1928-03-12

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ROBINSON:: 
Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	November 1, 1927.
3.	Twenty years, with option of renewal for another period of twenty years.
4.	$100 plus taxes.
5.	Erection of warehouse.


ALBERTA COAL LEASES-RENTAL ARREARS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total amount of arrears of rental on coal leases in the province of Alberta.
2.	What is the total amount of arrears of rental on the undeveloped coal leases in the province of Alberta?

Questions


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 


AUSTRALIAN CHEESE-IMPORTATIONS
[Stage Direction]
1.	$187,8S6.93.
2.	$160,512.96.

Mr. FAFARD:: What quantity of cheese was imported from Australia since the Australian treaty is in force ?


Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many horse breeders' clubs were in operation under the scheme for federal assistance to horse breeding during the fiscal year 1926-1927?
2.	How many stallions of each breed were hired under this scheme?
3.	In how many cases in each breed were the fees reduced by the department by changing contracts between stallion owners and clubs?
4.	In how many cases were the fees increased by the department between stallion owners and clubs ?
5.	What amount was actually paid to clubs?
6.	What was the total cost of administration of this scheme?
7.	W hat was the total cost of inspection of horses under this scheme?
8.	How many inspectors were employed and what was the total remuneration?
9.	Are any inspectors employed who are in the business of buying, selling or hiring stallions under this scheme?
10.	Is it necessary to inspect the same stallions year after year as is now being done?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	159.
2.	Clydesdales 95, Pcrcherons 44, Belgians 22, French Canadian 1.
3.	Clydesdale 24, Percheron 8, Belgian 5.
4.	None.
5.	$45,909.44.
6.	$4,462.27.
7.	$4,462.27.
8- Three Inspectors. Remuneration at rate of $10 per day for incidental services totalled $3,010.
9.	No stallions hired by inspectors. Impossible to give information regarding inspector's private business.
10.	Stallions only inspected when necessary. They are not all inspected every year.


FLIN FLON MINE-TOWNSITE
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	Has the government been approached on the question of providing a townsite at the Flin Flon mine in Manitoba?
2.	Is it the purpose of the government to place this townsite on the market so that building lots may be available for sale or lease to private individuals, or, is it the intention to give the mining company a monopoly of this townsite?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The_ government has not yet decided what action will be taken.


Mr. MALCOLM:: 3,420 pounds.


BUTTER AND CREAM-EXPORTS 1927
Mr. FAFARD:: 1. What quantity of butter and cream Was exported to the United States during the year 1927?
2.	What quantity of butter was exported to England during the year 1927?
3.	What quantity of butter was exported to other countries during the same year?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	Butter-Canadian	produce, 330,700
pounds; Foreign produce, 800 pounds; Cream- Canadian produce, 4,044,073 gallons; Foreign produce, nil.
2.	Butter (to United Kingdom)-Canadian produce, 48,700 pounds; foreign produce, nil.
3. Butter-Canadian	produce, 2,316,600 pounds; foreign produce, 1,300 pounds.


POSTAL HELPERS-MONTREAL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: 1.	How many persons were appointed as postal helpers in Montreal during the months of May and June, 1925?
2.	Were applications for such positions invited by the Civil Service Commission?
3.	How many applications were received?
4.	Were appointments made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission?
5.	How many applications were received from men who had seen active service overseas, and how many of such men were appointed ?
6.	Was an application received from Mr. Waverley Talbot who had been in active service overseas and who lost a brother in the war?
7.	Was Waverley Talbot appointed to a position as postal helper in Montreal, and if not, why?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	None.
2,	3, 4, 5. See answer to No. 1.
6.	No.
7.	See answer to No. 6.


PUBLIC WORKS DREDGES-OFFICERS LEAVE
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	Are officers of the dredges and snagboats of the Public Works Department operating out of the port of New Westminster, allowed two weeks' annual leave with pay?
2.	Are men employed on same boats allowed annual leave with pay?
3.	If officers are, and men are not allowed leave, what is the reason for the discrimination?
4.	On what dates during the fiscal years 1926-27 and 1927-28 did the department grant
1190	COMMONS
Questions as Orders jor Returns
leave of absence to Chief Engineer T. C. Walker, Public Works dredge 303: (a) annual leave; (b) sick leave; (c) special leave?
5.	Did the department grant Walker permission to be absent from duty on any other days during the fiscal years 1926-27 and 1927-28?
6.	If so, on what dates and for what purpose?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes, if in continuous service for twelve months.
2.	No.
3.	Officers are employed by the year and other members of the crews are employed by the season at current rates. Practice followed by this department is the same as that in the mercantile marine and the Department of Marine.
4.	(a) 1926-27, July 5th to July 18th, 1926. 1927-28, July 4th to July 17th, 1927. (b) Nil. (c) Nil.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, when questions are converted into orders for returns and the returns thereto are tabled forthwith, might I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister to have the returns so tabled printed as answers to the questions that they may be available in Hansard.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Yes, certainly.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS-FUEL
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: 1.	From whom was the fuel purchased for the purpose of heating the Connaught building during the heating system of 1926-27?
2.	What type of fuel was bought, what was price per unit, total quantity, and total cost?
3.	What other expenses were incurred in heating the Connaught building during the 1926-27 season, and what was total cost of heating?
4.	From whom was the fuel purchased for the purpose of heating the Hunter building during the heating season of 1926-27?
5.	What type of fuel was bought, what was price per unit, total quantity, and total cost?
6.	What	other	expenses	were	incurred	in
heating the Hunter building during the 192627 season, and what was total cost of heating?
7.	From whom was the fuel purchased for the purpose of heating the Victoria Memorial Museum during the heating season of 1926-27?
8.	What type of fuel was bought, what was price per unit, total quantity, and total cost?
9.	What	other	expenses	were	incurred	in
heating the Victoria Memorial Museum during
the 1926-27 season, and what was total cost of heating?
10.	From whom was fuel purchased for the purpose of heating the Daly building during the heating season of 1926-27?
11.	What type of fuel was bought, what was price per unit, total quantity, and total cost?
12.	What other expenses were incurred in heating the Daly building during the 1926-27 season, and what was total cost of heating?
13.	What is the cubic content of buildings served by the heating plants in the following buildings: Connaught building; Hunter building: Victoria Memorial Museum; Daly building?


PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF BUTTER, ETC.
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: 1.	What is the estimated per capita consumption in Canada of: butter, cheese, eggs, meats, potatoes, and wheat (wheat flour to be included in wheat and represented by its equivalent in bushels) ?
2.	In regard to each of the above for the calendar year 1927, what was the total (a) Canadian production; (b) exports from Canada; (c) imports into Canada?
3.	What were the rates of duty as at December 31, 1927, imposed on each of the articles mentioned above by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States?
4.	What quantities and values of each of the above articles were imported into Canada from Australia, New Zealand, and United States, and exported by Canada to those countries in the year 1927?


James Malcolm: Order for return tabled
herewith.
Return to an order of the House of Commons, dated 12th March, 1928, for a return showing:
1.	The estimated per capita consumption in Canada of: butter, cheese, eggs, meats, potatoes, and wheat (wheat flour to he included in wheat and represented by its equivalent in bushels).
2.	In regard to each of the above for the calendar year 1927 the total (a) Canadian production; (b) exports from Canada; (c) imports into Canada.
3.	The rates of duty as at December 31, 1927, imposed on each of the articles mentioned above by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.
4.	The quantities and values of each of the above articles imported into Canada from Australia, New Zealand, and United States, and exported by Canada to those countries in the year 1927.
1. Estimated per capita consumption for food of undermentioned articles in Canada:
Consump-
Articles	tion
Butter, pounds	 28.54
Cheese, pounds	 3.92
Eggs, dozen	 28.2
Meats, pounds	162.27
Potatoes, bushels	 5.0
Wheat, bushels	 4.7
rMr. McQunrrie.)

_________________________ Questions as Orders for Returns
2. .
Canadian Production, Imports and Exports of Undermentioned Articles
Articles	Production
Butter, pounds	 272,209,287

Cheese, pounds	 172,248,376

Eggs, (in the shell), dozen	 253,277,000

Eggs, (n.o.p.), pounds	
Meats	$167,127,091
Potatoes, bushels	 77,430,000

Wheat (including equivalent of
flour),	bushels	 440,024,700


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOB PAPERS
Mr. ERNST:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, or other documents of whatsoever nature, between the Department of Customs, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Justice, and/or any other department of the government, and any person or persons, corporation or corporations, respecting the imposition or abrogation of duty on fish landed in Canada by steam trawlers other than those of Canadian registry; and for a copy of all or any orders in council in relation thereto.


OTTAWA BUILDINGS RENTED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. COOTE:: For a return showing the number of buildings rented by the government in Ottawa; the names of buildings, if any; the parties from whom they are rented; the term for which they are rented; the amount of floor space, if known, and the annual rental in each case.


LAKE ST. FRANCIS WATER-POWER
Mr. CAHAN:: For a copy of all applications which have been made for licenses, permits, or any other form of authorization by the government, or any department thereof, for permission to divert the waters of lake St. Francis by a canal or canals, and to discharge such waters so diverted into lake St. Louis for the purpose of thereby producing or generating hydroelectric energy, with a copy of the reports thereon by the engineers or other experts of any department of government, and also a copy of all department reports, orders in council, documents, and correspondence relating thereto, with a copy, so far as available, of all general maps or plans of such proposed diversions of waters and of the hydro-electric works proposed to be constructed in connection therewith.


INVESTIGATIONS BY MR. PLOTJFFE
Mr. SIMPSON:: For a return showing-1. The number of investigations made by Joseph A. S. Plouffe, of Sudbury, under his commission dated March 24, lb26, appointing him a commissioner to investigate charges of political partisanship against government employees in the province of Ontario.
2.	A list giving the names, addresses and occupations of employees whose conduct was investigated, together with a copy of the report of the commissioner in each case.
3.	A statement showing the salary allowance and travelling expenses paid or to be paid to Mr. Plouffe in connection with the said investigation.


ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION
Mr. McQUARRIE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents which have passed between the government of the province of British Columbia and the federal govern-fMr. Malcolm 1
ment, or between any ministers, deputy ministers or other officials of the said governments, respectively, since the 8th day of May, 1922, in reference to oriental immigration or in reference to curtailing activities of orientals already in Canada.


BOLSHEVIST COMMUNIST OR ANARCHIST SCHOOLS
Mr. GUERIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, memoranda, or other documents of whatever nature between the government, any department or any officer, with regard to bolshevist, communist or anarchist schools in Canada.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, such correspondence as is mentioned in this motion is of a highly confidential nature, and it would not be in the public interest to publish, it. Therefore I would ask my hon. friend to agree to the motion being dropped.


James John Edmund Guérin: I have no alternative, Mr. Speaker, but to withdraw the motion.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Dropped.


PROFITS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Kennedy:
For a return showing-
1.	All increases made to capital from profits in the form of stock dividends or in any other form whatsoever.
2.	The profits reported by all industrial
organizations as to:	(a) gross profits (per
cent) on nominal capital; (b) gross profits (per cent) on actual cash invested in each case exclusive of bonus stock dividends; (c) net profits (per cent) as to nominal capital; (d) net profits (per cent) on actual cash invested in each case exclusive of bonus stock dividends.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; I think the motion had better stand until the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is here. In the meantime, however, I may observe that I doubt very much whether it would be possible, even if the government were to consent, to the resolution being carried, to obtain the information which is requested. The order is a pretty large one.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Has any communication passed 'between the Dominion government and the British government in connection with the trouble in Irak?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are communications on the subject.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will they be tabled?

Malone ok Post Office


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Their object is to keep the government informed on the question and I imagine the British government would regard them as confidential. However,
I shall be pleased to communicate with the British government and if there is no objection to their being brought down they will be tabled.


ANTI-ORIENTAL PROPAGANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: A number of hon. members
have been receiving anti-oriental propaganda through the mails. I notice one communication under the question "Must B.C. Secede?" The argument centers around the following statement:
The Dominion collects the head tax while the province of British Columbia carries the burden.
Is it true that a head tax is collected on any of the various groups of orientals who are here or on those who may be entering Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I recollect, a few
sessions ago this parliament passed an act abolishing the head tax. There is therefore no head tax to collect.



QUESTIONS-ANSWERS IN DUPLICATE FOR MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['We have had two or three visits from the distinguished Prime Minister of this country, in the last two elections, and before. Once, when my election hung in the balance, the Prime Minister visited the constituency and gave an oration, and I was told immediately afterwards that I need not worry about getting elected. During the next election he came again and made another oration. far more brilliant than the previous one, but as soon as it was over I was assured again that I need have no fear of the consequences. I had a rather peculiar experience in my last election. I had pitted against me a gentleman who to-day occupies a high position in this country as head of the tariff board, a very important position. We got into a very remarkable contest, and while I won the election and he lost, the was able to pull out a $12,000 a year job, while I receive only $4,000. He gave to the world a new epigram, namely, "It is more blessed to lose than to win". I propose to say something about the tariff board before I am through.\nI wish to say a word about one of the greatest questions facing this country to-day, and before very long it will take the centre of the platform in this country. I refer to the national debt of Canada. Unfortunately or for tunately, as the case may be, the Dominion of Canada is placed side by side with the great American republic. When we on this side of the line take lightly some of our difficulties, we should cast our eyes across the line and ask ourselves what is this great country to\nthe south of us doing in regard to some of these matters? Think of this for a moment. In 1919 the national debt of the United States was, in round figures, $25,000,000,000;\t1920,\n$24,000,000,000;\t1921,\t$23,000,000,000;\t1922,$22,000,000,000;\t1923,\t$22,000,000,000;\t1924,\n$21,000,000,000; 1925, $20,000,000,000; and in 1926, $19,000,000,000. In other words, they reduced their debt from $25,000,000,000 to $19,000,000,000 between 1919 and 1926.\nBut that is not the whole story. Their debt now is reduced almost to $16,000,000,000, I understand, but whatever it may be, we must remember that the United States has placed\' on England, $4,700,000,000, upon France almost $3,000,000,000, and under the Dawes report she has placed on the countries in Europe an amount of her debt equal to $11,000,000.000. Take that $11,000,000,000 from the $16,000,000,000, and only $5,000,000,000 remains as the national debt resting upon the United States, and that is being reduced at the^ rate of $1,000,000,000 a year. How are we going to stand five or six years from now. if we have not in the meantime been reducing our national debt by some systematic method; when we are placed in competition with a country right at our doors that has absolutely-wiped out her national debt or has placed it upon other countries? What would be the use of a five or ten per cent tariff then? I claim that one of the most important things for this Dominion to do at this moment is to consider seriously the question of reducing our national debt. We have no country upon which we can unload a single dollar. We must pay off our debt solely through our energy and the genius of our men and the wealth of our resources. When this question of the national debt came up in the budget the Finance minister undertook to pass over it by quoting from an author who has been dead for seventy or eighty years. I marvel at times how the governing body in this country undertake to fortify some of their fallacies by delving into the museums of our country, dragging forth authorities of 150 or 200 years ago, and quoting them for present-day directions. The thing is absurd. Just to illustrate my meaning, I was curious to know who this McCulloch was whom the Finance minister quoted the other day, and I find that he has been dead pretty nearly a hundred years. And I observe, too, that the Finance minister did not read all that he said about national debts. The Finance minister quoted him as saying there should be no sinking fund and no taking care of the debt, but I read the next paragraph to that, just to show you the difference in the minds of men to-day as compared with the minds of men who lived one or two hundred years ago. He says:\nThe Budget-Mr. Kaiser', 'We have previously endeavoured to show that it would be advantageous to maintain during peace a surplus revenue of some two, three, or five millions a year. We should do this, not so much in the view of reducing the debt, though that is a consideration not to be left entirely out of view, as of increasing our security, and enabling proper measures to be devised, in the event of our being engaged in war, for defraying its expense.\nThis philosopher said that the great thing for the British Empire to do before it got rid of the national debt was to lay by some ready cash in order to prepare for the next war. Why did not the Minister of Finance explain the mentality of the man whom he quoted in regard to the treatment of our national debt? This man seemed to think he could look down through generations to come and tell exactly what was going to happen, and advise us how we should handle our national debt. But listen to the views of this philosopher on the development of democracy. I wonder what those who are behind the "flapper votes" m England think of this great philosopher\'s views on the franchise as it should obtain in England. Let me quote:\nIn a political point of view the late events in America are pregnant with instruction. The system of low or universal suffrage, of allowing the representatives of the nation to be chosen by a numerical majority, including the lowest classes, could not have been anywhere tried under such favourable circumstances as in the United States, and yet the result has been most deplorable. It lias made the mob paramount, thrown the government into the most incompetent hands, and filled the whole country with jobbing and abuses of all sorts. Many of those best acquainted with the people think the crisis will terminate in a military despotism. But whether that be so or not, the experience of the United States is a warning to all nations to beware how they reduce the elective franchise. The Americans are neither better nor worse than others, and the abuses by which they are disgraced would be quite as rampant on this side of the Atlantic were the members of our legislature elected under a similar system.\nThat indicates the kind of mind that existed fifty years ago. And yet this philosopher is being quoted to-day by the Minister of Finance as a guide in dealing with the national debt!\nNow, I consider it important to bring to the attention of the house the strange workings of this strange aggregate known as the "tariff board." They investigated the salt belt, starting somewhere near Kincardine, where the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) comes from, then it perambulates through half a dozen Liberal constituencies and finally winds up near where the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) comes from. Now, a body of men connected with this salt industry came before the tariff board and made the following application:\nfMr. Kaiser.l\nApplication by the Salt Producers Association for cancellation of the item providing free salt for sea or gulf fishing; for increase of duty on salt imported in bags, barrels or other coverings or in bulk; for the imposition of the same rates of duty on containers filled with salt as applies on empty containers; and for increased duties on free-running table salt.\nThese business men in a business way put forward a business proposition. They did not complain that they were hard up, they did not say that their business was lagging. They simply said: We have a wonderful salt deposit in our section of the country, but we are hampered in our operations by salt coming in from the United States, from Germany and from the United Kingdom; we claim that if this salt were subject to a duty we would have the full advantage of our home market, we could operate to the full extent of our capacity and we could employ twice as many men. They did not say that they wanted to make more money, but they simply said they were working only 50 per cent cf their capacity. Then the notifying work began. In this houje there is something we see on the table, but there is also a game going on under the table that we do not see. When this matter came before this house all we know is that somebody got in contact with the Minister of Finance, with the result that the government said to the saJlt producers\' association: We will grand a rebate of 99 per cent on the coal that you use in the preparation of your salt. That is the most ridiculous line that was ever written into a budget. I will tell you why. It illustrates the difference between the Conservative view and the Liberal view in handling such a mater. We say that the industry should be considered. Here is a means by which 500 families representing 2,500 people could be retained in Canada if the request for the imposition of a duty on salt were granted. But the Liberal mind says: We must fix up the industrialists; we will allow them every January to come down to parliament and by drawbacks take out of the cash box about $5,000 apiece. There are about ten factories engaged in the salt industry in western Ontario, and in the aggregate they turn out 200,000 tons of salt annually. It requires about\n100,000\ttons of coal to produce this salt. Fifty cents a ton on the coal means a drawback of about $50,000 which is divided up among these ten men. But they did not want it. They are sportsmen, and they take more pride in developing their industry than in getting a $5,000 drawback. That drawback did not add one solitary factory to our industrial development; it did not result in the employment of one additional workman. Two days ago the Canadian Salt Company issued their\n\nThe Budget-Mr. Kaiser\nannual statement from their offices in Montreal, from which it appears that notwithstanding the fact that they have been able to operate only at half their capacity they earned 13i per cent on their capital. Before the tariff board it was shown that the salt manufacturers combined made 25 per cent on their capital. It was not a little drawback that they wanted. Like the good, honest, solid Canadians that I have always found in our industrial captains, they took far more pride in the development of their business and in the employment of fellow-Canadians than in securing the few paltry dollars offered thorn in drawbacks.\nThen there is another matter that requires a little investigation in connection with this drawback game. Let me give the house this statement:\nStatement showing the total amount paid for customs drawbacks, annually, back to March 31st 1921, and in five year periods preceding that.\nFiscal year 1927-28 (11 months\nto Feb. 29/28)\t811,338,738 14\nFiscal year\t1926-27\t\n14,639,450\t94Fiscal year\t1925-26\t\n14.706,419\t28Fiscal year\t1924-25\t\n10,610,742\t77Fiscal year\t1923-24\t\n11,719,152\t44Fiscal year\t1922-23\t\n13.400,508\t25Fiscal year\t1921-22\t\n10.741,682\t04Fiscal year\t1920-21\t\n12,839,914\t41\nFive year periods.\nFiscal year\t1915-16\t\n3,599,844\t77Fiscal year\t1910-11\t\n789,395\t27Fiscal year\t1905-06\t\n242.853\t77Fiscal year\t1900-01\t\n138,947\t80Fiscal year\t1895-96\t\n149,218\t27Fiscal year\t1890-91\t\n134,388\t86\nPrevious to 1890-91 no separate record of paid Drawbacks appears to have been kept.\nI can quite appreciate the fact that a drawback is justifiable and perfectly sound from a national point of view. If a man brings in ins raw material from a foreign country and manufactures it in Canada and then exports the finished product he is entitled to drawback. And the law permits it. But when it comes to giving drawbacks to some people in lieu of some other things they would like to have, it seems to me that this is absolutely wrong. What should this country do? Only one thing: the people should get rid of a government which fails to take advantage of the opportunities that offer; they want to do away with a job-killing government and replace it with a job-making administration. Read the remarks of the president of the Bank of Montreal a few days ago and you will get an idea of what should be the immigration policy of this country. From time immemorial people have moved from one country to another for one of two reasons;\ncither to improve their position or to find employment. If this government only had sufficient faith in the country and could be induced to change its course and adopt a policy of protection, and provide that protection openly and honestly at the front door instead of at the back door, endeavouring thereby to provide employment for those people who are already in Canada as well as for others who might wish to come-if this were done we could dispense with a minister of immigration altogether.\nThe chief business before the country today is to undertake by every means possible to provide work for the people. Someone will ask, what about the automobile business in Oshawa? The government amended the tariff in this industry and I do not propose to say much on that score. The change was intended to effect great results. But what has happened? People generally do not realise it, but there has been an increase of 28 per cent in importations of automobiles into Canada, every one of which could have been manufactured in this country by Canadian workmen. This would have provided employment for 2,000 men. Reckoning five members to a family, this would mean 10,000 of a population who might have been retained in the country. But by one stroke of the pen the government drives from our shores all these people and then calls upon the Minister of Immigration to tour the world in search of\n10,000\tothers to come in and take their place. The government, so to speak, are pouring material in at the top of the sack while it is running out at the bottom. If they only had sufficient common sense to sew up the hole at the bottom of the sack they would save all the loss that is now going on. The most pathetic thing I have ever witnessed was a village which was destroyed by tariff changes. Would any other country be guilty of such a thing? I venture to say you would not find the United States government following any course which would result in the shutting down of a single industry or the closing-up of a single home resulting in the exodus of its population. This sort of thing must come to an end in Canada. The government must have a change of heart or it will be the business of the people of this Dominion to put in a government who will see to it that sufficient work is provided for all.\nOn motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adjourned.']
William Garland McQuarrie: With reference to questions which
are answered, may I ask that if possible copies of the answers be furnished at the time the original documents are tabled? Otherwise hon. members have to wait until the next day before they can ascertain what the answers are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a general rule questions are answered in duplicate or triplicate, the purpose being to have hon. members supplied with copies. If this rule is not followed it is an oversight which will be remedied.


William Garland McQuarrie: I asked to-day for a
copy of an answer to a question of mine and I was informed that I could not get it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was the question answered?


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
the page is distributing the answers at the present moment.


William Garland McQuarrie: I sent one of the boys for a copy and he said he could not get it.


Ernest Lapointe: The boy was wrong.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: On February 13 this house passed an order standing in my name for a copy of all correspondence, letters and other documents in connection with the removal of the post office of Maloneck, Saskatchewan, from the residence of Mr. W. S. Jones to another part of the district. The papers I have received^ under "Sessional papers, 145," are obviously incomplete, and I placed a question on the order paper. The answer appears in Hansard of March 7 and it shows very clearly that other papers in addition to these are in the hands of the department. I would ask that the order of the house be carried out.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: What is the number of the order?


Milton Neil Campbell: The number of the
order is Reference 25, Sessional Paper 145.


FRENCH TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) whether or not, as a result of the new tariff law passed by the republic of France with respect to importations of Canadian goods, the commercial treaty between Canada and France is thereby abrogated.


James Malcolm: I have no intimation that the treaty between Canada and France will be abrogated as a result of the new French tariff.


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: When will my hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), lay on the table Mr. Alexander Smith's report on Department of Interior affairs?


Charles A. Stewart: The report has not yet been presented. I inquired this morning and was informed that it will be submitted some day this week, when I shall be glad to table it.

The Budget-Mr. Laflamme


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A Robb (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Cahan and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Fansher (East Lambton).
Mr. LEO K. LAFLAMME (Montmagny) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I had a notion of making use of the English language to express the few remarks that I wished to make to-day. However, when I think that there are still, in this house especially, hon. members who propound the fallacy of a one language country, I deemed it my duty to make use of my native tongue, in order to prove to them that we are really living in a bilingual country.
I do not presume at this stage of the debate, to put forth entirely new arguments or to be the first to discuss certain phases of the budget speech. However, I cannot let the opportunity slip by of congratulating the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), on his budget proposals, also the government on the present state of affairs, as the favourable financial statement of the country shows. On the whole, the great majority of Canadian people are satisfied with the situation such as it is. An outstanding proof of this, is the numerous speeches of our Conservative friends who attempt to destroy, by the multiplicity of incongruous and incoherent criticisms, often without foundation, the good effect of the present budget proposals. I may state that in my riding most of the people are satisfied, realizing that our government has made genuine efforts to remedy the difficult situation in which our opponents had left the country's finances, in 1921. Confidence again was restored the moment they heard that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), was announcing surpluses, for instance that of $42,000,000 for this year. The decrease of the national debt by $105,000,000, in the course of the last five years of the Liberal regime, is not of a nature to shatter the hopes of Canadians. Once more our people breathe easier. Realizing the enormity of a debt created not only by an exaggerated participation in the war, but by the wastefulness of public money, by a government caring little for the time-honoured interests of the people, Canadians now understand better the wisdom they showed in placing their hopes in the Liberal party. In the past, it was under the Liberal rule that the people

saw prosperity give rise to the hope of a brilliant century for Canada. To-day, they rejoice in seeing those who advocated a liberal policy for the masses, tackling a depressing financial situation, struggling courageously to solve the problem, while giving the greatest possible relief by decreasing the taxes.
According to our Conservative friends, the people are not justified! in placing their confidence in this administration. Everything is going wrong, they say. Yet, if we study the financial statements of the various institutions, we find that last year was a very prosperous one. I am going to quote from the Canadian Pacific's review "Agricultural and Industrial Progress in Canada" of February last:
The increasing ability of Canada to absorb her own bonds has been a feature of the past few years as the energetic efforts of the postwar period bore fruit in greater prosperity for the Dominion and its people. .
A little further on:
Canada has worked energetically and steadily to overcome the handicaps resulting from her participation in the war, and it is gratifying to note the reward of such effort. Youthful and with her wealth of resources barely tapped, Canada is a wealthy nation. Considering she has but finally emerged from the depression and, in the opinion of industrial and financial leaders is on the threshold of an era of unparalleled development, the future holds boundless possibilities for her and her people.
' But I think enough has been said to establish that Canada is on the road to the greatest prosperity ever experienced.
' Our opponents seem to nurse a grudge against the department of Immigration. Although they have only discovered the case of MtaCoruachie-a case deserving sympathy- they blame the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), because all the efforts of the department were of no avail in keeping all the immigrants here, and stemming, at the same time, the emigration of our people. On this score-I have already had occasion of pointing it out-I see no necessity of bringing here more immigrants unless they are genuine settlers, capable of becoming true Canadians.
I fail to understand) why it is necessary to bring here young Englishmen and teach them to love farming.
First, very few of those born among the industrial classes, succeed on the farm. I rather think that something ought to foe done to encourage those of our people who, for one 'cause or another, wish to continue farming life somewhere outside their native province. By making grants to transportation companies who are more interested in numbers than in quality, we still persist in the error which strikes us to-day, in that connection: consider-

The Budget-Mr. Laflamme
able sums are spent and we do not rea.p the benefit expected. First and above all, let us give Canadians the same facilities as we give to foreigners.
1 Rural credit is certainly called upon to render appreciable services to the farming class. We already have, in the province of Quebec, an admirable institution: the "Caisses populaires " (people's savings banks)-which I would like to see better understood and more numerous-which have rendered and are still rendering great services to our farmers.
There is also our educational system which, especially in the business colleges, does not lend itself sufficiently to the training of young people for the farm. We have noted this deficiency and the harm wrought, and we are trying to remedy it. All depends on this: teach the young men to cultivate a taste for the land because it is the principal wealth, the national domain, pre-eminently; endeavour to have then understand its primary usefulness; impress on them what better returns they may have from the land, by having recourse to better methods. That is the ideal towards which our educational system should tend.
How many times have I noted the benefit derived from the putting into practice of the modem teachings on agriculture? The success of one would make the hesitation of others fade away and, by the means of examples, in a few years we would be astonished to see the improvement which has taken place. Speaking more especially in behalf of my district, I would ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), not to discontinue the services of the Seed Control Board, at Quebec. Our farmers have already greatly benefited from it. If they are somewhat backward in taking advantage of these services, we must not forget that we should proceed slowly in the propaganda of modem methods of farming, if we wish their success.
I can but congratulate the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and his department, which encourages sheep raising by granting subsidies.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence), was rather in a humorous mood the other day, and seemed to be sympathetic as to the lot of the Quebec farmers, which was in contrast to certain statements made previous to the Winnipeg convention, last autumn. He said:
But under the Australian treaty the business is suffering so seriously that it will not be long now before the only thing we shall have to eat will be Australian mutton. We shall not be able to produce a lamb chop in Canada; that will be a luxury reserved entirely for the millionaire.
I might tell the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) that, thanks to the assistance given by the department of Agriculture, our people in Quebec have understood the advantage there was for them to take up sheep raising, and that in my county, the four central parishes-Notre-Dame-du-Rosaire especially-made a start, not very long ago, in raising sheep; last year their sheep were graded as first quality on the Montreal market. They will not rest satisfied even at that, this year we shall have a finer and larger number of sheep.
To help to increase our population and keep our people in this country, the governments- federal and provincial

must unite in a strenuous educational campaign. They will soon notice that the money thus spent is not a loss, and with the same assistance granted to Canadian settlers, special personal transportation rates and free grants of land as well as pecuniary or farming assistance during the first years, the problem will have soon lost of its magnitude.
I see no necessity of accepting the suggestions prompted by our interested and distinguished visitors-among others the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs-who seems to want to direct our course in immigration matters. Our authorities are sufficiently well posted to know what should be done to solve our problems. As for us, we have not the boldness to suggest a solution to the problems which these visitors have themselves in their own country.
Our opponents have done much talking about ruin, unemployment, closed mills and further works stopping after the budget was put into force. Unemployment is far more felt in other countries than it is among us, and to give weight to what the hon. members on this side of the house have said in regard to the United States, we have the statement of the Prime Minister of England, made in the House of Commons, on February 13, last: that there were a million unemployed in England. It is true, that in the town of Monbmagny, within my riding, the doors of a large plant have been closed since a few years, but I have no fear of stating that it is not because we have had no protection. It would be desirable that its doors opened again, and if the government-not by raising the tariff-could help us, we should feel very thankful. There are others which are prosperous, esepecially since the Liberal party is in power. The fears of a certain manufacturer that the coming into power of the Liberals would mean the closing of his factory
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Lafl.am.me
doors have been changed into unbounded hopes, since in 1927 he enlarged his plant and intends to further extend it this year.
Again referring to the criticisms of the Conservatives: according to statistics, the dairy industry has increased in 1927. Milk production amounted to 13,407,340,237 pounds against 12,651,388,490 pounds in 1926. Moreover the amount of cream amounted to 4,148,469,498 pounds and that of butter 2,223,950,000 pounds. Our best market is the United States. Still quoting the Canadian Pacific's review on this matter, we find that the' statements of our opponents do not coincide with actual facts:
So far from anything being wrong with the Canadian dairy industry, it is in sound shape, being worth, according to estimate, $250,000,000 per year, which makes it one of the most valuable branches of Canadian agriculture. The existing situation and that forecast justify considerable expansion, and that Canadian dairymen are awakening to the opportunity is frequently made apparent. The number of cows on farms in Canada in 1927 showed a gratifying increase, while the Dominions recently produced a new world champion producer in butter fat. Both Ontario and Quebec dairymen have formed associations the better to engage in the shipment of milk and cream to the United States. There is unquestionably a profitable future ahead for those engaging or coming to engage in dairy production in Canada.
They bitterly complained that our favourable balance of trade had decreased in 1927. If it is but $131,218,843 this year, there is no cause for alarm. Quoting again, from the same source, we find the explanation:
The reduction in this balance occasions no uneasiness, but on the contrary is accepted as a healthy sign since it is stated to be accountable to the great increase in construction in Canada. The purchase of machinery and construction material has swelled imports, while many people have been engaged in building construction who would otherwise be producing goods for export.
Like the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond) did, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. minister for Defence (Mr. Ralston), to the proposed estimates of his department. No doubt, we must adopt modem means, such as aviation, but let us not increase our expenditure as regards to armament, when other countries speak of disarmament and when England reduces its estimates in that respect, let us not increase our estimates to make up for England's deficiency on that score. If we have too much money, let us think of Quebec. Our province has not had its due share in railways.
As to the income tax, I think that we cannot possibly dispense with it now. We have to pay off a large debt and everybody has to contribute. Personally, I am in favour of increasing the limit of exemption so that

those who have large incomes will pay their share. Everybody must understand his responsibilities. The farmer more than any has felt the depreciation in values after the war, he was the first to accept the accomplished fact. Industries were longer in doing so; sooner or later they will have to accept it. In the meantime industries must help more than any other in carrying our burdens. I am not opposed to the legitimate and even substantial profits of enterprises, but again we must be fair and not have the consumer, after all, pay what the income tax collects from them on their profits.
I entirely approve of what has been said by the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond), and the hon. member for Hoche-laga (Mr. St-Pere), in regard to the income tax of corporations, especially those which sell electricity. On that score in my own town of Montmagny, the Quebec Power obliges us to pay 8 cents per K.W.H. for the lighting service. Everybody knows the enormous profits of these companies, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), for not having granted their request this year. I am somewhat astonished to read, in the Montreal Herald of March 9, the following warning:
We warn the government that there is a rising tide of indignation in the province of Quebec against this discrimination. Quebec is willing, and always has been willing, to contribute its fair share to the general expenses of the Dominion, but it will not calmly submit to being imposed upon.
Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: They know nothing about it.


Mr. LAFLAMME (Translation):: I do not believe that this warning expresses really the popular feeling of the province of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear!


Leo Kemner Laflamme: 
Mr. DUNNING:: I must object to that. The guarantees of the Minister of Finance in regard to the Canadian National Railways are shown in the public accounts; they are schedule 5 of the balance sheet. My hon. friend, in attributing the statement he did to me, was not distinguishing between the terms net debt and public accounts.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Perhaps I inadvertently used the term public accounts. As a matter of fact, if the money is advanced in cash to the railway by the Minister of Finance, it appears in the ordinary balance sheet of the Dominion, but if it is provided by way of guarantees, it appears only in the accounts of the Canadian National Railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. It appears in a
schedule of the balance sheet, in the public accounts of Canada.


George Halsey Perley: It does not appear as part of the net debt of the Dominion itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


George Halsey Perley: In other words, if this amount of approximately $50,000,000 which was guaranteed by the Minister of Finance last year for t!he Canadian National Railways, had been advanced in cash to the railway, then the whole surplus claimed by the hon. Minister of Finance, and more, would have disappeared during the past year. And yet the gross liabilities of this Dominion, direct and indirect are exactly the same in either case. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether under this system of keeping the accounts it is not possible that some Finance minister some day may be tempted to put out misleading statements? In other words, the Minister of Finance has it in his own hands either to advance the cash for the requirements of the Canadian National Railways, which would appear in the net debt of the Dominion, or to guarantee the bonds of the Canadian National Railways, which would not appear in the net debt of the Dominion. I can imagine some Minister of Finance saying in the middle of the year, along in September, when it is usually necessary to raise some money for the purpose of financing, "Shall I provide this money in cash out of the coffers of the Dominion exchequer, or shall I guar-



The Budget-Sir George Perley
antee the bonds of the Canadian National Railways? If I provide this money in cash out of the Dominion exchequer, I am going to have to show a deficit next year in my budget speech, but if I provide it by guarantees, then I shall be able to show a surplus in my next budget speech." I claim and submit, Mr. Speaker, that irrespective of party this question of keeping the accounts should be straightened out and put in proper shape. The accounts should be kept just as would be done in the case of any large corporation in this country. I know it is argued that the system here is followed by other governments in this country, but to my mind that does not make it right.


Charles Avery Dunning: And by my hon. friend's government.


George Halsey Perley: I expected that. We always get the tu quoque argument. But we on this side of the house are always trying to learn something, while hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to wish to learn.
Now a few words with regard to the argument put forward the other day by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I was rather surprised to find a gentleman of his ability and capacity making use of that old campaign trick with which we are all familiar, of putting up a dummy and then knocking it down. When we first go into a campaign, probably we all use that trick, but as we get older we often find that it is wiser to drop it. At page 1055 of Hansard the hon. Minister of Justice says:
I was hoping that he (the leader of the opposition) would discountenance his followers in their campaign of belittling and misrepresenting Canada in the eyes of the world. Why glorify the United States at the expense of Canada ?	-
The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do there is no foundation for any suggestion of that kind. What right has the hon. Minister of Justice to say or even to suggest that we on this side are belittling Canada? That is an argument which is used in this country at elections, but it seems to me it might well be dropped. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I ask anyone who will answer in a conscientious way, whether there are any more loyal Canadians than we who sit on the left of Your Honour. I for one am proud of Canada, and proud of what we have accomplished in this country. I lived in England for eight years, in a very responsible position. I had an interesting time and a great deal of work to do, and I was glad to do anything I could during those war years, but my wife and I always looked forward to the day. when we might come back to our old home, and as soon as the opportunity

offered we came back here, because we think this is the best country in the world1 in which we can live, and I certainly do not like the Minister of Justice to suggest anything different.
We on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, are rather tired of having the government relying upon Providence alone for the blessings this country enjoys. It seems to us that it is high time the government did something to try and make Canada an even better country to live in; that they tried to make use of the raw materials and opportunities for development in this country, to give more work for our Canadian boys and girls, and to increase our population. I for one do not like the present conditions under which we are spending money to teach our boys and girls in our schools, and then to have them find no opportunity for their talents here, and leave this country and go elsewhere to make a living. They are our best raw material and we ought to do everything we possibly can to keep them here, and to make as much work and provide as many opportunities for them as possible, and I suggest to the government that they get busy and make a real effort to provide more work for our people at home, both on the farms and in the factories. Instead of taking this view of the case, the Minister of Justice prefers, as I judge from what he says, although I hope I am wrong, to ship out our raw material, and he apparently glories in that fact because I find on page 1056 of Hansard, the following extract which he read from some publication:
The total per capita exports of all lines from the United States is $39.62, from Canada, $122.57.
He glories in that fact; he boasts of it. I take the other view. Our exports are largely of raw materials, whereas United States exports of raw materials are less in proportion to population. Why? Because they use them up in their own country, thus providing work for their own people. Therefore, rather than glory in the fact that we export more raw materials than the United States do in proportion to population, the government should endeavour to stop some of this exportation of raw material and have it made into more highly finished products, thus keeping at home many of our young people who are now going away.
I humbly submit that the government should consider adopting the plan that we on this side of the house advocate of making our laws in such a way that we shall manufacture in this country everything we can instead of buying it largely from the United States. It is not fair that in our competition

The Budget-Sir George Perley
with our friends across the line, because they are and I am sure they always will be friends of ours, we should be handicapped by their very heavy tariff and at the same time by the fact that under our lower tariff they are able to ship goods into this country while we cannot ship goods into theirs. In this connection I wish particularly to refer to the farmers and fruit growers. I spoke of this at a previous session and I feel very strongly on the point. I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) thinks as I do that this home market of ours should be kept as much as possible for our own home growers. The purpose of the Conservative policy, as I take it, to encourage our industries is twofold. One idea is to provide more work for the people in our factories and the other is to provide in our own country a greater market for our farmers and fruit growers. My constituency is an agricultural one with several industries which keep up the towns, and in that way the people who live in the towns are first-class customers at good prices for the products of the farms round about. I need hardly say to you, Mr. Speaker-and everybody will agree in this-that whatever we grow in this country is the best that grows anywhere. It matters not whether we talk about apples, potatoes or people-they are the best that are grown anywhere and able to stand up against competition in any part of the world. But is it just that farmers and fruit growers in this northern climate should be subjected to unfair competition from southern countries where it costs less to produce these articles?
Under the present tariff laws in the United States the president or some committee has power to increase the duties when necessity warrants. I have known cases of this kind where some Canadians have worked up an export market in the United States. A very glaring one that occurred last year was that of a clothing manufacturer in Toronto. They had worked up a market in Detroit even under the high tariff but they found that they could make the business pay. This was discovered by customs officials in the United States and a shipment which was sent out on an order from the Toronto house to Detroit was stopped at the border and the tariff was raised before the shipment could be delivered. We should not submit to treatment such as that.


Mr. GOTT:: They can impose an embargo if they see fit.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend
tells me that they could put on an embargo if they saw fit. I am not one of those who 56103-761
advocate a sky-high tariff, but in this trade competition 'between us and our friends and neighbours to the south, I think it is the duty of this parliament and this government to give our people as much opportunity as possible to do business and to earn their living.
The following incident is a small matter but these little things show how the wind blows. This is an extract from the Ottawa Citizen of Friday or Saturday last:
Pickles and sauces served on the tables in the parliamentary restaurant in the House of Commons were yesterday found by a delegation from the Canadian Horticultural Council to be manufactured in the United States. The delegation waited on government authorities and brought this fact to their attention, with the request that the government "practise what it preaches"-use goods made in Canada. Both pickles and sauces are manufactured in Canada.
Could anything be more ludicrous than that we should use in our own parliamentary restaurant pickles and sauces made in the United States?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I suggest one thing more ludicrous-protectionists wearing Italian felt hats.


George Halsey Perley: I take it that my hon. friend is in favour of the produce of the farms of this country being used here as much as possible. He will agree with me in that, at all events. The government may say: Oh, that is a matter for the committee- that administers the restaurant. But as a matter of fact the government supporters control that committee; they are in a majority on the1 committee on the restaurant, and if they gave instructions that there were to be no more of these articles used unless they were made in Canada, their orders would be carried out.
I lived at the Chateau Laurier for several years and canned fruit is something I use a good deal of. I did not have many things to grumble' about at the Chateau Laurier, but I certainly did complain because I could not get from them any peaches except United States peaches. We raise in this country better peaches than they do in California or Oregon, and why the Canadian National Railways should supply what is really a government hotel with fruit from across the line when we have better fruit in Canada, is something I have always failed to understand. In other words I take the ground that particularly in regard to the products of the farm and the competition with farmers and fruit growers in the United States, steps should be taken to protect our growers in order that they may have their home market for themselves when they are denied an opportunity to sell their produce across the line. The Department of

The Budget-Sir George Perley
Agriculture of this government has quite properly urged a campaign for the use of Canadian products. Why do they not do it themselves? Surely they should be the first to set us an example. We vote $30,000 a year to run the parliamentary restaurant. I have not ascertained if all the appropriation was used last year. But surely the government, and especially my friend the Minister of Agriculture, who goes up and down the country urging on the people the wisdom- with which I agree-of using Canadian products, might at least practise what they preach.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, until this morning I had hoped to keep out of this already too long-drawn-out debate, but when I learned that I could have a period of forty minutes or less without prolonging the debate in the aggregate, I thought I would take advantage of it.
So far as the budget proper is concerned, with the naked eye I cannot see that any indentations have been made in it during the three weeks it has been under bombardment. I think the budget is just as popular throughout the country to-day as when it was first laundhed. Then why deal with it any further?
Before considering a number of the statements on immigration and dairying that have been made in the course of this debate, let me refer to the concluding remarks of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) who has just resumed his seat. Pickles and sauces! A serious matter indeed,-if 't were true. But I am sorry to tell my hon. friend that the statement is not true, according to what Mr. George tells me. He was in my office the other day and expressed great concern about the impression that had been created that pickles made in the United States were being served in the parliamentary restaurant. He assured me that this is not the case.


George Halsey Perley: I am glad to hear it.


William Richard Motherwell: I am sorry to spoil my hon. friend's little story. He and his friends must be in a pretty bad pickle when they have to resort ito such criticism. I am afraid I may have to spoil some more of their little stories and castles in the air before I am through.
Now then, as to immigration. This, I admit, is a very important question. Apparently one of the chief complaints has been made by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Quinn), and reiterated by twenty or thirty of his associates. It concerns a certain family that was detained at Halifax, with the result that two
*Sir George Perley.]
of its members were not allowed to land. But there is a much larger question at stake than the hardship entailed on this individual family. Shall we keep out the prohibited classes, or shall we let them in? There are something like twenty-five or thirty prohibited classes mentioned in section 3 of the Immigration Act-imbeciles, the feebleminded, idiots, epileptics, prostitutes and pimps-whatever those are; these are all prohibited. Now, if I understand the complaints against the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), some at least of these prohibited classes should have been let in, and the treatment of the McConachie family has raised the question. But, as I say, a much larger question is involved. Why should these prohibited classes be allowed to enter the Dominion? I do not care whether the law prohibits their entry or not, or even if the Minister of Immigration has discretion, to let them in,-did he not do the right thing in keeping this class of people out? While I was a provincial minister, acting in the Department of Labour and in the Department of Health, I had to deport a considerable number of immigrants from Saskatchewan. I found after sifting them down as closely as possible that some of the no-goods gain entry once in a while, and they have to be deported. Then why deliberately permit these prohibited classes to come in?-the classes that I have described. There is a big issue at stake. If I interpret correctly the position taken by my hon. friend from Halifax and other hon. members of the opposition, they are asking that the two members of the McConachie family-one prohibited-to whom I have referred should have been allowed to land. If we are to allow the simple-minded to come in then what about the idiots, the imbeciles, the epileptics, and the others specified in section 3-fifteen or twenty prohibited classes? If one is allowed to enter, why not two; and if two, why not a thousand? If you allow one of the prohibited classes to come in, the whole twenty classes can come in. There we take issue with our friends on the other side. We feel sorry for these unfortunates, but, nevertheless, we believe that, as in the past, they should be kept out. There can be no compromise on this question.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: The Minister of Immigration let in-


William Richard Motherwell: I have my forty
minutes, please; after that you can talk as much as you like. These people must be either on the other side of the Atlantic or on this side; you cannot compromise by dropping

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
them in mid-Atlantic. Therefore if my hon. friends opposite are complaining of the action of the Minister of Immigration in leaving those people on the other side of the Atlantic, it is evident that they want to have them on this side. Well, every party to its taste.


Alexander McKay Edwards: The Minister of Immigration-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: I have sat here for three weeks listening to the dope sent over from my hon. friend's side. Now they should be able to sit still for forty minutes; I have had to sit still for nearly forty days.
I could not deal with the question of immigration without at least making reference to the very excellent speech of the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae). I hardly know how to go at this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: Hold on! He who cheers last will cheer best. I have known my hon. friend for twenty-five years. I had the pleasure of knowing the Davidson, McRae Company way back in 1902. But that was an entirely different proposition from the one the hon. gentleman promulgated on Friday. Half of it was one dollar an acre land, and the other half free homesteads, making the average fifty-cent an acre land. How could anybody lose on that proposition? It was like going down hill with the wind in your back. Anybody could propose such a scheme and succeed with it. Now, the basis of the hon. gentleman's proposal last Friday was that a large block of scrub land should be dealt with on the basis of being cleared at $12.50 an acre. Do you know anybody, Mr. Speaker, who could clean that land at $12.50 an acre? I do not. That is just a little more than double the cost of preparing open prairie land for the seed drill. How can you clean scrub land for $6.50 an acre over and above the cost of cleaning straight prairie land? It is absolutely impossible. But taking the figure just as my hon. friend gave it, it entails an expenditure of $300,000,000. Well, I know it will be successful in one respect; it will succeed in preventing my good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) from having any more surpluses to report to this house. Three hundred million dollars? It will cost twice that much, if I know anything about the cost of cleaning scrub land. If my good friend has the faith in his proposition that he appears to have, I would suggest that he bring it before the agricultural committee where the other immigration problems are being sifted. I should like to hear what some of the hard-handed and hard-headed
farmers on that committee would have to say regarding this big scheme. I have watched the development of large enterprises like this, and I have never seen one of them succeed where the government had to step in, clear the land and build a house on it-never yet.	In
Ontario shortly after the war was over the government of the province went into a big land settlement scheme at Kapuskasing for returned men. I am not adversely criticizing the provincial government; we all wanted to do these things for the returned men. But what is the condition of affairs to-day? The land now is practically deserted by the original occupants. I am not going to say anything about the soldier settlement proposition except to point out that if we amplify the scheme in the manner suggested we shall be obliged to add to the public debt by hundreds of millions of dollars. We have already spent a hundred millions, and I mention this fact for this reason. My hon. friends will say, "That is the way the Liberals manage things. If the Conservatives were in power and there were a proper administration with a real live wire at the head of affairs these things would not happen." But whose was the soldier settlement scheme? Let me point out that we have just written off $16,000,000 as a result of bad buying and poor management during the Tory administration, and another $10,000,000 in relation to live stock and equipment. If, therefore, we can salvage 50 cents on the dollar from the scheme we shall have reason to consider ourselves pretty lucky. Now that was their plan; and what evidence have we that the present proposal would be any better in face of the experience we have had? I know of no other such scheme since settlement first began on the North American continent; nor am I aware of any country in the world where governments have developed lands in this bonanza fashion but the people got their fingers badly burned in consequence. That is our experience. I would rather speak approvingly of the scheme, because I know that the first enterprise with which my hon. friend was associated, the Saskatchewan Land Valley Company, was a magnificent proposition. But how much support did it get from the other side? It was depicted by the Tories as the blackest thing that ever emanated from a government. And now hon. gentlemen are taking that proposition as their ideal. There you had an average of 50 cents an acre as compared with this proposal of $12.50. Why, twice that amount ox money will not clear off the heavy scrub land in the northern parts of the prairie provinces.
I had an opportunity of visiting Peace River and I know something about it. It is
The Budget-Mr. Motherwell

this propensity for leaping before looking that resulted in running the Hudson Bay railway into that open switch at Port Nelson -anything to get rid of the proposition. 1 shall have to deal with this question later on but, as I say, there was an evidence of a desire to get rid of the question by any means at all. Any plan would suffice so long as they could get to salt water. That was their hurry-up policy; that was their headlong proposition; and I would beseech this house to beware of Tory schemes of this kind, for they have invariably turned out badly. Now what are we ourselves doing in connection with Peace River development: Are we doing anything? To hear my good friends talk one would imagine that we were sitting comfortably here and merely wearing out our chairs from day to day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: WTell, we have been doing so but it is my hon. friends who have kept up the pace and not we. We believe in the Peace River; I do not think there is any finer part of the country, if developed, than that territory. I was charmed with it and I admired the men who were hanging on. Possibly my admiration was inspired by the fact that I myself hung on similarly for over twenty years before I had the satisfaction of seeing railway communication established. I did feel quite buoyant and hopeful for the future of that country when I paid it a visit. Well, I ask, what are we doing? Since coming into the house I have received a hastily prepared statement from the Railway department-not from the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), as he was not here during the full period mentioned, but a statement prepared by his staff who are more familiar with the whole proposition in its earlier stage.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Hon. members
laugh; I hope they do not expect the Minister of Railways to be acquainted with all the details of the proposition dating away back to 1921. My hon. friends should have waited until I had concluded the sentence. Here is the statement I have received. In 1921-and this, bear in mind, was during the period when the Crowsnest rates were suspended by my hon. friends on the other side, that legislation having been passed in 1919- the rate from Grande Prairie to Fort William per hundred pounds was, in 1921, 59 cents. In 1922 it was 45 cents. Parenthetically I would point out that changes in freight rates downwards, due to some specific policy or

action on the part of this government, have been invariably opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite. In September 1922, for some reason that does not appear on the face of it, the rate, was increased to 49 cents, but in January, 1924, it was reduced to 43 cents; and in September, 1925, it was further reduced to 354 cents. This meant a total reduction in the rate from Grande Prairie to Fort William per hundred pounds during that period of 244 cents. Let us take the freight rate from Grande Prairie to Vancouver during the same period. In 1921 it was 54 cents; in 1922, 48 cents; in 1923, 43 cents; on January 19, 1924, 404 cents; on January 29, 1924, 394 cents and in September, 1925, 294 cents; while on September 15, 1925, it was 28 cents. This represents a total reduction per hundred pounds from Grande Prairie to Vancouver of 304 cents; in other words, the rate was more than cut in two. That would permit the farmers of Grande Prairie to carry on while the country was developing and tonnage improving in order to warrant an outlet to the Pacific. We believe that two things must run concurrently; we must prepare for an outlet to the Pacific, which undoubtedly will come; and simultaneously with that preparation we as a government must make it possible for the farmers there to carry on with a reasonable profit on their efforts. And this is the best means towards that end. We must reduce freight rates to that extent and thus reduce the cost of production of every bushel of grain. I may say that settlement is taking place rapidly there, and not settlement of the feeble-minded either, but of strong, sturdy vigorous men and women. These people are going into that country and making it the envy of the whole continent. Herman Trel'le went there as a young man, an engineer, and going in for farming he was able eventually to capture first prizes on the continent in both wheat and oats. He did this two years ago, and where did he get his wheat? He got it from the experimental farm in Ottawa. That one single man has done and will continue to do more for the Peace River country than all the hot air artists you could pack on the Tory side between now and the end of the session.
I think I have covered the immigration question. I have no authority on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), to speak with reference to the committee on agriculture and colonization, but inasmuch as I have what I may term a half interest with him in this matter I will undertake to afford all the facilities I can, even to the extent of burying some of my

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
own bills, if my hon. friend from North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) will come forward and develop his proposition. Our friend's are willing that we should give it consideration, but I want to see a little more about it before committing myself. They are perpared to have us receive credit for it, but before they can expect us to buy a pig in a poke I think we may reasonably ask my hon. friend to disclose and develop his scheme.
I am ready to give him all the time he desires for the purpose. In the meantime, that is all we can do and we shall pass on to something else.
Our friends have taken umbrage at the Australian treaty. Well, of course, you cannot buy a market without paying for it; somebody has to pay. When the British preference was first established in 1897 it could not be done without somebody's toes being hurt a little. But in the main it was good for Canada. In the main the Australian treaty is good for Canada, and we hope it is good for Australia as well. This government, led by the Prime Minister, are strongly in favour of developing interimperial trade, as I am sure we all are, and you cannot do that except at an occasional cost to some one. You would almost think, Mr. Speaker, that it was actually a crime to eat good Australian or New Zealand butter; apparently our hon. friends would rather have the people of Canada eating oleomargarine. I remember one of the first remarks I ever made in this house; it was not from this seat, but from somewhere in this vicinity, and it had to do with this question of oleomargarine. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton), whom we are glad to see back in his seat looking well and happy, was very much entertained by the discussion which then took place, and he can probably recall it quite well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is equally entertained to-day, I should say.


William Richard Motherwell: I have a list of the importations from the Antipodes for the last twenty years, and during every year we have had occasion to import more or less Antipodean butter into Canada to eke out our own supply during the winter months. Is that a crime? During the last year of the Liberal administration, in 1911, 903,821 pounds of butter were imported, while during the first year of the Conservative administration in 1912 the figure jumped to 2,241,584 pounds. I am not going to blame them for that; if they had no butter for their bread they did well to get it wherever they could, and they were so anxious to get it that they supplemented the butter with oleomargarine. Then in 1913 the importation jumped to 6,116,134 pounds; in 1914 it amounted to 6,959,757 pounds, and this country seemed to survive all right. That has gone on year by year. For the first ten months of this year we imported 8,228,986 pounds of butter, and I anticipate that before the year is over the figure will be even larger. Where is the crime in that? The funny part of it is that our friends opposite are pleading largely on behalf of the urban population of this country; they tell us they are getting butter too cheaply.
I can understand the objection of the farmers to the Australian treaty, but I cannot understand the urban people objecting to good Australian butter at about two cents less per pound. As I have said, I can well understand the objection of the farmer, but to judge the relative policies of the two parties on this one issue you must not take any isolated item; you must deal with the whole policy of the government. Therefore, when you size up the policy of our friends opposite, you must consider that policy not only in relation to the importation of butter but also in regard to the free importation of oleomargarine and its ingredients. Imagine Tories letting anything in free! However, they were partial to this concoction of intestinal fats and southern oils which was called oleomargarine, and the ingredients were allowed in free. Then you must also remember that when the treaty with the West Indies was negotiated, Canada received a specific preference of one and one-half cents per pound on butter. Consequently, when you consider the policies of the two parties, you must agree that our policy is infinitely preferable to the one inaugurated by our predecessors. I do not suppose my hon. friends want any more of these figures, so I will say nothing more than that during every one of the past twenty years more or less Australian butter came into Canada, and no one thinks it is a crime. As a matter of fact, in this treaty there is a provision by which, upon six months' notice, either party may amend or abrogate it, so it is not a fixture from now to eternity. It does not seem to be doing the urban people any harm, whatever effect it may have on our rural population.
Now I would like to refer to some matters on which the leader of the opposition touched in his initial speech, which was a very good one. I will not quote him, but he was in no better humour than were his followers. He did go so far as to admit that there was a certain amount of temporary prosperity in the country, but he did not like the way that prosperity was obtained. He did not like

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
the great mining development, for instance, because it was so hard on the mines; he did not like the development in our pulp and paper industry because it was so hard on the forests, and he did not like the big crops, apparently, because they were so hard on the land. He might have said with greater truth that he did not like the result of the last election, because it was so hard on the Tories. In that speech he sought to leave the impression, or at least he stated, that he was friendly to the Hudson Bay railway. As the old saying goes, save us from our friends! I remember the time he went down to Portage la Prairie to help out his late lamented leader, and instead of helping him he drove home the last nail in the lid of the coffin of that leader, which has not been raised since.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I now rise to a question of privilege.
Mr. M'OTHERWELL:	That was the
effect of the speech.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement attributed to me in the newspapers at Portage la Prairie was contradicted before I had even left that town, and after the expenditure of much time and energy I induced every newspaper in Canada to publish a withdrawal and a denial of the accuracy of the statement now attributed to me by the Minister of Agriculture. That was done by the Canadian press. Any such suggestion as that now made is absolutely false in toto.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say anything about what the press said, did I?


Richard Bedford Bennett: You stated what I said.


William Richard Motherwell: I venture the guess that every western man who went out campaigning in that election, unless he happened to be in collusion with my hon. friends opposite, had a sheaf of Hansard statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the Hudson Bay railway. If they did not have those statements, I will now give them. Here is the statement made by my hon. friend on June 9 of 1926, which will be found at page 4293 of Hansard.
But from the information I have I could not under any circumstances vote to extend the railway a single foot beyond the present end of steel.
That was then at Kettle Rapids, ninety-two miles from Hudson bay.
I could not vote to send the railway to Nelson.
iMr. MotherweH.l
Strictly speaking, I could not do so either. That is the statement made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. Perhaps I had better read that again:
But from the information I have I could not under any circumstances vote to extend the railway a single foot beyond the present end of steel.


Charles Avery Dunning: When was that speech
delivered?


William Richard Motherwell: On June 9, 1926,
in connection with the1 vote of $3,000,000. Then another statement was made which 1 do not need to read in its entirety, unless my hon. friend will say I am taking isolated statements and leaving a wrong impression:	I
will fix that up later, by quoting some of the' colleagues of my hon. friend. My hon. friend said later:
I believe the whole matter is impracticable.
He was then referring to the Hudson Bay railway. It my hon. friends wish, I will read the whole quotation, but I notice that half of my forty minutes is gone now, and perhaps they will let me proceed. Here1 is what Mr Bury said; He was then Conservative member for Edmonton. Speaking immmediately after my hon. friend he said:
I would not now have risen to speak but for the fact that the member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh)-with the best intentions in the world I have no doubt, and being himself assured of the truth of what he said-told the committee that the whole of the west was solidly behind this proposition, and he specifically mentioned the province of Alberta.
Then Mr. Bury goes on to say:
Now, I cannot let that statement go unchallenged, because there is at least one member -and indeed the house has heard another in the person of the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) -
My hon. friend across tihe way-
-who does not believe in the project of the Hudson bay route as a grain route.
There is no equivocation about that. His own colleague, Mr. Bury, interprets what he thought the hon. member said and repeats it. Therefore I am not putting any strained interpretation on what my hon. friend says. There are his words in black and white. There was not a speaker in the whole of western Canada but was aware of these words and read them at the various meetings. And when my hon. friend had the audacity to go to Portage la Prairie he could not expect any better result than that his leader would drop in his tracks. There could be no other result and it was the same with all the rest of the Tory candidates in Manitoba. Is there anything else my hon. friend would like to deny? I think the hon.

The Bridget-Mr. Motherwell
gentleman got up in too big a hurry. It seems to me my hon. friend was protesting before there was anything to protest about.
Seeing that we are on the Hudson Bay railway, and my hon. friend expressed a keen desire to clean up any suspicions which he said existed around the Immigration department I wonder if he has it in mind to clear up the suspicion a great many people have felt as to why the Hudson Bay railway was sent to Nelson? If he has any such desire all he has to do is to ask for an investigation and I think he will get it. I have no right to make that statement on behalf of the Minister of Railways or the government, but I think my hon. friend ought to try to get an investigation. I think it would do my hon. friend good to have an inquiry. Then he would find out why six millions of money were squandered. He would find out why a sand sucker was sent up there when there was no sand to suck, and why it is still there resting on an artificial island. I do not attribute the blame for this to the engineers in charge, nor to the late minister, Mr. Cochrane, but to the ministry of that day. By all means let us have another investigation. My hon. friend did not get much out of the customs, or immigration investigation, and he may as well try a third shot, and I think I can assure him that he will get more of a kick or backfire out of the third than from the preceding ones.
I have only ten minutes left, but it will not require that much time to answer all the allegations of hon. gentlemen opposite. I was just going to make a few remarks about the wonderful convention held at Winnipeg. We were all interested in it. It is a fine thing for a government to have a good opposition, and we have got a good opposition leader. In my estimation the Conservatives got the best man for the party; it is certainly best for the country and best for the Liberal party that he is the opposition leader. I do not say that with any unkind intention towards my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett); I think the hon. gentleman is a credit to this house. But the platform of the party is a bird. They have recanted nearly all of their professions of the past. I had a newspaper report of the platform here but I have mislaid it for a moment; I think it has crawled under the desk. I have tried on three different occasions to get a copy of the Conservative platform in concise form from the offices of my hon. friends, but I did not succeed, and only this morning in reply to my request, I was told the platform was away somewhere being revised and, believe me, I certainly think it needs revision.
The implements of production are now the subject of concern to my hon. friends oppo site, and the consumer also is to be looked after. And yet in the same breath they are going to stand firmly by the national policy which dates back for fifty years. How can my hon. friends have two policies? They seem to be trying to look to the east and at the west at one and and the same moment. When they get down here they forget all about the Winnipeg platform. No sooner have the echoes of that great convention died away in the distance than they hike down here leaving their poor baby to bleach its bones on the silent prairie. We all remember when they were disputing during the convention about the Hamilton speech of the former leader of the party at the Winnipeg convention. They had on that question a little internal difficulty, but while the fight lasted, "Oh, oh, it was a lovely war!" The resolutions passed at that convention numbered twenty-four in all, but out of the entire number I have not been able to find a single one that you could hang your hat on, or that would be of any good to the country. They have a resolution about the St. Lawrence waterway. My hon. friends opposite are in favour of that project, but it must be a national undertaking, not an international one. How could it be a national undertaking when the international portion is almost all in the United States? At Winnipeg they also resoluted in favour of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. At last they have come to that conclusion. They were not always of that opinion, but now they have recanted and have come out in favour of the project at a time when they are not needed.
For years we of the Liberal party fought for the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates in the face of the Conservative opposition. At the Winnipeg convention, in deference to western sentiment, my hon. friends opposite came out in favour of the statutory rates on grain. Talk about the reform party! Here is a party which has reformed late in the day, but as the old adage has it "better late than never."
My hon. friends in one of their resolutions favour the development of Canadian ports and the giving of the British preference to all goods entering those ports. In advocating these policies they are just three years behind the times. We have got all these matters attended to. Of all the aggregations of in-ocuous ideas I ever set my eyes on the platform enunciated at Winnipeg is the limit. Of course we all know what it is intended for. It is a gesture on the part of the east for the purpose of deceiving the west. You will re-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
member that for twenty long years only one Tory from the province of Saskatchewan ever gained the federal house. Is it any wonder that my hon. friends would get down on their marrow bones and commit themselves to almost anything in order to improve on that showing? But have you heard my hon. friends advocating these resolutions here? There was one action of the convention which we approve of, and that was in the choice of a leader. But I have not heard any one of the resolutions dealing with the tariff, the Hudson Bay railway, the Crowsnest pass railway rates or other matters referred to here in a commendatory way, or in any way at all as far as I know. Why are my hon. friends so silent about those resolutions? It is true that the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) delivered a speech on Friday dealing with immigration, but the Conservative platform is now in cold storage and will stay there so far as my hon. friends opposite from the east are concerned.
I am not going to take up the whole of my forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Richard Motherwell: No, I have said all I wanted to say. I will close with the statement that if I have been unfair to the leader of the opposition in any way I hope he will set me right when he speaks to-morrow.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) may have been disappointed in the terms of the Conservative platform, I am sure his hopes with respect to the leader of our party to-morrow will be amply fulfilled. Before entering upon the subject matter of my remarks, which concern chiefly a provincial question of British Columbia in relationship to the federal government, I want to take this opportunity of making a reference to the passing of a lifelong personal friend and political opponent, the late Hon. John Oliver, formerly premier of British Columbia. His sterling, honest character, his strong and rugged personality, his keen intellect and vigorous mind, and his great devotion to his adopted province gained for the late Mr. Oliver the admiration and respect of not only the people of British Columbia but all his political opponents. In his passing last summer the people of Canada have lost a fine public servant whom we all miss and for whom there will always remain in the hearts and memories of his fellow citizens the deepest affection and regard. I wanted to make these few observations with
TMr. Motherwell.]
regard to the late premier because in British Columbia he was held in the very highest esteem.
The purpose of my remarks to-day is to review briefly the question of British Columbia's claim for better terms, its relationship to the treatment given to the other provinces, and the findings of the Hon. Mr. Justice Martin who, as commissioner, has placed before us an interim report. The Hon. Mr. Justice Martin finds in respect to British Columbia that:
Justice requires that the province be placed in the same position as the other provinces with respect to a great national undertaking and the lands conveyed to _ the Dominion for the purpose, namely, the railway belt and the Peace river block, be restored to the province.
I wish also to take this opportunity to commend the government for appointing this commission, but I should like to remind them that the functions of the commission were greatly circumscribed and did not cover the matter of adjustment of subsidy, regarding which British Columbia has a very important and just claim. They likewise omitted to cover one or two ether questions of longstanding grievance in our province. In view of references made in two former speeches from the throne but never followed by action on the part of the government, I am sure that members from western Canada, where the question of natural resources is one of concern and should be one of legislation, will be interested in that phase of the question to which I am about to refer.
Confederation as consumated in 1867 is a political and economic union by the federal system of government under a new constitution of colonies possessing their own sovereign rights, which, within the scope of the British North America Act, they still retain as provinces. To get at the root of this question of the right of the provinces to their natural resources, we must consider for a moment the question of what is known under our constitution as the public domain. Before the western provinces became partners in confederation, that vast area of public domain was vested in the crown, subject to such rights as had been granted by charter or license to trading companies such as the Hudson's Bay company and the North West Trading company. British principles with regard to public domain are very ancient and well known to all colonies and dominions. The public domain, that is lands unappropriated, has been and still remains vested in the crown; but when a government is formed to take control of the country, it secures-and these are the two essentials-first, the administration of the

The Budget-Mr. Ladner
public domain and, second, the beneficial interest therein. This principle has been accepted in every British self-governing country and in the whole of Canada with the exception of western Canada, which has been denied these constitutional rights by the federal authorities.
When confederation took place in 1867 these principles were recognized by the four constituent provinces, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and were perpetuated by section 109 of the British North America Act. Under that section the beneficial control of the public domain was vested in the several provinces. If you examine the constitutional history of New Zealand, Newfoundland, the provinces of the Australian commonwealth, South Africa and every other self-governing dominion, you will find that each government, whether federal, state or provincial, has, upon organization, been granted the administration and beneficial control of its public domain. That feature of the constitutional relationship between the provinces and the dominion is fundamental to the rights of the provinces. When confederation took place, we had of course a great area of land known as our public domain. The four provinces constituted about 500,000,000 acres of this land, but apart from those 500,000,000 acres there were in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000,000 acres which constituted the public domain still remaining with the federal authority. By legislation in 1898 and 1912 the province of Ontario received 150,000,000 acres more than it had at the time of confederation, making a total of 261,000,000 or practically doubling its size. In those lands all the rest of Canada had a proprietary interest. The province of Quebec is now nearly four times as large as it was at the time of confederation. It had 124,000,000 acres originally, but by legislation of 189S and 1912 this territory was increased to 452, 000,000 acres. Likewise in the province of Manitoba there was a considerable increase. My contention is that those additions were part and parcel of the right and title of every province constituting confederation and every province which was admitted under the terms of the British North America Act. What do we find? In these new areas added to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec there is an enormous wealth developed especially in mines and forests, and the revenues to the provincial governments have been likewise greatly increased. These are things which should warrant my fellow members from Ontario and Quebec in giving consideration to the claims which are made by not only British Columbia but the three prairie provinces.
I come now to the particular problem of British Columbia. In 1849 Vancouver Island was granted by letters patent to the Hudson's Bay company, but it reverted by purchase in 1858. The mainland of British Columbia had been licensed for certain purposes to the Hudson's Bay company and it had likewise reverted, so that by the time the province joined confederation in 1871, British Columbia was in possession of its public domain, and all the soverign rights, within the confines of the boundaries of British Columbia. By the act of 1871 our province became a member of confederation and under that act certain lands known as the Dominion railway belt were conveyed to the Dominion government in trust for certain specific purposes, namely, to aid by a forty mile belt across Canada in the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, the building of which was part and parcel of the terms under which British Columbia was willing to unite with the other provinces.
Then followed a number of events into which time does not permit me to go, events and acts on the part of the federal government denying or failing in their obligations to carry out the terms of union of 1871. I would draw the attention of hon. members to the peculiar political position that existed at that time. The scheme of financing the Canadian Pacific railway was changed in 1880 by the Canadian Pacific railway syndicate. The original scheme was the granting of a strip of land twenty miles on either side of the railway right across Canada from Vancouver into Ontario, but by the new proposal the Canadian Pacific was to receive 25,000,000 acres of land in alternate sections, all situate in the northwest territories, together with a cash allowance of $25,000,000, although the cash subsidies ultimately amounted to $62,250,000. When that change took place, the railway lands, by virtue of the trust under which the Dominion government held them, should properly have reverted to the province of British Columbia. In fact, the province of Ontario passed an order in council, but it never became effective, to enable the transfer of the lands by virtue of that arrangement, and the government of Canada took steps to introduce legislation for setting aside a forty mile strip right across the prairies in respect of the Canadian Pacific. Now the claim which the province of British Columbia makes is that the failure of that trust, in that the lands were never used for that purpose, entitles the province to a return of their lands, seeing that Ontario and the government of Canada kept their lands.
The Budget-Mr. Ladner

Without going into details, I should like to refer to the second, claim that we have, which relates to the lands in the Peace river block. In 1874, when the government changed and a Liberal government came into power, terrific opposition to the completion of the Canadian Pacific railway developed, and men like Hon. Edward Blake and other leaders of that time were strongly opposed to complying with the demand of British Columbia. In 1884 under the Settlement Act, by reason of the peculiar political situation the province of British Columbia was obliged to make further concessions, and these concessions were to give further lands called "lieu lands" in the Peace river block, presumably to take the place of the lands in the railway belt along the Canadian Pacific railway which were not good for agriculture, although the terms under which these lands were granted made no reference to the lands being good for agriculture or not. As a result, the province was forced to part with another 3,500,000 acres. Then oy the same act the province had to part with another 2,000,000 acres of land to bring about the construction of what is called the E. & N., the Esquimalt and Nanaimio railway on Vancouver island, a railway which was to have been constructed under the general scheme in connection with the terms of union. The disputes had been referred to Lord Carnarvon, and what was known as the Carnarvon award was given in 1874, by which the Dominion government was to build that railway. The Dominion government refused to carry out that award, and further negotiations took place, as a result of which the Dominion government offered to the province of British Columbia $750,000. The Dominion government failed to carry that out, and so these claims have accumulated- first, the Dominion railway belt, second, that of the Peace river block, third, that of the E. & N. railway belt, and then this $750,000 and lastly, the readjustment of our subsidy.
I wish to draw the attention of hon. members of the house to the extraordinary situation with respect to the subsidies paid to the province of British Columbia and the other provinces. I desire to quote from a memorandum prepared by R. E. Gosnell, who has done wonderful work in this connection starting as far back as 1891. He has continued exhaustive investigation under different governments and produced a great deal of valuable data. Mr. Gosnell says:
In 1906 British Columbia's total subsidies amounted to $307,000. In 1906, the first year in which subsidies were paid to Alberta as a province, the following payments are debited to her in the public accounts:

Allowance for government	$	50,000
Allowance of 80 cents per head.. ..	200,000
Debt allowance	 405,375
Allowance for public buildings.. ..	93,750
In lieu of public lands	 375,000

In the same year a re-adjustment of subsidies generally was made, and Alberta and Saskatchewan came within the new schedule, although newly formed and without having borne the heat and burden of the years previously as other provinces had done. The allowance for government was raised to $190,000. In 1926, the payments made to Alberta and British Columbia were respectively:
Alberta
Allowance for government	$ 190,000
Per capita allowance	 516,560
Debt allowance, interest on	 405,375
Allowance in lieu of public lands.. 562,500

British Columbia
Allowance for government	$ 190,00C
Per capita allowance	 419,666
Compensation for lands in railway
belt	 100,000
Debt allowance	 29,817

Or a difference as between the provinces of almost $1,000,000. Time does not permit me to give other examples, but they are numerous. As a matter of fact, in estimating the expenditures made by the Dominion government with respect to British Columbia since 1871 and the contributions made by the province of the Dominion treasury, we find a balance in favour of the province of British Columbia of over $150,000,000. I would point out with regard to the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway that it was first contemplated that it would be a failure and a heavy expense to the rest of Canada, but the fact is that the railway proved just the reverse; it proved a great success; it proved to be a system of national importance without which there could not have been Canada as we have it to-day.
Following the Settlement Act of 1884 and the completion of the railway, the people of British Columbia at once realized that the superior political and economic prestige of eastern Canada had forced the small population of British Columbia to accept terms which were not only unfair and unjust but were in direct breach of the terms under which British Columbia joined confederation; and so as early as 1891 and 1894 and 1895, we find articles appearing in the local newspapers complaining of this injustice, particularly several strong articles written by our friend R. E. Gosnell. By 1901 public opinion had become fairly strong with respect to this problem and Hon. James Dunsmuir, Premier of

The Budget-Mr. Ladner
British Columbia, and Mr. Eberts, presented their views to council at Ottawa:	In 1902
Messrs. Prior and Eberts, and again in 1903 the late Charles Wilson, K.C., and R. F. Green, now Senator Green, appeared and presented their views to the Ottawa government. By 1906 the question had assumed primary importance in the public mind of British Columbia, and we find that Sir Richard McBride prepared an exhaustive memorandum on the subject, which was presented to the interprovincial conference of 1906. By the power of his advocacy, the strength of his personality, and the justice of his cause, he was able to prevail upon the conference and the government of that day to make a special grant to the province of $100,000 per year for a period of ten years making in all $1,000,000. This was the first tangible recognition which the federal authorities had given to the claims of British Columbia.
In 1907 Sir Richard McBride went to London to endeavour to secure an alteration in the terms of certain legislation which was then being presented to the imperial house. He succeeded in having eliminated the words " final and unalterable " which otherwise would have forever stopped the people of British Columbia from asserting their claims before the parliament of Canada. Upon his return- and I refer to this phase to indicate the importance of the question in the public mind- he was given a great welcome. This is apparent by a glance at the newspapers of that day. I have before me some of the original clippings, and this is a specimen of the headings:	[DOT]
Premier McBride Welcomed on his Return from London.
British Columbia's Chief Executive was given a most enthusiastic reception in Vancouver last night-Greetings of goodwill showered upon him by Thousands of Loyal Citizens.
The London Times also printed a column describing Sir Richard's work and its results. In 1907, speaking on July 19, he made the following statement, which I commend to the consideration of the government and to the people of Canada:
I say again, ladies and gentlemen, this is not a party question. I am not talking as a Conservative to Conservatives, but as a Canadian to Canadians. I say to the people of British Columbia that they should legitimately follow up their grievances and carry them to Ottawa.
We are here to-day, Mr. Speaker, the successors in public trust of Sir Richard McBride to " carry these grievances to Ottawa." Some of these grievances will be removed to a considerable extent if the report of Mr. Justice Martin is implemented in legislation.
I wish now to show the connecting events between 1907 and the present time. In 1913 the Borden government appointed the Lash-Bodwell commission to inquire into the claims of the province, but owing to the war that commission did not function. In 1918 an interprovincial conference was held, but the claims of British Columbia were not on the agenda. The Hon. Mr. Oliver and the Hon. Mr. Piattullo were present, but the conference dealt almost entirely with the question of the natural resources of the prairie provinces, and the claims of British Columbia did not receive consideration. During the four years following practically nothing was done. The Liberal party came into power in British Columbia in 1916. From then until 1922 scarcely any move was made with respect to this important question. In the session of this parliament, after a conference with my fellow-members, including the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie), I presented to this house on the 22nd and 23rd of March, 1922, an historic review of the case for British Columbia with regard to its claim for better treatment, going very carefully into all the different features. We then urged upon the federal government that they should take some action, either by appointing a royal commission or by returning these lands to the province. However, no action was taken. Another four years passed by, and finally on January 26, 1926, after another conference with the hon. member for Victoria and my other fellow-members, I placed before the people in the press a proposal for the solution of this claim. I have not time to go into the details, but it involved the settlement of the Peace river district, the taking over of the government railways of Alberta and British Columbia, and a grant of lands to the railways to indemnify them against possible loss. The proposal also requested the Dominion government to consider the claim which British Columbia had for a return of the Dominion railway belt as well as the Peace river block and the making of the adjustments which we demanded. Again nothing was done, and on January 28, 1926, the hon. Mr. Oliver replied to my proposal and intimated that his government also was willing to take action in the matter. Then on February 3, 1926, the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) presented a formal motion for the return of the Dominion railway belt and the Peace river block. Still the government took no' action. On February 6, 1926, in a prepared speech delivered in the city of Vancouver before the Canadian Club, the late Mr. Oliver for the first time, on behalf of his government, advocated and thereby accepted the policy for which the Conservative
The Budget-Mr. Ladner

party had been fighting for years, and stated his intention to press the case of British Columbia before the government at Ottawa. The matter was further discussed by myself in the house on February 19. Various newspaper reports and editorial comments followed, but nothing was done by either the federal government or the provincial government.
In November, 1926, a Conservative convention was held at Kamloops, and to its credit-and to the satisfaction of the people of British Columbia-this enthusiastic convention of 542 delegates unanimously offered the provincial leadership to our distinguished fellow-member for Victoria. As an act of service to the party and to the country he accepted the leadership, although it will involve the sacrifice of setting aside his opportunities in the parliament of Canada. Immediately thereafter the hon. gentleman, realizing the importance of the claims of British Columbia for better terms, placed on the order paper a formal resolution, not at that stage asking for a return of the Dominion railway land and the Peace river block and the other adjustments, but appreciating how complicated these questions were, he urged that a royal commission should be appointed with power to inquire into and report upon the claims of the province of British Columbia with respect to the Dominion railway belt, the Peace river block, Indian lands, annual subsidy and any other matters in dispute between the province and the Dominion of Canada. That resolution remained on the order paper for some months. On January 10, 1927, the late Mr. Oliver placed on the order paper of the provincial house a resolution formally declaring that his government would support vigorous action along constitutional lines for the purpose of securing for the province of British Columbia just and equitable treatment from the government of Canada. At that time the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) became interested, and a series of conferences took place between him and the hon. member for Victoria, myself, and other Conservative members. As a result the government agreed that if the hon. member for Victoria would drop his resolution they would appoint a royal commission. And here I want to commend the administration for the broad and equitable spirit in which they accepted the proposal of the hon. member for Victoria. They took action and on March 14 an order in council, No. P.C. 422 was passed appointing the hon. Mr. Justice Martin of Regina, a judge of the court of appeal of Saskatchewan, a commissioner to inquire into this question. His instructions were:

To receive and inquire into the arguments of the government of the province of British Columbia in support of its claim for the reconveyance to the province by the government of Canada of the land conveyed by the province to the Dominion pursuant to paragraph 11 of the terms of union, and such evidence as may be material to the consideration of such claim by the government of Canada, and to report his findings thereupon to your excellency in council.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that the commissioner was very much circumscribed in his activities, unlike the maritime commission, which was instructed to inquire into any question in respect to which the maritime provinces felt they had a grievance. The commissioner had no authority to inquire into and did not deal with the question of the provincial subsidies nor the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway land grant on Vancouver island, but he made certain findings, and I read the concluding words of his report:
The situation, in my opinion, requires that the subject be dealt with keeping in mind the broad principles of fairness and justice which should always characterize the dealings of Canada with her provinces. When, therefore, it appears that British Columbia has not only contributed, as part of Canada, its share of the cost of the undertaking, but has also conveyed to the Dominion, for the furtherance of the construction of the railway large tracts of land, and that no other province contributed lands for the purpose, justice requires that the province be placed in the same position as the other provinces with respect to a great national undertaking, and the lands conveyed to the Dominion for the purpose, namely, the railway belt and the Peace river block, restored to the province. Moreover, the province has now all the resources within its boundaries with the exception of these lands, and has the machinery necessary for their administration.
All the citizens of British Columbia appreciate the findings of the commission, but they would appreciate still more legislation from this government to carry into effect the recommendations of the commission. Let us consider for a moment the attitude which the two parties have taken respectively in regard to this question and the long and tedious fight that has been put up for better terms for that province. We find that at conventions of the Liberal party in British Columbia in 1915, 1920 and 1924 there was never any reference to the subject, either by resolution or declaration of a policy. No policy was adopted by that party. On the other hand, we find that from 1901 to 1927 the Conservative party has constantly and aggressively advocated the claims of British Columbia for better terms. I refer particularly to the convention of the Conservative party in British Columbia in 1907. In that year the first plank of the platform was:
The members of this convention desire to place themselves on record as emphatically

The Budget-Mr. Blatchjord
endorsing the course of the government of British Columbia in connection with the advocacy of better terms for this province. They hereby pledge themselves to strongly support the continuation of the struggle for better terms until brought to a successful issue, and the rights of the province fully secured.
Again in 1926, at the time the hon. member for Victoria was elected to the leadership of the Conservative party in that province, a series of resolutions were passed strongly advocating action endorsing the traditional policy of the party in connection with British Columbia's demand for better terms. I will not take time now to read these resolutions, which are to be found in the report. But immediately on the arrival of the hon. member for Victoria in Ottawa a resolution was placed on the order paper requesting the appointment of a commission, and to the credit of the government that commission was granted.
And now in closing may I ask the government not only that they carry out by legislation the finidings of this commission, but that they give consideration to the equally important question of subsidies to the province. I believe this question has been discussed at different interprovincial conferences, and I venture to think it will be discussed at the next interprovincial conference. So far, however, nothing has been gained, and British Columbia remains the most unfairly treated of the provinces. I would remind you again, Mr. Speaker, of the great concessions which have been given to the two older sister provinces of the Dominion, Ontario and Quebec. Ontario, to-day, is practically two and a half times the size of 'that province at the time of confederation, while Quebec has increased to nearly four times the size it was then, notwithstanding that no quid pro quo has ever been given to the federal government. The lands whereby these two provinces have been increased are lands in which every other province in the Dominion has a proprietary interest, and I remind the house that, from these great additions that have been given to the two provinces in question, enormous revenues from royalties on minerals and forests have accrued to the provincial treasuries. I think that hon. members and the government will realize the fairness and the equity of British Columbia's claim to better consideration when it comes to a readjustment of the question of subsidies.


Mr. K. A. BLATCHFORD (East Edmonton) :: The Budget-Mr. Blatchjord
prairie to a place dotted with cities and towns, with ribbons of steel in every direction, and telephone and telegraph lines gradually going up everywhere. I know, therefore, what the eariy pioneer had to contend with in those days, and I can picture to myself very well what the pioneer in the Peace River district has to put up with when homesteading.
Now I will submit a proposition which, while some people may laugh at it, I believe can be worked out with careful consideration. Let me state it in a nutshell. Give any man or woman 160 acres of land on the strength of a. guarantee to the government that they will break and fence 50 acres, build a house and bam according to plans and specifications laid down by the government, and at the end of three years secure clear title to the property. This is not impossible, because a man working for the railway or in a bank could stay on his job and have the work supervised by government managers of some description. At the end of three years he would have a farm worth not $1,500, the amount he would have to pay in improvements, but worth, if the country were settled1, $5,000. Under present regulations however, a man wishing to acquire such a farm would have to quit his job and go on the farm, sleeping there, as I said before, for six months, so that when he came back he would find his job filled-in short, he would be fired. I think a scheme of that kind' could be worked out to advantage; there are people in Ottawa to-day who would, gladly invest in a savings bank proposition of that nature, because if there is anything a person likes to talk about it is owning a piece of land, a ranch or a farm.
With reference to the $300,000,000 which the hon. member for North Vancouver proposes to gather in taxes, that could be used to good advantage if it were necessary-and it is necessary to a great, extent-in building railways to the coast; to build an outlet; in building branch lines, which are badly needed; in building terminal elevators in the interior, of the Peace river country as well as on the Pacific coast. To-day farmers are hauling their grain from fifty to one hundred miles in four-horse sleighs to Spirit River, Grande Prairie and Peace River at a cost of 35 to 50 cents per bushel. I will ask the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) if this is not so. When the farmers arrive at the rail head the elevators are very often blocked; they have no place for their grain, and the grain buyers have control of the situation so far as grades and prices are concerned. Terminals should be built in the in-
terior where they have limited elevator space, and on the Peace river, a big, navigable stream; coal bunkers should be built on the Pacific coast for Alberta coal-the greatest coal fields in existence.
In addition to that, a great deal of this money could be used in assisting immigration into western Canada. We now assist immigrants from Great Britain, why should we not assist our own Canadians first, along with those who have gone to the United States? They are the cream of the earth, as we all know; they have gone to the United States during hard times but they are anxious to come back and would be glad to do so if they had a little assistance and a farm ready for them to work on. If an immigrant comes to this country with $500 or $1,000, he has enough capital to buy a team of horses, a plough and a wagon; he can go to work and get his crop off the first year, and fifty acres will support him if he is not too extravagant. I believe something should be done to bring back the Canadians who have gone to the United States; our own native sons should be assisted first, and then we should go to foreign fields. I do not think we should go abroad and spend a great deal of money in immigration when we have people here in Canada only waiting for a chance to go on the farms; they usually make good farmers.
I would go even further than the hon. member for North Vancouver has gone in opening up the west and the northwest. I have talked it over with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), and I suggest that the doors of the Northwest Territories be opened wide, and that persons interested in mineral development be allowed to enter that country and survey it thoroughly. I would suggest also that the country be checker-boarded as is done for homesteading; that 5,000 square miles be set aside for any man or group of men who will put up a $50,000 bond with the government and guarantee to spend $50,000 within three years. That man naturally would need a hydroplane with which to take his prospectors into the country; the day of the prospector with pick and shovel and grubstake on his back has gone. I worked in the Kootenay country in the early days when the prospectors who went into those hills were young fellows, but to-day they are all old men; the young chaps do not follow the former system. With the checker-board idea of developing the Northwest Territories, which no doubt is the best mineral belt in the world, every man or company taking over
5,000	square miles of land would need a hydroplane with which to transport his prospectors and his grubstakes, and the work

The Budget-Mr. Blatchjord
would have to be done in the summer time. The prospector staking a claim would have an interest of 10 per cent in any mineral wealth discovered, which would give him some protection. It would not be fair to a company to spend money exploring the wilderness only to have some of his employees take the best mine and leave him high and dry. I am quite sure that if the Minister of the Interior will agree to a proposition along this line which has been already submitted to him the result will be the opening up of the Northwest Territories in ten or fifteen years instead of the one hundred years it will take under present conditions. I am sure parties could be sent in from Hudson bay to work west, and I have a guarantee from a firm worth millions of dollars, that they will put in other parties from the head of Slave lake and Bear lake to work east. As conditions are at present, even if a man discovers a mine it is no good to him out there in the great open spaces where only Eskimos live. You have to discover many mines, and if a high pressure survey were made you might discover sufficient mineral wealth to justify the construction of a railway from Nelson through to the head of Bear lake or Slave lake, where you have water transportation to the outside world. I feel inclined to submit such a proposition to the government and to ask them to give it some consideration. Personally I would support it, and if it were worked out in detail I think every member in the house would be in favour of it.
The oil regulations should be treated in the same way, because there is no doubt that Alberta has great oil resources. At the present time there is an oil well 1,500 miles north of Edmonton, or the same distance north of Edmonton that San Francisco is south of that city. This oil well was discovered quite a number of years ago, but it has been capped ever since because there is no way of using the oil and no way of getting it out to market. The oil regulations are so tied up with red tape that the big companies refuse to go into the Alberta field, and I would suggest that those companies be allowed certain territories in which they would agree to place a deep-drilling rig to test the area getting protection for a period of six months, so that gamblers could not jump in and stake leases next to the well. You must protect capital to a certain extent; while I do not believe in too much protection we must have fair play, and I am sure all these problems could be worked out in a way which would tend to the early development of the mineral and oil resources of the northwest.
Now, I would like to say just a word with regard to coal rates. I have been pleading with the government for reduced rates for a number of years and I was surprised to hear some of the members on my own side oppose the establishment of a rate from Alberta to Ontario. My good friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) had the nerve to get up and object to any rate being put into effect while he was sitting in this house. When the Hudson Bay vote came before the house last year it was supported by the Alberta members, although we do not expect to derive a great deal of benefit from the completion of that railway; dome day it may be used for shipping cattle, but I am afraid it will not carry a great deal of our grain. At any rate we supported that vote, but now the hon. member for Moose Jaw objects to any rate on coal being established. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) also objected. Can j'ou imagine a man living on Vancouver island objecting to a coal rate being established east of the Rocky mountains? Our mines produce coal equal in quality to any you will find on the Pacific coast within 500 or 600 miles of British Columbia; we have never tried to invade that market because we were trying to enter Ontario first, which would naturally relieve the pressure so far as the coast market on the coast is concerned. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, however, says, "No, no coal rate for Alberta coal to eastern Canada". I will tell him now, in the king's English, that so far as I am concerned, and speaking for the operators in Alberta, we are going into the British Columbia market whether he likes it or not, if we do not get into the Ontario market. We are making application to the railway board, but we have refrained from proceeding any further because you cannot ride two horses at once, and we thought we would ride into Ontario first.


Mr. NEILL:: And then you will invade the other field.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Certainly.


Alan Webster Neill: That is just what I object to.


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: We are going into
that field anyway.
Now I would like to say a word or two with regard to immigration. I think the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) has a big job to handle, and in my opinion he is handling it pretty well. Everybody is trying to advise the minister. Everybody has a friend he wants to bring into the country, and the minister is worried to death at all times.



The Budget-Mr. Blatchjord
I repeat that I think he is making a very good job in handling the situation under the present circumstances. According to railway figures we have a great field to populate with people that want to go on the land. It is a well known economic railroad law that it is not possible for railroads to be remunerative unless the population per mile of railway is 400 or over. In Great Britain the population per mile of railway is something like 2,000, but of course the conditions over there are entirely different from what they are here. Conditions in Australia and the United States, especially the latter, are similar to those in Canada. As far as population is concerned, Australia is in a somewhat similar position to Canada, as Australia's population per mile of railway is 250. Canada's is about 225 or 226, while the United States has 250 per mile. Of course in the eastern section of Canada the population per mile of railway is satisfactory, but, taking the country as a whole it amounts to only 225 or 226. While in some parts of the east there are more than 400 people per mile, yet in the west and other outlying districts there are not more than 126, and in some sections even less. It is recognized that each settler, once he is permanently located, is worth from $500 to $700 per year to the railroad. England has a population of about 700 per square mile, Scotland 160, France 187, Belguim 658, Germany 348, Denmark 220, and other European countries in proportion. Of course, in those countries the population is so great that they are not able to produce sufficient to feed the people and importation is necessary. The United States, however, which is quite able to produce sufficient for its own requirements, and even more, has 35 people per square mile. There is a vast difference between the density of population in Europe and in the United States. We all admit that if the United States is able to provide for the requirements of 35 people per square mile, Canada should be able to do the same. The population of Canada per square mile is less than three people-not crowded, you will admit. As Canada is larger in area than the United States, if we had the same number of people per square mile, namely, 35, Canada would have a population of 126,000,000 people. Now I feel like using the words uttered by the Speaker when he finishes prayer every day in this house. I feel like saying "Let the doors be opened." Let the capital flow into the country, bring in immigration, open up the mineral regions in the Northwest Territories, and then Canada will be placed on the map as a country in the eyes of the other nations of the world.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. O. B. PRICE (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, before offering any comment on the budget as presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), I should like to make a few observations in regard to the remarks made by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) a few days ago concerning the gateways at Ste. Rosalie and St. John, with which he coupled the party to which I belong, the Conservative party, and as regards which he left with the house the impression that we, as supporters of his majesty's loyal opposition, were opposed to the closing of those gateways. I can speak only for myself, but I may say that the people of the maritime provinces have always had a deep appreciation for the Minister of Railways, particularly since he has pointed out what the aims of the people of the maritime provinces have been in the past and now that he has told us what they will be in the future. The minister observed when he first came to this house, or possibly before he had taken his seat, that the people of the maritime provinces had three things in view: to be bom in the maritime provinces, a free ride on the Intercolonial railway, and to die in the maritime provinces. I am sure that those kind remarks of the minister will not be forgotten in the very near future, and we thank him sincerely for his observations.


Charles Avery Dunning: I suppose it is unnecessary for me to deny that again.


Otto Baird Price: With regard to those gateways which existed in years gone by, for reasons which have already been pointed out by the minister, I might say that the amalgamation under the direction of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, of these railways as the Canadian National system under the management of Mr. D. B. Hanna had taken such form, and the mileage of these railways and the vast territory which they served, made the national railways of such dimensions, that it was not necessary perhaps further to continue the gateways. I have been against the opening of these gateways. I believe the Intercolonial, which is a portion of the Canadian National railways, is entitled to every bit of business it can get. It is the people's railway and we wish to see the people's railway flourish. I believe it will flourish in the future, although it has not done so in the past.
I wish also to make some observations with regard to the present direction of that railway or the policies which are being carried

The Budget-Mr. Price
out. The management have made a good start, but a little more activity on the part of the men connected with the industrial and colonization departments would do much to bring about better conditions and make the branch lines better feeders than they are to-day. There is not sufficient co-operation between the farmers of this country and the railway officials. It is true that in the past very little attention has been paid to the farmers, but I believe the railway officials should become acquainted with them. They should go into the country districts and assist them in the difficulties with which they are contending at the present time. Better cooperation would exist and better results would obtain if that relationship were promoted a little further and more activity shown along those lines. I am sure there are hon. members on both sides of the house who realize that in their constituencies there are matters with regard to railway sidings, loading platforms, and so on, where if a little more elasticity were shown and a little more consideration given to the people who are endeavouring to patronize the railway as best they can, the result would be very much in the interests of the country and the railway.
I have' in mind at the present time an instance in my constituency at a small place called Fawcett Hill, on a branch of the Canadian National. At that place there has been built by a creamery company a small storage plant, a cement block building, which is really a credit to the locality. These people have endeavoured from time to time to have a loading platform built, and while there are, as we all know, rules and regulations governing the erection of platforms, the placing of sidings or whatever other construction may be in the interests of the people and for their service, at the same time the railway might afford these people a better opportunity of loading their freight. During the past few months they have not had an opportunity of placing their freight on the railway owing to the fact that this loading platform has not been constructed. There is another reason why they have not been able to give the railway any business. They are willing to go to almost any length to get a market for their produce. This creamery company have had in storage for the last three months creamery butter which they are unable to unload owing to the fact that at Halifax, where they usually sell their butter to wholesalers, they have had to compete with butter from New Zealand. In this connection these people have been handicapped both through lack of facilities and through a lack of market due to the policy of the present Minister of Agriculture 56103-77i
(Mr. Motherwell). I do not know just how the minister feels about the matter, but he certainly cannot be very much elated over the fact that these people have been seeking a market and oannot get one. This does not stand to the credit of the minister, and he should make some provision whereby these people will get relief.
Let me read this resolution passed by the farmers of my district in connection with this matter of butter:
Resolved, that the New Brunswick Farmers' and Dairymen's Association endorse the resolution passed unanimously by the New Brunswick Dairymen United on January 9, 1926, asking the Canadian government to restore the customs duty on butter entering Canada from Australia as it was previous to the Australian trade treaty agreement effective October 1, 1925, and order in council allowing the New Zealand butter and cheese the same privilege.
Further resolved, that the dumping clause be immediately applied on all butter coming in from Australia and New Zealand, whether on direct sales or on consignment.
At the annual meeting of the Farmers' and Dairymen's Association held in Moncton, March 3, 1928, the following resolution was adopted:
That in the opinion of this assembly the sale of the New Zealand and Australian butter competing with our farmers is disastrous to the best interest not only of the farming avocation of this province, but to the best interest of Canada as well.
John E. Wood,
Chairman,
R. R. No. 2 Moncton.
Ferdinand E. Bourgeois,
Secretary,
* St. Anselme, N.B.
There is another matter with regard to the importation of New Zealand butter. I do not know whether it is correct or not, but the statement has been made that preservatives are allowed to be put in this imported butter. That is not permitted in Canada.
This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture made an attack upon the Conservative party for permitting the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada. I do not think the minister's remarks were becoming to a man holding the position he does. The use of oleomargarine was permitted as a war measure on account of the shortage of fats. The Canadian and British troups used oleomargarine solely because butter was not obtainable. Oleomargarine was later voted out of this country in the House of Commons here, and that settled it so far as the Conservative party is concerned. Oleomargarine is not butter, but it was a good substitute for the man who was not able to buy butter at
The Budget-Mr. Price

a high price, and the right to buy it is granted in every country in the world except Canada. On the other hand, the competition with New Zealand and Australian butter is a great menace to the dairy trade of this country, particularly because grass butter, which has always a better flavour, is brought into competition with our own winter products. It is packed and sold by experts in the business, and while in one year the consumption of oleo fell from fourteen million pounds to two and three quarter million pounds as butter became cheaper, the importation of Australian and New Zealand butter is vastly increasing in volume, and is proving a real menace at only one cent per pound protection.
The Minister of Agriculture, however, told us nothing about his famous rancid butter bill, which he introduced on May 7, 1923, and in which he proposed that butter in all stages of putridity should be allowed to be taken into establishments where it would be thoroughly laundered. The process which was proposed was to melt it by heating, skim off what filth they could, wash it several times with clean water, chum it with milk to give it the lactic acid flavour which all butter possesses, colour it to make it look like butter, granulate it by spraying it with cold water when hot, so that it would have the butter fracture; then cut it into blocks and sell it for butter.


William Richard Motherwell: You should have had that typewritten. You could read it better than the handwriting of the hon. member for Victoria.


Mr. TOLMIE:: You cannot show my handwriting on that.


Otto Baird Price: The peculiarity about this rancid butter was that the worse it smelled, the cheaper you could buy it. But in the process of putrefaction which it had gone through, the fat cells would be broken down and its keeping qualities impaired. Note what injury this would be to our export butter trade in the event of this butter being mixed with some other butter and sold for export. While the minister makes a great row and treats us to some of his farm yard buffoonery this afternoon, he says nothing about his famous stinking butter bill, which gave him a reputation much like the proposed process butter from one end of Canada to the other.
The hon. Minister of Railways, speaking in the House of Commons, on February 29th, referred to a committee of the United States senate and quoted from their report as to conditions existing in the Pennsylvania coal belt,

which he described as a "blot upon American civilization''. The report states:
The committee found men, women and children living in hovels, which are more unsanitary than modern swine pens-they are breeding places for sickness and crime.
The minister went on to point out the industrial depression in the United States. I Would warn the minister that his remarks con-teerning that country may not meet with the approval of his leader, whose friendliness to the country to the south of us is well-known. He may consider it dangerous to utter such Statements as they may lead up to the severance of diplomatic relations. But of course tve have our minister plenipotentiary at Washington, whose services could be requisitioned. I would suggest that the Minister of Railways keep tab on the situation, note whether the government of the United States can devise any means for overcoming those conditions, and report back to the house.
We all know what has occurred in Canada as a result of tinkering with the tariff in the last few years by the present government. The Minister of Railways has spoken of conditions in the United States. I wonder if he would care to hear something about the conditions in Canada, which apparently he has not heard of. I quote from the Canadian Congress Journal:
The city of Vancouver has warned workers against going there and has found it necessary to undertake numerous relief works. Winnipeg reports practically 80 per cent of building trade employees out of work, with many others who have crowded in from the western farms totally unprovided for. Toronto reports the greatest list of unemployed registered at the employment service offices for many years past and attributes this to workers being attracted to that city by false reports of a building boom. The Ottawa press comments upon the significance of nearly a thousand workers being on hand at a few hours notice seeking to earn a little money by a removal of snow after a recent severe storm and states that this shows conclusively the existence of severe unemployment in that city. Montreal federated charities report their services overtaxed and find themselves unable to cope with the destitution in that city caused by continuous unemployment. Again, thousands of miners in Nova Scotia are being forced to look to their unions and the public for relief and at the time of writing both the federal and provincial governments are being urged by the municipalities in that district to take immediate action to relieve the situation; and so on throughout the country.
But I presume, Mr. Speaker, you might as well appeal to a Japanese wayside idol as to this government.
The woollen industry has been very fully discussed by hon. members who are thoroughly familiar with it, and they have referred to the fact that many factories have had t?

The Budget-Mr. Price
close down since this administration began to tinker with the tariff. Every hon. member opposite knows this pretty well. But the government will not alter its course except temporarily in order to retain the support of certain hon. members. An appeal was made to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Consumers' Cordage Company of Dartmouth, pointing out the dire need for tariff relief by way of a very moderate duty on half inch rope and under. The reply was that it would be turning a complete somersault to adjust the tariff to the extent requested.
I shall not attempt to enumerate all the factories that have suffered as a result of the tariff tinkering of this government; for it would take several hours to do so, but I may mention a few for the information of the house that have closed down: Canadian Western Woollen Mills, Vancouver, closed in 1926; Renfrew Woollen Mills, Renfrew, in 1927; the Gulf Textiles Ltd., Isle Verte, Quebec, in 1924; Amherst Woollen Mills, Amherst, N.S., in 1923; Ernestown Woollen Mills, Odessa, Ontario, in 1927; Hawthorne Mills Ltd., Carleton Place, Ontario, in 1927; Pembroke Woollen Co., Pembroke, Ontario, in 1925; T. H. Taylor & Co., Chatham, Ontario, in 1925; Harris & Co., Rockwood, Ontario, in 1925.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


Otto Baird Price: Boyd, Caldwell & Co., Appleton, Ontario, closed down in 1925; Boyd, Caldwell & Co., Lanark, Ontario, in 1925 also; Randle Bros., Meaford, Ontario, in 1924; Shawville Woollen Mills, Shawville, Quebec, in 1926; Harrison Bros., Owen Sound, Ontario, also in 1926; Collies Ltd., Kingston, Ontario, in 1924; Albert E. Morrison, Brownsburg, Quebec, in 1927; Clarke Blanket Co., Dundas, Ontario, in 1926; Philip Dontigney, Arnprior, Ontario, in 1927; O'Hare & Sons, Midland, Ontario; Baltimore Woollen Mills, Baltimore, Ontario; Madoc Woollen Mills, Madoc, Ontario, in 1927. There are also woollen cloth mills operating about half of their spinning and weaving machinery in Perth, Toronto, Campbellford, Almonte, Cape St. Ignace, Simcoe, Brantford, Paris, Wellesley, Way's Mills, Oxford, Moncton, St. Croix, Brace-bridge, Preston, Warwick, Merrickville, Lindsay, Dundas, Barrington, Chicoutimi, Glen Williams, Sherbrooke, Water's Falls, Elmira, Upper Stewiacke, Benmiller, Athens, Chesley, Trenholm, Renfrew and Joliette. Many of these are operating at a loss. For instance, the Humphrey Woollen Mills at Moncton have been running at a loss ever since the government started tinkering with the tariff.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I say a word?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Otto Baird Price: The proprietor has kept his
mill running to give the people employment, but this has been possible only by reducing the number of working hours, with of course a consequent reduction in the wages earned. Several other institutions have had to adopt a similar course as a result of the serious tariff tinkering since this administration has been in office. I wonder, sir, if the government pay any attention to the closing down of these factories. What investigation is made as to their failure? Is a record kept of the Canadian employees who find it necessary owing to the closing of our factories to cross the border to the United States? Not one factory should close without an investigation being made and a remedy, if possible, applied to bring about its reopening. If the government would care to accept a suggestion, I would propose that they take this course. I think it is due the people of Canada that we should seek to utilize the skilled labourers whom we train; employment should be provided for them in their native country. On many occasions mothers and fathers come to me imploring me to find employment for their sons and daughters. These young people have been educated in our institutions, and we have some very excellent ones in my constituency-'Mount Allison university and the university of St. Joseph. Mechanics who have served their time in the Canadian National railway shops at Moncton are forced to seek a livelihood to the south. The best that the Canadian National Railways can do for them under the condition brought about by this tariff tinkering is to furnish those young men, after they complete their apprenticeship as machinists, painters, boilermakers, carpenters, and so forth, with a pass to the boundary line. Under the Liberal-Conservative administration which preceded this government 90 per cent of those young men were taken care of in the Moncton shops. The payroll at that time was far and away above the payroll which now obtains both in the general offices and in the shops at Moncton. To-day we have thousands of dollars' worth worth of machinery idle in a city where the best railway cars in the country can be manufactured. I notice the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) smiles. Apparently he does not see the serious side of this state of affairs, but I really think, sir, that the hon. minister is suffering from a contraction of the muscles about the oral cavity. For the sake of his health I would recommend that some medical friend on his own side take
The Budget-Mr. Price

him in hand; but if there is no one available among his colleagues, I would remind him that we have an ample supply of medical gentlemen on this side of the house.
The people to whom I have referred, Mr. Speaker, would like to be employed in their own country, they would like to remain at home. There is one thing that will enable them to do this-the protection of our factories in the same way as their competitors are protected in the United States. That is what our industries are suffering from to-day, lack of protection. An example of how thoroughly the government of the United States protects its industries was cited by an hon. member on this side of the house a few days ago. He told the house how a shipment of Canadian materials was held in bond in the United States until the duty had been raised to such a point that the Canadian manufacturer had to take back the shipment, the price under the higher duty being prohibitive to his customer. Let me give the house a Quotation from Toronto Saturday Night of November 14, 1925. This is not up to date, but it will give hon. members some idea of the procedure followed by the United States authorities in preserving their home market for their own manufacturers. I could give other citations, but I do not desire to detain the house. This is from the columns of Saturday Night:
For instance, a Canadian house manufacturing Christmas cards had managed to pick up quite a trade south of the international boundary under a duty of fifteen per cent. However, this was not for long, as keen United States business men in the same line of trade called the attention of the proper official to the situation and instantly the import duty into the United States was raised to forty-five per cent and the Canadian manufacturer found himself out in the cold.
Stapells-Fletcher, Limited, are Canadian manufacturers of ladies' dresses. An enterprising salesman while calling on the Windsor, Ont., trade resolved to venture into Detroit with the idea that perhaps he might land an order, even if the duty against him was fifty per cent. He did and came back jubilant. The gowns were shipped to Detroit, but alas they never got any farther than the customs house, for there the shipment was met by a special appraiser who instantly jumped the duty from fifty to ninety per cent, and the order in due course found its way back into the warehouse of the Canadian manufacturer.
To quote one more instance, though no doubt firms by the dozen have had a similar experience. A. T. Reid & Co. manufacture neckware and dress accessories. Orders were taken in United States under the fifty per cent duty then ruling. But upon making delivery it was found that it had been suddenly raised to ninety per cent thus shutting them out of tbe market.
Of course we have no right to complain over what Uncle Sam does with his tariff. Tbat is solely his own business. However we may, I think, legitimately take issue with the manner

in which we freely import like goods from the United States. For instance, in the fiscal year 1924 Uncle Sam sent us in cotton, silk and woollen clothing, designed for women and children, goods to the value of $4,318,000. Just the sort of things that our Canadian manufacturers were trying to sell in the United States. In the fiscal year 1925 the importation of a like class of clothing from the United States amounted to $4,069,000. Of course these figures take no account of smuggled goods of like character that have been pouring into this country.
Under the circumstances it seems to me that in justice to our own people, and in view of the action of the United States customs department which makes it quite impossible for Canadian manufacturing concerns to invade the United States trade, our citizen workmen are entitled to the home market.
As against that policy pursued in the United States, their promptness of action and their desire to throw a protecting arm around their industries in order to keep them going and to retain their own labourers at home, giving employment to all their mechanics, what condition do we find in Nova Scotia, for example? There is the concern which I mentioned a few minutes ago, the Consumers' Cordage Company of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, which is a subsidiary of a Montreal house. This company has been operating there for some years and employs about 200 workmen, a great many of them skilled mechanics. A request has been made of this administration for some protection on half inch rope-


Mr. RALSTON:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Otto Baird Price: I will not be interrupted.


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. member in favour of a duty on fishermen's rope?


Otto Baird Price: Has the matter been adjusted? Have they been given protection?


James Layton Ralston: I am simply asking
whether the hon. member is in favour of imposing a duty on fishermen's rope.


Otto Baird Price: My time is going and I must proceed. In this case some protection might have proved beneficial, but so far as I know nothing has been done to alleviate the condition. Industrial expansion of any appreciative character will never materialise under the policy pursued by this government. It is a policy which is not in harmony with development ; it is a "leave it to George" policy. . It is disinterested.
In my opinion the government has been riding two horses, and those whom hon. gentlemen opposite have thought to be asleep are finding them out. I recall only a session or two ago when the lobbies were filled with members from the front benches of the present

The Budget-Mr. Price
administration all endeavouring to induce hon. gentlemen who sit in the far corner of the house to co-operate with them; but now that the government has secured a majority in the house over all its attitude is somewhat different and there is a tearing-away, a breach with these hon. gentlemen, which it will not be very easy for my hon. friends opposite to fix up. This government, I say, is riding for a fall; its day is coming. The government has called itself the "full dinner pail" party, and hon. members of that party appeal to the masses on that slogan. I know this for a fact because the appeal has been made time and again in my district: "We are the full dinner pail party". This is their advertisement on the billboards. But the remarkable thing about this "full dinner pail" party is that they always wait for some relief committee to fill the pail. They claim to be with the masses but they are not following the masses that are going across the line into the United States at the present time.
Now I want to say a few words with regard to the oil and gas industry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Otto Baird Price: Hon. gentlemen opposite are laughing; I hope they are enjoying themselves, because what I have given them is certainly quite interesting and I have no doubt they will profit by it. While the proposed drawback of 50 per cent on seamless casing will bring a little relief to those oil companies using such material, no provision is made for an additional drawback on lap-welded casing, which is of a standard used but not manufactured in Canada and which I submit should be admitted duty free. Where certain materials are required for the development of our natural resources, in any case where that machinery is not manufactured in the Dominion and is needed for the rapid development of industry, I am of the opinion that we should admit these materials into the country free of duty. I do not think that there should be any discrimination as between one concern and another. It is not necessary for the shale oil people to dig down thousands of feet into the earth in order to ascertain the nature of the material that lies there and to discover whether or not it will give certain desired results. They import their machinery after determining the quality of their material. They have their material right at hand on the surface and by analysis are enabled to tell whether the oil is of a paying quality or not and whether it exists in commercial quantity in the shale. On the other hand, the oil fields operator has to import drilling machinery to explore and discover his oil or gas, doing so at an enormous expense and risk without any assurance of a return. And he pays a duty on all machinery used. Why should there be this discrimination? If machinery for obtaining byproducts from shale enters the country duty free, I think the machinery for refining native crude oil should also enter free. We should give every opportunity to British capital to invest in industry here. British capital is only awaiting the opportunity if conditions are made equitable. If they are given a fifty-fifty deal they will come and spend their money in Canada. Near my constituency, across the river, the Acadia Syndicate Company of London, England, has spent millions of dollars, all British capital, in the development of oil and gas. The company requires special machinery in this country for the refining of oil and for the securing of by-products from the oil wells. We have self-pumping oil wells which are capable of producing some of the finest lubricating oils, kerosene, gasolene and other lubricants to be found anywhere in the world. In my opinion every opportunity should be afforded these people to expand, seeing that they are willing to spend money, and that they have endeavoured to test the different manufacturing materials in Canada in the way of casing, and so forth, entering into the development of these natural products of ours. They have tried the supplies of the manufacturers in Canada but some of these materials are not satisfactory for the operation of the wells. Therefore I believe the government would be well advised to allow these tools and drills which are necessary in the development of our natural resources to be brought in free of duty. The New Brunswick Gas and Oil Fields Limited have spent enormous sums of money in the discovery of oil and gas, and they have had to pay a high duty on material not actually made in Canada in order to exploit those fields. In addition, if this company desire to do their own refining and obtain the by-products, again they have to pay a high duty on refining machinery not made in Canada. The federal government should allow all machinery used in connection with exploratory work for oil to come in duty free. This would be a welcome encouragement to those engaged in the search for oil, and in a measure would help make up for the withdrawal of the bounty previously paid by the federal government on all oil produced. There is no doubt that in the future oil wiil become one of Canada's greatest assets, and it is my opinion that everything should be done to encourage the development of our oil fields, in order that wealth from that source may be
The Budget-Mr. Price

quickly obtained. Every assistance should be rendered to encourage the construction of refineries for the purpose of refining our own oil, with a view to making Canada independent of all other countries in that respect.
Before closing, sir, since I believe I have a few moments left, I should like to say a word in regard to the sales tax. Every head fine reader throughout the country has seen this featured as a twenty-five per cent reduction, while as a matter of fact the reduction, amounts only to one per cent. That means that on every $100 worth of material such as clothing and boots and shoes purchased by the man earning perhaps 30 cents an hour, he has to pay $3 through this tax. It has been stated time and again that this administration have reduced the sales tax, but we all know the history of that legislation. They wrung their hands and shouted "murder" when the sales tax was fixed at 3 per cent, but as soon as they came into power they raised it first to 4 per cent, then to 5 per cent and finally to 6 per cent. Now it is back to 3 per cent, and they claim credit for having reduced it.
Mr. LOUIS M. AUGER (Prescott) (Translation) :	Mr. Speaker, it affords me much
pleasure to convey, in my mother tongue, to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) my very sincere congratulations on his budget proposals. It is but proper that a French voice from Ontario should join in the chorus of praises which arise all over Canada to celebrate the present administration, in order to show that the French element of this country, wherever it is found, can appreciate and support their truly national policy. The people of the riding which I have the honour to represent, rejoice in seeing the budget balance of $54,000,000, the decrease of $41,000,000 in the national debt and a reduction of about $19,000,000 in taxation.
Canada's prosperity is so obvious that even our opponents do not try to deny it. They will, contend, however, that it must be attributed to Providence rather than to the wisdom of the government, or again they will contend that this prosperity is not enjoyed by all classes and localities. Mr. Speaker, since everybody acknowledges the very notable improvement in our economic situation since 1921, there is no need of discussing it, but when it is a case of pointing out the cause, I differ in opinion with the loyal opposition.
Our Conservative friends forget that the most important factor of any prosperity, is the power of human energy which, after all, is the efficient cause of all production. To increase its value by stimulating its courage and enthusiasm, is so to speak increasing its 
efficiency. I am happy to state that our government has thoroughly understood its duty and that not only has it soundly administered the affairs of the state, but moreover it has made it a point to encourage the people in their various activities, by giving proof of a national spirit, truly comforting and of a nature to inspire confidence and enthusiasm. Is it a question of internal problems, it kindly takes into consideration the grievances of each, grants what is just, stops dissensions, and restores union and harmony. Abroad, it asserts that Canada is a nation, it shows it in a better light, more beautiful, more united, stronger and freer, by making her take in modern civilization a part worthy of the highest aspirations. By concessions to the west and the maritime provinces, it has strengthened the ties of confederation; by its attitude at the imperial conference, it has increased our constitutional liberties; by the appointment of ambassadors at Washington, Paris, Tokyo, and by the election of Canada to the council of the League of Nations, it has established that equality of status with England herself was not vain words, but that we were at last the absolute masters of our destinies. Then, the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation, stately and glorified by the presence of princes and illustrious guests, flattered the fancy of the people, and added to other events, convinced us that men truly patriotic were guiding the country's destinies.
In spite of what has been said in the house by members of the Conservative party, begin-nig with their leader, the people have acknow' edged that Canada has moved forward with gigantic strides towards her high destinies as a nation. They understand that what is left of the colonial laws is of a nature to preserve the British spirit in our legislation, but in no Way can it possibly influence them in their actions to promote or protect their own interests. Their beautiful Canada, for which they make so many sacrifices and express so many ardent wishes of felicity and grandeur, their beautiful country with its healthy climate and commensurable natural resources, sung by the poets and splendidly described in the speeches of the hon. leader of the opposition previous to this session; their beautiful country, I say, does no more appear to them as a subordinate part of another country. It is a free country which courageously takes its place at the great council of nations, and as step by step it moves forward, it is actuated by a sense of pride, courage, and manhood. They are proud of belonging to that nation which makes itself respected and known everywhere, and which, for the last five years ha*

The Budget-Mr Auger
gained more prestige than any other nation of the world. They feel in their veins flowing the proud blood of a free, prosperous and happy nation.
I know that it is impossible to appreciate exactly at its just value, what is worth to the country the true Canadian spirit which animates the government. However, statistics tell us that crops have been more abundant and our production has increased, as well as our trade with other nations. Everything points out that the Canadian has toiled more and better.
Hence, the prosperity we enjoy; however, one must be most unfair not to acknowledge the government's co-operation, and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), in vain may hold contrary views, he will not succeed in rousing the people, by persisting in closing his eyes to light. No doubt, Providence was kind to us and we are glad to acknowledge it, for it is a further guarantee that the destinies of the nation are in good hands. It is a comfort to us to know that our opponents deny us their co-operation and advice. At least Providence seconds our efforts, and as long as it is with us, we can well dispense with their co-operation. But if Providence is with us, who can be with our opponents? Whence comes this unfair and pessimistic criticism? Does the soul of their late leader whine in their sonorous trumpets? Or is it perchance Pluto himself? Why this sad note trumpetted both in this country and abroad, representing Canada like a vast cemetery, where are buried deep the nation's hopes? Why sow despondency and fear? Do they realize the hanm done to their country? If mistakes have been made in the administration, why magnify them and then show them up as serious and difficult problems to solve? Are they not aware that all is not perfect in this world but subject to improvement.	No
government would care to boast of enacting perfect legislation, but it gives proof of a rare gift when it states and invites, like the Prime Minister did in his speech on the address, any suggestion which, by amendments, would improve this legislation.
One can criticize without debasing the character of our public men, without decreasing their prestige and that of the country without preaching (deifaitisme) "defeatism".
If some of our laws are defective, let us revise them and let us comfort the people by showing them the benefits of the amended legislation. It is this enlightened, broad and constructive criticism which has placed the Prime Minister in the position he so well fills to-day. As long as our opponents will
not endeavour to emulate his example, the people will keep them away from power, as factors of misery and despondency.
The government has always aimed at stimulating enthusiasm and to-day it reaps the benefits: a production per capita which surpasses that of all other countries, the largest trade per capita in the whole world and sufficient revenues to meet all the needs of the administration, and to make allowance for reduction in taxation and decrease in the national debt.
Does this mean that the government has complied with all demands? We cannot satisfy everybody at the same time and our opponents should not forget that it is easier to destroy than to construct. In fact, it is moving slowly but surely and if one considers the difficulties it had to meet: a country divided and discouraged by the phantom of ruin, an unceasing obstruction by the senate and the opposition, when one considers these circumstances, one must admit that a gigantic task has been accomplished. It has restored confidence to all citizens, whether English, Scotch, Irish or French, it has given them a taste of the joys which union brings. It has killed (defaitisme) "defeatism", it has made a Canada united and powerful in its freedom, happiness and prosperity.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear!


Mr. AUGER (Translation):: The effects of the budget proposals will further activate the agricultural industries of this country. Any decrease in taxation, whether it be excise, customs, income or sales tax, must benefit all classes, but especially the poor and labouring classes.


Some MEMBERS (Translation):: Hear,
hear!


Louis Mathias Auger: Mr. Speaker
I wish to join with those wlfo have requested the government to take a greater interest in the humbler classes of this country, in the farmer and workmen. The Canadian farmer and workman are at the base of our prosperity and they deserve our utmost consideration, because the most appreciable wealth of a nation, is that class which depends for a living on manual labour and which is not humiliated by work and does not disdain it.
I agree with the members of the opposition in saying that their lot can be improved, but on the other hand I wish to be fair towards the present administration. A wise revision of the tariff, both of Customs and Excise, had the effect of increasing produc-
The Budget-Mr Auger

tion, lowering the cost of living and giving more work to our people, while advantageous trade treaties opened up the world's profitable markets to our farm and manufactured products.
The result was a gradual increase in our products and trade, and better living conditions for the farmer and workman. It is therefore not astonishing that we have not the number of unemployed as other countries have, even that of the United States which our Conservative friends delight in praising to us. There is yet much to be accomplished but those who allowed profiteers to hoard the people's money and prevented a general and equitable distribution of prosperity, should not hamper our constructive work.
They are sufficiently guilty, by their exaggerated participation in the war, and wasteful administration, without disparaging the notable improvement in the lot of our labouring classes. Canada is recovering rapidly.
If we read the statements of the various financial and commercial institutions, the time seems far off when cries of distress rose from everyone's lips.
An optimistic note is heard over the entire country the echo of which reaches the humblest abode. Conditions are easier for the workman to earn a living because there is more work and more money, and the farmer by improving his agricultural methods and taking a greater interest in the dairy industry earns more substantial profits. Our opponents admit it, but they discovered statistics showing that there is a migrating flow of our people towards the United States, and the responsibility is placed at our door. They should be the last to mention it because it is under their rule from 1881 to 1891, that Canada lost the greatest number of her sons by the exodus to the United States, and the losses we are sustaining now are but the sad sequel of their poor administration. If they cannot k^p their tongue quiet, they should at least be fair and acknowledge t.hia fact.
They should also mention that there exists a natural migration that no one will ever stem. There is a continuous to and fro movement between the two countries; on both sides we meet with visitors, and if there are people who leave us to establish themselves in the United States, there are also some who return to us disenchanted, deceived as they were by the speeches of our opponents, who described to them a country better than theirs. As for us, we conform our policy to our desire of keeping our people, and welcoming back those we have lost. Statistics tell us that we have succeeded, in

a large measure. How sarcastic, sir, are the speeches of the leader of the opposition and his followers when they talk of the great problem of increasing our population, and offer protection as a sure cure to all evils! Lighten the burden by putting it on the shoulders of a greater number of people i3, indeed, a bright idea which could only see light in a highly imaginative mind. But to state in their speeches that Canada cannot support her present population which is forced to leave for the United States, and in the same breath ask to increase it, without knowing how to keep it in the country, for me, it savours highly of ridicule. If they are sincere and truly believe that our rural or labouring population cannot further exist in our country, why do they advocate that we should spend millions of dollars to bring in other people? They tell us as their leader did, in his speech at the Chateau Laurier, on January 24 last, that immigration comes in the front door and our own people leave by the back door! Did they, however, have the common sense of closing this back door by which escapes the manhood of Canada.
If such are the conditions, and if the tears they shed over those departing are genuine, why not be logical and not state that the money spent to increase our population should be spent in Canada, so as to improve the condition of the Canadian and keep him at home.
It is futile to seek elsewhere for a more vigorous race than ours, and if conditions in Canada are such that the sons of its pioneers can no further exist, it is more than time to cry out: Halt! cease spending the money of Canadians outside of Canada to entice an immigration which will not remain here. Why do they not advocate using all the money spent on immigration to improve the lot of the Canadian?
I read with much pleasure the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae); I would have enjoyed hearing his words on the lips of his leader and friends.
That would be a loyal and patriotic opposition which would stand up and demand that iwe spend all our money in Canada, for the Canadians, as long as effective means are not found to stem the exodus of our people to the United States. Why not be frank, about it if they are sincere. Why do they have more regard for the manufacturer and British immigrant? Without attacking immigration,- (wherever it may come from-and the manufacturers who, after all, help in the development of this country, I think it is ridiculous to increase or keep up a tariff which might

The Budget-Mr Auger
jeopardize our trade with other nations. We need the nations of the world to market our products, but we must so arrange things as not to harm our basic industries, among which agriculture is the first.
Mr. Speaker, I shall warn the government to be on its guard against all ideas which emanate from the other side of the house, but especially these big immigration schemes of the leader of the opposition and his followers. His speeches, of which three quarters are on immigration and emigration, have alarmed public opinion and it would be dangerous to support their suggestions. Canadians are not opposed to immigration; however, they wish first to retain their people, and to be frank, they do not take kindly to the policy of the leader of the Conservative party who advocates the spending of their money, not to improve their condition, but to bring to our shores immigrants who will replace them on the land, at the mills, in commercial enterprises and even in the civil service.
Although their financial standing has improved, they have pressing needs which must be met. Here, they request railway branch lines to link settlements, industrial and mining development areas to the large centres; there, lower freight rates; in other parts, necessary public buildings. It is only fair that these requests should take precedence over those of the leader of the opposition and his immigrants. For instance, I know that we can improve the lot of the Ontario farmer, because the provincial government obliges him to pay the larger share of the cost of construction and upkeep of highways, and I would suggest to the members of my province, who are on the opposition side and have shed tears over the budget proposals, that they dry their tears and join in the efforts of the rural delegation which, three weeks ago, urged their friend the prime minister of our province, to make a more equitable distribution of taxes and thus relieve the farmers.
As to the federal sphere, I have no doubt that our government will continue to relieve the farmer of the burden of taxation which weighs heavily on him. The tariff readjustment is proceeding slowly if you wish, but with caution and safety, with all due deference to extremists, who in one corner of the house state that it is proceeding too quickly and goes too far, while in the other corner we hear that it is too long delayed.
In the near future when signing trade treaties, our government will think, as in the past, of the farmer, and it will provide new markets for his products. Moreover, it will help the farmer in settling his sons on fallow
lands, by offering them the same advantages which the British settlers have under the Empire Settlement Scheme.
Mr. Speaker, the farming population, which I have the honour to represent, expect much of the truly patriotic men who are at the helm of Dominion affairs, and especially, they hope to see the reform of that policy, which gives to English people greater advantages than our people have in the settlement of fallow lands. They are aware that the government has already amended the immigration act by restricting it to immigrants sound of body and mind.
They now request it to go one step further, and give the preference to Canadian settlers rather than to those from Great Britain.
Should this preference be impossible to grant, at least let us be given equal treatment. Those who have already made sacrifices for Canada have special rights that no one can ignore without danger for the future. There are susceptibilities which should not be provoked, and knowing that they are the masters of this vast country for which they have toiled and shed their blood, Canadians do not willingly submit to the regulation which gives to immigrants preference over them. Moreover, what immigrant with common sense will come to live and settle his children in a country where the latter will be discriminated against. If we wish to increase our population, we must grant the privileges of settlement to Canadians only, so that there may be advantages for the present and future citizens to remain in this country.
A policy of intensive settlement favouring Canadian citizens is, in my opinion, the practical way of stemming the desertion of the soil and the exodus to the United States, of entirely wiping out unemployment and, lastly, attracting that wave of European immigration in which the leader of the opposition places his hopes for the future of the country.
Canadian soil belongs to Canadians. Let us therefore set it aside for the Canadian farmer or labourer who wants to cultivate it. Let us place at his disposal and that of his heirs the vast natural resources that his ancestors jealously guarded for him. Then let us give him transportation facilities and advantageous markets. The spending of $20,000.000 to help the settler and the Canadian farmer would draw more immigrants than $40,000,000 spent in coaxing them.
After all human energy is Canada's greatest wealth, and the humblest Canadian is a far more precious jewel than all our combined natural resources which will place our coun-
The Budget-Mr Auger

try in the future, in the foremost rank ot nations. Let our government pursue its policy of national progress. There is but one solid basis upon which we can build up the great Canada of to-morrow; it is upon that of a prosperous farming population, happy and jealous of its * professional occupation and its country.
When Canadians are perfectly satisfied, and write to their friends overseas that they enjoy here perfect happiness, when the sons of farmers look upon their fathers professional occupation as the most beautiful and consoling one, when the workmen in cities look forth to the land to insure the existence of their family, then, we can open wide our doors to the immigrants who are physically fit and mentally well balanced. We can then open them very wide because great numbers will come. Let them come, in preference, from the British Isles, if they adapt themselves better to our conditions of life, but wherever they come from or whoever they be, they must conform to the Prime Minister's ruling, that is be strictly sound of body and soul.
I wish to congratulate the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) and his officials connected with the rigid application of this regulation, because those who have in view the Canada of to-morrow and the important part it will be called upon to play in the future civilization, are of the opinion that we should take no risk. Our burden is sufficiently heavy without having to carry that of others, and in order that the immigrant be an asset to Canada, he must be strictly sound of body and soul.
"The twentieth century will be Canada's century," according to a very clear-sighted) prophecy, but it must especially be that of Canadians. Because the statesmen at the helm of the present administration show a truly enlightened patriotism, I shall support the well balanced budget of the hon. Minister of Finance, and I do it with the assurance that I am thus serving the interests of my riding and country.
Contrary to what we are to infer from the statement of the hon. member for Southeast Gray (Miss Macphail), there is no discipline in the Liberal party which forces its followers to vote for what they believe to be against the best interests of the country.
The party, for us, is the channel conveying our convictions, and we sacrifice ourselves only to better carry out the great principles that we cherish in common. The hon. member for Southeast Grey, has leagued herself with a group of members to propound certain ideas; 
she is wrong in reproaching us for doing likewise and insinuating that we have lost the freedom of thought and action, because we are affiliated to the Liberal party. The Liberal party's history goes back, so to speak, to the first days of the English rule, and it 'has traditions which link it very closely to the people of Canada. The Liberal party loves Canada, it loves the poor classes of our country, because it identified itself, at critical moments of our history, with their sorrows and difficulties. That party has no past to disown and it views the future serenely, because the leaders of to-day are worthy of their forebears. It is false to contend that we are traitors to the great principles of freedom and justice which always were at the basis of our political program.
However, we are enemies of disorder, and if we are slow in putting into practice the reforms which we advocated when in the opposition, it is because we do not wish to cause great confusion, we want order in our progress.
I shall recall to the house that in 1911, we made an appeal to the people on a question of trade reciprocity with the United States and we fell from power owing to not receiving the necessary co-operation from those who shared our ideas. I want to caution those Progressives from the west who are thinking of joining the Conservative party, that they will gain nothing by it, unless it be to prejudice the more the cause they have taken up.


Some MEMBERS:: (Translation): Hear, hear!


Louis Mathias Auger: Co-operation is necessary to-day as yesterday, and to place in power a government of high protection might bring tardy but useless regrets to the sincere friends of a low tariff. We are moving slowly but nevertheless we are moving forward in the path traced by our illustrious predecessors, guided by the same standard and faithful to the principles for which we have fought and fallen, but to which we have never been traitors. If the progress on this path is difficult, slow and perilous, we are not downhearted, remembering the saying "Every thing comes to him who waits."
The Liberal party has undertaken to balance the finances of the country and to restore order, union, peace, harmony and prosperity. Its task is not completed, but what it has already accomplished reassures us for the future. Let those who love their country support us in the work of national restoration.

The Budget-Mr. Quinn
Whatever may be the profession, whether that of doctor, lawyer, financier, manufacturer, farmer or labourer, our ranks are wide enough to include all ideas and all occupations.
The standard of the Liberal party, is not the standard of a class, a race, a language or a religion, it is the standard of the whole Canadian people, united in a spirit of co-operation, justice, mutual respect, peace and harmony.


Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate, but I observed this afternoon while listening to the wonderful address of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) that he appeared to amuse the Minister of Immigration and Colonization greatly. For the first time this session I saw the Minister of Immigration and Colonization smile. Now the Minister of Agriculture did not add anything of importance to the debate. During his remarks he scouted all round. He seemed to take particular interest in the Winnipeg convention and the platform adopted there. He also seemed very much interested in the selection of a leader of the Liberal-Conservative party, and tendered his congratulations to the hon. gentleman who was selected to undertake the duties and responsibilities of that high office. He strove to assist the Minister of Immigration and Colonization by touching on a case which has been dealt with at different times during the present debate and the one which preceded it, but he did not go very much into details. May I say that I was rather surprised and disappointed at the class of cases in which he included the McConachie child? I will not cite the different classes, because hon. members remember them well. The McConachie case has, up to the present time, elicited many expressions of sympathy and surprise. I am in receipt of letters every day from different people, and from various societies and organizations, expressing sympathy with the family affected.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Felix Patrick Quinn: An hon. gentleman asks why. Because of the attitude adopted by this government in dealing with the McConachie family. This government has acclaimed Canada as a land of tremendous possibilities and wonderful opportunities for the immigrant These glowing expressions undoubtedly reached the ears of our friend McConachie; accordingly he obtained a passage and came to this country where he provided a home for himself and family. Had he followed the example of others who brought their household goods and families with them, Mc-
Conachie would have been an established citizen of Canada to-day and would have had his family with him. It was only due to circumstance that the infant which figures in this case was bom in Scotland instead of in Canada. All hon. members know-the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization and the Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay) know it well-that McConachie was here eighteen months, and his child was fourteen months old when it arrived in this country. I ask the Minister of Immigration and Colonization-and he can answer the question when he pleases; he can answer it now if he prefers, although it will encroach upon the forty minutes allotted to me-what necessity there was for the unholy haste in deporting the McConachie infant? Does he reply? No. I say "unholy," and I mean it; when I use that word I know what I am saying. I have been told on good authority that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) obtained permission to detain the child in Halifax for another week in order to enable it to undergo a further medical examination. I know that McConachie wired from Halifax on Saturday asking to have the child examined by a specialist, and I know the Catholic immigration chaplain at Halifax telephoned to the Cunard Steamship Company, whose vessel brought the family to this country, and they agreed to keep the family at their expense for another week. That information was forwarded to the immigration agent, Mr. Barnstead, and also to his assistant, Mr. Hetherington, but before the chaplain reached the pier the mother and child had been placed on board the steamer. Now where is the human touch, where is the sympathy, where is the judgment of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Deportation? Now we have this family separated, the mother and infant having no home in Scotland to go back to as everything has been sold out. I have under my hand a letter from the secretary of the Overseas Settlement for British Women, Canton House, Westminster, London. She states:
I met Mrs. McConachie on her return to this country and arranged for her to stay at a hotel in London for the night.
She had no home in Lanarkshire to go to and so she had to stay in this hotel in London for the night.
She was at this office all the next day and we sent her to her relatives at Belfast the next night.
That is where Mrs. McConachie is to-day. This poor woman, distracted and heartbroken, is now trying to arrange to place the infant
The Budget-Mr. Quinn


James Layton Ralston: Was that guarantee accepted as satisfactory by the gentlemen who were present at that caucus?


Felix Patrick Quinn: It was a guarantee from the
vice-president of the Consumers' Cordage Company, and I consider it binding.


James Layton Ralston: Was it considered a sufficient guarantee by the fishermen?


Felix Patrick Quinn: My hon. friend is a good
lawyer. I am not; and he need not think he is going to inveigle me into any legal question.


James Layton Ralston: I thought perhaps the fishermen might be interested; that is all.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The fishermen are interested. My hon. friend comes from a fishing constituency, Shelburne-Yarmouth and he well knows that the fishermen of Nova Scotia will buy American rope in preference to Canadian, and the same thing applies to other articles.


James Layton Ralston: But I do not know that the fishermen of Nova Scotia will accept the guarantee of the vice-president of a company expressed in a telegram to some private individual.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It was not expressed to a private individual. That telegram was sent-


James Layton Ralston: To whom?


Felix Patrick Quinn: To be handed over to the maritime committee.


James Layton Ralston: To whom was it sent?


Felix Patrick Quinn: It was sent to a representative here of the Consumers' Cordage Company for the purpose of being read at this meeting. I have the telegram in my possession if the minister wants to see it.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, I have seen it. I thought it was poor protection for the fishermen, that is all.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Why does not the minister come out and state exactly where he stands in this matter?


James Layton Ralston: I am waiting to hear my hon. friend; he has the floor. I have stated that I am not for imposing a duty on fishermen's rope, if my hon. friend wants to know.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Even at the sacrifice of 500 people in Dartmouth?


James Layton Ralston: I was not speaking of any
sacrifice.


Felix Patrick Quinn: That is what I am asking about.


James Layton Ralston: That industry is going on in Dartmouth, and the head of the industry has declared they are going to stay in Dartmouth.


Felix Patrick Quinn: No thanks due to this government.


James Layton Ralston: We are not asking for thanks.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I will tell you why they decided to stay in Dartmouth.


Charles A. Stewart: We have heard these bluffs before.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It is no bluff, I will tell this house why the Consumers'" Cordage Company has decided to stay in Dartmouth. It is because the town of Dartmouth has relieved them of all taxation. There is a sacrifice on the part of the town of Dartmouth. ,


James Layton Ralston: For a limited period.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, and at the end of that period they can take the matter up again.


James Layton Ralston: But perhaps, they might come and threaten to close down agaid.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Perhaps. Suppose they do make a threat. I have no interest in the Consumers' Cordage Company, absolutely none, but I have an interest in 500 people in Dartmouth. My hon. friend might play fair and let us know just where he stands as between the fishermen and the people of Dartmouth.


James Layton Ralston: I have told my hon. friend once; I cannot make it any clearer. But I do object to my hon. friend suggesting that I am not playing fair. I do not think that is parliamentary.
The Budget-Mr. Quinn


Felix Patrick Quinn: I played fair with the hon. gentleman when he was taking advantage of his forty minutes. I did not interrupt.


James Layton Ralston: I thought my hon. friend was asking me a question.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I was drawing attention to the question you asked of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price), and I was just
answering it.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid the answer
was not satisfactory.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I think the house will be satisfied. There is another matter. I have here a letter from the Nova Scotia Bedding Company of Windsor Junction. I might say right here that they are no political friends of mine, but they were of the minister. They wish to draw attention to the duty on jute cloth in rough state as provided for in this budget. They say:
We use considerable of this material for wrapping round bales of mattresses when shipping them. Formerly it came in from the United States free of duty. The customs officials advise us now that there is a duty of 30 per cent on it when coming from the United States.
I draw the attention of my friends in the far corner of the house to that. They go on to say:
We think this is going too fast. There is none of this material made in Canada.
I would ask the Minister of Finance, what was the reason for the imposition of this duty? Can he explain satisfactorily to this house why a duty of 30 per cent is imposed on this article that is used by manufacturers and others in this country, when there is no industry in Canada making it? Can the Finance minister or any hon. gentleman opposite give the house a satisfactory answer? No? I ask my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence to use his influence to have this item changed. Stephen Brothers, of Windsor Junction, are friends of his.
The Minister of Agriculture this afternoon spoke of everything almost except the things which directly concern him. He spoke of the Winnipeg convention and the new Conservative leader, he elaborated on immigration, spoke of oleomargarine and I do not know what else. Why did he not devote his time- and he could very well have used the whole forty minutes that way-to matters concerning his own department?
Mr. .MOTHERWELL: Nova Scotia?


Felix Patrick Quinn: No, agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: Agriculture was not attacked very much.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It was not? I have heard it attacked several times in the course of this debate.


William Richard Motherwell: Where from?


Felix Patrick Quinn: The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt) for one.


William Richard Motherwell: You have to consider where it comes from a little bit.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I have in my hand a memorandum from the National Dairy Council of Canada presented to the Dominion government. My hon. friend should be interested in that.


William Richard Motherwell: That is a good place for it to come from.


Felix Patrick Quinn: This memorandum is addressed to the president and members of the privy council, and reads:
The National Dairy Council of Canada desires respectfully to present some further observations and requests on the Australian trade agreement. That on the 29th day of November, 1927 the national dairy council made certain representations to your honourable body on the said Australian trade agreement and order in council re New Zealand, which allows butter from these countries to enter Canada at one cent per pound duty and showed that in consequence of the Australian trade agreement the dairy industry of Canada suffers.
At the same time, the national dairy council in its memorandum respectfully requested as follows:
1.	That the order in council applying schedule 2 of the Australian trade agreement to New Zealand be rescinded at once;
2.	That the dumping clause be immediately applied on all butter sent from Australia to Canada on consignment as well as on direct sale;
3.	That the Australian trade agreement be terminated as provided in the Australian trade agreement Act 1925.
That, so far, the government has taken no action on the foregoing request.
Therefore we again respectfully present the following observations:
1.	That the national dairy council is representative of all the dairy interests in Canada, of which the milk and cream producers are by far the greater number.
2.	That these producers are insistent in their demands, that the government grant the foregoing request of the national dairy council as voiced in the following resolutions, passed in almost every case by the producers sections, and later endorsed by the creamery men and others at dairy conventions recently held throughout Canada.
Then follow the resolutions. I shall read only one, from the dairymen's association of Nova Scotia:
Be it resolved that the Nova Scotia dairymen's association in annual session assembled in Truro, January 17-18, 1928, reaffirm the

action of this association in passing a resolution at the annual convention, January 19-20, 1927, asking the government to cancel the clause of the Australian treaty which allows butter to enter Canada at the rate of 1 cent per pound duty, and cheese free, and restore to the dairy farmer that which was taken from him by the signing of this treaty and the order in council allowing New Zealand butter and cheese to enter Canada at the same rate of duty as Australian.
Further resolved that we request that the dumping clause be at once applied to all butter coming into Canada from New Zealand and Australia whether on direct sale or on consignment.
The memorandum includes resolutions from the Nova Scotia farmers' association, the New Brunswick farmers' and dairymen's association, the Manitoba dairy association, the Alberta dairy association, the Saskatchewan dairy association, British Columbia dairymen's association, Comox creamery association, Western Canada live stock union, Canadian produce association, and the Ontario milk producers' association. They are all in the same strain. Why does the Minister of Agriculture pay no heed to the demands of this very important industry, as presented from every province?


William Richard Motherwell: I did.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Where is the relief? What have you done?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend could not have been in the house this afternoon.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, I was here this afternoon, but I gleaned very little from the minister's address. I quote from the last paragraph of the memorandum:
From latest information available for the calendar y|ar 1927, a reduced make of butter in Canada is reported from four provinces and in a large measure is due to the large quantities of butter that have come into Canada from Australia and New Zealand. This is particularly true in the prairie provinces and Ontario as follows:
Pounds	Decrease
Manitoba	 14,231,026
Saskatchewan.. .	11,955,533
Alberta	 19,912,533
Ontario	 59,800,000
1,218,330
4,637,234
3,487,466
2,500,000
Total decrease	 11,843,030
Butter imported into Canada from February 1, 1927, to January 31, 1928:
Ifurther according to figures tabled in the House of Commons on February 13, by Hon. Mr. Euler (see Hansard page 404), for the twelve months ending January 31 last, 3,620,698 pounds of butter from Australia and 15,142,616 pounds from New Zealand, a total of 18,763,314 pounds entered Canada for home consumption. British Columbia was the heaviest consumer.
This 15,000,000 pounds of butter produced in Canada, at 200 pounds butter per cow per year 56103-78
The Budget-Mr. Quinn
would take 75,000 cows, at ten cows per farm would take 7,500 farms, giving employment to as many farmers and their families.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask why should the government spend hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising to the world what a wonderful agricultural country we have in the face of an opportunity such as this? Right now they might establish 7,500 farms, giving employment to 7,500 farmers and their families, by taking the necessary measures to safeguard our dairy industry . But the same old policy is continued, the same old practice goes on of bringing immigrants in at the front door and letting them out at the back.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) in his contribution to this debate rather lectured us on this side of the house when he dealt with the present administration in Nova Scotia, and he referred to the slogan of the Conservative party in 1925, "bring the boys back." It is true that up tc the present not many boys have come back; but let me tell my hon. friend that a sincere effort is being made to bring them back and so to improve conditions in the province that no others will migrate to the United States; which is more than he can claim for the predecessors of the Rhodes government. We have in Nova Scotia to-day a well-administered Department of Natural Resources, and everything possible is being done to keep the farmer and his family on the land. Only last week Premier Rhodes announced in the local legislature that arrangements had been made to establish a large pulp and paper mill in Nova Scotia. I know my hon. friend would like to say that a promise of this kind was made in 1925. Yes, it was made by a gentleman who was returned as a supporter of the Rhodes government. He gave a pledge to his constituents that if the promise was not fulfilled he would resign his seat within twelve months. He kept his word. It would be better for the public life of this country if members of parliament and others were more particular in redeeming their promises We have the assurance of Premier Rhodes that the mill will be established, that plans are completed and work will immediately go ahead, which will provide employment for a thousand men in the province. Contrast that with anything done by the predecessors of the present provincial administration. The pulp mill will manufacture from 250 to 400 tons of pulp and paper a day. This means the the development of a big industry in the province.
May I enlist the support of my hon. friend and other hon. members from Nova Scotia who sit opposite in trying to

The Budget-Mr. Quinn

retain our present industries? I have already referred to the industry at Dartmouth. My hon. friend has expressed his views as a supporter of the government, but again I ask him to use his influence in conjunction with the hon. Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) to do everything possible to protect this industry as well as other industries in Nova Scotia. Let him and his colleagues adopt the British motto; What we have we hold. I am not playing politics. I make this request because I owe it as a duty to my people in Nova Scotia, and particularly I owe it as a duty to the five hundred Canadians, most of them bom and bred in the province, who if this industry is closed down will have to cross the border and join many of their brothers and sisters who have already been forced to seek their livelihood in the United States. Once more I ask my hon friends from Nova Scotia who sit opposite to bend all their energies to prevent that and other industries in our native province from closing down, and so safeguard the interests of our people.


James John Edmund Guérin: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to address the house to-night, but the eloquence of my fellow-countryman who has just sat down (Mr. Quinn) in connection with the case which has attained such prominence in this debate has left me no alternative. I share his sympathy for the family, but I do not think he rightly appreciates what was wrong with the MeConachie child. From what I can gather, this child is a cretin; that is, an infant born without a thyroid gland. This gland governs the development, mental as well as physical, of the child. Consequently, the child was born an idiot, and nothing could possibly change its condition; it was born an idiot and is bound to continue so. It is not difficult to diagnose the malady, for it has peculiar characteristics. To begin with, the skull is enlarged with a receding forehead, the mouth droops, the tongue protrudes, the eyes glare into vacancy, spittle is constantly running down the cheeks, and wherever the child is placed it is absolutely unconscious of its surroundings. So far as intelligence is concerned, the child is practically born dead. I profoundly sympathize with the parents, but at the same time, dura lex sed lex. You cannot change the law, and if no latitude is permitted, I do not think it was ever intended to admit idiots. Consequently there is nothing to be done.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I understand my hon. friend is a medical man. May I say that I saw the
fMr Quinn.]
child personally and was informed that the symptoms that have been described were not apparent.


James John Edmund Guérin: It is a question of appreciation. With his training and experience in other matters the hon. gentleman may be an excellent judge of some things, but I submit that a physician who practises medicine and who is prepared to stake his reputation as an officer of the government that such a disease exists in a particular instance must be believed We must take his word.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Why did not the two medical men on the other side, the doctor on the roster and the doctor in Glasgow, observe these things?


James John Edmund Guérin: It shows the wisdom of the government's new policy in sending Canadian physicians to the other side to vouch for these facts. There has been considerable argument on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite against the extravagance of the government in sending Canadian physicians to determine the health of proposed immigrants, but I think this is a case that proves the wi dom of the government, for it shows that there will be no possibility of contradiction in the future. Once immigrants are passed by one of our own physicians they will naturally be accepted by this country. If the expectation of life in the case of a child were brief it might be all right to admit it; but the fact is that children of this description live for many years. They grow up to the age of twenty or thirty, continuing in the same state of infantile decrepitude as when they were born. They acquire the faculty of eating and drinking but they remain permanently in a condition of oblivion so far as everything around them is concerned. I do not for one moment wish to imply that I have not every possible sympathy with the parents of such a child; but there is a very serious principle involved, and if we are going to admit immigrants of that class there should be something in the law to permit it. The law is there and it cannot be altered unless someone is prepared to shoulder the responsibility. As regards the insane, I may point out that the asylums will not admit a child in this category even supposing that child is grown in years. An insane person, to be admitted into an asylum, must be dangerous to himself or to his neighbours or must be a cause of public scandal. An infant proper, or a grown-up infant, if we may use that expression, does not come within this category, and such a child becomes a load on its parents; it must be looked after, nursed and coddled during the

The Budget-Mr. Guerin
full term of its existence. And strange to say, children of this class receive more love and affection and more attention from everyone in the family than any of their brothers or sisters who are in full possession of their sense?. To have a child of this sort in the house is therefore a misfortune beyond description.
I do not intend to suggest how the question should be solved but I do not see how the Minister of Immigration, under the circumstances, could possibly think of admitting a person in that state. As I say, the child is unconscious of its surroundings, and it would not do it any harm, if the father were in a position to pay for its upkeep, to leave it in Scotland whence it came. The question has been treated from a sentimental standpoint ever since it came up; it has not been considered on its merits. I always thought the Irish were very fond of grievances, but last night's Star makes this out to be a grievance of Scotland. The Minister of Immigration ought to have sympathy with the people coming from that particular part of the empire and I do not fancy that the fact that this child was of Scotch origin militated against it. On the contrary, probably the majority of the members of our cabinet would look with favour on anything that might be done in its behalf if the question were considered from a national point of view. This, however, is a case where the law must be observed and I fail to see how the minister could have acted otherwise than he did.
It seems to me that the determination to call attention to this matter openly, and to discuss in this manner things appertaining to immigration and emigration, is not doing any great good for Canada. I do not think that this is a question that should be debated publicly and discussed as it has been. It is undoubtedly a misfortune, and if those who feel so sympathetic towards the McConachie family would only contribute a sufficient amount to place the child beyond want and to provide it with proper surroundings in its native town, the parents would lose nothing, inasmuch as if the child were violent they would have been obliged to put it away. Seeing that it is unable to do anything for itself, it naturally should be put in some place where it can be given proper care and attention such as an unfortunate child of this kind requires.
We have been hearing a good deal about emigration to the United States. The argument on this question is most injurious to the country and those who are discussing the matter in the way we have heard it debated are doing no good to Canada. No doubt we
are bothered by a certain class of immigrants who cannot be detected by medical examination; I refer to that class who come to this country for the express purpose of creating trouble. In the large centres they are to be found in considerable numbers, preaching bolshevism, socialism and all kinds of discontent with the country generally. It would be a good thing indeed if the government would do something towards sending these people back to the countries from which they came, thus relieving us of the danger of having Canadians imbued with false ideas. These people turn out in Montreal on the first of May with the red rosette, but they do not carry the British flag; they do not carry the flag of the country. They are beyond the law so far as our country is concerned. The same thing prevailed in Italy until Mussolini took charge of things, but by the judicious administration of palma-Christi, otherwise known as castor oil, they were brought to their senses. I think if our mounted police were provided with a liberal supply of castor oil and attended these meetings which take place throughout Montreal and other cities, and on their own responsibility, with the approval of the Minister of Justice, administered about half a pint of that drug, it would put these men in such a condition that they would not be able to continue their obstruction very long. Perhaps it would be better than punishing them by prison terms, because judging from what I saw on May 1 in Montreal they are becoming rather numerous, and in my opinion they are an absolute threat to the community. We must look after the interests of our own country, and if we allow this sort of thing to go on w'e are just sowing seeds of trouble which will manifest itself in no uncertain way. I think it would be well to take this matter into consideration as far as the teachers oi bolshevism and anarchy are concerned, which would relieve us of the threat which is constantly directed against this country.
I had no intention of saying anything tonight, but the eloquence which was displayed and the sympathy which was excited by the hon. gentleman who preceded me made me feel that I should say just one word with reference to this McConachie case. It is not that I have anything but the deepest sympathy for the family, but it is a very easy matter for them to separate themselves from that poor unfortunate child. The baby would never be any the wiser, and the family would be much better off.


Mr. G. H. PETTIT (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks in this budget debate I realize that the ground has been covered very fully and very ably

The Budget-Mr. Pettit

by those who have already spoken, more particularly by hon. members on this side of the house. I am prompted, sir, to make these remarks because of the fact that so many constituencies have been heard from through their representatives, and I felt that the county of Welland, which I have the honour to represent, should not remain silent.
For your information, sir, I should like to tell you some things about the splendid and important county of Welland which you may not already know. It is a border county in the Niagara district; within its confines are two cities, Niagara Falls and Welland. There are also four towns, two villages, two very splendid fruit farming districts, namely, the townships of Pelham and Stamford, and six general agricultural townships. It is the cradle of hydro-electric power and a great industrial centre. For the information of the government I may say that in those two fruit farming townships those who engage in the growing of early fruits and vegetables are one in the desire for a duty-and a good high duty-on early fruits and vegetables imported from the United States. There are a number of producers of these things in these townships and the industry is developing.
There are quite a number of nurseries in Pelham township well and widely known-foremost among them the Fonthill Nurseries, Ltd., and Brown Bros. Co., Nurserymen, Ltd. The horticulturists of Canada are entitled to and Should be given proper protection against foreign importations of nursery stock, shrubs, bulbs, etc. I respectfully but strongly urge this protection.
I may also say for the information of the house and the public at large-and I think hon. members of the house will be delighted to hear this-that the large foreign population in the county of Welland, those naturalized and those not, are loyal citizens, loyal to our institutions and British connections, and law abiding citizens generally, with the exception perhaps of a small class of Russians. There are, of course, a few bad people among them, hut we have bad people in our own race. It would do your hearts good, gentlemen, to see at the different gatherings of these people how the little boys and girls sing the national anthem, and the Maple Leaf Forever, and O Canada, with all the vim and vigor they possess. The older people also take part to the extent of their ability to do so. The British flag graces their halls; they take part in all the public processions with the British flag at their head, and they also join in celebrating anniversary of the armistice. So I am glad and proud to be able to tell this

house that the foreign population in my district are loyal to our British institutions and laws generally and good citizens.
Now, sir, I wish to refer hurriedly and in a general way to a few of the matters which have been already touched upon, and the first of these is the sales tax. We appreciate the action which the government took last session when this sales tax was reduced somewhat, even though the reduction was small, and the same holds good this year. I do feel, however, as other members on this side of the house feel, and I believe in this I voice the sentiments of the people of my constituency, that the sales tax should have been taken off entirely. Let me also say that I view with a great deal of satisfaction the appointment of a committee of this house, which committee is now sitting, to look into the problems of the returned soldiers with the view of bringing in legislation for their benefit. I sincerely trust that this legislation will be as broad and as favourable as possible in order that these returned men may always receive the benefit of any doubt which may exist in particular cases.
I also wish to espouse the cause of the rural mail carriers of the country at large. I do not think there is a more faithful or a harder working class of government employees than the rural and urban mail carriers. Practically all of them are married men with families and I appeal to the government to put them, the rural mail carriers on a proper basis. The work should not be let under tender. The remuneration should be at least $1,400 a year where the mileage warrants it, and even that is little enough. The remuneration ought to be on the basis of $70 per mile.
I wish to take this opportunity of stating that my constituents and myself favour the Canadian National Railways as now organized and brought into being by the Conservative party. I am glad to pay tribute to the management in bringing order out of chaos, and placing the system in the splendid position it now occupies. I have every confidence that within a very few years the system will be established on a paying basis.
I was delighted to hear the other day in the house the statement from a member of the government that a large appropriation was being granted in aid of research work. I have been very much interested in that work for a great many years. I do not claim by any means to be an authority on the subject, but I have always felt that research work should be undertaken in this country to a greater extent than has been the case in the past. I look forward to the achievement of

The Budget-Mr. Pettit
great results from the aid granted by parliament for this work from an agricultural and industrial point of view. There are men of ability in this country who can bring these researches to a successful conclusion, but we must take great care that in this work there is proper co-ordination of effort. I was very much surprised and interested upon reading an article the other day to find that this country suffers a loss of about $20,000,000 a year owing to grain rust. Now if that one source of loss alone can be overcome by industrial research it will be well worth the expenditure incurred. As the representative of the county of Welland I shall take great pleasure in supporting the government in making liberal grants from time to time in aid of research work.
I am rather troubled in mind about the woollen industry. I think it has been very severely hit by the action of the government in the past in granting such a large preference in favour of Great Britain. I am a strong believer in interimperial trade, and the building up of trade within the Empire, but I do not think we should do so at the expense of such an important one of our own industries, especially when allied branches of industry will be injuriously affected. If the woollen industry were in a thriving condition to-day and developing as it should, wool would be required from the farmers and this would be of help to them in raising sheep. The grazing of sheep fertilizes the land and keeps down weeds, and through the raising of sheep the farmer has mutton and lamb for the market. So that when we do anything to injure the woollen industry it reacts in various directions and hurts other industries which are dependent upon it, notably that of sheep raising.
I am a strong believer in the adoption of a national fuel policy for Canada. I should like to see the government establish what may be called an out of pocket rate, say $5 or $6 a ton, for the delivery of coal from Alberta and Nova Scotia to the central portions of this Dominion, and Ontario in particular. What is called an inclusive rate, which would be in the neighbourhood, I indrrstand rf nine or ten dollars, should be fixed for the railways, and any difference between that and the out of pocket cost should be met from the national exchequer If we do that, I believe coal can be delivered and sold to the consumers in Ontario at a rate of from $13 to $14 per ton. This winter I have been purchasing coal in the city of Welland for $14.75 a ton, and I have not paid less than $14 a ton for some years. I
would cheerfully continue to pay that amount if it would be of help in developing the coal industry in Canada. If we do not get to work now and inaugurate a national fuel policy we run great danger of suffering from a prolonged strike in the United States, or the possibility of that country enforcing an embargo on coal. Where should we be in the case of either of these eventualities, and we were not able to draw supplies from domestic sources? We ought to take time by the forelock in this matter, and provide against every possible contingency. The objection has been raised that the course which I have advocated would mean the expenditure of a great many million dollars from the national exchequer. In reply to that argument I would point out that we should be able to retain in Canada the many millions of dollars which now go out of the country for the purchase of foreign coal. In addition our railways would derive an immense revenue from the carriage of Canadian coal, our coal mines would be enormously developed, and employment would be given to a great number of workingmen. It was pointed out the other day in this house that when the Hamilton and the Sault steel industries used American coal in their operations they received a drawback of 99 per cent. I was wondering why industries of this character should not be given a drawback on the price of their coal if they obtained it from Alberta ana Nova Scotia.
I am heartily in favour of the course suggested by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson) when he spoke the other day on the subject of flour. I favour an export duty on wheat going to the United States so as to compel the manufacture of wheat into flour on this side. Our wheat is going to Buffalo in larger quantities each year; Buffalo is fast becoming the milling centre of the continent through the shipping of our wheat to that point and the milling of it into flour there, and I therefore strongly support and advocate an export duty on wheat going to the United States for milling purposes so that instead it may be made into flour on this side, thus building up the flour milling industry in Canada and giving employment.
I come now to the matter of immigration, which has been and is still a very serious and complex question. I have given it a great deal of thought and I have often wondered how on earth it can be solved with advantage to this country. I have often wondered, although I do not say I believe in it, if it would not be better to throw open the doors to all persons from Europe who are mentally
The Budget-Mr. Pettit

and physically perfectly fit and of good character and willing to work hard until this country has a population of, say fifteen or twenty millions, and then apply the quota system. I was led to that conclusion by this way of reasoning: that every person who comes into this country has to be fed, clothed and housed. He is a consumer, and he is also more or less a producer. If the doors were thrown open and these people, mentally and physically fit and willing to work, came in, you would start the wheels of industry going. Economics is a funny thing. It does not take much to start it going the right way, and it does not take much to start it going the wrong way. I am, however, a believer first and foremost in the predominance of the British race in this country as against people from continental Europe or elsewhere, and that the great preponderance of immigrants into Canada should foe of the British race. But there is that question, and perhaps the bold and startling scheme advanced by the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) will solve this question. It was very startling to me and highly interesting, but in a matter of such importance, such magnitude, as immigration, we have reached the point where we realize that population is what this country must have and that we must do something bold and startling. I for one as an ordinary citizen of Canada would cheerfully, on behalf of myself and my family, contribute to the consequent increase in taxation for the carrying out of that splendid scheme, as I consider it to be. We should all so far as possible sink our party differences in endeavouring to arrive at a solution of this immigration question. If the scheme of the hon. member for North Vancouver could be adopted and a commission or board appointed such as the one that manages the Canadian National Railways, with that hon. member at its head having the ability and capacity for organization and administration that he has, and the scheme were administered by that board free from politics, I think it would work out splendidly, and very quickly this country would get the immigration it desires and go ahead by leaps and bounds. As a result of the carrying out of a proper immigration policy we would have a fair-sized population in a. short number of years. With this increased population, with a more largely industrialized west and a fuller development of the mineral wealth of northern Ontario, this country would go forward very rapidly and a large number of our problems and difficulties would be solved and overcome.
Of course, to my mind, in addition to all that we require, for the more rapid progress
[Mr. Petitt.J
of Canada, to have stability of tariff, a well-settled fiscal policy, so that there may be a certainty of things, and people, especially in industrial lines, can govern themselves accordingly. With an adequate protective policy and an increased population, this Canada with our united efforts will move forward to the great destiny that certainly lies ahead of it, the destiny of being a very important, if not the most important part of the British Empire and an influential nation in world affairs. Already we have a seat in the League of Nations and that is the thin edge of the wedge of Canada's influence in world affairs. I can easily visualize in the future years Canada being, as I said, not only the most important part of the British Empire but one of the great nations of the world and of large influence in world affairs in promoting and bringing about peace and the advancement of civilization generally. The vastness of our country, the large population that will in time dwell here, its great resources and the character of the people in the nature of things ensure that.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I can assure you and this house that I have no particularly set speech to deliver on this occasion. I know that the house and the whole of Canada are at this moment waiting to hear the deliverance of that distinguished statesman who is now recognized as leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Bennett), in the' Dominion of Canada. Undoubtedly an equal number of Canadians are waiting to hear the reply by the distinguished gentleman who for the present occupies the position of Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), of this great Dominion. For that reason I assume that not very many are interested in what I may have to say. I have, however, been pressed to take part in this debate, and in order to get back at those who induced me to speak I am going to say something.
First I should like to say a word in reply to the sympathetic remarks of my hon. friend from St. Ann (Mr. Guerin) in regard to the McConachie case. I have been taught, and I learned to be governed by that teaching, not to attempt to diagnose a case at too great a distance, and I was rather surprised that my good friend from St. Ann was able to diagnose this case right across the Atlantic.
I prefer for the moment to accept the findings of the medical men who actually examined this particular child.
Having sat in this house for two or three years, I have heard hon. members speak of about 240 constituencies as being the biggest or greatest in Canada, and I am therefore

The Budget-Mr. Kaiser
afraid to say very much about the constituency I represent, because I might follow their lead and then people outside of Canada would gather that there were 245 constituencies in this country and each one was the biggest and the greatest in Canada. If I say nothing about my constituency I am glad to know that I shall have a distinguished guide in that respect, and that is the Prime Minister. I have never heard him say that he represented the greatest constituency in this Dominion although he does represent a great constituency at the present time. I am inclined to think that he is what they call a perambulating representative. He has represented North Waterloo and North York, and then he moved from the Yorks to the Princes, representing Prince, in Prince Edward Island, and then Prince Albert, in Saskatchewan. I am afraid that he might next undertake to represent some south constituency, and perhaps be nominated to represent South Ontario. I do not know what the result would be in that case.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We do.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: We have had two or three visits from the distinguished Prime Minister of this country, in the last two elections, and before. Once, when my election hung in the balance, the Prime Minister visited the constituency and gave an oration, and I was told immediately afterwards that I need not worry about getting elected. During the next election he came again and made another oration. far more brilliant than the previous one, but as soon as it was over I was assured again that I need have no fear of the consequences. I had a rather peculiar experience in my last election. I had pitted against me a gentleman who to-day occupies a high position in this country as head of the tariff board, a very important position. We got into a very remarkable contest, and while I won the election and he lost, the was able to pull out a $12,000 a year job, while I receive only $4,000. He gave to the world a new epigram, namely, "It is more blessed to lose than to win". I propose to say something about the tariff board before I am through.
I wish to say a word about one of the greatest questions facing this country to-day, and before very long it will take the centre of the platform in this country. I refer to the national debt of Canada. Unfortunately or for tunately, as the case may be, the Dominion of Canada is placed side by side with the great American republic. When we on this side of the line take lightly some of our difficulties, we should cast our eyes across the line and ask ourselves what is this great country to
the south of us doing in regard to some of these matters? Think of this for a moment. In 1919 the national debt of the United States was, in round figures, $25,000,000,000;	1920,
$24,000,000,000;	1921,	$23,000,000,000;	1922,$22,000,000,000;	1923,	$22,000,000,000;	1924,
$21,000,000,000; 1925, $20,000,000,000; and in 1926, $19,000,000,000. In other words, they reduced their debt from $25,000,000,000 to $19,000,000,000 between 1919 and 1926.
But that is not the whole story. Their debt now is reduced almost to $16,000,000,000, I understand, but whatever it may be, we must remember that the United States has placed' on England, $4,700,000,000, upon France almost $3,000,000,000, and under the Dawes report she has placed on the countries in Europe an amount of her debt equal to $11,000,000.000. Take that $11,000,000,000 from the $16,000,000,000, and only $5,000,000,000 remains as the national debt resting upon the United States, and that is being reduced at the^ rate of $1,000,000,000 a year. How are we going to stand five or six years from now. if we have not in the meantime been reducing our national debt by some systematic method; when we are placed in competition with a country right at our doors that has absolutely-wiped out her national debt or has placed it upon other countries? What would be the use of a five or ten per cent tariff then? I claim that one of the most important things for this Dominion to do at this moment is to consider seriously the question of reducing our national debt. We have no country upon which we can unload a single dollar. We must pay off our debt solely through our energy and the genius of our men and the wealth of our resources. When this question of the national debt came up in the budget the Finance minister undertook to pass over it by quoting from an author who has been dead for seventy or eighty years. I marvel at times how the governing body in this country undertake to fortify some of their fallacies by delving into the museums of our country, dragging forth authorities of 150 or 200 years ago, and quoting them for present-day directions. The thing is absurd. Just to illustrate my meaning, I was curious to know who this McCulloch was whom the Finance minister quoted the other day, and I find that he has been dead pretty nearly a hundred years. And I observe, too, that the Finance minister did not read all that he said about national debts. The Finance minister quoted him as saying there should be no sinking fund and no taking care of the debt, but I read the next paragraph to that, just to show you the difference in the minds of men to-day as compared with the minds of men who lived one or two hundred years ago. He says:
The Budget-Mr. Kaiser

We have previously endeavoured to show that it would be advantageous to maintain during peace a surplus revenue of some two, three, or five millions a year. We should do this, not so much in the view of reducing the debt, though that is a consideration not to be left entirely out of view, as of increasing our security, and enabling proper measures to be devised, in the event of our being engaged in war, for defraying its expense.
This philosopher said that the great thing for the British Empire to do before it got rid of the national debt was to lay by some ready cash in order to prepare for the next war. Why did not the Minister of Finance explain the mentality of the man whom he quoted in regard to the treatment of our national debt? This man seemed to think he could look down through generations to come and tell exactly what was going to happen, and advise us how we should handle our national debt. But listen to the views of this philosopher on the development of democracy. I wonder what those who are behind the "flapper votes" m England think of this great philosopher's views on the franchise as it should obtain in England. Let me quote:
In a political point of view the late events in America are pregnant with instruction. The system of low or universal suffrage, of allowing the representatives of the nation to be chosen by a numerical majority, including the lowest classes, could not have been anywhere tried under such favourable circumstances as in the United States, and yet the result has been most deplorable. It lias made the mob paramount, thrown the government into the most incompetent hands, and filled the whole country with jobbing and abuses of all sorts. Many of those best acquainted with the people think the crisis will terminate in a military despotism. But whether that be so or not, the experience of the United States is a warning to all nations to beware how they reduce the elective franchise. The Americans are neither better nor worse than others, and the abuses by which they are disgraced would be quite as rampant on this side of the Atlantic were the members of our legislature elected under a similar system.
That indicates the kind of mind that existed fifty years ago. And yet this philosopher is being quoted to-day by the Minister of Finance as a guide in dealing with the national debt!
Now, I consider it important to bring to the attention of the house the strange workings of this strange aggregate known as the "tariff board." They investigated the salt belt, starting somewhere near Kincardine, where the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) comes from, then it perambulates through half a dozen Liberal constituencies and finally winds up near where the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) comes from. Now, a body of men connected with this salt industry came before the tariff board and made the following application:
fMr. Kaiser.l
Application by the Salt Producers Association for cancellation of the item providing free salt for sea or gulf fishing; for increase of duty on salt imported in bags, barrels or other coverings or in bulk; for the imposition of the same rates of duty on containers filled with salt as applies on empty containers; and for increased duties on free-running table salt.
These business men in a business way put forward a business proposition. They did not complain that they were hard up, they did not say that their business was lagging. They simply said: We have a wonderful salt deposit in our section of the country, but we are hampered in our operations by salt coming in from the United States, from Germany and from the United Kingdom; we claim that if this salt were subject to a duty we would have the full advantage of our home market, we could operate to the full extent of our capacity and we could employ twice as many men. They did not say that they wanted to make more money, but they simply said they were working only 50 per cent cf their capacity. Then the notifying work began. In this houje there is something we see on the table, but there is also a game going on under the table that we do not see. When this matter came before this house all we know is that somebody got in contact with the Minister of Finance, with the result that the government said to the saJlt producers' association: We will grand a rebate of 99 per cent on the coal that you use in the preparation of your salt. That is the most ridiculous line that was ever written into a budget. I will tell you why. It illustrates the difference between the Conservative view and the Liberal view in handling such a mater. We say that the industry should be considered. Here is a means by which 500 families representing 2,500 people could be retained in Canada if the request for the imposition of a duty on salt were granted. But the Liberal mind says: We must fix up the industrialists; we will allow them every January to come down to parliament and by drawbacks take out of the cash box about $5,000 apiece. There are about ten factories engaged in the salt industry in western Ontario, and in the aggregate they turn out 200,000 tons of salt annually. It requires about
100,000	tons of coal to produce this salt. Fifty cents a ton on the coal means a drawback of about $50,000 which is divided up among these ten men. But they did not want it. They are sportsmen, and they take more pride in developing their industry than in getting a $5,000 drawback. That drawback did not add one solitary factory to our industrial development; it did not result in the employment of one additional workman. Two days ago the Canadian Salt Company issued their

The Budget-Mr. Kaiser
annual statement from their offices in Montreal, from which it appears that notwithstanding the fact that they have been able to operate only at half their capacity they earned 13i per cent on their capital. Before the tariff board it was shown that the salt manufacturers combined made 25 per cent on their capital. It was not a little drawback that they wanted. Like the good, honest, solid Canadians that I have always found in our industrial captains, they took far more pride in the development of their business and in the employment of fellow-Canadians than in securing the few paltry dollars offered thorn in drawbacks.
Then there is another matter that requires a little investigation in connection with this drawback game. Let me give the house this statement:
Statement showing the total amount paid for customs drawbacks, annually, back to March 31st 1921, and in five year periods preceding that.
Fiscal year 1927-28 (11 months
to Feb. 29/28)	811,338,738 14
Fiscal year	1926-27	
14,639,450	94Fiscal year	1925-26	
14.706,419	28Fiscal year	1924-25	
10,610,742	77Fiscal year	1923-24	
11,719,152	44Fiscal year	1922-23	
13.400,508	25Fiscal year	1921-22	
10.741,682	04Fiscal year	1920-21	
12,839,914	41
Five year periods.
Fiscal year	1915-16	
3,599,844	77Fiscal year	1910-11	
789,395	27Fiscal year	1905-06	
242.853	77Fiscal year	1900-01	
138,947	80Fiscal year	1895-96	
149,218	27Fiscal year	1890-91	
134,388	86
Previous to 1890-91 no separate record of paid Drawbacks appears to have been kept.
I can quite appreciate the fact that a drawback is justifiable and perfectly sound from a national point of view. If a man brings in ins raw material from a foreign country and manufactures it in Canada and then exports the finished product he is entitled to drawback. And the law permits it. But when it comes to giving drawbacks to some people in lieu of some other things they would like to have, it seems to me that this is absolutely wrong. What should this country do? Only one thing: the people should get rid of a government which fails to take advantage of the opportunities that offer; they want to do away with a job-killing government and replace it with a job-making administration. Read the remarks of the president of the Bank of Montreal a few days ago and you will get an idea of what should be the immigration policy of this country. From time immemorial people have moved from one country to another for one of two reasons;
cither to improve their position or to find employment. If this government only had sufficient faith in the country and could be induced to change its course and adopt a policy of protection, and provide that protection openly and honestly at the front door instead of at the back door, endeavouring thereby to provide employment for those people who are already in Canada as well as for others who might wish to come-if this were done we could dispense with a minister of immigration altogether.
The chief business before the country today is to undertake by every means possible to provide work for the people. Someone will ask, what about the automobile business in Oshawa? The government amended the tariff in this industry and I do not propose to say much on that score. The change was intended to effect great results. But what has happened? People generally do not realise it, but there has been an increase of 28 per cent in importations of automobiles into Canada, every one of which could have been manufactured in this country by Canadian workmen. This would have provided employment for 2,000 men. Reckoning five members to a family, this would mean 10,000 of a population who might have been retained in the country. But by one stroke of the pen the government drives from our shores all these people and then calls upon the Minister of Immigration to tour the world in search of
10,000	others to come in and take their place. The government, so to speak, are pouring material in at the top of the sack while it is running out at the bottom. If they only had sufficient common sense to sew up the hole at the bottom of the sack they would save all the loss that is now going on. The most pathetic thing I have ever witnessed was a village which was destroyed by tariff changes. Would any other country be guilty of such a thing? I venture to say you would not find the United States government following any course which would result in the shutting down of a single industry or the closing-up of a single home resulting in the exodus of its population. This sort of thing must come to an end in Canada. The government must have a change of heart or it will be the business of the people of this Dominion to put in a government who will see to it that sufficient work is provided for all.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.