, we have, I repeat, a right to expect a decent and a true answer. These people should not entertain the idea at any time that they are the kings and the rulers of the world. On many occasions I have remarked to the people in my constituency that I consider myself their servant. If, therefore, I am a servant of the people, the officials of the Canadian National Railways are servants to the servants of the people. This is my understanding of their relationship to the members of this house. Whatever may be the salary of any of these gentlemen-if his salary is higher than that of any other public servant it is because probably his responsibility is greater-an official of the Canadian National Railways must ever bear in mind that he is responsible to the representatives of the people and that it is due to them that he shall give correct information when it is asked for.

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
We have to consider several things in relation to the Canadian National Railways. We must oonsider, first, the passenger traffic, secondly, freight traffic, which is more remunerative, and thirdly, the officials and employees of the system, who are all servants of the public and who have their share of credit when the right side of the wheel turns up. In my constituency there are several hundred railway employees, as is well known to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who practised law for twenty years in my home town. And need I say, incidentally, that the minister was a most brilliant lawyer, whose memory is far from being forgotten. The young men begin to work as apprentices; they start out to learn certain trades as machinists, carmen, and so forth. They want to earn enough money in their lifetime to_ be able to bring up their children decently and to take care of themselves and their dependents in a suitable nanner. This is a very natural and praiseworthy object, because every man who is a hard worker deserves credit, in whatever walk of life he may be. It is very sad sometimes, Mr. Speaker, to see men who are willing and able to work go to their shop in the morning and find that there is no longer anything for them to do. They are met with the abrupt intimation, "There is no more work for you; you are laid aside". Sometimes wTe see some of the old employees being superannuated, or being turned out when ill, and when they die, they are not replaced; too often no employment is given to those who are ready to take it. What is the explanation of this? The answer is that instead of repairing old cars and old engines which could be easily repaired, the authorities discard them; they consign them to the engine and car graveyard and buy new ones. Thus they add to the capital stock of the company while, for the sake' of repairs, they allow the old engines and cars to be sold, very often for scrap iron. It seems to me that we should take every means possible to give employment to those people who are anxious to work, and this suggestion will, I hope, give some food for thought to every serious minded citizen of this country.
I can tell this house that quite often I write to the officials of the railways, not personally but as a representative of the people, and when I do so I receive an answer, polite enough, but very seldom affirmative. It is rather dilatory. I am told, "We will see about it; be sure, we will look into the matter. Don't be mistaken, we will look after your people". But in the meantime our people are
out of work. I do not ask for any of my constituents that they be given salaries of one hundred thousand dollars a year; I plead for them only enough to live on. All I ask is that they be given work for which they will be reasonably compensated. Nor am I asking that new appointments be made at the present time; I simply request that every old employee be reinstated and be given the work which he formerly did. The railway should do this, not because I ask it. but because in my opinion it would benefit the country to have our rolling stock repaired at the proper time. This would result in a saving of money to the country and it would obviate the necessity for purchasing new engines and cars, which, needless to say, are very expensive. When I go to officials I find that they cannot give us what we ask for; sometimes, perhaps, we may ask too much. Suppose I go to Mr. Appleton or to any other manager and say, "Sir, we want information on three different points". Well, we receive a letter in reply-a letter which amounts to nothing at all. I do not think this is at all satisfactory or fair; I think I have a right to complain. I sit on the Liberal side of the house and I consider myself a good Liberal; but if I were on the opposite side I would complain just the same. I believe that when a member of this house goes to a Canadian National official for information he should be given it. There should be no secret about the business of the Canadian National Railways so far as members of parliament are concerned. Of course, if there is information of a confidential character which cannot be giver officially, it might be given privately, and 1 am sure that members of parliament on either side of the house, if given information on the understanding that it was confidential, would respect that confidence. But, I repeat, members of parliament have a right to be informed of what is going on in connection with our railways. That information should not be refused us, and I defy anyone successfully to contend otherwise. To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I want first to get true and reliable information from any officer of the Canadian National Railways. Then I believe that while the administration at present is very satisfactory, there should be no shadow in the picture and they should do their best to give empioyment not only to imported gentlemen but also to common people who want to work and who are ready to earn their wages by their toil.
I would like to say just a word about the amendment introduced yesterday by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

Cahan). He complains that many Canadians are migrating to the United States instead of remaining in this country. One reason for that migration, especially in the province of Quebec, goes a good many years back; the division between forestry and agricultural lands was wrongly made. In some parishes the lands chosen for agriculture had very good soil, but in other parishes instead of setting apart forest reserves they opened the land for agriculture and the soil was hard to cultivate because there were too many stones in it. Succeeding generations have lived in these parishes and I admire those who to-day cultivate the land as their forefathers did; they deserve a great deal of credit for staying on the land. But all have not remained and the mistaken policy in regard to the selection of agricultural and forest land is one of the reasons why people have migrated to the United States. I cannot blame Mr. Taschereau for this wrong division because it took place sixty or seventy years ago, before Mr. Taschereau was born, but that division was wrong and sometimes these people have a very hard time of it on this poor land in some places.
I have very good news for the house, however. During the Conservative and Unionist regimes I passed through the constituency which I now represent and saw many houses with the windows boarded up. When I asked the reason, the usual answer was that the people had gone to Salem or New Bedford or somewhere else in the United States. Now, however, when we pass these houses we find them no longer closed; people are living in them, people who have come back from the United States to the old homesteads. I would like to tell you of one of the finest examples of family devotion it has ever been my pleasure to see. In my constituency there was an old gentleman, a farmer, who was not very rich; he had several sons to bring up and there was a heavy mortgage on his property. One day when he was quite discouraged his two oldest sons said to him, "Do not be discouraged, father; things are going well in the United States, so we will go there and earn money, and you will see what we do with the money." They went to the United States and worked in a cotton factory for two or three years, returning home with enough money to pay off the mortgage. Now their old father is not working any more; they are living with him and working the old homestead, on which there is no longer a heavy mortgage. This has happened in several cases to my knowledge, and I can give many names.

Then there is another reason why people have gone to the United States. Their friends have come home from the other side, dressed in quite a flashy manner, and have called attention to their nice clothing. They say to those who have stayed home, "You work very hard; you have to get up early in the morning; you work all week and even on Sundays, but we have no such trouble in the United States. Our Sundays are free; we have nothing to do on Saturday afternoons and evenings; we can go to the moving pictures or to the theatres, and we have very pleasant times, which you do not have here." Sometimes these people become curious enough to go to the United States for this reason. Now, however, the news coming back from the United States is not so good; it is even very bad, and in the rural districts of Quebec the people know that the cotton factories where they used to work a few years ago are closed for a great part of the year, and the people who have gone to the United States to make a fortune in that high tariff country are very much disappointed. Sometimes they even have to send home for money with which to return, like the prodigal son. I do not say that everyone who has gone to the United States has returned like the prodigal son, but they regret their absence from this country as much as the prodigal son regretted his sins.
Sir, I enjoyed listening to the speech of my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavigueur); he is one of the older members of this house and he knows that everyone likes him. May I say that I absolutely share his views with regard to the Civil Service Commission. There are some dignified people connected with the Civil Service Commission, but I find it astonishing that there should be a whole battalion of people there who do nothing but nominate other people for positions. But When we ask, " Who made the nomination for this appointment?", we find that there is something of the Canadian National Railways in tihe answer, they are protected by the secrecy of office. I do not see any reason for applying this secrecy of office to questions asked by hon. members in that connection. I say we should come back to the old regime instituted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, under which the Civil Service Commission was simply an examination body. I represent my constituency to the best of my ability; I can make mistakes, but when I make any recommendation to any minister or to the chief of a branch, I make it knowing my responsibility as a member, and make it to the best of my knowledge and ability. I would not

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
recommend any man of whom I would later be ashamed. As a member of this house it would not be to my interest to set aside public opinion in my constituency by recommending to a minister anyone who is not fit for a particular position. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the spoils should go to the conquerors. When a party is elected to power I believe it should be able to appoint its own friends to office provided they are competent to fill such positions. In the same manner when the other party wins they should have the right to appoint friends of their own to any vacancy, and we should take our medicine. I have never asked any minister to dismiss any man simiply because he had voted against me. I think every person should be free to exercise his franchise but when he works openly in the political field he should be relieved from duty in the public service, because he knows what he is doing and is well aware of wihat his fate will be if his friends are not elected. As to the Civil Service Commission I think it should be retained as an examining body. That is to say, every one who applies for a position in the government service should come up before that body for examination, and if found to be incompetent should not be appointed. I do not think the commission should remain as a nominating body.
I have just a word to say about the tariff on spirits and I will say it in "black and white." There has been no Change in the tariff this year on spirits, but we do not know what may happen next year, and I take this opportunity of bringing certain facts to the attention of the cabinet. We have heard in Quebec very often from the lips of Mr. Tasohereau that if liquor is dear in the province it is due to the action of the federal government in imposing a tax of $10 a gallon on spirits. I have not at hand at the moment the newspaper which would establish the correctness of the statement, but everyone in Quebec knows that the statement has been made several times by the premier of the province. I do not understand Mr. Taschereau for holding that view, and I certainly' do not concur in it. This tax was imposed several years ago to meet the war time exigencies. Personally I think that liquor should be one of the first things to be taxed, and I think also that Mr. Tasohereau who is so friendly with Mr. Ferguson-this is not an insinuation, it is a fact-should1 copy his example in some respects. If it be true that liquor is expensive because of a tax of $10 per gallon, why is it sold at a cheaper rate in the province of Ontario than in the province of Quebec? The
province of Ontario pays the same duty of $10 per gallon and yet is able to sell its liquor more cheaply than Quebec. Let any hon. member compare the price lists of the two provinces and he will satisfy himself on that point.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Do you refer to quality or to price?


Jean-François Pouliot: I refer to the different
prices for the same quality and the same quantity of liquor. Take Two Dagger rum, for example, a twenty-six ounce bottle costs $3.75 in Quebec, whereas the same kind of bottle in Ottawa costs but $2.60, which is a saving of $1.15 to the people who purchase that kind of bottle in this city. Mr. Ferguson must have great skill as a manager to be able to sell spirits at a much cheaper rate than prevails in Quebec although he has to pay the same federal tax. The same difference is to be noted in the case of Baccardi rum, and various brands of Scotch. I do not recommend my hon. friends to buy liquor either in Hull or in Ottawa-I have no desire to make such a recommendation to anyone-but if they wish to establish the accuracy of what I say they are at liberty to procure price lists from both cities and make their own comparison. I am sorry the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) is not in his seat at present otherwise I would ask him to send a complimentary copy of the Ontario price list for liquors to Mr. Taschereau, and ask him to revise the prices in Quebec accordingly. That might prove to be the first step in- the direction of providing cheaper liquor.
I have but a few minutes more to speak and I will take the opportunity of telling hon. members what I think about the question of spirits. In my opinion, it is very wise on the part of this government not to comply with the suggestion of the customs commission to reduce the tax on imported liquors. We have distillers in this country who manufacture liquors openly and in accordance with the law and those distillers should have the advantage over distillers living in other countries. The existing duty will give them some advantage and there is this further necessity:	There should not be any reduction in
the customs duty for a few years until we have effected a substantial reduction in the national debt. I think, however, that the Minister of Finance should reduce the excise tax somewhat next year. People would not drink any more if this were done, and if, as a result of the reduction in the excise duty, the Canadian distillers were to turn out a better and cheaper product, I believe that would be to the advantage of the community.
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

Before taking my seat Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate very sincerely the Minister of Finance on the wonderful budget he has presented this year. It cannot suit everyone completely, but it suits the great mass of the people and there is no one who has not received certain advantages from it. The income tax reduction is a great thing, not only for private individuals but for big companies. The present prosperity shows that the Liberal administration has been a good servant of the people and that this country has been blessed by having a good government. 1 hope that in the future we shall have other Robb budgets as good as this last one.


Mr. W. R. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: 
Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Have you any
idea how many drills of Canadian make were sent into the United States last year?


William Russell Fansher: That
would be a very difficult question to answer. A person would have to communicate with the customs authorities in the United States or with the implement manufacturers in this country, and I do not think the latter would be willing to give the information.


Edward James Young: I think twentysix is the number.


William Russell Fansher: What
is the point in saying that only twenty-six were sent into the United States last year?


Edward James Young: That	is the
figure shown in the trade returns.


William Russell Fansher: I fail
to see how that affects the argument in any way whatever. Here are the facts of the ease, sworn to by responsible men. We are suffering to that extent, and whether it is by reason of the manipulation of the tariff, or the cost of transportation, or some other factor, whatever it may be, we know we are being discriminated against. I repeat, it is from that condition we wish to free ourselves.
I have in my hand a copy of the resolution which was moved by the Hon. George Langley at the Liberal convention held in this city in the autumn of 1919. Mr. Langley is known to most of us in this house, and if I were to give him an appropriate name I should call him "the grand old man from Saskatchewan". He spent a great part of his life in that province, trying to do all he could for the farmers of western Canada, and he has a great many achievements to his credit. Reading over his speech when he moved this resolution, I can imagaine with what gusto he entered into it; and the brogue, which we all so like to hear, no doubt attracted and captivated his audience. I think due credit is coming to him for the courage he displayed in putting forth and standing by the resolution which I am about to read, a reso-56103-43
lution which I may say, by the way, was seconded by a gentleman from New Brunswick. I believe it was the same hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot). I wonder whether that gentleman will recognize these words:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance. First, diminishing the high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people, second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country .
That to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors; mining, flour and sawmill machinery and repair parts thereof; roughly and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, nets, net twines and fishermen's equipments; cements and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the_ raw material entering into the same. [DOT]
That a revision downward of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption other than luxuries as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff.
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power.
I want to review the situation so that we may see where we are drifting. So far as I have been able to ascertain from the closest scrutiny of the budget, particularly as it affects the customs tariff, there is practically no reduction that will benefit the great mass of consumers and the producers of this country. The cost of living will not be materially reduced. In the election of 1926 western Canada responded amiably to the sentiment that was expressed by those who were propounding the Liberal platform, and in this response they showed to the people at large and to the Liberal party that they were once more going to take these gentlemen at their word. The result was that only one representative who might be called a high tariff advocate was returned from western Canada. We were told during the election of 1926 that if the Liberal party were returned to power the 1919 platform would be implemented. We were also given this assurance in the fall of 1921. The Progressives, or the agrarian group in western Canada and also in Ontario, stood for this platform on the plea which was made to the electors, especially the farmers. This group had suffered considerably at the election in

674	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Last Mountain)
1925, and the agriculturists were interested in the platform I have quoted. Now we have had two sessions, two budgets have been brought down, and very little change has taken place.	_
I was very much interested in the question which the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) asked the Minister of Finance during the debate last year, and my confidence did not increase when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) gave the answer. I have been wondering what we are going to do. We have given an expression of opinion and we are doing what we can from this corner of the house to bring about or to make effective these promises which were given us. But I wonder what we shall have to take back with us when each of us from Saskatchewan returns as just one of the boys back home. What shall we tell them? What shall we have to carry home to them? Shall we be able to tell the people back home that there has been a reduction in the cost of the necessaries of life as well as of the implements of production? What will hon. gentlemen from Manitoba be able to tell their constituents when they return? Will they be able to say that they have assisted very materially in reducing the cost of living and lightening the burden which now bears both on labour and on the agricultural class? Hon. gentlemen from Manitoba are the doorkeepers, as it were, of western Canada. Are they going to assist us, or are they going to be instrumental in opening the doors to further burdens and to the laying of greater stress and strain on the agricultural industry? I hope not.
I recall an article I read not so long ago in regard to some of the discoveries which science is making. This article declares that a ship may be constructed and put out to sea without a single human being on board, being guided for miles by an electrical apparatus operated on the shore. As I thought of tins article a few moments ago, it struck me very forcibly and I wondered what impediment was being placed in the way of the government to hinder them from implementing this promise. I wondered whether it was the dynamic, which we hear of so frequently, of St. James street, that was directing the ship of state and keeping it in its present course. I hope that in the near future this budget schedule will be clarified so that we may better understand it, and that after all it will show that there is to be some alleviation of the burdens of which I have been speaking. Otherwise, if there is going to be no relief in this direction, I am afraid that a few lines

which I learned long years ago will be very apt. They will apply possibly to many of us from western Canada when we again appeal to our electors, and the last line of all will probably be the most applicable. In giving a description of the fall of the great nation of Greece, Byron said:
The isles of Greece! the isles of Greece!
Where burning Sappho loved and sung,
Where grew the arts of war and peace, Where Delos rose, and Phoebus sprung!
Eternal summer gilds them yet,
But all, except their sun, is set.
Will that be applicable to those who are responsible for this most momentous resolution which I read, but who are afraid to implement that resolution in their legislative program? In closing I would appeal to the Minister of Finance to have that courage of which we heard in this house a few days ago. I sincerely hope that he will give us, in this schedule which has been placed on Hansard, encouragement to look forward to some alleviation of the great burden of which I have been speaking.
There is one other matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the house, and that is the point of view of at least some of us in western Canada, certainly of those whom I represent here. I think I could not better describe it than in the following words, which I took from page 25 of the 1925-26 Canadian Annual Review:
The absorption of the Progressives by the Liberal party, whether in or out of office and under whatever guise effected, would postpone for a generation the attainment of necessary reforms, the re-shaping of national policies and the infusion into Canadian public life of that moral courage and idealism which slavish partisanship has well nigh destroyed.
I am asked whose words I am quoting. These are the words of the present Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke).


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I am sorry,
but I must tell my hon. friend that his time is up.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to show a lack of ordinary Christian charity towards the government who prepared this budget, but I fail to see in that budget any policy outlined

The Budget-Mr. Church
that will solve the economic ills which confront this country to-day. Whether it be the province of British Columbia, or the prairie provinces, or central Canada, or the maritime provinces, nothing is suggested for the alleviation of the economic troubles from which they are suffering, but there is a little tariff nibbling here and a little nibbling there, and over eleven pages of just such announcements, a heterogeneous mass of tariff items with many whereases 'and provisos, none of which will have any effect in relieving the country from its present economic ills.
The government proposes to do nothing to solve the problem of unemployment. Not one job by this tariff will they create for a Canadian boy in Canada. No policy is suggested which will have the effect of bringing back our young Canadians w'ho have gone to the United States. Nothing is to be done to induce those Canadians to return to their homes from which they have been driven by the policy of the government, a policy which encourages some of our brightest minds to leave Canada and make their homes in the country to the south. There is not one word in the budget about the preservation of our domestic market, especially for those Canadians who are engaged in the great industries of farming and dairying, nor is there the least sign of any effort to conserve our natural resources and our raw materials.
The budget speech can be divided broadly into three classes: Part one deals with the financial affairs of the country in general. Part two deals with taxation, and with taxation as amended by the budget. Part three consists of eleven pages of tariff nibbling changes in which there is a heterogeneous mass of details, with a little lowering of duties here, and a little lowering of duties there. The object of a budget statement given annually should be to reveal exactly the housekeeping operations of the nation. We find from the budget that the revenue for the last fiscal year was $419,480,000, and there was paid out a total sum of $364,665,000. If this were the sole information to be imparted well and good, but a true budget should reveal the actual operations of the government and its outside commissions for the preceding twelve months, including all their outside obligations. What would you think of a company which presented a balance sheet or.ly of the parent body, ignoring the operations of its subsidiaries although they belonged to the organization and were part and parcel of it? Yet this government ignores their outside obligations altogether. They figure out that they 56103-43J
have a surplus or a balance on hand of $54,815,000. Well, if anyone can discover that surplus in the shape of cash in the treasury he will prove to be a greater discoverer than John or Sebastian Cabot, or any of the other early navigators. The budget consists of a partial statement only. The government have not struck a proper or complete balance at all; they have ignored some of the most important obligations of the country. They have ignored the millions of bonds of the Canadian National railways guaranteed by the state. They have written off $16,000,000 in connection with certain soldier settlement lands, which figures if they mean anything at all mean a deficit. They have ignored the $4,000,000 of guaranteed bonds of the Montreal harbour commisison, and the $8,000,000 guaranteed the government merchant marine in connection with the steamship lines to the West Indies.
I have in my hand pages 4 and 5 of the annual report of the Minister of Railways laid on the table at the opening of parliament, which shows that the item of interest due the government, accrued but unpaid, in connection with the Canadian National railways increased by $32,089,853 during the year, and now stands at $193,951,356. Appropriations account, which stood at $453,935,303 at December 31, 1925, now stands at $437,412,032. What would you think of the Ontario government if they prepared a budget statement leaving out all the debt of the hydroelectric commission whose expenditures reach a total investment of $250,000,000 on cheap light, power and transportation? Would you call that a real financial statement? I remember how George Washington Ross, one time premier of the province, went up and down Ontario boasting that he had a cash surplus of $8,000,000. One day at a meeting in Middlesex county I challenged the statement, and Mr. Ross said that if I would con e up to the parliament buildings in Que rn's park he would show me the surplus in gold and silver in the treasury vaults. I accepted the challenge and went up there. Premier Ross did not show me any surplus but he said "Never mind, Tom; take a cigar." That is the way in which he dealt with the surplus in the olden days. That was the kind of surplus they had at that time. If a proper accounting system were carried out in all the departments of government, and a real financial statement were presented, a huge debt would be revealed about which the country knows nothing at all at the present time. In connection with our railway operations vast sums in the form

The Budget-Mr. Church

of interest and fixed charges have been written off and are not included in the financial statement of the Minister of Finance.
As regards this magnificent budget, the like of which has never been seen before, the government are spending money in Canada like water. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister in 1896 the then administration could get along with about 136.000,000. To-day this business-like economical government brings down a budget amounting to 8364,000,000 a year. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott), who cannot find a enow shovel to clean away the snow in front of the parliament buildings, can find half a million dollars for a number of automobiles for the government. Any member of the cabinet who has not a large motor car bought within the past year is not fit to be called a minister. We hear talk about industrial and scientific research, but you cannot find a man with a snow shovel around the parliament buildings. I have never before seen such badly kept streets and sidewalks as there are in this city of Ottawa, the Washington of the north, in winter. It is time the government bought a few snow shovels instead of spending millions of dollars unnecessarily. The Minister of Public Works can get a nice vote for a post office town clock in the town of Glencoe so that he can tell the time on election day in West Middlesex; but when the question is one of cleaning away the snow in front of the parliament buildings it is impossible to get any snow shovels. We are not all hockey players and accustomed to using skates, and although there are some clean skaters on the government side, I would suggest an issue of skates to the members to use in getting to the buildings.
In this great city of Ottawa there is a wonderful give away commission called the Federal District Commission, headed by Hon. Thomas Ahearn, and according to the way they conduct their business they are spending money like water too-they have so much to give away to the Americans for nothing. The other day they proposed to give away eleven acres of land at Rockliffe for an American embassy although it is known that an embassy pays no taxes. They are taking a leaf out of the book of the government in the matter of spending money. The government pays no taxes in England on the magnificent edifice in London, Canada House, to house Mr. Larkin, who now has a new uniform, not a second or third-class uniform but a first-class uniform, if you please, because we are no longer a crown colony but a nation. The burden of that taxation has to go on the back of the British taxpayer who has his very bread and other necessaries of life taxed for a fleet to protect
[Mr. ChuTch.J
our shores while we refuse to pay our taxes in England. As I said, the Federal District Commission, headed by Hon. Thomas Ahearn, proposed the other day to give away eleven acres of land at Roekcliffe for an American embassy. Did anyone ever hear of the Right Hon. Uncle Sam giving away anything for nothing, or giving anything away down at Washington, for Mr. Massey's embassy, for which we had to pay half a million dollars and S120,000 for the maintenance of this magnificent minister in the city of Washington? I never heard of Mr. Ahearn giving away any of his own money in this way but he is ready, through the Federal District Commission, to give away this splendid public site for an American embassy. The government should have a house-cleaning in connection with the Federal District Commission if that is the way they conduct business. If that is the kind of commission it is, ready to give away public property in that way, the sooner the government gets rid of the Federal District Commission the better it will be for the so-called Washington of the north.
In regard to this budget, it seems to be a gamble between the spending branch and the revenue producing branch. The government have removed no taxes from the breakfast table of the workingman. The taxes of the workingman for the necessaries of life are to-day more than they ever were before. The revenues have been greatly increased; but the government still continue to pile on the taxes and nobody can find out exactly what the taxes are, because the revenues and the taxes are spirited away in these secret commissions to the extent, of some fifteen or twenty spread over the country from Halifax to Vancouver, spending the public money like water-trustee boards and guarantee government boards not mentioned in the budget. Does the government think this money which is raised by taxing the working people of this country comes down like the dew from heaven so that they can spend money like water in the manner I have indicated?
Last session we had the promise of the government that a conference would be held with the provinces and that something would be done towards abolishing the duplicate system of income taxes. The conference was called. Did they do anything? Nothing but make a football out of the question. On the Pacific coast there is a triple-header income tax, namely: Dominion income tax, provincial income tax and municipal income tax. The proposed reduction of ten per cent will mean nothing to the workingman, but it will mean

The Budget-Mr. Church
a great deal to those whose wealth is in the millions. The list of income tax exemptions is to be increased by allowing an exemption of $500 to those supporting dependents over twenty-one years of age who are incapacitated. In this country there are many who are incapacitated because they have not a job, and on this account some 600,000 have had to go to the United States. Many ol them are returned men who fought even unto death the battles of this country, and they are being incapacitated by this particular budget. Talk about the expulsion of the Aeadians down by the sea! That was nothing to the expulsion of thousands of former residents of my city who have had to go out of the country to find a job.
This magnificent budget which we have before us to-night contains eleven or twelve pages of tariff changes, a nibbling here and a nibbling there. There is insecurity, uncertainty and instability of the tariff, and nobody knows what to expect next year. Wait until you see what this travelling minstrel show, known as the tariff advisory board, does next year. Their work last year ha? resulted in eleven or twelve pages of tariff changes. Wait till you see what takes place next year when they have a whole twelve months to go. Woe be it to the maritime provinces when they deal with some of their industries! Woe be it to the industries of the province of Quebec! I do not see my good young friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in the house tonight. He always makes a good speech. The other day he made a great speech at the assizes over in Hull so that not only the jury but the judge on the bench shed buckets of tears. If the government had given him a chance on a proper budget subject he would have moved to tears the members on the government benches. When the working classes out of work ask the government of the day for some bread, they are given a stone in the shape of the tariff reductions which are before the house to-day. This budget will be small comfort to the working classes of this country because there is no reduction applicable to the breakfast table at all and the budget will create no new jobs. The necessities of life stand as they were, but the government could find reductions for some of their multi-millionaire friends in the mining industry like the Hol-linger mine, and the newspaper industry by allowing press blankets to be brought in free of duty. These are two industries that are well able to pay taxes to help maintain the administration of this country, but they are
the people whom the government single out and think of first, last and all the time. These multi-millionaires who can well afford to pay taxes are the ones who are given free trade in press blankets and mining concessions.
The main tariff changes in this magnificent budget with its twelve pages of schedules affect the cotton and woollen industry. I have no doubt that one reason for these twelve pages of tinkering is due to the fact that the government. in anticipation of a general election two or three years hence are making a nice little gesture to the gentlemen on our left in anticipation of a larger vote west of the great lakes.
The budget debate is a time for taking stock, and I wish to refer for two or three minutes to the auditor general's report in regard to the expenditures of this country, because we have an antiquated machinery of parliament. The machinery of parliament as regards control over expenditures differs little from what it was a hundred years ago. A civil war was fought in England in order that parliament might control taxation and expenditure. Taxation is still controlled, but democratic control of the national budget made up of the estimates of the different departments is to-day not in existence.
As regards financing, the present system is ridiculous. It is the very reverse of that adopted by municipalities. Each spending department draw's up its estimates for the budget and possibly a spirited battle takes place between the departments and the treasury. There is a battle in the cabinet, and when the budget is approved by the treasury board and the cabinet it is presented to the house. The bureaucracy has increased in numbers and powers and the treasury board has never regained the control it surrendered during the late war. In 1896 the budget was $36,000,000 as compared with $364,000,000 in 1928. If a deadlock is reached over the estimates, they come before the cabinet composed of all the administrative chiefs and the scales are always weighed in the interests of the departments. Finally the budget is approved by the government as a whole and sent to the house, and it is all over as far as parliament is concerned. A few concessions here and there may be wrung from the Minister of Finance, but if he resists, the whole government will unite and stand behind him, because a defeat of the budget means that the govem-will resign.
Next come the estimates. In theory these have all to be approved by the House of Commons during the parliamentary session. Last year we had from fifteen to twenty
The Budget-Mr. Church

supply days. The minister chooses the estimates to be considered on these days, and some of the most important spending departments never have their estimates considered except for five minutes in the last rush at the close of the session. If a division is challenged, the government treats it as a vote of want of confidence; the whips are used to save the government, and the private members on the government side all line up with the government because if the item is defeated the government will resign. I say that it is a waste of time to consider the estimates under this antiquated system which is one hundred years old. There can be no detailed or useful examination of the estimates on the floor of the house. The estimates of a great many departments never come before parliament at all. The estimates of the Justice department, for instance, have never come before parliament since I have been a member, and the same with the Post Office department, Marine and Fisheries, Customs-and then in the dying hours of the session millions are passed without any discussion.	[DOT]
Our system is different from that of the municipalities under the Municipal Act. In Toronto, for instance, the heads of the departments prepare the estimates, the board of control go over them and strike the tax rate; the city council reviews each item, and there is thus some control by the legislative branch over the executive. Under our system in this house there is none. We have a committee of public accounts, it is true, and the auditor general, but the public accounts committee hardly ever meets, and the auditor general meets you sometimes and hands you a blue book. When the public accounts committee does meet, it is simply a case of holding a post mortem. The public accounts committee might be known as the morgue or coroner's committee. They hold a post morten examination, the subject being anywhere from two to ten years old and in the case of the national railways, from ten to fifteen years old. It is no wonder our taxation is high under the antiquated system we have here.
If parliament is ever to regain any of its old control, our whole financial system must be reorganized, and a new modernized system arranged. There is such a system in vogue in France and in the United States which we might well introduce here. They have estimates committees, of which members of parliament are members. There should be a committee for all the big spending departments in this government and for groups of the smaller spending departments, and the (Mr. Church.1
members of parliament who serve on such committees should be looked upon as nonpartisan. If necessary they should sit in camera if business of a confidential nature is being disclosed. These committees should cross-examine the heads of departments, as the board of control in a large city does. There should be no voting along parliamentary lines, and the recommendations of the committee need not be looked upon as a reflection upon any particular department or upon the government. These committees would be a godsend for a great many hon. members because it would give them some work to do while they are waiting around in Ottawa for the taking of a vote upon some question or another in this chamber. It would also give them an added responsibility as members of parliament. I have no doubt that resistance would come from the great spending departments and from politicians to any such change, but it is the only way in which we shall ever get reduced expenditure, and the only way in which we can protect the interests of the great mass of the already over-burdened taxpayers.
I complain, Mr. Speaker, that Ontario and Quebec do not get sufficient recognition at Ottawa, although they contribute about eighty per cent of the cash taxes of Canada. The parliamentary system which destroyed the autocratic power of the monarchy and curbed the privileges of the second chamber has been a failure. To-day we have no government by the people, of the people, and for the people, and there cannot be any such thing so long as we retain a parliamentary system that is one hundred years old with little or no control over expenditure. That system has not justified its existence, because under it parliament does not exercise proper control over the government of the day, with the result that wre have increased expenditures all along the line. We already have a special committee to consider the estimates of the Canadian National Railways, and instead of that committee holding five or six meetings, it should hold twenty or thirty. The same principle that we have adopted in connection with the railway estimates should be applied to the estimates of all the other departments, including the national railways, and then I venture to say we should get some relief.
With regard to the tariff changes, in my opinion this heterogeneous mass of changes proposed by the minister is going to do the industrial provinces untold harm. My friends, the Progressives, are protectionists so far as their own affairs in the prairie provinces are concerned; they are free traders only

The Bridget-Mr. Church
when the industries of central Canada are affected. In my opinion a proper application of the doctrine of protection would solve all the economic ills that we have today. Protection is not a dead but a living thing. It will protect the manufacturer, the farmer, the artisan and the toiler; it will solve unemployment and make for a happy and prosperous and contented people. It would help the consumer as well, because no measure of protection should be adopted which ignores the consumer. I support protection as a principle, and not as a privilege to the few. Under a proper protective policy the automobile industry and some ten other native industries would become key industries in this country, employing tens of thousands of Canadians now exiled and driven to the United States.
The immigration question is wrapped up and correlated to the tariff. They are interwoven; one could not exist without the other. The first cornerstone of any immigration policy is to keep the population we already have at the present time, and the second is to adopt an all-Canadian allBritish tariff, and encourage British immigration. Some of the manufacturers were the worst foes of a protective tariff in wanting all for themselves. Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin and Premier Bruce of Australia were reciprocal protectionists. In my opinion the tariff board is nothing but a travelling minstrel show. Nero never fiddled while Rome burned the way this government is fiddling with the main economic question in this country by appointing a tariff board to make a political football of our major economic question

the tariff. I say, with no disrespect for the members of the tariff board, because they are a good lot of men, that if they would only go into the theatrical business or into the movies they would make their fortunes. If they would blacken up their faces, they would make the greatest minstrel show that ever took the road.
The tariff, Mr. Speaker, will always be in politics, thank goodness for that, because dear knows where the working class would be if it were not for the tariff being in politics for keeps. The tariff board has cost this country over a hundred thousand dollars, and they have produced nothing but talk. It has been one of the most mischievous bodies in this country for breaking down our industrial existence. It is just digging up material for the free traders. The tariff board to-day, in my opinion, is composed of nothing but a lot of spade and shovel men who are digging up a lot of facts about free trade for the government to destroy protection and trying
to foist free trade on the people. The farmers of this country do not believe in the policy of free trade, and yet the government are going to destroy every industry in Ontario and Quebec before they get through with this Yankee fad, the tariff board. There is not one word in the budget about the conservation of raw materials, the dumping of cheap, shoddy, European, German and American goods, neither is there one word about some form of social legislation or about sick and unemployment insurance for the masses of this country. This government have millions of dollars for the millionaire miner, for the millionaire manufacturer, for the million' aire newspaper publisher in the form of reduced taxation and tariff reductions, but they have not struck a cent off the taxes of the working classes or off the breakfast table of the masses.
The whole gesture in this budget speech is nothing but the first volume of reciprocity with the people of the United States. Canada does not want reciprocity if it could get it and could not get it if it wanted it. We want to be on friendly terms with our American cousins, but we should tell them at once, "If you want to do business with us you must do it on fair, just and equitable grounds, or not at all." Canada must stop buying 600 million dollars' worth of high class American goods-nearly all of wrhich could be made in Canada-and paying for them in our raw materials which are fast vanishing. In my opinion what this country wants is a national policy and adequate safeguarding legislation in relation to: (a) its raw materials; (b) its coal and other fuels; (c) its water-powers; (d) patents and trade marks; (e) dumping of foreign goods; (f) scientific research; (g) export of hard wheat to the United States; (h) timber and minerals; and (i) domestic and empire marketing. This would conserve our resources, build up the country and protect it from unfair and unreasonable competition, preserve our own markets for our own products, and our own work for our own workmen, and so stop the exodus to the United States and solve unemployment. Such a national policy is both a social and an economic necessity; it is in the best interests and welfare of Canada and the conservation of our resources.
Away back in '49 Horace Greeley's advice to the young men of his country-and, remember, that was when they started protection in the United States-was: "Go west, young man." To-day this government with its free trade gesture is in effect telling our youth: "Go south, young man." And the
The Budget-Mr. Church


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead):: So
far, the present session of parliament has resolved itself into what I think one may describe as a fellowship meeting. There has been no cross-firing such as would give one, if I may use the expression, pep and energy for assault. However, we have just had an onslaught from the popular member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Church), and who I must say has always shown himself, if a hard hitter, at least a fair and square one; he hits those on his own side of the house just as vigorously as he does those on this side. As regards his references to this antiquated government, I would ask him whether he believes in the Mussolini form of administration, or whether he thinks we should reconstitute our administrative machinery to run this country.
We have just had the fifth budget from the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and throughout the length and breadth of Canada the people are paying tribute to the hon. gentleman's outstanding ability and the success he has had in putting the finances of Canada on such a satisfactory basis. If we go back in our history a few years we shall see to what an extent the revenues of the country were squandered largely in the mismanagement of our railways. We all remember, I am sure, those dark days when there were whisperings of death, and these wailings have done more to drive people from Canada than anything else that has ever been done in this country.
It is with no little pleasure that I gathered from the speeches delivered throughout the country by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) before the meeting of parliament that this government, in its administration of the country's affairs, should in his view be allowed to operate without undue antagonism; and I believe that this principle has been well observed throughout the session. There has been no unnecessary finding of fault with the government. When a budget such as that now under consideration could be brought down within so short a time from the opening of parliament, it is not to be wondered at that there is peace and prosperity in the country and that business generally is stable.
The hon. member who preceded me spoke about the lavish expenditure of the country's money. There is absolutely no ground for such a statement; I know that the government is not spending money with too free a hand. If I want money for a
fhe Budget-Mr. Baldwin

wharf or a post office or for the painting of a public building and I apply to the ministers they say, "We cannot raise the money. We must economize." We all believe in the Minister of Finance and we are confident that he will keep a firm grip on the purse strings. The extent to which he has reduced taxation in Canada and has been paying off the public debt is a matter for wonder and admiration. I regret, I am bound to say, that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has been allowed more money than I should like to see appropriated to his department, but we all know that the hon. gentleman is not a warrior at heart, and I have no doubt that the expenditures of his department will be directed more towards aviation than militarism.
We must be progressive in this country, which has amazing possibilities. Let us instil into the minds of our young people, our boys and girls, a proper appreciation of the greatness of this Dominion, and let us never forget that we are part and parcel of the British Empire, this wonderful commonwealth of nations embracing almost one quarter of the population of the earth and covering nearly a quarter of its surface. It seems to me that the Canadian people are losing their enthusiasm. It seems to me that patriotism and love of country, which should be drilled into our children, is being forgotten. However, let us remember that many of those who have gone to the United States would like to come back, if they only had the means with which to get back. Within the last few months I have had occasion to be in New York city several times, and I have seen hundreds of people who have gone from Canada to that city, many of them dejected and out of work, and the few who have made good admit that with the same hard work in Canada they would have done just as well. I want the people to remember that we must work and economize as we did during the war if we are to develop our great resources; let us work and strive and live frugally, and in that way we will more quickly bring about that development which we all desire. Let us live Sere as they did in the United States after ;he great civil war, when they were burdened vith a huge debt. The officers went back :o their homes in their faded blue uniforms, with no brass bands to greet them and no proclamations to receive them, but they went back to their affairs and started to work and economize, with the result that the United States has developed into one of the greatest and richest countries in the world. Within the last five years, through good administration, we have been paying off our national

debt and reducing taxation, and if we continue in this way we shall get on solid footing in short order.
There are a few things in the budget with which I differ; I would have eliminated the sales tax. It is laborious work making out five copies of those papers, which must be done whether or not anything is sold. Then the customs officials throughout the country do a little more work and demand a little more salary, and I believe it takes hundreds of clerks to audit all the papers and work everything out, because if a mistake is made the papers will be returned to remind you that you owe a few cents more than you thought. In addition to this, there are many ways of evading that tax. We will say there are manufacturers in Montreal who make clothing; not those firms advertising themselves as wholesalers, who send out travellers and carry on a regular trade, but those other men who do a large volume of business in the aggregate, and who sell their goods more cheaply than the legitimate firms. If you buy goods from these men you pay cash and get delivery, but you cannot get an invoice, and in that way they evade the sales tax. There is another objection to the sales tax with which we who live near the border are well acquainted. If you build a house just across the line there is no sales tax to be paid, while if you build a house on our side of the line you must pay the sales tax. I would suggest that the stamp tax be increased in some way which would bring an amount equal to the sales tax revenue, and we would then be sure that every penny went into the treasury There would also be much less trouble, because after buying stamps all that is necessary is to affix them.
This country has a wonderful future. The West Indies have always been dear to my heart. In this climate we have no tropical or semi-tropical products, and I have always believed that we should have political union with the West Indies, if that could be made agreeable to Great Britain and to those islands. How they would be represented in this country I do not know, but the idea is well worthy of consideration. Then we have Newfoundland just off our coast, a country with no great future if standing alone. Newfoundland should be brought into this Dominion, as was very nearly the case at one time, when for a paltry $8,000,000 the proposition was refused. That was a foolish move, because every dollar of that $8,000,000 would have been spent either in Newfoundland or in Canada, and would have done an immense amount of good. The size of the

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
United States has been almost doubled even within my memory by small wars and by diplomacy, together with the expenditure of a few dollars here and there, until now there is nothing left for Canada on this continent north of Mexico. We need the best efforts of the leading men in Canada, working together, to round out this great country.
Another thought which is worthy of consideration is a preferential tariff within the commonwealth of British nations, which would bring them altogether to supply the needs of each separate part. I do not know whether or not this could be worked out, but it is ia wonderful theory. If one-quarter of the people in the world and one-quarter of the existing resources could be brought together under a preferential tariff I am sure the country to our south would be at -a great disadvantage as compared with Canada. That is a thought which everyone should consider carefully. There is nothing more wonderful for a Canadian than to remember that he is a British subject, belonging to the British empire.
Another subject which I have mentioned in this house previously, but which I feel justified in bringing up again, is the Hudson Bay railway. I maintain that no part of this great country can prosper without that prosperity being reflected in every other part. I represent a great manufacturing community, but I do not care whether improvements be made in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba or the Yukon, I feel sure that the benefit will be felt all over Canada.
Then there is the question of the deepening of the St. Lawrence and the development of power. I am proud of the government because of the prudent and careful manner in which they have acted in this matter. The diversion of water by Chicago is something which I think should not continue. Can we afford to expend millions and millions of dollars to deepen our great waterways when the city of Chicago is diverting water not only for drainage purposes but to establish a new waterway to the south and to develop idle electric energy? We cannot possibly do it, and I am glad that the government are prudent and are pursuing a policy of watching and waiting.
As regards the export of power to the United States, we can never afford to allow that. It must be remembered that once contracts are entered into they cannot be very easily terminated. My advice is to develop our own water-powers for our own purposes, and not allow the exportation of Canadian power to build up towns and cities in the United States.
We are making progress in this country, but if there is any member of the government with whom I sympathize it is the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke). He has a great problem before him, and we should give him our united support in trying to solve it. I would allow everybody who is law abiding and willing to work to come to this country. That may be a somewhat extreme statement to make, but I have seen immigration pouring into the United States through the city of New York, and other ports, when they were entering at the rate of a million a year. The sole belongings of some of those immigrants were contained in a little tin box and a handkerchief, but they were people of great energy and physical vigour. They have helped to develop the resources of the country to the south, they have aided in building highways even to the very mountain tops, they have assisted in reclaiming the desert and making it blossom like the rose, and they have played their part in recovering ocean lands along the Atlantic in the same way as they have done by the building of dykes in Holland. I am not afraid of labouring men. If we are to have only hand picked immigrants I cannot understand how we are to handle those waste lands which are awaiting development in various parts of this Dominion.
A railway to Hudson bay is now under construction, and I hope that railway will meet with all the success which its friends anticipate. I recall that last year, when the St. Lawrence was frozen over, Hudson straits were still open to navigation, showing that all that was said during the debate in this house last session was not so far-fetched after all. It was said that the straits are open for about nine months of the year. It may well be that when the railway is in operation and the transportation of grain under way the new route will warrant the optimism which its friends entertain in regard to it. The construction of the Hudson Bay railway will be an important factor in developing the natural resources of the country through which it passes. The great results at the Flin Flon mines is an illustration of what we may look for in connection with mining development in that part of the country. We cannot achieve development without the expenditure of money. Wherever there are resources to be developed we must be prepared to put our hands into our pockets. The Peace River district is a most wonderful country. It is almost an empire in itself, and when opened up will make a tremendous addition to Canada's wealth.
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin

There is no occasion for being despondent. The future is bright with hope. Compared with the United States we are not so badly off. In the New England states there are thousands of people out of employment. In New York city people are working harder and longer hours than formerly, and there is a movement to reduce salaries. Banks are open at eight o'clock both morning and evening, and the employees have to work like trojans, while in this country we are living under much easier conditions. I would say, however, that too many of our young men are going to the cities and entering brokerage offices. In that connection I would state that just now a flood of circulars is going out from various brokers seeking to find out what worldly possessions you have. They want to ascertain whether you have any spare money. If you have they are prepared to advise you how to invest it. No doubt some of these people are honest enough, but others are seeking to get their hands into your pockets in order to relieve you of your money.
Personally I am a believer in hard work and frugal living. I rise at five thirty in the morning at home and work the whole day. When in New York recently I told them I felt as young as any other man in my community, or for that matter in the whole of Canada. Some of them believed it. Many people here look upon the United States as a land of promise, and believe that goods sell more cheaply there than in this country, but in the case of the chain stores, for instance, they do not sell goods over there any cheaper than similar goods are sold in Canada. The man who has saved money is in a happy position, and he will find it very convenient to be able to utilize the purchasing power of a little spare cash. But nobody will ever reach that stage who pays whatever anybody wants to charge him, and is always getting into debt.
I wish every man and every woman in the country would at least avoid spending money until it is actually received, instead of paying what anybody likes to charge and getting into debt for thirty days, so that they remain poor and go about the country with a grouch. But it is the same throughout the world; there are some who know how to look after themselves and others who do not, no matter how much money they get.
I have mentioned Sir Henry Thornton as being the greatest railroad man in the world. He has demonstrated to the world that he has a wonderful grasp of the railway situation in Canada. I mention this because years ago, when there was another leader on the other side of the house, he went so far as to say that Sir Henry Thornton's salary and every-

thing in connection with his administration was a farce, but my opinion is that great credit is due to Sir Henry Thornton for Canada being to-day where she is financially.
Mr. T. M. CAYLEY (South Oxford); Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech in this chamber, and after listening to hon. members who have been addressing the house this evening I could not help envying them their fluency and ease; I wish I possessed those desirable qualities in the same degree.
Canada welcomes another Robb budget. It again brings with it assurances of Canada's important place among the nations of the world and evidences of unsurpassed prosperity. Canada has never before enjoyed a 3'ear of such general progress and prosperity as that of 1927, and from the splendid reception the recent budget is receiving throughout this great Dominion it would appear that Canadians are quite content with the sound policies of the King government.
Gradually this government is undoing the lamentable tangles of debt and misadmin-istration handed them when they took over their governmental duties in 1921. Steadily from year to year since that time they have succeeded in lessening the burden of the Canadian taxpayer and at the same time they have improved conditions for all concerned. Expenditures have been carefully administered so as to keep pace with the growing needs of this young Dominion. From March 31, 1924 to March 31, 1927, the public accounts submitted to parliament, and certified to, show a reduction in the net debt of 8105,942,498, and for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1927, the reduction amounted to $41,800,000. The refinancing and reduction of the national debt in 1927 results in a saving in interest of $3,607,000 annually. The last Robb budget, according to press reports from day to day, shows that while there may be some minor points of difference, on the whole the people of Canada express themselves as satisfied with the wise administration of the government, and as confident in the Minister of Finance.
Are we prosperous? Canada, as I have already pointed out, has never enjoyed a year of such progress and prosperity as that of 1927. Production, distribution, manufacturing, transportation and foreign commerce exceeded all previous records. Labour was fully employed1 at wages higher relatively to the peak than the cost of commodities, this resulting in better living conditions, increased bank deposits, more life insurance written, a greater number of motor cars used, a wonder-

The Budget-Mr. Cayley
ful sale of radios and a general participation in the luxuries of life. Surely the records of our banking institutions and great transportation companies bear evidence of our decided growth and prosperity. The railways of Canada have never before moved a greater tonnage of merchandise than during the year just closed. While it is true that the net earnings of the railways have been decreased, this decrease was made for the pur-post of stimulating business, increasing wages to employees and lessening freight rates. In this way the shipper, the workingman and the consumer were permitted to become greater participants in the prosperity of the great corporations. Surely a policy that takes into account the happiness of all is one that should meet with approval in every part of Canada.
Immigration has not been neglected as some would lead us to believe. The minister of that important department of the public service has shown his policy to be in conformity with the wish of all Canadians, namely, to fill our vacant spaces with those who are physically, morally and mentally acceptable and who are willing to adapt themselves to conditions in Canada, the great essentials being fitness and adaptability. With a country such as we have, leading the world in many respects, with its wonderful resources and mineral wealth not yet touched, with it3 almost unlimited water-powers, the immigration problem should solve itself if Canadians themselves expressed a greater faith in their own country and greater confidence in its future. If we felt less disposed to advertise our neighbouring republic and more inclined to boast of our own advantages, people would come readily to our shores, capital would pour in to develop our resources, and our 32,000,000 horse-power of electric energy would soon be harnessed. We must, of course, have plenty of immigrants of British origin, people of our own stock, people proud of British institutions and traditions, who believe that as members of the great commonwealth of nations we can work out our own destiny under the British flag and contribute to the peace of the world.
In the discussion on the problem of immigration the government's attention has been directed to the suggestion that some step should be taken to extend to people of our own Dominion who would gladly undertake farming work, as much assistance as is now being offered to outsiders. Thousands of our young people are forced out of rural life to seek employment in the urban centres of Canada, or even in the big cities of the United States, because of lack of sufficient
means to meet the initial cost of starting farming operations. We are living under a new order of things, when more capital is required to commence farming than was needed fifty years ago. These are our own people, Canadians by birth, for the most part trained in the rudiments of farming and giving every promise of becoming successful citizens and of making valuable contributions to our Canadian citizenship and our national wealth.
Better care and attention should also be paid to the health and comfort of our citizens. We are annually losing too many children. The mortality rate of children under five years and of mothers is far too great. No doubt the government has considered this very serious drainage in our natural population, but we commend the matter again to his attention.
We also commend the government on the care shown in shaping its policies in such a way as not to injure any one section of the countiy at the expense of another. The people of South Oxford, whom I have the honour to represent, have always recognized the interdependence between the rural and the urban centres, and one element I am sure would not choose to reap any advantage at the expense or detriment of the other. We believe that the prosperity of each is wrapped up in the prosperity of the other. We are nevertheless of the opinion that greater consideration is due to rural Canada than is at present extended in comparison with the large amounts of public moneys that are annually expended in other directions. We believe that eight million dollars out of an expenditure creeping up towards four hundred million dollars is far too small an amount in view of the value of that great industry of agriculture. There should be no skimping in assisting the agricultural industries of Canada and in applying the forces of scientific research and technical training to that industry; and we are pleased to note that scientific research will this year receive greater consideration by way of an increased appropriation. Let it be urged upon the government that it renew its cooperation with the provinces in assisting technical education and in building up and maintaining national highways.
The jubilee year of 1927 was a testing time as to the unity and solidarity of Canadian sentiment. The test proved highly satisfactory, and showed the existence and .possibilities of a national consciousness among our citizens no matter what their race or creed might be. The discords of former times have disappeared, intolerance has given
The Budget-Mr. Cayley

place to tolerance, and the faith and hope of the confederation fathers of 1867 has been fully realized.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, permit me to direct the attention of the government to a class of public servants who feel that they are not receiving compensation commensurate with the services they are rendering; I refer to the rural mail carriers, who in all kinds of weather and over all kinds of roads perform nearly every day of the year their onerous and important duties. In view of the importance of the service rendered by these employees to Canadians in rural districts, and to the outlay for equipment and maintenance in comparison with those in many other branches of the public service, we claim that they are not receiving just consideration.
To the people of Ontario the fuel problem is one of great concern. We are of the opinion that Canadian coal should be distributed to the people of Canada, and that we should eliminate our dependence upon a foreign country for this important commodity and promote the development of Canadian resources and national unity within our own borders.
As to the appointment of a Canadian plenipotentiary at Tokyo, I would say that it is high time that Canada was relieving the motherland of some of those international duties that she may well handle-questions that wholly concern Canada and the orient, and which can best be handled by one thoroughly familiar with Canadian affairs. We note with satisfaction the announcement that Washington is preparing quarters in Ottawa for her representative here, and that these quarters will be commodious and will in no way detract from the attractiveness of this beautiful city.
On motion of Mr. Sanderson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 9.25 p.m.
Wednesday, February 22, 1928