1929-03-15

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move:
That the names of Messrs. Fraser, Cowan and Ernst be substituted for those of Messrs. White (London), Guthrie and Black (Yukon) on the public accounts committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move the motion of which I gave notice yesterday:
That on and after Monday, 8th April next, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays till the end of the session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, I think this motion requires a little consideration. I am entirely in accord with it as regards Wednesdays, but it seems to me that the government should not appropriate Mondays at this stage of the session to the exclusion of private bills. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that up to the present private members have had eleven days this session to discuss their motions. This is true, but as a matter of fact so far private bills have occupied practically no time of the house whatever. According to the rules the first item on Mondays is private bills. I find that so far on Mondays private bills have occupied only one column in Hansard, and that was on February 25. In other words, at the beginning of the session private bills are referred to committees, and there discussed; they do not take up much time in the house, but later on in the session very often they require to be discussed on the floor. At the end of last session several very important private bills were left stranded on the order paper. Manifestly this is unfair to the petitioners, and I think it is not consistent with the dignity of the house that these bills should not be dealt with during the session. The procedure governing petitions for private bills is set forth in great detail in the book of rules. If the rules are complied with by the petitioners, and the bills are introduced for consideration at a reasonably early stage in the session, 78594-621
it matters not whether the petitioners be public companies or private individuals, I submit that they should be dealt with, whatever the decision thereon may be.
Last session the Prime Minister introduced a motion similar to this. I find that after it was agreed to there were seven Mondays that the house sat when private bills could not be taken up. I believe that if the house had not agreed to the Prime Minister's motion the difficulties that confronted us towards the end of the session would have been avoided, and those private bills would not have been left to the tender mercies of Tuesday and Friday evenings, which resulted in some of them not being disposed of at prorogation.
If my memory serves me right, Mr. Speaker, when I first entered the house the custom was for the government to take Wednesdays fairly early in the session, but they did not appropriate Mondays until the session was well advanced. I quite realize that this motion is drafted in exactly the same terms as the one which the Prime Minister moved last session, and I have been wondering why that wording is used. I have come to the conclusion that the form is similar to that which was used when Wednesdays only were taken over for government business. As I say, I do not remember that it was the practice for the government to give their business precedence over private bills on Mondays until towards the end of the session. To my mind this change in the old practice has produced what may be called not a proper state of affairs so far as private bills are concerned.
If private bills are allowed first place on the order paper for Mondays, I submit to the Prime Minister that the work of the session would not be delayed at all. After the private bills had been disposed of on Mondays the government would have the rest of tlhe day for their legislation following questions and notices of motion for production of papers. But if there are private bills on the order paper, then I submit that they should have consideration in the first place on Mondays, as provided in the rules. If the Prime Minister will consider for a moment, I think he will agree with me that the effect of this present motion would be practically to deprive private bills of their right to the first place on Mondays throughout the session, and in that case he might as well make a motion for changing the rules altogether; because up to this time private bills have taken only one column of Hansard on a Monday. Of course, when I say this. I have not in mind any particular private bill; it is immaterial whether they be divorce
Private Members' Days

bills or private bills of any other character, or bills in respect to companies. Private bills, in my opinion, should be proceeded with on Mondays according to the rule. I realize that the Prime Minister and the government are responsible for the conduct of the business of the house, and I have no idea of moving any amendment to the motion, but I submit to the Prime Minister that it would be better to adhere to the practice that obtained in the old days, so that private bills would hold their place on Mondays. Otherwise, I am willing that the motion should carry, so that government business would come next after questions and notices of motions for the production of papers on both Mondays and Wednesdays.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I drafted the motion I had not foreseen the possibility to Which my hon. friend has just referred. The motion in no way affects the right of the house to take up private bills in the first hour on Tuesday and Friday evenings, but I am prepared to admit that my hon. friend, Who is an older and more experienced member of the house than I am, may be quite right in what he foresees as to possibilities with respect to the fate of private bills. I therefore very gladly accept the suggestion he offers, to make provision for private bills receiving first consideration on Monday, and if the house will permit me I will amend the motion I have made by adding the words " and private bills on Monday."
Mr. JAMES' ARTHURS (Parry Sound): We have had on the order paper from day to day, since February 26, an order for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin) for concurrence in the first report of the select standing committee on standing orders. This order has not yet been taken up and I have no doubt it is held back at the instance of the government. It has a direct bearing on private members' day, and I should ike to know before voting on this motion, if there is a vote, what action the government intends to take with respect to the order I have just indicated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was held back at the express request of my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman asked me not to have the motion proceeded with-


Mr. ARTHURS:: On Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and I
agreed that we would not proceed on MonlSir George Perley.j
day; and not having been proceeded with on Monday the motion apparently has fallen by the way ever since.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I would suggest that it is
too early in the session to curtail in any way private members' days. We have a large number of notices of motions still on the order paper. These are important, at least in the eyes of those who have sponsored them, and as a matter of fact private members' day is about the only opportunity the private member has of bringing forward what he considers matters of interest to this house or to the public at large. I feel particularly free to speak on this question, because a motion in my name recently occupied nearly a week of the time of the house. Of course, having once introduced the motion I had no further control in the matter. The Prime Minister took occasion to make two quite lengthy declarations with regard to the question of natural resources in connection with that motion. I have no objection whatever to this, but I would point out that under that motion the house entered into a lengthy discussion of the whole subject of natural resources, approaching it from half a dozen different angles. Now I submit that it is not fair to the house that a single motion should be discussed to such an extent while there are eighteen others, of equal importance, which have had no opportunity for discussion. I hope the Prime Minister will see his way to leave this motion for a little while.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the motion as
amended carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: Do I understand that
the motion is carried? Carried.
Motion as amended agreed to.



HIS MAJESTY'S MAIL

Hon. P. J. YENIOT (Postmaster General):: I wish to lay on the table a return to an order of the house, reference No. 15, moved for by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church):
For a copy of all letters, instructions, regulations, orders in council, telegrams, and other documents issued by the government of Canada or any members thereof, and any other person or persons, regarding the substitution of Canadas' Mail for His Majesty's mail on postal offices, postal wagons, motors, or other postal equipment, and in relation to the removal of His Majesty's initials "G.R." from said post office equipment.

The Budget-Mr. Brady
I do not know whether I am in order in giving an explanation of this return. If not,
I will do so at some other time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not now.


Hewitt Bostock: Orders of the day.
On the orders of the day:


Peter John Veniot: I wish now, if in order, to
give the explanation I desire to make with reference to the return I have tabled. This return, asked for by the hon, member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) has reference to what has been called the elimination of the monogram "G.R."-


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: If I may
interrupt the Postmaster General, may I say that if this privilege is extended to him we shall expect it to be extended to the rest of us to discuss the matter as well as he; otherwise, I rise to a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: The matter is one of
personal explanation and must not give rise to a debate.


Peter John Veniot: I do not intend to discuss
it.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
Postmaster General wishes to make a statement of fact by way of personal explanation.


Peter John Veniot: That is all.


Mr. BENNETT:: It cannot be personal.


Peter John Veniot: It is not personal; it has
reference to the administration of the department.


Hewitt Bostock: I would suggest to the
Postmaster General that he wait until his estimates come down.


Peter John Veniot: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I
am perfectly willing to wait; only there is a good deal of misinformation being circulated.



MOTOR AND PLEASURE BOATS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: May I ask the Prime Minister to be good enough to give me an answer to the question I asked him the other day. I know he is busy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must apologize to my
hon. friend. I have not had an opportunity to secure the answer but I shall let him have it by Monday.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 14, 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 Hon. Hugh Guthrie and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the electors of the constituency of Skeena, who honoured me by sending me to this house to represent their views, placed upon me two duties, first that I shall take an interest in all that appertains to Canada with regard to her internal and external affairs and secondly that I might represent them and place their views and their needs before this honourable house. Otherwise I would not presume to say anything in this debate after the wonderful address delivered by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie); his was a masterpiece of reasoning which as yet has not been contradicted in any important detail by any of the hon. members who have spoken since.
Before I introduce the subject upon which I would like to speak to-day I would state briefly that the budget is already before the people of Canada; its merits and demerits are known to everyone. The working men of Canada have read it with interest; the agriculturists, the fishermen on our coasts, the lonely lighthouse keepers who keep watch and ward over the carriers of our commerce -the ships that pass in the night-all have read the budget. Likewise the hard-working and poorly-paid lower classes of the civil servants of this country have read it; but the millions of people who are not stockholders in large corporations, who are not presidents of banks, who do not pay income tax or drive the high-powered motor cars referred to yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), do not find very much meat or comfort in the budget presented in this house on Friday, March 1. When I was considering the budget I thought it would have been a very good thing if the Minister of Finance had taken a leaf from the book of those wonderful, canny Scots who in 1670 created the Hudson's Bay Company, because it seems to me that in all our trade relations which I have had time to read the Minister of Finance or whoever has negotiated
The Budget-Mr. Brady

the arrangements has been given the thin end of the stick. In those days, Mr. Speaker, when the Hudson's Bay Company traded with the Indians, the measurement of value was skins piled to the height of a rifle, and the canny Scots of those days took jolly good care that the barrel of the rifle was longer than that of the ordinary rifle then in use.
Now, Mr. Speaker, coming to the chief points of my short address to-day, I think it will be a revelation to any thinking Canadian who analyses the trade figures of Canada to discover some cogent truths which I do not think can be contradicted either inside or outside of this house. I am going to make a statement now which has been thoughtfully considered, and before this budget debate is concluded I would like it answered. It is this: Canada to-day is finding it more difficult than ever to retain the major portion of the financial value and the nation-building value of her natural resources and products, in spite of the wealth of her great natural resources. Let me give some figures in connection with the great basic industry of mining, whose development has been a revelation to the world and the admiration of less fortunate nations. Is our mining industry to-day an asset or a liability to the people of this country? That is the question, and what is the answer? It is a terrible indictment against this government to be forced to say that the wealth of our mines, running into millions, is not an asset to Canada. Here is what we did in the nine months ending December 31, 1928: We sent to the United States $135,000,000 worth of semi-raw or semi-manufactured products from our three mineral groups, and we imported $437,000,000 worth. Those are the figures representing the trade in this great basic industry.
What does that mean? It means, in simple language that a child can understand, that for every day of those nine months Canada sent out of the country $1,000,000 to buy goods which could be manufactured in our own country. Shall I bring it a little nearer? For every hour of each day of the nine months we sent out of Canada $84,000 to buy goods which could be manufactured here. Shall I bring it still nearer? Every time the clock in the Victory Tower ticked off a minute we sent out $1,400.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Cash?


James Charles Brady: Yes, sir. If we had stopped there it might not be so bad, but together with that money we sent the very cream of the intellect of this young nation. Furthermore let me add that when the government [Mr. Brady.3
failed to respond to the needs of technical education in this country and refused the grant, they took a retrograde step from which they will not recover. We are losing from Canada our very brightest scientists and cleverest men. Here is an example; Professor Dickson, one of the brilliant research men of Macdonald college, was receiving a salary of only $3,500, and he was offered a position in Australia at a salary which Canada should have doubled if necessary to keep him here. He was offered a position in an Australian university at a salary of $7,500. And thus it goes on. It is not the fate of any political party which is at stake but the soul and life of Canada, and someone will have to answer for it before very long.
If we could take just half of the manufactured goods we import from the United States over $800,000,000, and manufacture them here and keep $400,000,000 in Canada to circulate here and build up our domestic industries, what could we do with it? We could solve the problem of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) over night. What a pitiable travesty it is on the days when Canada loomed as the bright star in the centre of this great empire, when we realize that the government of Canada could not reply to the questions asked in the House of Commons at London two days ago. A Labour member of that house asked, " Can the dominions do anything with their great natural wealth to give employment to our highly trained artisans and industrial workers who are out of work?" The one who replied to that question was the head of the Labour Federation in Canada, Mr. Tom Moore, and he said, "There is not a chance for them at all." There is no chance yet, but if our party comes into power I say that not only would every boy and young man in Canada be given a chance to live here, and earn his living but we could assist the motherland as well, and invite the best stock of Europe and give them all work. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when he was in London at the time of Queen Victoria's jubilee, in the course of a speech said, and I think his words have a present-day significance:
England has proved at all times that she can fight her own battles, but, if ever the day was to come when she was in danger, let the bugle sound, let the fires be lit on the hills and in all parts of the empire, and though we might not be able to do much, whatever we can do shall be done to help her.
Those are the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but the members on the other side of the house do not seem to like them.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is too deep for them.

The Budget-Mr. Brady


James Charles Brady: the sons and daughters of Canada to be checked on all sides without being ahle to attain their natural heritage? The fishermen in Prince Rupert are not getting a square deal. The other day an hon. gentleman across the floor went so far as to say: "Do not retaliate." He used the wrong word; there is no retaliation at all; the question is one of protection of ourselves and of our industries.
I should like to refer to another matter which will disclose what is happening in Canada to-day. I took the trade figures for 1928 dealing with Canada and the United States, and1 I took the same for Canada and Great Britain for the same period. There was an adverse balance of trade between Canada and the United States, amounting to 1241,500,000, while with Great Britain we had a favourable balance of trade amounting to $224,800,000. Put in the plainest words imaginable, that money should have been kept within Canada and had that been the case there would have been no need for the minister to worry night after night how to increase the population of this great country; we would have the money to circulate within our own country. W'hat happened to the money we got from Great Britain? It went into the United States to pay for our adverse trade balance with them. That is the answer and there is no use in our endeavouring to fool ourselves. The fiscal policy of the present government is hopelessly wrong for Canada. The Minister of Finance said the other day: " If we have any fiscal problems." Why, the destiny of a country depends upon its fiscal policy 1	That fiscal
policy has a certain objective. If it fails in that, if the' theory that they enunciate does not become converted into concrete action of benefit to the people, it is a failure.
To sum up, let me say that with the spread of education throughout the whole country, things are not going unnoticed The man who wears overalls has as great and profound knowledge of life as he who sits in his Buick or sedan. The working people of Canada to-day are not in accord with what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) said. He said: "We are prosperous." Prosperity is a relative term and if we want real prosperity we must do something more for the masses than this government is doing. If we want to put Canada where she ought rightfully to be as the greatest dominion of the British Empire; if we want to increase Canada's population-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Charles Brady: To those who anticipate the sentence I shall only say " Honi soit qui mal y pense." The biggest indictment upon this government is the fact that our population is standing still. It is all very well to talk about our wonderful external trade running into billions and about our wonderful plenipotentiaries in various capitals; but to compare ourselves to the United States population is to compare the little spaniel with the Newfoundland dog. The United States have a population of 117,000,000 whereas we have less than 10,000,000.
I feel this afternoon that what I have said is but a brief indication of what I would like to have referred to had I had more than forty minutes at my disposal. But in conclusion let me say that whatever the government may think or say, the soul of Canada has awakened and the rallying cry will be: " Canada for the Canadians and the great empire to which we belong.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I only wish, Mr. Speaker, that I was gifted with the eloquence of the member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) in presenting my case this afternoon.
I do not intend taking up very much time in discussing the budget, because I want to deal more particularly with the department over which I have the honour to preside, and as I have only forty minutes in which to speak at this time I intend to devote nearly all of my time to the question of immigration. Perhaps there is no subject that has been more discussed in the country than this same question. You can hardly pick up a newspaper to-day, or a periodical or a magazine, but you will find someone putting forth his views on immigration. The difficulty that I experience however is that there does not seem to be any unanimity in regard to this question.


John Wesley Edwards: What is your idea?


Robert Forke: I have not yet heard from the member from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) any well defined policy on immigration. Labour looks askance at any large immigration into the country, afraid perhaps that it might increase unemployment and make it more difficult for the labouring classes. The railways, on the other hand, claim that the country could absorb a very much larger volume of immigration than is now coming into the country. And I am sure that the agriculturists are not pressing very hard for increased immigration at the present time. I have not

The Budge!-Mr. Forke
had much encouragement from that section of the public in regard to increasing the volume of immigration.
Notwithstanding the eloquent speech that we have just listened to from the hon. member for Skeena, conditions are not so very bad in Canada at the present time. It is the first time that I have heard the statement-and I hope it is not true-that the more wealth we take out of our mines the poorer we become. It seems a strange sort of argument and it is quite beyond me. Every sign points to the fact that things seem to be going fairly well with us. Commercial statistics, leading financial institutions, production, manufacturing, all point to growth and prosperity. The National railways which, a few years ago, were looked upon as a millstone around the peck of this young nation, are becoming, in fact, are a very valuable asset to the nation. Perhaps the only blot-if it can be called that-upon the situation at the present time, is the fact that our young people are not staying on the land but are moving into the cities in increasing numbers. That is not a very good thing for this Dominion, and that, Sir, I believe to be the greatest problem not only in Canada but the world over. It is not an uncommon thing for a Canadian family to leave a farm and to find a family from a foreign country coming in to take their place. While we speak about agriculture being one of our great problems, I do not agree with hon. members on the other side of the house who advocate a policy that would make it more difficult than it is at the present time. Judging from the speech we have just listened to, I am indeed surprised at the tepid amendment which has been offered to the budget by the opposition. I had expected an amendment that had some teeth in it, an amendment that would come out fairly and squarely and state what the trouble was.
A good deal of controversy exists in regard to continental and British immigration. I have never agreed, Mr. Speaker, that there are superior and inferior people. There are backward and forward people and backward and forward nations. We all know, looking into the dim past, that great nations have existed and have passed away, and left little more behind than a name. In more recent times, we also know that nations have reached the peak of progress and civilization and have then faded Out of the picture, as it were, and other nations have taken their place. That is what has happened in the past and doubtless the same will happen in the future. Some nationalities, however, are much more
easily absorbed than others, and we have to take that into consideration in considering this question of immigration.
I noticed an article in the Saskatoon Star the other day, from which I desire to quote. It states:
It is -unfortunate to have immigrants in the west without knowledge of English, with little, if any, money, with no experience of farm work as carried on in the west. Some of these people have been left stranded at country points without any immediate prospect of employment. It is not fair to leave men without funds, ignorant of English, to shift for themselves in a strange land-this is not colonization.
I quite agree with that sentiment, Mr. Speaker, and I trust, as Minister of Immigration, that I will do my best to prevent an occurrence of that kind. Such a thing as that is of no benefit to immigration. It is of no benefit to Canada to have people come here unable to find employment when they arrive.
Some statements have appeared in the public press lately, in regard to the railway agreement. I would like to say a few words in regard to that. As most of the hon. members know, the railway agreement was entered into to stimulate the supply of farm labour from certain named countries in Europe. I was in the west last summer, met representatives of the four provincial governments out there and discussed with them the supply of foreign farm labour. I had an estimate from the governments of the four western provinces as to what they considered would be required in their respective provinces. We also made an estimate in the department of the amount of labour required during the coming summer. I have only this to say, Sir, that the estimate made by the department was very much larger than that given to me by the various provinces. However, I came to the conclusion that thirty per cent of the single foreign farm labourers of last year's immigration would be sufficient to meet requirements for that class of labour in the three western provinces. There has been a good deal of criticism in regard to that regulation, but I am perfectly satisfied that there will be sufficient labour of that kind to meet all the requirements of the farmers in western Canada. There is no limit placed on families coming in to settle on the land from those countries, and there is no limit on relatives coming out under the regulations. There is no limit on domestics coming out from foreign countries, aud there is no quota. I have seen a resolution on the order paper that might be discussed, with regard to a quota; but there is no quota established in regard to that kind
The Budget-Mr. Forke

of immigration. And, Mr. Speaker, at the end of May, should it be found that there is a shortage of foreign labour, the doors can be opened. I feel it is my duty to see that people coming from countries, unable to speak our language, shall have employment when they do come. That is the only trouble that has arisen in regard to this matter.


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask the minister a question there?


Robert Forke: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: Would he
kindly give the proportion coming in under this agreement that stayed on the land, and the proportion that drifted into the cities?


Robert Forke: I cannot give that information. That has been one of the troubles in the past. We have estimated that probably thirty per cent stay on the land and the balance drift into other lines of employment.


An hon. MEMBER:: That seems high.


Robert Forke: Probably it is. Those who
have made a study of immigration will realize that capital and immigration are closely allied. When large amounts of capital were coming into Canada we had also a large volume of immigration, because the employment of that capital created labour, and the supply came to meet the demand. I think that may be taken as a 'basic principle. Since 1881 five million immigrants have come into Canada. For the ten years from 1911 to 1921 1,728,921 immigrants came in. I am sorry the member for Skeena is not in his seat, for these figures would interest him in view of his remarks on immigration. Our net gain at the end of ten years was 491,281.


Mr. STEVENS:: What ten years?


Robert Forke: From 1911 to 1921. During those ten years 1,237,740 people born outside of Canada died or left the country. This figure does not include the Canadian-born who left during those years. I do not wish to make any insinuations against the government then in power, but I want the house to pay particular attention to the fact that that exodus took place when no Liberal government was in office. So that the matter of trade policy or tariff-


Mr. JACOBS:: Might I point out to the
hon. minister that the Union government was a half-and-half coalition?


Robert Forke: I do not wish to draw any unwarranted inferences from those figures, but it is reasonable to state that perhaps the 166,782 immigrants that entered the Dominion for the calendar year 1928 and established

permanent homes here constitute a better record than for some of the preceding years when we had 400,000 immigrants annually. It is not the number of people who come in, it is the number who become permanent citizens of this Dominion that really count in immigration. It may be profitable to transportation and other agencies to have a large influx of immigrants who simply pass through the country to return no more, but this type of immigration is certainly not profitable nationally. Since 1881 our record for 1928 has been exceeded only seven times. In 1926, two years ago, 96,064 immigrants came in. Last year, as I have already mentioned, we received 166,782 immigrants.


John Wesley Edwards: Where from?


Robert Forke: I will give their origin. British, 65,882, I would remind the house that the miner-harvesters are included in that total, and a few thousand should be deducted to cover those who returned to Great Britain. There were 29,900 from the United States, and 28,840 from northwestern Europe. This makes a total immigration from Great Britain, the United States and northwestern Europe of 114,622-all people very easily assimilated into our life. Southern and southeastern Europe sent 52,161, thus making the grand total of 166,782. Let me point out that 70,718 more immigrants came in during 1928 than two years ago.
Those who complain about our lack of immigration are fond of making comparisons with the United States, much to our disadvantage. Indeed, the hon. member for Skeena has just mentioned that we should take a leaf out of the United States' book in regard to immigration policy. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are getting a larger percentage of immigrants to our population than ever entered the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What?


Robert Forke: A higher percentage of immigrants to our population than ever entered the United States. When 840,000 immigrants came into the United States that country had a population of over one hundred million. With our population of nine and a half million, a total immigration for 1928 of 166,782 people gives a higher percentage in our favour. Consequently we have a bigger problem of assimilation and absorption than ever confronted the United States. That is something which should be borne in mind' by those who would like to pour millions and millions of immigrants into this country. Perhaps we have reached the point where we can about absorb the stream of immigrants now flowing in. As

The Budget-Mr. Forke
the country develops and capital increases there would be an increase in population, and under normal circumstances we shall be able to absorb more immigrants. In this connection I desire to quote a few lines from a speech delivered by Premier Baldwin when he visited Canada a few years ago. I should like to say that of all the distinguished visitors to this Dominion none have displayed such a grasp of the situation as Premier Baldwin and ex-Premier Lloyd George. They seemed to realize what we need in this young country. Speaking of immigration to Canada, Premier Baldwin said:
If it be no impertinence on my part to say one word to Canadians, I would say: The future is with you; do not be in too much of a hurry. Your country is a country for men from the north, the hardy, virile races. Quality before quantity any day. Build up with the best. What does it matter if it is a hundred years, or two hundred years, or more, before your country is full? Keep the stock you have, and the men and women you have, and see that the coming generations are in no way inferior to them. I have often thought that it is as dangerous a thing to the morals of a nation to get rich too quickly as it is to an individual. Time is on your side. Maintain the values. Maintain the standards. And may the prayer of Canada always be the prayer of the Greek sailor which has been preserved for us by Seneca: "0 God, You may save me if You will; You may sink me if You will; but, whatever happens, I will always keep my rudder true."
I think we may take that to heart as a good lesson in regard to our immigration problem.
During the past year there has been a large increase in the number of homesteads taken up. In the four western provinces during 1928 there were 15.566 homesteads taken up, compared with 6.356 in 1927-a gain of 250 per cent. In the Grande Prairie and Peace RiveT country 5,216 homesteads were taken up-a gain of 450 per cent over the previous year. Taking 160 acres as the unit for a homestead, it means that two and a half million acres of land vras homesteaded-not very bad progress when we are supposed to be standing still. The people represented by these homestead entries number 41,724. A great many of those homesteaders are young men from our own western prairies, and I hope some from the eastern part of the Dominion also. We can get no better type of colonization than that. The young fellows from our farms in western Canada go out to the new districts and there establish homes for themselves. They are the very best settlers, because, Mr. Speaker, there is no better settler than he who is born in some lone sheiling in Canada.
Last summer I had the pleasure of visiting the Grande PraJirie and Peace River country and was astonished to see the progress that had been made. I found fields of splendid wheat ripening in the sun in the month of Augffet, ten days earlier than the crop much further south-ten days earlier than around Edmonton, for instance. I do not think much of that wheat was damaged by early frost, whereas a great deal of such damage was done in Saskatchewan. It is a wonderful country, there is no doubt of it, and it will be rapidly developed in the not very distant future. But I would suggest that no one should get it into his mind that there are vast prairies in the Peace River district similar to those that were to be found in the western provinces away back in the nineties. The soil is good but it will take more labour and more capital to build up homes there than it did in the older districts. I had the privilege of attending a picnic at Peace River lodge, and about the best thing I saw, in Peace River was the people there. They reminded me of the pioneers of the early days, in the nineties, in Manitoba-kind-hearted folk, full of hopefulness, looking to the future with optimism, and believing they had the best country under the sun. To me it was a most pleasing experience to go back into that country, far up in the north, and see the splendid crops being raised there.
I should like to have said a few words in regard to some of the different schemes we have, but I am forced to pass on seeing that my time is going rapidly. I think we have covered nearly all the recommendations made by the committee on agriculture which investigated the Immigration department last year. We have extended assistance to boys between the ages of seventeen and nineteen inclusively. As most hon. members know, these boys are going to farm centres established by the different provinces. The province establishes a farm centre, or what may be called a distribution point, to which the boys go. Places are found for them by the provincial governments, and the Dominion contributes $10, the province $10, and the Imperial government $20, making a total of S40 per boy, for the purpose of placing him when he comes to Canada.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: How long
does the assistance continue?


Robert Forke: The provinces have undertaken to look after the boys, keeping an eye on them, and seeing that they are properly cared for after arriving. This is the most successful movement in a small way I have
The Budget-Mr. Forke

seen since coming to the department. I have heard nothing but good repots with respect to the placing of the boys who come to the country, and this is the best kind of immigration we can have. These lads come to Canada, become identified with Canadian life and social customs, and in a very few years they will be Canadians in every sense of the word, looking on the country as their own home land.
The committee also recommended a land settlement scheme, in respect to which there was a tripartite agreement between the provinces, the Dominion and the Imperial government. That has been done more particularly in New Brunswick and, to some extent, in Ontario. New Brunswick is advancing rapidly in the matter of land settlement from the provincial point of view. The authorities there intend to settle 500 families in the next three years. They settled 100 families last year and they seem to be doing very well. The province provides the land, the Imperial government advances the money, and the Dominion government renders services to further the scheme. I may say, in regard to domestic servants, that we have entered into an agreement with the Imperial government. They have established centres for the training of domestic girls coming to the Dominion, and these girls are given six weeks' training. We have a lady officer attached to the Department of Immigration and she is over in Great Britain, seeing what training the girls are receiving, and satisfying herself that they will be suitable to Canadian homes. She will have the selection of the girls who come. The province taking any girl who comes from overseas undertakes to contribute $10 towards the upkeep of the central home. This is one aspect of immigration in respect to which the department can never fill the demands made upon it; it cannot supply all the domestic servants asked for.
Now I will say a few words with reference to land settlement generally. We have read some very alluring descriptions of the vast open spaces of the Dominion, millions of acres of fertile land waiting for people to come and cultivate it; and we have read about unemployed people in Great Britan. We are told that if only we would bring these unemployed people to Canada and place them in these vacant spaces the whole face of the country would be transformed, there would be smiling homesteads, happy and contented homes, and everything would go well. It seems quite eiasy to talk that way, but anyone who has ever had any associa-

tion with land settlement, with the bringing of people to this country and settling them on the soil, knows that the problem is not so easy as all that. It -is much more difficult than one might readily suppose who had never come -into contact with that sort of work. I notice that the Hon. Mr. Perrault, speaking in the Quebec legislature, made the following statement:
It is not the fault of the province if young men show no desire to rush to the colonization areas and build up from the beginning. The fault rather lies in the desire of the younger men to gather in the centres, despite the advantages offered by the government.
It is -the same old story: you can put people on the land, but it is a different job to keep them there. It is largely a question of remuneration, a question also of making rural life as attractive as it ought to be. Mr. Perrault adds:
Yet, within the past fifteen years, the government of Quebec has succeeded in establishing 50 new parishes in the province.
That is not so bad for the old province of Quebec in the way of land settlement endeavour. Frankly, I am not in favour of any land settlement that will burden the settler with large overhead expenses; it is better to begin slowly, gaining experience -and building up on a surer foundation. The amazing development that has taken place in western Canada did not come about by means of any great land settlement scheme; it was brought about by people beginning in a small way, humbly, adding to their belongings bit by bit until the whole country was transformed and now we find a population of 2,000,000 producing a tremendous amount of wealth-and this in one generation. That is the way development took place there; it was not brought about by the expenditure of millions of public money to induce people to go on the land.


Edward Joseph Garland: They were not state-aided.


Robert Forke: There is one thing I have noticed in recent years, and that is the tendency of the farmers in the west to increase their holdings. A few years ago, when I first came to this house, I imagined that a change would take place, that the farms would be smaller units, the population more dense, and that some of the difficulties we were experiencing would disappear. The movement has been the other way, however; the farms are growing larger in the west rather than smaller. That is not the best thing for the country, but it is a fact. The improvement in machinery, with loss of man power,
9S9

The Budget-Mr. Forke
is resulting in a greater amount of produce.
I 'have an idea which perhaps might be worth considering: I wonder whether all this increase in production, with less man power, simply means paying for improved machinery.
I wonder whether those who are producing in very much larger volume, as a result of improved machinery, are very much the gainers after they have paid for the machinery they are buying. As I say, 'that is only an idea, but it is worth noting. There is this to be observed: In buying that machinery and creating that produce they have at least done a great deal towards stimulating industry and helping every other line of public endeavour in the Dominion. I want those people who perhaps are not so closely related to agriculture as I am to 'bear that in mind and to be always ready to do something to help the farmer in the struggle he is carrying on in a great industry.
Before leaving land settlement I wish to refer to the colonization department of the railways and other organizations and to touch upon what has been done by the different provinces. Before dealing with British immigration, however, I wish to make a few remarks in relation to foreign immigrants from what are known as non-preferred countries, although there is no such definition in the act or in the regulations. Some Hungarian gentlemen came to see me the other day and they felt that a slur was 'being cast upon them because they came from what we know as a non-preferred country. I wish to make it clear that there has never been any intention that any reflection should be cast on anyone. Indeed, in some respects, countries which are nominally non-preferred are in reality preferred countries, because there has been a more vigorous campaign for immigrants there than anywhere else in Europe.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: By the government?


Robert Forke: By the railway companies,
under the agreement.
To prevent misconception I want to pay a tribute to the people who have come from those countries. They have made contributions of permanent value to the life of the Dominion; they are talcing an active interest in Canadian problems and government, as witness members of local governments and one member of foreign birth in the Dominion parliament. They have worked in our lumber camps, helped to build our railways and highways, dug our ditches and given good service for wages received. They have cleared thousands of acres of our scrub land in the northern part of the prairie provinces and
have made the wilderness blossom as the rose. They have built their modest homes; in many instances they have every modern item of equipment on their farms and have purchased1 more machinery and equipment in recent years than other agriculturists, and they have added to the wealth of the country by the production of millions of dollars worth of farm produce. They have not lagged behind in other respects; they have sent their children to high schools and universities, fitting them as good citizens to take their part in thid young and growing nation.
Now I want to say a few words with regard to the situation in Great Britain as it affects immigration. The social and economic structure of Great Britain is not what it was in 1914; in fact all countries have changed greatly since that time. In 1914 there was no unemployment insurance, no sick benefits and no old age pensions, and most of the social legislation now considered important was non-existent. Agriculture was more important; strange to say, in twenty years a vast change has taken place in Great Britain with regard to agriculture. Then cars and motor trucks were little used, and that really has a great bearing on emigration to Canada. Young men were trained in the management of horses; practically all transportation with the exception of that carried on by railways was done by horses. That produced a very large number of young men skilled in handling and managing horses, but you cannot find those people in Great Britain to-day; they are driving motor trucks or engaged in some other work and they do not know anything about horses. That is a fundamental lesson they must learn when they are being trained for farm work.


John Wesley Edwards: Does not
the minister think it would be easier for these people from the old country to learn how to drive horses here than it would be for the Doukhobors to learn to keep on their clothing in society?


Robert Forke: The gospel of socialism had
not then taken hold, and there is another thing which perhaps is not so noticeable to any person who has not closely watched the progress of events in Great Britain; the criticism of Canadian rural life was not so strong then as it >is to-day. Some sections of the press in Great Britain are very friendly to Canada but are utterly opposed to emigration; they believe that matters can be righted, social conditions made better and England made a green and pleasant land for all who dwell therein. That is a very
The Budget-Mr. Forke


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman's time is up.


Mr. A. M. EDWARDS (South Waterloo):: 994	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
I want to give the house some comparative figures showing the tremendous quantity of worsted and serges coming into this country during the calendar years of 1927 and 1928. This report is from the Bureau of Statistics, so I presume it is accurate. Imports of worsteds and serges, including coatings, are as follows:
Calendar Year	Total Imports
1927	yards 10,769,936

1928	yards 10,646,614

Another point I wish to emphasize in this regard is the imports of Australian wool.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Raw wool.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Yes. This
large worsted mill that I spoke of employing 800 or 900 people, brought into this country every year prior to 1928 from 1,200 to 1,500 or 1,600 bales of Australian wool. These bales weighed 300 pounds each. That wool was brought into this country, mixed with a percentage of Canadian wool, scoured and spun into yarn, and it went on through the process of being made into worsted cloth. This mill in 1928 did not purchase one pound of Australian wool. They had some wool left over, it is true, sufficient for the first two or three months, but after that they bought all their worsted yarns from Yorkshire. The value of the wool imported from Australia for the years ended March 31, 1926, 1927 and 1928- and by the way, this is also a return-is as follows:
1926		 $384,533
1927		 279,065
1928		 167,321
Hon. members can see that the amount is divided in half. The quantity in pounds of wool imported from Australia for the years ended March 31, 1926, 1927 and 1928 is as follows:
Pounds
1926		 728,030
1927		 676,244
1928		 320,324
In other words, almost exactly one-half the quantity of Australian wool was brought into this country in 1928 as compared with what was imported in 1927.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It comes in free of duty, does it not?


Alexander McKay Edwards: Yes. the result of all this has been to wipe out the spinning industry in worsted mills. About a week ago I had the privilege of spending a day or two in the large mill that I was speak-
ing of, and the spinning department with hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of machinery was standing idle. By comparing the records of working hours I found that whereas before the tariff was touched on the textile industry, this particular mill a few years ago was operating not only full time but overtime, to-day the percentage of idle hours in the same mill runs from 20 to 40 per cent per week. These figures which I am giving are incontrovertible; they are absolutely correct, and hon. members can see the harm that has been done to this particular industry.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: On account of the British preference?


Alexander McKay Edwards: On account
of the removal of the 12J per cent on the woollen yarn, and the British preference.
This means that large quantities of Canadian wool formerly used to mix with Australian wool were not used, and the producer of this wool in Canada suffered accordingly. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of spinning machinery is standing idle and the employees, mostly men in this department, have been forced to secure work elsewhere. About a week ago I investigated the conditions in the mill, and found this to be absolutely correct.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the other side of the picture? Are the people of Canada to-day purchasing their clothes any cheaper? Has there been any reduction in the price of clothing? Are the members in this chamber to-day buying their suits fifty cents cheaper than they were before this tariff was mutilated in this way? I think not. The purchaser of the cloth may possibly get some concession, I do not know; but everyone knows that not very much consideration is given to the cost of the cloth in the price of a suit of clothes, when you take into consideration, the amount of cloth going into a fifty or sixty dollar suit. It does not make very much difference in the price of the suit if you take fifty or sixty cents off the yarn that goes into the making of it.
I think I am justified, Mr. Speaker, in view of the incontrovertible statements which I have made, in requesting the government to institute a commission of inquiry to investigate the whole question of wool production and fabrication of woollen goods in the Dominion of Canada.
The Minister of Immigration discussed the immigration problem, and I said that I might be able to suggest some avenues by which it would be possible to bring more people into Canada. In view of the great immigration

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)
problem facing this country, can anyone doubt that British working people, man}' of them experienced in the textile trades of England, Scotland and Ireland-now unemployed- would add grea/tly to the prosperity of Canada if they were permitted to come to Canada to 'be steadily employed in the industry for which their experience has fitted them?


An hon. MEMBER:: Besides employing
our own people.


Alexander McKay Edwards: 
Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to address the house for a short time on some features of the financial statement presented to the house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and then to deal with a few matters of particular interest to the province of Nova Sootia from which I come.
The outstanding feature of the budget, it seems to me, is the announcement that for the current fiscal year Canada wll have a revenue of $450,000,000. There are three extraordinary features about that announcement:	First, the enormous size of the
revenue ; second, the comparatively small population from which it is raised; third, the announcement comes after several years of drastic tax reductions. In periods of prosperity revenue is said to be buoyant, and I think it may well be said that Canada s revenues are buoyant at the present time; and this is the best evidence of the real fundamental prosperity of the country.	_
The existence of such large revenues raises an important question:	What should the
policy of the government be with respect to expenditures? Undoubtedly a great many people would welcome a policy of freer expenditures. In Halifax we have a paper which at the present time is advocating freer expenditures on the part of 'the government. This paper says:
Let posterity carry some of the burden assumed by this generation in the name of posterity.
In other words, there is opposition to these huge surpluses being applied to the reduction of the national debt. But it appears to me that if any hon. member bad a business which was heavily mortgaged, and consequently his interest charges were burdensome, he would in times of prosperity attempt to cut down his mortgage and interest charges. Therefore in my view the policy of the Minister of Finance in budgetting for large surpluses, and applying those surpluses to the reduction of the national debt in these periods of prosperity, is the proper policy for the national welfare. And we have the welcome announcement that the bonds amounting to $60,000,000, which will fall due in August 1929, will be retired out of surplus revenues, thus reducing the annual interest charge by $3,300,000.
There is a second feature of the budget which I think calls for passing notice. I refer to the substantial reduction of the sales tax. Speaking for myself, and I think for my constituents, I am glad that the sales tax .s being reduced instead of the income tax. Some newspapers give the impression that the IMr. A. M. Edwards.]
only opposition to any reduction in the income tax comes from western Canada. Well, I come from the east, and I think that I am reflecting the opinions of my constituents when I say that it is better to get rid of the sales tax before we begin to reduce the income tax any further. I do not blame the government for not wiping out the sales tax at once. I have listened to the arguments of the opposition during the last two sessions urging that the sales tax should be eliminated entirely; but the answer given by the Minister of Finance, that when great reductions in this tax take place there is -a shrinkage in the value of retail stocks, which may very possibly give rise to claims against the government for compensation, appears to me to be a convincing one. The sales tax should be reduced by degrees and eventually eliminated, and that is the policy which the government of the day is following.
There is a third feature of the budget to which I Miould like to refer, and that is the almost entire absence of any change either upward or downward in the tariff. There are a few tariff reductions and, I believe, one tariff increase, to meet a particular situation. There will be in the country, of course, some disappointment; many persons who would like to have the tariff increased, as for instance the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me, and some of the members from other constituencies in Nova Scotia will be disappointed because there are no tariff increases. On the other hand there are some members of the house who are disappointed because there have not been more drastic tariff reductions. But we should always bear in mind the great difficulties which any government of Canada has to face in adjusting the tariff so as to meet conditions in all parts of the Dominion, The Dominion of Canada is of such vast extent, and has so many industries, that the interests of one industry in one part of the country are very likely to conflict with the interests of another industry in another part; and what would benefit one, so far as tariff changes are concerned, would injure another. And not only is that true, but very often the interests of one industry in one part of the Dominion are not identical with the interests of the same industry in another part of the Dominion. One of the most interesting examples (bf that is the recent instance of two applications before the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, one by the coal operators of British Columbia, asking for the abolition of all duties on coal, and another by the coal operators of Nova Sootia asking that certain drawbacks be

The Budget-Mr. Jlsley
eliminated, which would be in effect an increase or rather a restoration of duties on coal. That instance of conflict of interest between different branches of the coal industry itself shows very clearly the great difficulty which the government of Canada has in framing a satisfactory tariff policy. And what is true of the coal industry is to a certain extent also true of the fruit industry.
I of course come from a fruit growing constituency, and therefore I have listened with more than ordinary interest to the references which have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite to the needs and requirements of the fruit-growing industry. A great many members on the Conservative side of the house have urged that the fruit industry in Canada is not adequately protected at the present time, and that the course of the government is quite clear; they suggest that the government should give additional protection to the fruit industry. Now, because I know something about the fruit industry I should like to discuss that matter from the standpoint, first, of Canada as a whole, and then from tire standpoint of the province of Nova Scotia. One would perhaps think, after listening to the discussions in the house, that the fruit industry existed only in one part of Canada, or perhaps in two sections of the country, British Columbia and Ontario. But I would remind hon. members that there aire three fruit-growing areas in Canada, one in British Columbia, one in Ontario, and one in Nova Scotia. And in a normal year the fruit area of Nova Scotia produces more fruit than does either of the other areas.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh no.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I have the figures;
I am referring to a normal year. I am not speaking of the last two or three years, because conditions, climatic and otherwise, have been abnormal; they have been adverse. In a normal year, however, the production in Nova Scotia is greater than it is in Ontario or British Columbia. That was true in 1923 and in 1924, and I believe it was also true in 1925, although I am not sure about that. But when we come to normal years we find that this is the fact. In many respects the fruit industry of Nova Scotia is based on a more solid foundation than is the fruit industry in other parts of Canada, and this for two reasons: one is the cheapness of production of fruit in Nova Scotia, and the other the cheapness of distribution. So far as cheapness of production is concerned, it requires only a moment's
consideration to see that where we need no irrigation, where the trees are long lived, where labour is cheap, where the cost of packages is fairly low, production costs are low. And so far as the cost of distribution goes, we are nearer the coast. Our transportation charges to the British market and to the markets of continental Europe, which we are rapidly penetrating, are much lower than are the transportation charges which our competitors have to meet. Similarly, the transportation cost to the great city market of Canada, Montreal, is much less than the transportation cost to the growers in British Columbia. For these reasons, the fruit industry of Nova Scotia rests, as I say, on _a solid foundation, and my prediction is that it is on the eve of a great period of expansion and prosperity.
During the last year we have had remarkable results upon the British market and in continental markets. Our barrel fruit has-outsold and brought higher returns than the boxed fruit from other parts of Canada. I am entitled therefore to take the time of the house for a few minutes discussing the tariff requirements of the fruit industry of Nova Scotia. There is a great difference in the marketing problems of the fruit growers in British Columbia, in Ontario and in Nova Scotia respectively. I have here a few figures showing the distribution of the British Columbia fruit crop during the last five years. The 1923-24 fruit season I will call 1923, the same applying to the succeeding seasons. The following is the table for British Columbia:
Percentage
Year	exported
1923		 16.80
1924		 18.97
1925		 22.20
1926		 20.46
1927		 17.30
In other words, during that period of five years 19.14 per cent of the commercial fruit crop of British Columbia was marketed outside Canada. The figures for Ontario are these:
Percentage
Year	exported
1923		 7.22
1924		 10.46
1925		 37.19
1926		 10.54
1927		 8.47
These figures give an average of 14.77 per cent of the fruit of Ontario which was marketed outside Canada in that period. In other words, less than 20 per cent of the British Columbia crop is exported, and less
The Budget-Mr. Ilsley

than 15 per cent of the Ontario crop. But when we come to Nova Scotia we find the following figures:
Percentage
Year	exported
1923		 86.4
1924		 88.2
1925		 87.1
1926		 80.6
1927		 76
The average in this case for the last five years is 83.66 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do they produce any
peaches or stone fruit in Nova Scotia similar to the fruit produced in British Columbia and in the Niagara district?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am glad the hon. gentleman has asked that question. I am speaking purely of apples. My figures regarding distribution and marketing relate only to this fruit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the hon. member
says that less than 20 per cent of .the fruit of British Columbia was exported-or whatever the figure is-does that figure apply to apples alone?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, just apples. I am glad indeed to have had an opportunity of clearing up that point. In other words, the province of Nova Scotia is an exporting province. There are those who say that we are turning more to the Canadian market than formerly, and that may possibly be so. But there was the same trend seven years ago, and we came back two or three years later to the foreign markets with a greater proportion than ever. I think it can be safely said that the problems of the fruit growers of Nova Scotia with regard to tariff requirements are very similar to the problems of the wheat growers of the west because both are essentially export industries.
What are these tariff requirements of which I speak? Generally speaking, they are that the tariff should seek a low level rather than a high level. Of course, like everyone else I suppose ah individual fruit grower would like a tariff as high as possible on what he sells and a tariff as low as possible on what he buys, but fruit growers as well as others must be reasonable. I think if the fruit growers of Nova Scotia had to choose between a generally high tariff level and a generally low tariff level they would unhesitatingly choose the lower level. And why would they do so? To begin with, it reduces the cost of production. I have here a table showing the extent to which the cost of very many articles used by the fruit growers of Nova Scotia has
TMr. Ilslev.]
been reduced during the last seven years. The figures I am about to give are the general tariff rates in 1921 and 1928 respectively. The table does not give the intermediate or British preferential tariffs, because these tariffs
do not apply to these commodities: 1921 Per cent		1928 Per cent
Harrows, manure spreaders.. ..	15	74Ploughs	171	10Other agricultural implements..	20	10Farm wagons	20	10Fertilizers	
Non-alcoholic liquid preparations for disinfecting, dipping or	10	freespraying	
Dry compounds for disinfecting,	25	freedipping or spraying	
Dry chemicals for disinfecting,	25	freedipping or spraying	
Spraying machines, fruit or vegetable grading machines,	1-i	freepruning hooks, pruning shears Automobile chassis for passenger automobiles valued at retail at	20	10not more than $1,200	35	20
I put in that last item because a great many fruit growers in Nova Scotia buy the chassis of a cheap car and convert it into a truck for the transportation of the fruit. In addition, motor trucks for carrying goods entered under a duty of 35 per cent in 1921, while to-day that duty is 20 per cent. In other words, on a long list of articles which the fruit growers must have, the duties have been substantially reduced and that has effected a great saving, not only to the fruit growers of my district but to the fruit growers of the other parts of Canada as well.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) presented the argument that a reduction in the duty did not lower the price. I was astonished to hear that argument especially in regard to agricultural implements, and I secured statistics from the bureau showing that the prices in 1924 were reduced almost to the extent of the reduction in the duty which took place in that year. I have figures covering a long list of agricultural implements and comparing the prices of January, 1924, with the prices after the reduction in the duty, showing that the reduction actually was reflected in the price of the commodity on which the duty was reduced.


Mr. LADNER:: Does the list give to-day's prices?


James Lorimer Ilsley: a boom, if you like, which is the equal of any it has ever enjoyed in the past. I think one of the chief causes for this condition was the last budget of the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, delivered in 1923. In that budget it was provided that goods entitled to the British preference would receive a ten per cent discount on the duty otherwise payable if they entered Canada direct from the British port instead of going through a foreign port and being transhipped. I have obtained some figures from the Department of Trade and Commerce which, to my mind, are somewhat surprising. The following list gives the tonnage of inward and outward bound vessels from the port of Halifax:
Registered Tonnage
Year	Incoming	Outgoing1921	
1,359,769	1,620,1681922	
1,456,991	1,501,7621923	
1,604,497	1,518,5691924	
2,318,499	2,146,3421925	
3,052,078	3,187,1891926	
3,353,257	3,495,1961927	
3,255,490	3,232,7001928	
3,439,539	3,438,154
The Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot) suggests to me that the increase in registered tonnage at St. John was even greater than the increase shown by the above figures. It seems to me that this shows very clearly the beneficial effect of that last budget of Mr. Fielding, and the subsequent budget of April, 1927, which confined the benefits of the British preference to goods which came through Canadian ports.
I have cited these facts to show what the interests of Canada demand in the way of a tariff policy. I can only say that a reversal of the policy of the government, which the Minister of Finance has correctly stated to be a low tariff one, would in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of my constituents, have a prejudicial and injurious effect upon the industries in that part of Nova Scotia which I have the honour to represent. I believe it would also apply to the industries throughout the whole of the province, and I imagine the hon. gentlemen who represent the city of Halifax will be disposed to agree with my contention, at least I hope they will.
Before I close I would like to refer to one event of some importance in the political history of the year, the visit of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to the province of Nova Scotia. I had the pleasure of attending a meeting which he addressed in the university town of Wolfville, and I listened to his arguments with regard to the exporta-

tion of raw materials from Canada. He spoke at considerable length about copper, but we did not know very much about that commodity because we have none in our part of the province. He discussed asbestos, but that also did not interest us very much. But while he was talking about copper and asbestos there were many in the audience, I feel sure there were many among his supporters on the platform, who were thinking about another product, and that product was gypsum. At that time the provincial government of Nova Scotia and the federal government of Canada were putting forth every effort to prevent ouy crude gypsum from being excluded from the New England and the New York markets of the United States. In that audience were a great many people who realized that if our crude gypsum were so excluded hundreds of men would be thrown out of employment and thousands of persons would be prejudicially affected. I thank the leader of the opposition for his visit to my constituency because he has created an impression there -perhaps he will 'correct it if it is a wrong impression-that the policy of the Conservative party is one which would throw out of employment hundreds and perhaps thousands of people in the province of Nova Scotia.
It may be said that my argument is one which leads me to support the subamendment which has been proposed by the member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), but I can only say that the subamendment is in the nature of a motion proposing lack of confidence in the government and I feel that the record of the government has been very good, especially so far as tariff matters are concerned. Thei government has done as much as could reasonably be expected in view of the conflicting interests whidh we have in Canada, I, therefore, shall vote against the subamendment, and, of course, against the amendment proposed by the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie).
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CHARTERED TRUST AND EXECUTOR COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 64, respecting Chartered Trust and Executor Company-Mr. Lawson-Mr. Brown in the chair.

Private Bills
On section 1-increase of capital stock.
Mr. GARDINER:: According to the order
paper this bill is reported back from the committee as amended. I should like to know the nature of the amendment before we proceed further.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Brown):: The bill itself does not show any amendment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think it was
amended.


Mr. ROBB:: The explanatory note reads:
The capital stock of the company shall be $1,000,000, divided into shares of $100 each.
The new clause increases the capital to $2,500,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As far as I understand,
speaking from memory-I cannot speak positively-there was no amendment to the bill. A mistake must have been made in the order paper.


James Alexander Robb: We might let the bill pass
through committee and stand for third reading.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, what do you propose to do with the bill in view of the fact that, according to the order paper, it is reported from committee as amended?


James Alexander Robb: It has been suggested that
it might pass the committee stage and be held for third reading until the promoter is present.


Henry Herbert Stevens: According to the votes
and proceedings of the thirteenth instant, number 25, Bill No. 64 was reported without amendment, so that the objection to it, based upon the order paper, would be removed by the report in the votes and proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 16, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada-Sir Eugene Fiset-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: The preamble has been amended. The new preamble will read:
Whereas the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, hereinafter called the company, has by its petition prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows.
Then sections 1, 2 and 3 have been struck out.
On section 4-Closing books to stock transfers.


John Frederick Johnston: Section 4 has been
amended by adding in the first line after the word "directors" the words "of the company." That is the only amendment to the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Meetings of board of directors.
John Frederick Johnston: In section 5 the word
"companies" has (been substituted for the word "said" in the first line. Does section 5 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8

Investments authorized.
Mr. SMOKE:: Those sections should be
renumbered.


John Frederick Johnston: They will be renumbered by the law clerk.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble.
Mr. SPENCER:: Mr. Chairman, I just
want to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this bill has been before the House of Commons for three years. This is its third year. It has -been a very contentious one, and each time it has come up in the house it has been sent to the committee on banking and commerce. It has met with more and more opposition each time, and this year, owing to strenuous opposition in the committee, the promoters of the bill decided to withdraw the most contentious clause of all, that, is, the clause with regard to increasing its capital by $2,000,000.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Clarification.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member says
clarification, but the fact is that the most objectionable part of this bill has been dropped. I simply want to draw the attention of the house to -this fact, because in past years some hon. members felt that it was unnecessary to offer any opposition to this bill. The fact that to-day the most objectionable clause has been withdrawn, I think fully justifies the action taken by some hon. members in fighting the bill in past years.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Those of us who have
opposed this bill can justify our position now in letting it go through. At the same time, however. I want to pay tribute to those who have taken an active part- nonosing the bill.
1002	COMMONS
The Budget

Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
I would also like to pay tribute to the superintendent of insurance who has kept his department free from blame.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 77, respecting the British Colonial Fire Insurance Company and to change its name to British Colonial Assurance.-Mr. Mercier (Laurier-Outremont).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN (for Mr. Jacobs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 78, respecting a certain patent of Zebuluim Colvin Ketohum.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I have in my hand a
statement prepared iby the hon. member for Cartier. If the house desires me to read it, I shall do so. However, the information, will be given in full in committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



PATENT OF JEAN BAPTISTE HURTEAU

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN (for Mr. Duff) moved the second reading of Bill No. 79, respecting a certain patent of Jean Baptiste Hurteau.
Mr. ERNST:: Explain.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have no statement regarding this bill, but an explanation will be given in committee if it is referred there.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with deep interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) this afternoon, and I think I can sincerely say that his exposition and portrayal of the fruit possibilities and potentialities in the province of Nova Scotia was a very lucid and striking one. The hon. member is thoroughly conversant with that phase of industry in Nova Scotia, and his handling of

the matter this afternoon is worthy of at least some little tribute. I do not know that I can compliment the hon. gentleman, however, on his handling of the financial affairs of the Dominion of Canada, not with respect to the figures but in connection with the statement he made that in an affluent condition a farmer who had his farm mortgaged would naturally want to set aside a certain amount each year when conditions were encouraging in order to retire the obligation as soon as possible. Well, Mr. Speaker, for some two years past we have contended from this side of the house that the government with their enormous surpluses should be setting aside a certain amount of money annually in order to retire the national debt within a specified number of years, be it thirty, forty or fifty. And while I am on the question of the overflowing treasury, may I say that if the Dominion government feels so affluent with the resources it has at its command and the revenue it is receiving from the people of the Dominion of Canada, it might well exercise some measure of generosity towards the provinces of the Dominion, some of which are struggling very hard in order to make both ends meet. I speak particularly in this connection with respect to the province of Nova Scotia.
Might I mention here that very recently there has been submitted to the government of the province of Nova Scotia an interim report by the commissioner who was appointed to investigate an old age pension scheme in that province, and he has estimated in this report, which is not at all complete, that the total cost to inaugurate such a scheme-of which, I might say, every person in the province of Nova Scotia is heartily in favour-will amount to $4,400,000, the portion to be borne by the province to be $2,200,000, plus the expense of the administration of the scheme. If there is an overflowing treasury, as has been intimated by many of the members on the other side of the house who have spoken, I think it might well be applied in this direction, so that some of our struggling provinces may be able to put into force some such social legislation as the old age pensions scheme.
The bon. member for Han'ts-Kings also stated that he was glad to see a reduction in the sales tax. Naturally we are all glad, but the reduction does not go far enough. We advocated last session, as we do now, that the sales tax should be abolished, that on such necessities as wearing apparel and boots and shoes particularly the burden of taxation should not be left on the backs of those least able to bear it. We maintain

The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
that the sales tax should be abolished, and there is every reason for the Minister of Finance to take this action. The hon. member expressed the opinion that it would not be wise to abolish the tax immediately for reasons he stated. If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, from this side of the house last session it was advocated that a specific date be fixed on which the sales tax would be abolished. Had our suggestion been adopted the shrinkage in retail values which the hon. gentleman put forward as an objection to the abolition of the sales tax would have been avoided, and the matter could have become effective without disrupting business.
He also said that there were a great many lamentations from this side of the house over the refusal of the government to implement in toto the recommendations of the Dunoan report. I well remember, sir, when, in the session of 1926, those of us who came from Nova Scotia presented the needs of the maritime provinces, we were taunted from the other side of the house as being calamity-howlers and peddlers of gloom, and similar epithets were hurled at us; but the investigation conducted by the Duncan commission proved that we were not far astray in the claims we made at that time, and the final report fully justified the position we had taken. Therefore it does not seem to me to ibe appropriate now to accuse us of being calamity-howlers.
Now, with respect to the boasted prosperity of the country, as the hon. member stated, there is a certain amount of prosperity in the province of Nova Scotia. He mentioned Halifax particularly, and I do not think it can be denied that there has been an improvement cf conditions at that port; there is a good deal of work going on there to-day. Nor can it be denied that there is some degree of prosperity in different portions of the Dominion, but, as he pointed out, that prosperity for the most part is confined to the larger centres. It is quite true that the banks are bursting with money, and it is also true that .the coffers of the insurance companies are overflowing with funds. It may be true that the millionaires are becoming multi-millionaires; but the real test of prosperity is not that the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer, but that the working people are better off. Unless our national prosperity can stand that test, I do not think it is appropriate for the government to become so insistent about the much heralded prosperity the Dominion is enjoying under their administration; and I submit that the contrary is the fact Only the other evening
the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) cited specific instances of poverty and suffering in his city. Indeed, this unfortunate condition prevails in isolated places all over Canada. I believe there is a measure of spotted prosperity, but it is not a genuine prosperity, for it does not touch the people who most need it, the ones we want to make prosperous-the poor people.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in a brilliant speech teeming with facts severely castigated the government for its neglect to adopt means to properly safeguard and protect agricultural and industrial life in Canada, and moved an amendment regretting their failure. In supporting the amendment I do not propose to detain the house at any great length. I associate myself most heartily with the remarks of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) protesting against the failure of the government to implement in full the recommendations of the Duncan report. In this protest he is not only speaking his own mind and the minds of the members from the maritime provinces on this side of the house, but he is expressing also the sentiment of all the people of those provinces. The government appointed the Duncan commission, in due course the commission made its report; the government presented it to this house, and it was received with absolute approval by all hon. members. That was about two years ago. Lest there be any misunderstanding with respect to where the government stand in this connection, I may recall to the minds of hon. members some of the statements made by certain ministers. First let me quote the Prime Minister. Speaking in this chamber on January 31, 1928, he said:
The government at the present time has implemented a very considerable part of the report, and we intend to continue to carry out its recommendations.
That was well over a year ago. Now I come to the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). Speaking in St. John on January 18, 1928, he is reported in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner of the following day in these terms:
The federal government's policy with regard to the Aralley railway and the matter of a bounty to the Sydney steel plant would be divulged in a few weeks in a manner that would make every maritimer proud, according to a statement made on Wednesday night by Hon. Dr. P. J. Veniot, Postmaster General, at a banquet tendered in his honour by the Liberals of the constituency of St. John-Albert. All the other recommendations of the Duncan report had been implemented, he said.
On December 1, 1927, speaking at a banquet in the town of Amherst, tendered in his

The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
honour, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is reported in the Halifax Chronicle next day as follows:
Mr. Ralston told of the long cabinet meetings when the Duncan report was being considered, and quoted the statement of Premier King at that time: "I have told the people of the maritime provinces that I have asked this commission to make specific recommendations in order that we might apply specific remedies, and I regard the carrying out of these recommendations as a matter of honourable obligation to the citizens of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island."
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is the slightest dispute as to where the government stand with respect to implementing the recommendations contained in the Duncan report. They have gone on record as being in favour of implementing those recommendations in toto. That has not been done; there are some major considerations and recommendations that have not been dealt with up to the present time. We want to know from the government when they intend to implement in full not only those recommendations, but also their solemn pledges given to the people of the maritime provinces on the floor of this house and on almost every public occasion in the maritime provinces when members of the cabinet have dealt with the report.
While I am on that subject I would direct the attention of the house to the report of the Duncan commission, page 36, section 23, with reference to the customs tariff on coal. I quote the following:
Several features of the customs tariff in its relation to coal were brought to our attention both by the government of Nova Scotia and by the operators of the coal mines. These rve feel ourselves precluded from dealing with, since they are a matter properly to be considered by the tariff advisory board; but we may be permitted to say that we are impressed with the need for reconsideration of the customs tariff in its relation to the coal industry and coke, and we recommend that the tariff advisory board should be asked to give immediate consideration to the subject.
I would now ask the Minister of Finance whether the tariff board has ever been asked by this government to give immediate consideration to the matter. I pause for an answer.


James Alexander Robb: As my hon. friend well knows, the inquiry has been in progress before the board for some time, and the people in the maritime provinces are some of them divided among themselves as to what they should have.


Robert Knowlton Smith: They are not in the least divided. Two applications have

been before the board, one from the Orows-nest Coal Company in British Columbia, and the other from Besco in Nova Scotia; but that has absolutely nothing to do with the recommendation in the Duncan report requesting the government to ask the tariff board to investigate the matter. Will the Minister of Finance now give me a direct answer to a direct question. Has the government ever asked the tariff board to consider the question of a tariff on coal and steel? I do not think the government has ever asked the tariff board to consider the question. It is true that Besco has asked, and it is also true that the Crowsnest Company in British Columbia has requested consideration of a reduced tariff on coal. But so far as I know there has been no reference from this government to the tariff board.
The minister has spoken of some differences of opinion with respect to the matter. It is true that when the bounty question came up they wanted to postpone the hearing in order to have the government of Nova Scotia represented. But the Premier of Nova Scotia properly said: "This is a settled question. This matter has been settled by the Duncan commission and there is absolutely no necessity for us to reopen something that has already been decided by a board with at least coequal jurisdiction with the tariff advisory board." That is why the government of Nova Scotia would have nothing to do with the investigation in that connection; the matter had been settled and settled satisfactorily to the people of Nova Scotia. Not only that, but ministers of the crown had promised that the settlement in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Duncan report would be made. The government of Nova Scotia would have been putting itself in a most anomalous position if it appeared before the tariff board and asked to have something reconsidered when it had already been considered in their favour, having as a matter of fact been unanimously approved by this parliament and promised by the government. This is one recommendation at least which the government has totally ignored. Let me again quote the exact language of the report:
And we recommend that the tariff board should be asked to give immediate consideration to the subject.
This report has been in the hands of the government for over two years. I do not know that I need stress further the question of implementing the Duncan report except to say this: the people have been waiting a considerable time to have the ques-

The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
tion properly disposed of. Two years ago, when the government asked for some delay in the matter, many of the members on this side of the house were generous enough, if I may use that expression, to get up and assure them that they would not press the administration at that time, inasmuch as they thought that some little time should be afforded in which to implement the recommendations. We were very glad to make that statement on the floor of the house. But we have waited two years and there is in the budget nothing which intimates that any remedy will be provided as recommended. We are now therefore at the point of vigorous protest. You may call it calamity howling, if you will; you may call us peddlers of gloom or anything you wish. But we are here to perform a duty and so long as we are here we will be heard.
Now I want to deal for a minute or two with the coal industry in Nova Scotia. It is true that there has been a little improvement in the coal fields in that province, due I think, in large measure, to the very capable manner in which the provincial government has handled the mines of the province. There have not been any labour troubles since the Rhodes government came into power. The Minister of Mines is a man of outstanding capacity and ability and he has skilfully guided the affairs of the coal interests in Nova Scotia, so that they have been in a more or less happy position ever since that government assumed power. Nevertheless there is still room for improvement in conditions there. There is opportunity for a larger output of coal in Nova Scotia, provided we can secure the market; and the only way to secure the market is by means of some assistance from this government. Whether it be by lower freight rates, whether it be by tariff measures, whether it be by subventions, whether it be by some system of bonus or by any other means, there is, I say, chance for increased production of coal in Nova Scotia provided we secure the market. I know there are many difficulties in the way of the application of the tariff in its relation to the coal industry, but I am not by any means abandoning what I have always maintained to be one of the things necessary to help the industry, namely, a higher tariff on coal. I have heard a slur cast across the floor of the house many times, but I do not think there is any disagreement, so far as the members on this side of the house are concerned, with respect to properly and adequately protecting every legitimate industry in this Dominion. That has always been the stand of the Conservative party, and that policy has never
been abandoned by that party so far as I am able to ascertain. That being the case, there is no reason in the world why the Dominion Fuel Board, constituted by this government, and on which there are many officials, should not be broadened out in scope so that it might be able to bring in proper recommendations to the government as to the best way in which to develop a national fuel and steel policy for this Dominion. No effort has been made by the fuel board along this line. The board costs the country about
120,000	per annum. I have nothing to say with regard to the personnel of the board; they are all capable and efficient men. But they all have other duties to perform, and their work in connection with the Dominion Fuel Board occupies only their spare time. It is incumbent upon the government, if they are not able to cope with the situation themselves-and there is clear evidence that they are not able to cope with it-to place the matter in the hands of some commission or other authority who will work out sooner or later-sooner, we hope-some sort of fuel policy for Canada which will be of benefit not only to the coal interests of the Dominion, to the coal miners, but generally to all the people of the country. We do not know how long it will be before some crisis may overtake us. And we do not want to be dependent upon any country for any staple article such as coal, which is one of the necessities of life. If a big strike should take place in the United States, where we purchase about 17,000,000 tons of coal of different kinds every year, most of it the very kind of coal we can produce in Canada, and if in consequence we were some day unexpectedly shut off from that market-and that might happen -then we should be in a hopeless and helpless position with regard to one of the very necessities of life. I say that I do not believe proper consideration has been given the fuel question in this Dominion, and it is up to this government to place the matter in the hands of some properly constituted board or commission, and have that body develop some scheme and bring in some recommendation which will help solve this great problem. When it is solved, Mr. Speaker, you may rest assured that it will materially help the people of the province of Nova Scotia, one-fifth of whom are dependent upon the coal industry.
Not only has this government not given proper consideration to the coal industry of Canada, but I want to refer to a matter which I brought up last year. When the Canadian National Railways were consolidated, part of the assets of the Grand Trunk consisted of a coal mine in the United States,

The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
operated by a company known as the Rail and River Coal Company, and the Canadian National Railways have been operating that company in the United States for several years past. The company employes about 700 men, and according to the labour organizations of the United States the mine is being operated in an improper manner. There is no union labour employed at that mine; they use the cheapest kind of labour and do not recognize 'the labour unions. Just here I wish to quote a letter from a high official of the United Mine Workers of America. I do not wish to give the name of this official, but if anyone is interested I shall be glad to show him the correspondence a little later. The letter states:
The Rail and River Coal Company prior to April 1, 1927, operated its mines under the joint agreement with the United Mine Workers of America and up until that time recognized the principles of collective bargaining in its dealings with the organization chartered by the American labour movement and having jurisdiction throughout the mines of America.
And further:
They have operated these mines for some months now and have never signified any intentions of recognizing the United Mine Workers, but seemingly are willing to deal with a group associated under a leadership in this vicinity who, because of their communistic doctrines have in some instances been refused by the authorities in this section, to hold meetings, it having been assumed by the authorities due to literature that was distributed, that this element was opposed to our form of government.
Referring to the United Mine Workers of America, I presume.
One would think that the Canadian government owning and operating a railroad which in turn operates mines, would at least use a system in the operation of its mines that reflects ideals and principles; namely, collective bargaining in their dealings with their employees in the mines and that they should not deal with a group whose aim has been to obstruct the United Mine Workers of America which has always been a part of the system of collective bargaining.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is about time the management of the Canadian National Railways were instructed by this house not to violate the established principles of labour as followed by the United Mine Workers of America; and to see that the men employed in these mines belong to labour unions and receive the consideration which these unions are always so generous to give their members.


Mr. HEAPS:: What is the name of the
company?


Robert Knowlton Smith: The Rail and River Coal Company.
rMr. R. K. Smith.]


Mr. RALSTON:: Will my hon. friend give the date of the communication?


Robert Knowlton Smith: November 12, 1928; it was written just a few months ago.
Now I would like to dieal with the question of the bounty on steel. There may be some idea throughout Canada that this is a political matter, that it is being raised by those who sit on this side of the house as such and that the feeling in regard to it is not unanimous in the province of Nova Scotia. Let me say that we are simply bombarded with resolutions passed by boards of trade all over Nova Scotia asking us to insist that the government carry out the recommendations of the Duncan commission with respect to the bounty on steel. I am not going to read them all, but I intend to read one or two of these resolutions which I think properly express the feelings of the people of Nova Scotia in this connection. First I will read the resolution passed by the Sipninghill board of trade, and I might say that Springhill is a mining town. The resolution is as follows:
Whereas the steel companies of Canada do enjoy a special concession, in th form of a drawback in duty on imported coal used in the manufacture of steel; and
Whereas the steel companies operating in the province of Nova Scotia are so situated that this concession is of no advantage; and
Whereas we believe the British Empire Steel Corporation are entitled to a bounty equal to the amount of drawback on every ton of Nova Scotia coal used in the production of steel in this province; and
Whereas this recommendation has already received the endorsement of the Duncan commission ;
Therefore resolved that the Dominion government be urged to proceed to put this special bounty into effect at once.
Them follow the names of various hon. members of this house to whom copies of the resolution were to be sent. A similar resolution was passed by the Amherst board of trade; it is rather lengthy and I will not read it, but it is in terms very much the same as the one I have read. The Amherst board of trade passed a resolution of this kind in 1929 and they also passed one in 1928. I have a resolution here which I am sure hon. members of this house will be interested to hear. It was passed over a year ago in a county of Nova Scotia in which there is no coal, it properly shows the spirit of the people of that province whether or not they are located in the coal mining districts. This resolution was passed by the board of trade of the town of Lunenburg. I will omit a few of the recitals-


Edward James Young: Read it all.

The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)


Robert Knowlton Smith: I am sure my hon. friend will be glad to hear it all because it is signed by J. J. Kinley, the president of the Liberal association of Nova Scotia. It is as follows:
Whereas, during the last number of years, there has been imported into Canada a huge
o.uantity of coal, occasioning the export of many millions of dollars therefor;
_ And whereas .thousands of tons of foreign iron and steel are being annually imported into this country in direct competition with Canadian industry, while the output of our Canadian plants is less than half their capacity, occasioning the export of many additional millions of dollars;
And whereas the Duncan commission on maritime claims, recognizing the importance of Nova Scotia's steel and coal industry as a national asset, recommended that certain measures be introduced immediately with a view to the establishment of these industries;
Therefore be it resolved that a general policy in connection with the steel and coal industries should be adopted by the parliament of Canada, the aim of such policy being the production in Canada of such ooal and steel consumed in Canada, as far as that is possible at the present time; and to take the necessary steps to ensure the expanding of these industries so that eventually Canada may, through them, be enabled to supply its entire requirements;
Further resolved that the recommendations of the Duncan commission made on behalf of these industries be implemented immediately;
Then follows a paragraph containing a list of gentlemen to whom .copies of the resolution were to be sent. This resolution comes from the Lunenburg Board of Trade and is signed by J. J. Kinley, president. He is a Liberal member of the local legislature and I think has occupied the position of acting leader of the opposition in the provincial house during the absence of the leader, Mr. Ohiisholm. It will be very clear to the house that Liberals and Conservatives, boards of trade and the people generally throughout the province of Nova Scotia and I believe throughout the maritime provinces as well, expect these recommendations together with every other recommendation contained in the Duncan report to be implemented without further delay.
There is one other matter I would like to bring up. The other evening I listened to one of the members from Prince Edward Island who spoke in glowing terms of the condition of agriculture in that province. Not long ago I noticed in one of the papers coming from the island that Prince Edward Island farmers were getting very much disturbed and perturbed .over the influx into that province of so many California carrots and so much New Zealand butter, so I do not think the island farmer is of the same opinion as the hon. .member who attempted to speak
on his behalf. Let me say that no matter what the conditions are in Prince Edward Island or the rest of Canada the condition of agriculture and particularly of the dairy industry in Nova Scotia has been made almost intolerable by the influx of New Zealand butter. The herds have been depleted, the swine industry has been affected, the poultry industry has suffered, and generally speaking the whole fabric of agriculture in Nova Scotia has been injured by the influx of this New Zealand butter. The dairymens' associations of the province of Nova Scotia have been passing resolutions for the past three years which have been forwarded to every member, both Liberal and Conservative, from that province. These resolutions have asked the Dominion government to cancel the order in council which permitted New Zealand butter to come into this country under the Australian treaty.


Edward James Young: How does butter affect the poultry industry?


Robert Knowlton Smith: In the same
way that it affects the swine industry; poultry thrive on the by-products of the dairy industry. I should think the hon. member, coming from the part of the country he does, would know all about that. Not only have the dairymen's associations passed these resolutions, but the farmers' associations have asked this government to abrogate that part of the treaty which applies to New Zealand. It has been estimated that over 20,000,000 pounds of butter have been dumped on the Canadian market during the past year. Their seasons are exactly the opposite to ours; it is summer time in New Zealand at the present time, there is a rich carpet of feed for the animals and it is impossible for the farmers in the part of the country from which I come to meet that unfair competition. At this time of the year the cattle in our country require shelter and are simply eating their heads off, while the cattle in New Zealand are roaming around the fields at very little cost, and their butter is thrown on our market under the added advantage of a bonus. It does not seem to me that it is fair to an industry such as the dairy industry to have to work under such a disadvantage. There are but a few branches of agriculture in Nova Scotia which can compete with the other countries of the world, and I do not think the dairy industry comes within that category, under existing conditions.
We could not compete with the western meat trade, but it was thought that we would be able to compete in the dairy business. The farmers established dairy herds all over the
1008	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
province. They began to prosper as a result of the development of those herds, combined with the business in swine which was built up as a by-industry. When New Zealand butter began to swamp the market the farmers discovered that they could not compete and decided they would have to dispose of their herds. When they do that they practically abandon the whole farming industry in our province, because that is about the only profitable phase of it left. I ask the members of the house whether they think it is a proper attitude for any government to take to continue to allow this New Zealand butter to come in and flood our markets and put the Nova Scotia farmers out of business. Resolutions have been sent to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) from agricultural societies and institutions throughout the whole Dominion, and it seems to me that some attention should be given to this matter. I believe the Australian treaty has been of great help to certain parts of Canada, but 1 protest against that part of the treaty which allows New Zealand butter to come in under an order in council which was passed without the matter having been discussed on the floor of this house. On behalf of the farmers of Nova Scotia I appeal to the government to give this matter their attention. It is one that is worthy of their notice, and if they knew the conditions which actually exist in the maritime provinces I believe it would have their immediate attention, that is necessary if those conditions are to be remedied.
It is only idle talk to contend that the proposals in the budget form an adequate substitute for the recommendations of the Duncan commission. The coal and steel industry requires a duty sufficiently adequate to safeguard and protect it. It needs a $2 per ton test rate on coal from Cape Breton and Nova Scotia to the Montreal market. A delegation came to Ottawa a short time ago and put this matter before the government. A test rate of $3 per ton was placed on the movement of coal, and while it served some purpose i't was found that it was not low enough to enable any great quantity of Nova Scotia coal to seek the present markets and develop new ones. We urge the government to give consideration to the matter of a $2 test rate on the movement of coal from Nova Scotia. We want to see our Canadian coal used in coking plants. The Domestic Fuel Act as it stands to-day is absolutely worthless so far as the use of Canadian coal is concerned. Outside of one small plant in the city of Halifax, Canadian coal is not being used in any cok-
ing plant in Canada. They are not taking advantage of the provisions of the Domestic Fuel Act. I was amazed no>t long ago when I heard a patriotic appeal to the citizens of the Dominion of Canada which was sent over a certain broadcasting station, they were asked to buy a certain grade of coke on the plea that they would be patronizing home industry and helping to build up Canada. But there was one thing they overlooked, and that was to tell the audience that the coke manufactured at this plant was being made of American bituminous coal, coal that could have been supplied from our own mines.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) will not blame me if I do not follow him in his argument. He was dealing solely with Nova Scotia problems and the dear old Duncan report; I propose to speak on the budget, which is the matter supposed to be under debate in the house.
The budget and the debate which has followed upon it have raised larger issues than are contained in the terms of the budget. It has awakened a realization in the minds of some of the hon. members opposite that this is a glorious opportunity to put the principle of protection on the lexicon of the agriculturists from the west. It has also put the fear in the minds of some of the farmers, low tariff men and free [traders, that they might 'be affected by this false and emotional doctrine. The budget itself is a very harmless instrument so far as I am concerned. I personally have not uplifted my voice to say, nor has my heart been satisfied, that the provisions contained in the budget will alleviate the burdens of those I represent. I am safe in saying that the budget is absolutely inactive to those of my way of thinking, and the only morsel of satisfaction I get from it is that there have been no additional burdens placed upon us. I realize that the possible outcome of the situation in the United States has had its effect; nevertheless I state to this house that despite what may or may not be done by the United States there are certain things which might well be done by this parliament.
I am very thankful that there has been no reduction in the income tax. I with others last year strongly urged that no reduction should take place in the income tax. I took then, as I do now, the broad general prin-cipile that no further reductions should be made in the income tax until the war debt has been brought to a point where it can be reasonably expected to be paid out of consolidated revenue. The Minister of Finance

The Budget-Mr. Glen
(Mr. Robb), in his admirable statement, showed that this debt took 42.30 per cent of our revenue. Surely the country has a right to expect that those who are sharing in the largest degree the unprecedented prosperity which all members of the house are speaking of, shall make their contributions undiminished under this tax. The loss of revenue by any reduction will have to be made up somehow, and my fear is that when that time comes, it will be by way of indirect taxation. Some say that the farmers would benefit by a reduction. We had an enormous crop in 1928 and we had a great crop in 1927, but I find that for the year 1927-28 only 291 farmers in Manitoba were able to pay income tax, and I shall be surprised if that number is appreciably increased for 1928-29. It has been pointed out several times during the course of the debate, and I would like to emphasize it from my knowledge, that the margin between profit and loss in last year's farming operations is so meagre and negligible that if there is a bad crop in 1930, hundreds of farmers are likely to become bankrupt. I do not think that is an exaggerated statement. From my personal knowledge I have a good acquaintance with the affairs of many farmers in Manitoba, and I know whereof I speak.
But having spoken thus of the budget, to which I will come back, I should like to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). If only its merit had been as admirable as the form in which it was presented, it would have been irresistible, but the subject matter of my hon. friend's speech was simply an appeal and argument for his point of view in favour of protection. The hon. member for South Wellington is too intelligent to advance the argument that .protection could benefit the producer. He knows, if anyone does, that a duty on wheat, which is largely exported, cannot give increased prices to the producer. His amendment must therefore be considered as relating to those whom I might term industrialists. The hon. gentleman's views and mine on that point are as far apart as the poles. There may be room for argument between us with regard to our viewpoint on protection to the industrialist, but there is no argument that a duty on wheat can give increased prices to the producer. Differing, therefore, as I do from the hon. member in the fundamentals of his argument, I must vote against the amendement.
I said in the beginning I thought the budget might have given some remedial relief, and I will instance two commodities which might have been mentioned in the budget. I refer to 78594-84
aluminum and enamelware. These two industries had hearings before the tariff board; they were investigated very thoroughly, and there was in my judgment indisputable evidence presented before the board that a reduction in the tariff on those commodities would be of considerable benefit to the consumer and no detriment to the manufacturer One or two statements have been made in the house somewhat derogatory to the tariff board. Any derogation of the work of the tariff board should in the first instance have come from those who appeared before it, and my information is that manufacturers and all others who have appeared before the board are at one in their sense of the fairness and equity which have been meted out to them in all the hearings. I believe sincerely it is a necessary forum in order to bring out the facts, and the only persons who fear the tariff board are those who do not wish to present their facts in public.
I should like to give one illustration of the effect of what the tariff board has done. Some time ago the Ottawa correspondent of the Manitoba Free Press made a very exhaustive and splendid report of the activities of the Canada Cement Company, and this was published in the Manitoba Free Press. That was followed by an application presented to the board by Mr. A. E. Darby of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. A splendid brief was submitted by Mr. Darby and an equally good response was made by Professor Jackson on behalf of the cement companies. The hearing took place and the issue was keenly fought. The results have not been embodied in the budget, but on the day following the introduction of the budget by the Minister of Finance there was published throughout the Dominion of Canada an intimation from the Canada Cement Company that the price of their goods was reduced ten cents per barrel and in many places fifteen cents per barrel. That reduction which is in some cases thirty per cent and in others fifty per cent of the present duty, on cement, is, I think, attributable to the light of publicity that was given before the tariff board and is as creditable to the cement company as it is to the advocates and to the board itself.
In justification of the reductions in the tariff and in support of the contention that reduced tariffs will provide more employment, I should like to suggest to the government that the present policy of lower tariffs is the policy most suitable for business within the boundaries of Canada. Most of us will remember the direful forebodings that were expressed last session on the budget by hon. gentlemen opposite and in particular, if I

The Budget-Mr,. Glen

remember aright, the hon. and genial member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) was the gloomiest prophet of all. I listened very carefully to his speech the other day and I certainly expected he would come forward with some illustrations showing that his forebodings were true and that his "I told you so" was correct. But I was disappointed; not a single instance did he give to bear out the prophecy which he made during last session. All he gave was his desire-and I presume as a medical man he is entitled to it-to see the red blood of somebody. He likes red and I venture to submit that he is seeing red just now. It happens that in the United States they have a board that is called the committee of ways and means, House of Representatives, and before that board the manufacturers and the people who are desirous of getting tariffs raised, appear and give evidence, I was very much struck, and I think the house will be somewhat surprised to hear this. On January 30, in their committee's prints, page 4449, is the evidence given by the mayor of the city of Lawrence, Massachusetts. This is rather striking in view of all that has been said with regard to employment in the United States and how that highly protected country is the best country in the world in which to live. Lawrence is a city of 94,000 people, situated about twenty-six miles north of Boston and as many miles from the Atlantic seaboard. The present mayor, after giving a picture of the city and its attractions, has this to say:
Gradually our mills have been going on shorter time and though we have been optimistic relief has not come. It has been said that from 10,000 to 20,000 people have left the city and none arrived to keep up our population. And may I say cotton and wollen mills do not pay a very high rate of wages and in the dull times the reserve fund of the operative is soon exhausted. I have shown this committee a gradual falling off of valuation for tax purposes about one and a half million in 1928 and perhaps another one and a half million in 1929, which is a direct loss to the city in income at our rate of $26.40 per 1,000 (the second lowest for cities in Massachusetts), $79,200. Not this alone but the closing of a mill such as the United States Worsted Company, which employed 1,500 workers, the Pemberton Mills (cotton) which employed 500; Lawrence Duck Company (cotton) employed 500, the Everett Mills with from 1,600 to 2,000 employed, the Katama with 300 employed; making in all 4,500 workers out of employment.
Then he goes on to say:
It puts a very heavy burden upon our charity and soldiers' relief departments. There are about 450 vacant stores and 2,300 vacant tenements in our city, so it is again the vicious circle. Mills close down or run on short time, merchants and storekeepers, landlords unable to 
collect and city handicapped in collection of taxes. I realize that tariff schedules and fixing of rates is work of and for experts, which I am not. The members of this committee know far more than I about this tariff. I am not sure that the remedy for the ills of the textile centers of the country is in further adjustment, of rates. I am not sure that the evil which has crept in to this great industry is due as some say to an overproduction of cotton and woollen goods; that there are too many spindles in operation; or that it is due to the investment of American money in the mills of foreign countries, where living conditions are lower and wages lower than in this country, or to the tariff. I am willing to be guided by the national organization experts of cotton and woollen trade, as the leading manufacturing men of our city are in harmony with these men who have made an exhaustive study of this situation. Yet when I see thousands of men and women, good, law-abiding, God-fearing people in my home city walking the streets unemployed; when I see the home that has been acquired and gained by the life work of the father of a family and his sons and daughters, slipping out of his grasp, I turn for assistance to every harbour. I cannot see a community that has progressed for seventy-five years bleed to death without lifting my voice in protest. These things should not be in this richest country in the world. I earnestly ask this committee, not for one instant putting my judgment above yours, to give cities like Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford, and Fall River relief from these burdens. The people cry out in their anguish; cry out for work and an opportunity to earn a livelihood; to rear their families and pay their debts. If the remedy is in the tariff, as many say it is, I trust this committee will apply this cure, correct, and counteract the evil that exists.
I wonder where these forty-five hundred unemployed went. Just let us read a little further on. This is in the form of question and answer:
Mr. Treadway:	Mr. Landers,-
Mr. Landers is mayor of Lawrence:
-may I ask you if the authorities, like yourself, as mayor of Lawrence, have endeavoured to locate where your population has moved?
Mr. Landers:	Yes. We have tried that.
Mr. Treadway:	Do you know where they
have gone? What percentage of the total population lias left Lawrence, for instance, in the past two years?
Mr. Landers:	The greatest percentage of
them went to Canada.
Mr. Treadway:	That is, they were Freneh-
Canadians and went back over the line?
Mr. Landers:	Yes.
Mr. Treadway:	Were they citizens here, or
had they come down from Canada?
Mr. Landers:	No; they were citizens.
Mr. Treadway:	They are our citizens?
Mr. Landers:	Yes.
Mr. Treadway:	Did they move out permanently, or would they be glad to come back, do you think, if business braced up.
Mr. Landers:	There is no question about
that. Whenever business does increase in Lawrence, then we have a shortage of tenements.
Mr. Treadway:	During 1923 and 1924 there
were no empty tenements in Lawrence?

The Budget-Mr. Glen
Mr. Landers:	No, sir.
Mr. Treadway:	When did the decrease
start-in 1926 or 1927?
Mr. Landers:	About 1925 and 1926.
Mr. Treadway:	It was worse in 1927 than
it was in 1926?
Mr. Landers:	Yes.
Mr. Treadway:	Your population has
decreased more?
Mr. Landers:	Yes, sir.
I am told that a textile factory is being built in. Fainrham, Quebec, this year, which fact has some relation to the tariff reductions of last year. But, what I wish to point out is that in the United States, this highly protected country which members on the other side so frequently point to, there is a condition of affairs in that city of Lawrence not paralleled in any city in Canada.
I should like, however, to point out several factors in connection with United States and Canadian tariffs which may be of interest, and which must be considered when dealing with our relations with our neighbours to the south. The United States is held up in this house as a highly protected country, and it is a highly protected country, yielding only to Spain in the height of its tariff walls. The United States is held up in this house constantly as being unfair to Canada, and its tariff walls against Canada are too high; much too high. Yet there are certain facts which must be recognized in connection with trade with the United States.
During this debate it has been held by some hon. gentlemen that Canada has not retaliated, has not built up its walls as high as those of the United States against this country; yet an analysis of the trade flowing between the two countries, taking the figures for 1926, shows that 74 per cent of the exports from Canada to the United States were free, while only 29 per cent of the imports from the United States States into Canada were not dutiable. If the average rate of duty on all imports is taken as a measure of protection, it will be found that for the years 1926-1927 this rate was 13 per cent for the United States and 15.4 per cent for Canada.
An examination of the free list of the two countries reveals certain similarities, and naturally certain contrasts. The core of each list is made up of raw materials, such, for example, as crude minerals, raw cotton, raw silk, tanning and dyeing materials, crude rubber and crude petroleum. In addition there are certain exotic food products, such as tea and coffee, which although dutiable in Canada on the theory that we need the revenue, are not equally dutiable in the United State1:.
785:4- 64J
It may be that we sometimes blame the United) States unjustly. Certainly we think of them as having a duty on everything that they produce if we produce it, and yet coal is on their free list; cement is on their free list, as well as planed boards and a number of other commodities. We think of them, however, as imposing a duty on these commodities, and there is a duty on them, but only as against countries that themselves impose a duty. In other words, we could have free access to the United States in these commodities under present conditions at least if we gave the United States free access of these commodities into Canada.
The United States has chosen to leave certain industries unprotected. That may seem strange to the members of this house. I do not mean raw materials; I mean manufactured products, such as newsprint, boots and shoes, leather, agricultural implements and binder twine. I wish to draw attention to the fact that only one of these products, binder twine, is unprotected in Canada, and I wish to point out also that our manufacturers are sending leather and newsprint in large quantities to the United States and taking advantage of the free market in that country. I do not know how long these commodities are going to remain on the free list of the United States, but I do know that a lot of the talk that has been heard in this house in the last few days as to "red-blooded action" is not likely to lead to their continuation on the free list, and if they disappear the manufacturers of this country who are engaged in export trade will know whom they have to blame for the closing of the United States market against them.
Comment has been made as to the disparity between our imports from the United States and those from the United Kingdom. I yield to no one in my desire that my adopted country shall trade with my mother country, and yet I cannot close my eyes to sound business practice, and the channels of trade that flow according to climatic conditions. I should indeed, be glad if we were able to buy our raw cotton within the British Empire. With all my heart I pray for the success of the British government in its effort to make the British Empire independent in its cotton supply. We have in India and in Africa the kind of climate that is needed but it takes many years of slow, patient work to lead the producers of these countries to selectivity in seeds, to proper method of cultivation, and to a proper cleaning of the raw cotton. Until such time as the British Empire is self-supporting in the matter of the raw materials we require in this country and
The Budget-Mr. Glen

which by reason of climatic conditions or otherwise, we cannot ourselves produce, then we must buy them from the country in which we can get them the cheapest, and that country often happens to be the United States.
We have heard a great deal about the iron and steel industry and the necessity of protecting it, and yet in a sense the iron and steel industry is exotic to this country. We are not making a pound of steel from Canadian ore. We import our ore, some of it, fortunately, from Newfoundland, but most of it from the United States. During the sessions of the tariff board the iron and steel producers from all over Canada were present and were asked if they favoured a duty upon iron ore, and none of them favoured a duty upon iron ore. They were business men. They wanted to buy their raw materials in the market which sold those materials at the lowest price, although that market happened to be the United States.
Once for all, let us recognize that we cannot, much as some of hon. members of this house would have us do so, copy the tariff clothes of the United States and expect to be suitably and well dressed. This country is different, geographically and climatically, from the United States. This country develops its natural resources, and tariff laws everywhere must adjust themselves to the conditions which it is proposed they shall serve; and, as a result of our limitations, the raw materials out of which are manufactured the necessities of life have frequently to be imported. Foreign trade is more important to the Dominion of Canada than it is to the United States. Now the United States, by reason of its high tariff, has also restricted its imports, and there is a growing feeling against a high tariff in the United States, despite what is said to the contrary. Leading economists there have indicated that this is likely to be the last high tariff congress in that country, because they realize that-their export trade is being diminished so appreciably by high tariffs that they will have to call a halt. As a matter of fact there is a good deal of laughter in the United States, on the part of those who know, with regard to the demands at present made in Washington. And the one thing which will kill any project is to laugh at it. The United States has become alarmed, seriously alarmed as a matter of fact, and if I had time I would read to you an extract from the report of the proceedings of the same committee. It is rather long however and I will therefore give the gist of it. It is this: that the exports to Cuba from the United States have been so tremend-

ousfy diminished as a result of the imposition of a high tariff against Cuban goods entering the United States that the economists of the United States are becoming very much alarmed indeed. In many cases, the goods formerly purchased from the United States by the Cubans are now reduced to a half and a third. That is the position with regard to the United States. I do not think that anyone can fail to understand why it is that we who represent the exporters of Canada-the industry which is responsible for most of the export trade of the country, the wheat industry-fear that it is likely to be throttled by high duties such as, if hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, would be imposed upon goods entering Canada; because high import duties in Canada would act as they have acted in the United States and everywhere else-they would shut out imports.
In closing I wish to say something on the doctrine of retaliation as preached by the Conservatives. I heard with dismay the other night the astounding proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), that the government be given authority to make immediate tariff changes to meet any fiscal changes that may take place in the United States. I can hardly imagine that any responsible member on the Conservative benches would support or even countenance a proposal so preposterous. Let me say to the hon. member that I cannot understand how under any conceivable circumstances any western member would delegate to any government such an exclusive parliamentary privilege in connection with so contentious a subject as the tariff. Goodness knows, we have plenty of trouble meantime with the officials who presume to interpret our tariff regulations, without giving the government a blanket power as is suggested. I am quite sure that we shall hear something from the leader of the apposition (Mr. Bennett) when he speaks on this question. I can hardly imagine his being likely to countenance such a proposal.
If my reading of history is correct, I should say that, apart from religious wars, nearly all wars have had, as one of their primary causes, economic conditions. I was reading Henry Kittredge Norton's book, Back of War, and I want to quote therefrom one or two statements in support of the contention I make. At page 74 the author says:
It is not needful for us to go into the merits or demerits of protective tariffs. That they result in an intensification of the economic conflict between nations can hardly be disputed, and that is the aspect of the matter which interests us here. The general effect of the protective tariff system is that each nation, no matter how small, strenuously endeavours to

The Budget-Mr. Glen
become economically self-sufficient. No nation has ever succeeded in doing this. Even the United States, with a vast continent of unexampled resources and a considerable tropic [DOT] empire, is dependent upon outside sources for rubber, coffee, and a score of other essential raw materials and foodstuffs. Great Britain, with an even more extended and varied territory, is equally dependent upon other nations. The same is true of every other state, yet the effort goes on and each nation strives to increase the amount and variety of its own products, at no matter what economic loss to its own people.
The tariff is the chief and typical instrument by which this uneconmic competition is carried on. In most countries it has long since forgotten the "revenue" stage, and in many it has even passed the "protective" stage. It is frankly a "retaliatory" measure. A prohibitory tariff is erected against the products of a particular nation, either to penalize that nation or to be removed in return for special favours. Sometimes a general reduction is made on both sides by a "reciprocity" agreement. The tariff is a powerful weapon in the economic warfare which is prevalent to-day in peace times. When it is used ruthlessly and with sole regard to the advantage of the nation using it, or as a direct thrust at some other nation, it may well become an important factor in precipitating armed conflict.
And in one short paragraph he sums up his views thus:
War is not to be persuaded out of existence. Our only hope for an era of continued peace is to recognize and deal with the causes of international conflict. These are largely economic. They are not wholly so, and the economic cause is frequently overlaid with numerous layers of insulation made up of high-sounding protestations of patriotism, national honour, and national rights. It is the task of the sincere worker for world peace to cut through these outer layers and lay bare the real causes of dispute, and to demand that the statesmen of the world deal with these sanely and constructively.
If this is not a sufficient authority, I was looking at Norman Angell's book, Human Nature and the Peace Problem, and in it he gives two or three quotations from one of the leading journalists in the old country- I do not think one would be exaggerating if one said, the leading journalist-Mr. J. L. Garvin. Mr. Garvin is the author of a postwar book entitled The Economic Foundations of Peace, and its first chapter summary begins:
A primary war, largely about food and raw materials: inseparable connection of the politics and economics of the peace.
And his first paragraph contains the following:
The war with many names was in one main aspect a war about food supply and raw materials. To this extent it was Germany s fight to escape from the economic position of inter-independence without security into which she had insensibly fallen-to obtain for herself
independent control of an ample share in the world's supplies of primary resources. The war meant much else., but it meant this as well and. this wias a vital factor in its causes.
Now it is impossible to develop this theme in a forty minute speech, and it must wait therefore for another place and more leisure. But I view with a good deal of uneasiness the utterances of Conservative members of the house in this debate. Any dispute with the United States which is likely to take place in the future must come about over matters concerning commerce, trade or financial claims. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), when he was in the old country, made the proud boast that there wa3 between the two countries a boundary in which there was not a fort. Shall we begin a tariff wall against those people, with all the attendant dangers, suspicion and ill will? No one can deny or will deny that the United States have, as Canada has, the right to change their customs law; that is their inherent right as it is ours. Does ft not resolve itself simply into this, that if the United States do not wish to trade with us there is no other course for us to follow but to seek the markets of the world, and preferably of course the British market? I shall await with a good deal of interest the speech of the leader of the opposition, for I am quite sure that he will modify the mischievous utterances of many of his followers in this debate during his absence.
Now, one would naturally conclude that I must of necessity vote for the subamendment.
I think the subamendment need not have been introduced at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Allison Glen: I will give my reasons, and
then perhaps hon. members will not be so prone to laugh. If the subamendment be carried, what does it mean? It means the nullification of the proposals of the government as submitted in the budget. The hon. member (Mr. Spencer) who moved the subamendment spoke in praise of several of the terms and provisions of the budget, and he would be the last man to wish to bring about its rejection. He is enunciating in his subamendment what by most members on this side of the house is acknowledged as a principle which they can logically support. But the answer to the subamendment has already been made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. At page 594 of Hansard of March 1 he said:
It is gratifying to note the steady development of inter-empire trade. Canada, the pioneer of the British preference, looks on empire trade as the keystone of its external trade policy,
The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich

and desires in every way to foster closer trading relations throughout the British commonwealth of nations.
If that is not a declaration of policy, I do not know what is. The words are as clear and unmistakable as words can be. In my judgment the subamendment is simply a work of supererorgation, and therefore I shall oppose it.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not try to emulate the eloquence of those hon. members who have immediately preceded me, but in my own small way I shall try to tell the house what I think of the budget. I was very much surprised to hear the last speaker (Mr. Glen) say that the budget was a harmless instrument, that in fact it was a negative instrument. I suppose he looks upon the budget very much in the same way that we used to look upon some old woman's medicine-if it did not help, it at least would not hurt. I was also rather surprised to hear him say that he was very glad that there were no reductions in the income tax. Well, some reductions were made in the income tax last session, but on that occasion the hon. gentleman did not show his dissatisfaction by his vote.
Now, the budget presented to the house by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) will no doubt be heralded throughout the length and breadth of Canada by the friends of the Liberal party as a marvellous revelation of financial ingenuity, revealing as it does the great ability of the minister and his reputed *passion for economy. Right here, sir, in respect to this much talked-of economy, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance does not feel pretty much in the same position as his prototype of many centuries ago, who when questioned by the king of that day as to his happiness and contentment said:
I envy nobody, no not I,
And nobody envies me,
I owe no money I cannot pay;	.
I thank the river Dee
That turns the mill that grinds the corn To feed my babes and me.
But when I look into the eye of the minister and see that wistful look of sadness, I have to come to another conclusion.
The Liberals will also point with great pride to the unprecedented surplus of seventy million dollars, to a reduction in taxes, and also to a decrease in the national debt. But no mention will be made of any reduction in the tariff, as it will be found much better to leave well enough alone. One might easily 
argue that if the minister had not successfully gambled on future prosperity, in other words, if our field crops and the products of our forests, mines and factories had not produced so much wealth and thereby given our people more money with which to pay taxes, the result would not have been so satisfactory to him. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and in so far as the sales tax and other nuisance taxes are concerned I shall go even to the length of extending to him my congratulations for the reductions made therein.
I wish to deal with three things, Mr. Speaker; first, the tariff; next, the railway situation; and, if I have any time left, certain phases of immigration. In respect to the tariff changes in this budget, having in view the alleged tariff policy of the Liberal party, I cannot very well see my way clear to offer any commendation to the government. The tariff changes in my opinion are completely negligible in that they offer no relief whatsoever to those engaged in agriculture, and the tariff resolutions that will follow this debate, while on their face they appear impressive, will be found after the calm reflection that usually follows a close analysis to mean but very little. They make free a few minor articles that are hardly ever used in this country, but in no shape or form do they affect any real industry one way or the other. In view, therefore, of the great divergence between Liberal promise and Liberal performance I cannot pass over my remarks on the budget without some appeal to the party to the right of the Speaker for a stricter adherence to the principles on which they were elected to parliament, for I fear if this is not done those engaged in agriculture will be placed in the same position as the polar bear perched on an iceberg which is gradually melting away as it approaches the equator.
It is not enough for the Minister of Finance to make the trite remark, "We are the only low tariff party in the House of Commons." Such a statement must be backed up by action, for actions speak louder than words. It is not the first time we have heard a member of the government do lip service with respect to a low tariff policy and we know it will not be the last; and, having this in mind, well do I remember the remark made by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. 'Evans) wherein he said that the Liberals, after dodging the tariff issue since confederation, experienced a softening of the heart inasmuch as they actually lowered the tariff in 1904 on soft soap and false teeth; and in 1929, after undergoing a similar psychological

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
change, the hon. Minister of Finance out of the goodness of his heart actually ran the terrible risk of lowering the duty on cocoa-nuts. "From false teeth to cocoanuts we lowered the duty on everything," might very well be the party slogan at the next election.
Now, from information I have gathered from expert sources, I have learned that since 1888 the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives in respect to the tariff has been eight-tenths of one per cent in favour of the Liberals-a difference which in my estimation is nothing much to blow about. In view of this fact I would like to ask the government whether or not the tariff is an issue, and if it is an issue will the members of the government still claim to be the apostles of a lower tariff? Personally, Mr. Speaker, I feel like the man from Missouri;
I do not believe in any platitudinous humbug; I want the government to produce the goods, but have the government produced the goods? My opinion is emphatically in the negative.
I do not wish to burden this house with any statistics or voluminous references; I simply wish to give a review of the three years I have been in this house, which I think will be quite sufficient for my purposes. What happened here in 1927? So far as any revision of the tariff was concerned, absolutely nothing happened, and since one may find reasons for almost anything, so have the government found an alibi for their attitude in connection with the tariff. In that year the minister explained that there could be no revision until the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation had finished some oases which were before them. According to my information they did finish some cases that year, but the minister did not take account of those cases at all. Indeed, the only satisfaction wc received that year was what consolation we could take from the statement made by the Minister of Finance, as follows:
We shall move forward cautiously with the aid of the knowledge of the facts secured by the tariff advisory board towards the goal of making our tariff structure bear as lightly as possible on production, on industry and the people generally, having in view the greater prosperity of all legitimate industries of Canada. The tariff must be made to serve the best interests of the Canadian people as a whole. It must be adjusted from time to time bo meet the needs, not of one class or group of industries alone, whichever one that might be, but of our whole economic structure.
It is hard to conceive of a more carefully worded statement than the one I have just quoted and behind which the government have striven to remain so snugly secure. Nothing so irritates a bear as to be suddenly
awakened from his long winter sleep by a casual intruder, and I cannot imagine a more apt analogy than that of an aggressive member of this house piercing through the thin armour of the superficial apologetics of this statement made by the Minister of Finance. Certainly I cannot regard it as anything but an attempt on the part of the government to put a quietus on the policy of low tariff, in view of some of the disturbing elements on that side of the house. As I see it, the Liberal party is divided into three different parts; we have the Liberal party proper, who preach low tariff but never practise it; we have the Conservative-Liberals, who decry any low tariff whatsoever, and we have the Liberal-Progressives, who have been led into the party opposite by the astute Prime Minister of Canada under whose magic influences they have been lulled into blissful forgetfulness of the policies which brought them here in 1921. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is very curious indeed what strange bed fellows politics do make.
So far as the budget of 1928 is concerned I think very few people in Canada understood what the items in the budget meant; they were chiefly concerned with the schedules of the textile industry, and the only clear thing about them was that they were in line with the policy of the government of reducing the duties on the products manufactured here and then compensating the manufacturer by an equal reduction on his raw material. The advantage of this can be easily seen; it enabled the government to go to the public and say, "Well, you have nothing to complain about; we reduced the duties on what you have to buy" and then they went back to the manufacturer and said, "Well, we did not hurt you any." The truth of this statement is very well borne out by the campaign speeches of some of the ministers. I know of nothing which so exemplifies the dextrous opportunism of the government so well as a poem written by Stephen Rudansky, a poet of the Ukraine, entitled, "We Need Friends Everywhere." The poem is as follows:
There was an old woman to church inclined, A church-going dame was she;
She brought some candles she opined Would be a mark of piety.
Wherever an icon she espied
She placed a candle to burn; _
"Two still remain, oh where", she cried,
"Shall I place each one in turn."
She spied St. Michael large and grand,
And Satan's image, both well done;
She placed two candles on a stand,
Near Michael and the Evil One.
The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich

The people stared, their rage waxed hot, "Old woman, stop," cried they;
"Oh fie on thee, oh knowst thou not,
"What waits thee on thy judgment day?"
"What sacrilege," the people cried,
"To place a candle there,
"To honor Satan, ah," they sighed,
"Twere better that the stand were hare."
The woman turned upon the crowd, Undaunted, bold was she;
"Speak not, oh people, out so loud "On matters of eternity."
For when you die you know not where Your spirit Shall reside;
"So why not see ere you get there,
"To you, no ill betide."
"It may be hell or paradise,
"The place which you will share So don't you think it very wise To make friends everywhere."
Do not the budgets of 1927, 1928 and 1929 well illustrate the propensities of the government for making friends everywhere, and do they not show the Minister of Finance lighting one candle to the farmer and worker and another to the magnate and industrialist, and are not those budgets evidences of how the present government try to satisfy the industrial east while at the same time appeasing the agricultural west with the result that we get a stand-pat budget which leaves the tariff strictly alone? The budget of 1927 was a stand-pat budget; so was that of 1928, and the budget of 1929 differs from those only in the fact it does not make any reduction in the income tax.
I have spoken of alibis and how the government have been able to fall back on these alibis when necessity dictated. In 1927 the alibi was the tariff board, and this year it is Hoover and the United States. The threat that the United States may raise a tariff wall against Canada has apparently saved the face of the government, for in a way it appears to lend a certain amount of justification to a remark made by the Minister of Finance, as follows:
The board is continuing its inquiries on which substantial progress has already been made into_ several larger problems which involve the consideration of whole tariff schedules, and the interrelation of many important Canadian industries. While those inquiries are being pursued opportunity will be afforded for consider-mg the possible effect on trade of changes being proposed in the tariff schedules of other countries, should they be implemented by legislation.
In other words, what the minister means is that we will not do anything with the tariff until we know what the United States intend doing. It not only helps the minister 
extricate himself from a very delicate situation, but it is drafted with a view to exonerate the tariff board from any charges which might be made against that seemingly useless body, which, after two years of effort and an expenditure of about $250,000, has absolutely no concrete achievement to its credit.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of Canada are tired of alibis; the farmers of the west especially are tired of playing the part of a poor relation, as it were, thankful for the crumbs falling from the master's table, for all that is given to them by this budget is a few crumbs. It has long been my impression that reason has very little sway in the realm of politics under the party system. I have a suspicion that politics is run on the principle which Bamum enunciated many years ago. Force is the only thing that counts, and that force was very well exemplified in the budgets of 1927, 1928 and 1929. I think it is time that we snapped out of this state of affairs where idealism is recognized as being worse than useless and where force is the only thing that counts. I do not think the town has any right to lord it over the country, and I do not believe the people of the country should try to lord it over the town, but at the present time it seems to me that the town has the best of it. We do not come down here to destroy the factories of the electors who sent the members to the left of the Speaker to this parliament; all we ask is equal rights to all and special privileges to none. The situation appears to me to be somewhat similar to a pyramid standing on its apex; it is a mighty shaky affair. Until we can get a saner balance between the rural and urban interests we will continue to be like that pyramid and this country will be a mighty shaky affair, and this might be exemplified at the next election.
Members of the Liberal party may individually plead discipline and expediency, but that does not exonerate them from dereliction in the matter. I know how they pledged themselves to what would fit in with their party program, and I know something of the promises they made in preelection campaigns and the subsequent ridiculous excuses they had to make for the nonperformance of those pledges. Let us try to imagine the paradoxical position an honest member would be in on that side of the house. Let us imagine that that side of the house is an order called the order of the orange, the exalted ruler of which is the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). The emblem of this order is an orange placed on a receptacle before the exalted ruler. Suppose an honest member

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
like the member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) is brought in for initiation. In the course of that initiation he is asked to repeat these words, "I swear to abide by the rules of this order and accept the orange as an emblem thereof." But the member for Dauphin replies, "That is not an orange, it is a lemon." "The lord high executioner says it is an orange," retorts the hon. member for Marquette, with a wicked leer in his eye, "and so an orange it must be." "Well, all right" mumbles the member for Dauphin dejectedly, "if the executioner says it is an orange I will have to accept it as an orange but it looks for all the world like a lemon to me." And so if we apply the analogy to the realm of politics it seems to be a ridiculous statement to make to call the Liberal party a low tariff party when it is not a low tariff party; in other words, they have promised us oranges but gave us lemons instead. I have always considered the Liberal pronouncements on the budget as giving rise to but one remarkable thing, namely, the paradox wherein that party deceives itself to its own benefit at the expense of the public.
I was rather struck with the statement which the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) made last year when I was speaking on the budget. I made the remark that all the farmer members coming from the west should stick to the principle of low tariff; that we must either hang together on that tenet or hang separately when they got back home. I think it was the Minister of Immigration who interjected the remark, "Hear, hear". I wonder if he will make the same remark to-night.


Robert Forke: I am still farming anyway.


Michael Luchkovich: If the minister
would make that remark then I would advise the Liberal-iProgressives sitting on that side of the house to hail the minister with these words, "We who are about to die salute thee."
I was rather struck with the statement that the government would refuse to support any extravagance in the spending of the taxpayers' money; I imagine they meant the spending of money for good roads and technical education. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a good deal of money could be lapped off the grants to the Quebec hatbour, Ellis bay and other ventures and applied to the building of a much needed all-Canadian highway and technical schools. We would be doing much more good if we spent the money in that manner. In view
of the wonderful progress made by Germany and the United States in these matters, the large sums of money spent by those countries and the great international prestige gained thereby, I do mot agree with the minister that money spent on these enterprises is extravagance. The chief aim of anv government is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and money spent on technical education which will ensure employment to a great number of our boys' and girls and keep them in the country is not extravagance; it is providence. I was rather impressed by the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) with regard to technical education. He said that research and technical education were entirely different things having nothing in common'. He said that it was only the aristocracy who could dabble in research. I agree with him in that regard, that it is only the university graduate who can take up that line of work. Technical education is limited to the young boys and girls of this country who have not had the opportunity of obtaining a university education. 1 have always considered too many of those coming out of our high schools were square pegs in round holes. I have always thought there was something wrong with our educational system. But technical education is a great thing for a country like Canada which has a Wonderful industrial future before it. I would rather be the Napoleon of bootblacks than a jack-of-all trades; I would rather be proficient in one thing than partly proficient in a hundred things, because I believe that if I were the Napoleon of bootblacks the wlorld would make a beaten path to my door and I would thereby be benefiting the country in which I lived, and also the country would benefit by me.
I will now pass to another matter of very great interest to the people of Canada, that of railroad building. There was a time when the leaders in all walks of life in Canada thought we were at least a half century ahead of our time in railway construction; that in view of our sparse papulation and limited productive capacity it was suicidal for our railways to make such heavy commitments with no other guarantee than an anticipation of a large business in the near future. Today we scout such timidity, activated as it was by the belief that railway construction was being overdone. On the contrary we believe that there is not enough of it, especially in such countries as that great hinterland which we call the Peace riven I believe that railways should precede popu-

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
lation. If we had a railway in the Peace river that would give the people in that country an outlet, it would be but a short time before that whole country would be very largely populated. We required railways very badly fifty years ago and we require them just as badly to-day, and therefore I am heartily in support of the extension branch line programs of both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. I am, however, more deeply interested i* the Canadian National Railways, because it is a publicly-owned railway in which the people are deeply concerned, and in which they have a great financial interest. At the same time, however, I do not wish to deprive the Canadian Pacific Railway of its just share of railway building. I believe there is plenty of room for both railways, but I am also of the view that we should put both of those railways on an equal footing. I am very sorry that the resolution proposed by the bon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) got such little support in the railway committee the other day. I think if his resolution had passed i't would have solved one of our great railway problems in Canada to-day, that of putting both railways on an equal footing.
As I review the railway situation in Canada, both railways have been pioneers in certain parts of the Dominion, especially in the west. The Canadian National Railways has been the pioneer in the northern part of Canada, therefore we believe that they have certain prior rights to large areas in the northern part of Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway has been the pioneer in the southern part of Alberta, and the southern part of Canada, and it is the opinion of some people that they have prior rights because of the pioneering work done by them in that part of the Dominion. But the situation is becoming more complicated now because both railways desire to build in the northern part of Canada. I believe that- some agreement should be reached by which we can allocate the territory that has to foe served by proposed new branches of both companies in northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta. And unless we make this agreement the situation will become very complicated indeed. If 'hon. members will remember the Willingdon-Edmonton situation of last year, and the rank parallelism and high-handed competitive poaching caused thereby, they will, I am sure, before any charters are granted to private companies subject the applications therefor to the closest and most exacting scrutiny. The Toronto Telegram has sized up the situation in an editorial which reads as follows:

If public ownership of railways is not to die in Canada the national railways must be put on an equal footing with the Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to franchises. As things stand at present the privately-owned system is at an immense advantage. It goes to parliament and gets a job lot of franchises. The routes they cover may or may not be built in the five years the franchises cover. If the branches are not built, it is possible, even probable, that the franchises will be renewed.
The Canadian National Railways on the other hand, must come to parliament with a three-year program for which the money must be voted. Also the work must be completed within the three years. i	_	_
The advantage the Canadian Pacific Railway has is that it can preempt territory and build only if development justifies it. In other words, the Canadian Pacific Railway can option territory without paying out a dollar. It can also, and at the same price, head off extensions that the Canadian National Railways are not ready to go on with at the present time. Baldly, the Canadian Pacific Railway is in a position to hedge around the Canadian National Railways with franchises that threaten its entire future.
Fair play demands that the railways be put on an equal footing. The Canadian Pacific Railway, when granted a franchise, should be required to give an undertaking that the line will be built within three years. And this undertaking should be ironclad.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Pacific has a great advantage over the Canadian National, as has been exemplified in the construction of the Willingdon-Edmonton line, and if we are not careful the same thing will be experienced in other parts of Canada. I think that the only thing to do in order to eradicate a condition of this kind is to put both lines on an equal footing.
Now, what is this Willingdon-Edmonton situation to which I have just referred? In the year 1927 the Canadian Pacific railway was granted a charter to complete the line from Cutknife to Whitford lake. The construction was completed in 1928. During the summer and fall of 1928 they continued construction and finished the line to Edmonton. But before the line had been completed to Edmonton a dispute arose between the two companies, which culminated in a hearing before the Board of Railway Commissioners in Edmonton on June 14, 1928. The Canadian National Railways protested against allowing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build their branch line from Willingdon to Edmonton, on the ground that they had no charter rights thereto. In reply, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company stated the Willingdon-Edmonton line could be built under the authority granted for the construction of the Swift Current Northwesterly branch, the route may of which was approved in June, 1919. I might point out here, Mr. Speaker, that only

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
a few small pieces of the grade between Swift Current and Willingdon have been completed, and at that very far apart.
The Swift Current northwesterly branch was built from Swift Current to Empress, about 112 miles, between 1911 and 1914, and a further section between Coronation and Lorraine, about 20 miles, between 1914 and 1915. In 1919 they again took up the question of the extension of this line to Edmonton, and secured the approval of the then Minister of Railways and Canals for a revision of the route, abandoning about fifty miles of the 310 miles already approved to Chatton and extending it via Whitford lake to Edmonton. At the session of parliament in the same year the company obtained authority to extend its Cutknife line to a point in the vicinity of Whitford lake where it was to join the Swift Current-Edmonton line.
In their evidence before the Board of Railway Commissioners the Canadian Pacific Railway Company argued that they were acting' under their main charter granted in 1881, by which they were given power to build branches from their main line to any part in Canada. The Canadian National Railway Company claimed that branch lines had to be built continuously from the main line, and that in this case-Willingdon-Edmonton-it was a mere eighty-mile isolated chunk having no real connection with the main line. As a counter argument the Canadian Pacific Railway Company claimed that they could begin building any branch line from whichever end they chose, they could build isolated chunks no matter how far separated, so long as the plan had been approved by the Dominion railway board. "For example," said Mr. Ruel, vicepresident of the Canadian National Railways legal department, "the Canadian Pacific Railway by their interpretation might build a railway from Port Nelson on the Hudson bay across the northwestern part of Canada to the mouth of the Mackenzie river, and say it was really a branch from the main line, since the whole plan included a line from Port Nelson down to the main line someday." It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that when we allowed the Canadian Pacific Railway to build across Canada in 1881, we gave that company a charter with very wide powers, powers that were bound to bring both companies into open warfare sooner or later. It is essential therefore that parliament should find some way of putting these two systems on an equality with respect to charter rights. Allow me to read what the Free Press has to say on this point:-
The west has already had examples of Canadian National Railways being blocked in what it regarded as its own territory when the senate rejected its claims on the ground that the Canadian Pacific Railway had obtained a previous charter which it had not executed, the Canadian Pacific Railway was merely reserving the territory for a period of years until it was ready to go in. If allowed to proceed on the five-year charter basis as against the fact that the Canadian National Railways, before it will be granted a charter, must obtain the approval of parliament for the money to build the projected line, the private company can cut the ground from under the government system. The private company can obtain charters for any part of the country where it might have an idea a mineral strike might be made, a power site developed, or a pulp mill constructed. The Canadian National Railways is prevented from doing anything of the kind. It is obvious that parliament must work out some system that will put the two systems on an equality with respect to charter rights. The simple plan would be to follow the procedure now applied to the Canadian National. When the Canadian Pacific Railway sought a charter it would have to bring before parliament the authorization of its shareholders to spend the money on the proposed road within a three-year period, and forfeit its claim to the territory at the end of three years if the line had not been built.
Such a system would give reality to the business of chartering railway lines. It would be fairer to every one. If it is a good system for the government railway system, it should be a good system for the private company.
My objection to the Willingdon-Edmonton line was that it did not go further north; that it paralleled and duplicated the Canadian National railway for forty miles, thus destroying the business chances of such towns as Lamont, Bruederheim and Fort Saskatchewan, in close proximity to which other small stations have been built along the new Canadian Pacific Railway branch. I was very glad to see the railway built in that part of the country, because the farmers had lived there for thirty years, many of them having a haul of thirty-five or forty-five miles to the nearest station and they very much needed railway facilities. But I was very much against the Canadian Pacific Railway building their line in such close proximity to the Canadian National. For forty miles the present Canadian Pacific parallels the Canadian National, and it is one of the most glaring cases of competitive poaching that I know of. Unless this house does something to eradicate this condition of affairs in Canada, we might some day in other parts of the country have situations of the same character. Therefore I think it is high time for parliament to do something with respect to this railway situation, and the best thing we can do is to put the two railways on an equal footing.
The Budget-Mr. Bourgeois


Mr. A. E. BOURGEOIS (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up at any length the time of the house, for, if I mistake not, it is the desire of hon. members on both sides that the business of the house be expedited, consistently, however, with due consideration of all questions which may be submitted.
It is unquestionably a fact that the presentation of the budget is the outstanding event at every session of parliament. It is always most anxiously awaited not only by the house, but by every constituency throughout Canada. We have not been disappointed in our anticipations. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has again not only demonstrated his keen executive foresight in matters pertaining to the successful administration of the affairs of our country, but has also clearly pointed out the enormous development which has taken place in Canada during the last six years, particularly during the year ending 1928, and has most conclusively given proof to all the countries with which we do business, in other words to the world at large, of the solid foundation upon which rests the financial structure of our country.
The unprecedented prosperity throughout Canada is attributable above all to a kind Providence, and as well to the indefatigable and persistent efforts of our Canadian people, coupled with the stimulating effects of a government whose sane economic policy and fostering influences have contributed so mucii to the success of every branch of industry.
We marvel, Mr. Speaker, when looking back over the years, at the enormous expansion of our external trade since 1922, which has within the last eleven months reached the stupendous figure of 82,401,627,966, brought about by the opening up of every possible avenue of trade, by the t negotiation of trade treaties with all the important countries of the world, and by the granting of a ten per cent preference to all imports from British possessions entering Canada through Canadian ports. This ten per cent preference has greatly stimulated business in the ports of St. John and Halifax and ports along the St. Lawrence, but I regret that the shipping interests of the states of Maine and Massachusetts were a little annoyed at our policy in that regard. It was, however, just another successful business adventure by the government to stimulate and increase trade through our ports, and not, by any means, a retaliatory measure. We desire to live on the most mutual good fellowship terms with our American friends, who, I am sure, are conscious of the fact that we are endeavouring in our own way, as they are in theirs,

to increase the happiness of our people. This enormous expansion has had most beneficial results; it has enabled the Minister of Finance each year since 1922 to proclaim surpluses instead of deficits, aggregating in the last six years the grand total of $226,780,000, and resulting in a decrease of interest charges to the extent of the tidy sum of $16,340,013. Not only this, but by the application of a sane, moderate customs tariff policy and the reduction of the sales tax, stamp tax, and various other forms of taxation, we are pleased to note that the government has been able to save to the people of Canada the large sum of $241,000,000. Surely this is a showing of which we should be justly proud, and for which, on behalf of the constituents whom I have the honour to represent, I desire to extend commendations to the Minister of Finance.
Now, sir, in so far as conditions in New Brunswick are concerned, I may say that agriculture, which is our basic industry, was not during the last year as prosperous as we would have desired, due to a depressed state of the potato market, resulting not from any fault of the government, as some would have us believe-for we in New Brunswick are fully convinced that the prosperity of a country is dependent above all things upon the industry and efforts of its people in every sphere of activity-but due to a super abundant crop throughout Canada and particularly in the United States, where notwithstanding the almost prohibitive duty of fifty cents per hundred pounds we have been able, including what we have placed on the Cuban market, to dispose of the major part of our surplus production of potatoes. But if the extreme views of the protectionists in the United States prevail with respect to an increase in the tariff on agricultural products, it will be our duty to look to the east, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) very properly stated in an address made while on a visit to the maritime provinces some two years ago, making reference to the West Indies trade agreement. I sincerely regret the apparent attitude of the extreme protectionists of the United States, for if carried into effect it will no doubt materially affect our exports. However, I am still hopeful, and as an example of the sentiment which prevails among the more cautious, may I be permitted to quote an editorial published in the Atlanta Journal as appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of March 12, 1928:
There are those among the protectionists themselves who realize that America's interest in Canada is such as to render very dubious the adoption of a policy which would discourage trade relations between the countries, and

The Budget-Mr. Bourgeois
thus arouse antagonism that might prove far more costly to America than any passing advantage from higher duties on our Canadian imports. Canada can no longer be regarded as merely a foreign country and treated as such by the United States. These countries have too much in common and there now exists if not by treaty, yet by custom and practice, an interdependence that cannot be ignored. American investments in Canada to-day amount to billions of dollars, and not even Britain as a whole has contributed so largely to Canadian development as has America.
The Atlanta Journal concludes:
It is needless to remark that American capital in Canada is subject to the laws and customs of the Dominion and dependent thereon for fair treatment and protection. Small wonder when we consider this situation, that there is disquietude in the citadel of some of our protectionists when -the tariff makers at Washington threaten excessive and prohibitive rates on Canadian imports. American business well may be aware.
This, Mr. Speaker, is very significant and a very timely warning.
Coming to the question of our fisheries, I may say that the year 1928 has been a fairly successful one. It would have been more successful had not the price of live lobsters ___which has become a very important industry along the counties of Kent and Westmorland-on the United States market fallen from 25 cents a pound in 1927 to 15 and 16 cents in 1928. With a corresponding drop for lobsters sold by the fishermen to the .canning industries, this very materially affected the receipts from that source, but the loss iwas offset to some extent by the catch of oysters, particularly in the bays of Buctouche and Cocagne in my constituency. Only about
1.000	barrels were taken in 1927, as against
3.000	barrels more than in 1928. This increase is due to nothing more or less than the strict enforcement of the fishery regulations. It is indeed a very profitable source of revenue to those living in the immediate vicinity, during the legal fishing season, from the 25th of September until the ice forms about the 1st of December. The epicure who desires an excellent barrel of oysters I would advise to ask for the famous Buctouche aind Cocagne bay oysters.
Thanks to the government's initiative, we now have a fortnightly service of five steamers plying between the Atlantic ports of St. John and Halifax and the British West Indies, luxuriously and comfortably equipped for the business and tourist trade, which is bound to develop. These steamers are also provided with cold storage and all the necessary facilities for the transportation of all classes of merchandise. There is no question about the developing of a large trade within a very
few years with the British West Indies, whose population and that of the American republics total about fifteen millions. There is undoubtedly a vast trading opportunity in that direction. It now only lies with the business men and manufacturers of Canada, and particularly of the maritimes, coupled with the assistance of our trade commissioners, to get busy and go after the trade.
Now, sir, coming to the industrial situation, in New Brunswick, I may say that we anticipate a large development of the pulp and paper industry in the near future at Dalhousie and Athol in the county of Restigouche, and near Chatham in the county of Northumberland. And I have no hesitancy in saying that this development is wholly due to the determination and vision of the Foster and Veniot administration of provincial affairs in the inauguration of a public ownership hydro policy. Had that policy been continued instead of bartering away the Grand falls hydro power site to three private pulp and paper corporations, we would in the course of a few years be distributing power not only to these pulp and paper industries, but also to other industries in various parts of the province. Then the whole population in course of time could enjoy a prosperity such as has been realized in the province of Ontario under a policy of public ownership. But, Mr. Speaker, time. I hope, will bring about a realization of the aspirations -of the people of New Brunswick in that regard.
Coming to the matter of expenditures on breakwaters, the construction and repairs to wharves in the interest of the successful prosecution of the fisheries by our fishermen, as well as in the interest of shipping along the eastern coast of New Brunswick, I must say that there is no justification for the insinuations of extravagance made by some hon. members on the other side of th-e house because of the necessity of the government in seeing to the requirements of New Brunswick and of the maritimes as a whole in this regard. I -can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when a request is -made and favourably reported upon after investigation by the engineering branch at St. John, the work a-sked for is absolutely necessary, because a staff of engineers more competent and -more devoted to the safeguarding -of the people's money, -ait the head of whom is Mr. Ge-offrey Stead in the capacity of district engineer for the province of New Brunswick, cannot be found in any part of Canada.
In conclusion I desire to thank th-e government for what it has done in this matter of public works in my constituency, and for the
Criminal Code Amendment

interest taken in furthering the prosperity of the province of New Brunswick along other lines, particularly the adjustment in the near future of railway matters and the organization of a separate fisheries department, which I hope will tend to a satisfactory solution of the fisheries question.
On motion of Mr. Ralston the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the house adjourned at 10.32 p.m.
Monday, March 18, 1929