1929-03-12

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the

8G6
Grading oj Grain

following communication from His Excellency tlie Governor General:
I have received with great pleasure the address you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
Willi ngdon.
Government House, Ottawa.
8th March, 1929.



REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Cahill.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi) presented the first and second reports of the committee on agriculture and colonization. He said:
With the unanimous consent of the house I beg to move:
That the first and second reports of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization be concurred in.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: The second report, as I understand it, dealt only with the committee sitting while the house was in session, and there was no recommendation about hearing witnesses or dealing with problems of wheat grading as, it was suggested, would be in the report. The report as read did not contain that.


Mr. KAY:: These two reports ask, first,
for permission to sit while the house is in session, and, second, that the committee be allowed to print its proceedings from day to day for the information of the members. It is true that in the committee this morning a motion was passed asking for an enlargement of the reference to the committee, but I am sorry to say that I was not able to have that report prepared for to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. William Duff (Antigonish-Guysboro) the first report of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries was concurred in."

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 76, to amend the Post Office Act.

Some bon. MEMBERS: Explain.
Mr. CHURCH:: This bill is to restore to the Post Office Act the words "His Majesty's Mail " which were the words used in the days of the old provinces of Canada before confederation. When the statutes were revised a couple of years ago the words " His Majesty's Mail " were struck out and the words " Canada Mail " inserted. The object of the bill is to restore the former words.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
MOTOR AND PLEASURE BOATS On the orders of the day:


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: I should like to ask the government if an order in council has been passed imposing a tax on motor boats and other pleasure boats. If so, why has that been made to apply only to the Mnskoka lakes?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): In reply to my hon. friend I may say that taxes are never imposed by order in council.
GERMAN IMMIGRANTS AT TORONTO On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the importation by the Rapid Grip, Limited, of Toronto, of a number of mechanics from Europe to displace the men who were, working for that company, is it the intention of his department or the government to introduce legislation to prevent an occurrence of that kind in future?


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: I do not care to state at this moment what the policy of the government may be, but I said on a previous occasion that I thought, in view of the fact that the employers of labour and those who were out on strike had arrived at a basis of agreement, it would not be in the interests of the agreement itself that we should discuss the matter on the floor of the house.



GRADING OF GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), might I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Last year the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization considered a resolution referring

The Budget-Mr. Brown
to the protein grading of wheat or the grading of wheat having regard to the protein content. Arising out of that committee's work a recommendation was made to the house, including amongst other things, a request for an annual report or a report this year by the National Research Council and the Board of Grain Commissioners to the Department of Trade and Commerce. I would ask the department, if that report has been received, to table it, and, if not, to state when such a report may be expected.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I shall have pleasure in directing the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to my hon. friend's request.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie.
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, the few remarks that I shall make in connection with this debate will be directed towards certain statements that have been made and certain opinions that have been expressed with which I may presume to differ. My remarks will refer particularly to the arguments that have been used in favour of increasing the duty on agricultural products.
The hon. member, for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), in his capacity as acting leader of the opposition, made a very able address setting forth what is undoubtedly the position taken by the Conservative party throughout Canada in regard to the tariff. It is evident that the pussy-footing attitude of the Winnipeg convention is to be departed from, and that they are now lined up under the banner of a higher protective tariff. Hon. members opposite are to be congratulated on that fact. They are also to be congratulated on the very able presentation made by the hon. member for 'South Wellington. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is to be congratulated on having a lieutenant who so ably performs the duties of that office when he finds it necessary to be absent from the house.
There were, however, expressions used and statements made which, I think, will bear some examination. The hon. member for South 78594-551
Wellington endorsed the statement that has been made so frequently that Canada is enjoying a season of unbounded prosperity. In a very large sense that is true judged by the tests that are usually applied-the test of bank clearings, carloadings, railway earnings, exports and imports. Undoubtedly Canada is enjoying a season of great prosperity. But then he went on to say that that prosperity was confined to the large cities, that it had not yet reached the small villages and towns and the rural sections. Again, in large measure, I agree with the hon. member for South Wellington. I had a conversation with a merchant in our local town just before coming east, and he made a remark to me something to this effect: "We talk about prosperity, but it has not yet reached us."
I admit that times are not as bad as they were six or seven years ago. The years immediately following the close of the war found the farmers of Canada in a desperate condition. The price of agricultural products had fallen to an alarming degree while prices in other lines had not come down, and during the first session that I was here I made a statement that was absolutely true, that I had to sell nineteen head of cattle and put aside $125 in addition to pay the wages for one hired man during the year. But though conditions are not as bad as they .were six or seven years ago, in a large measure it can be said that a condition still obtains particularly in regard to our major product- wheat-under which everyone who handles that commodity makes money out of it except the man who produces it. It is quite possible, Mr. Speaker, to produce an enormously large crop, a crop that is the main factor in the financial prosperity of Canada to-day, and yet produce it with little or no margin left for the producer after the expenses of production have been met. It is not the volume that counts; it is the margin of profit that remains for the producer. If to-day we were getting that twenty cents or twenty-five cents that we would like to get^that is, the twenty-five cents a bushel less that we are getting for wheat to-day as compared with a year ago-on the 400,000,000 bushels that have been produced, it would mean all the difference between comfort and distress on the farm. So I say, Mr. Speaker, it is not the volume that counts, it is the margin of profit. I can imagine that there were times of great prosperity before the civil war in the southern states, that prosperity was abounding, and yet the men who did the work got only their board and clothes out of it. There are many people throughout Canada to-day
86S
The Budget-Mr. Brown

who are contributing very largely to the great mass of production, who are scarcely getting their board and clothes out of it. There are those -who seem to think that the farmer is not entitled to a margin of profit, and if there appears the slightest indication that there is such a margin, they begin at once to move heaven and earth to find out how they can take it away from him. Just about a month ago I saw an article in the Montreal Gazette dealing with the question of the Crowsnest pass rates, and in that article this very sage remark was made, that if it had not been for the restoration of those rates the railway companies would be making so many million dollars more. We know, of course, that they would have made so many million dollars more, but those millions undoubtedly would have been taken out of the already depleted pockets of the wheat producers of the prairies.
Up to this point I have agreed fairly well with the hon. member for South Wellington, but here we must part company. We agree on the diagnosis of the disease but we do not agree on the remedy. The hon. member for South AVellington says that with one stroke of the pen all these economic evils can be corrected, and he proposes to use that pen to make increases in the tariff all along the line. And particularly has this been urged in regard to agricultural products. I am firmly convinced, Mr. Speaker, that increased protection on agricultural products cannot ultimately redound to the benefit of the producer. I oppose the increase for two reasons, first in regard to our major products on which we are still on an export basis. The mere putting on of a duty will not affect the price, for the price on the home market is always determined by the price on the export market. I oppose that policy because if the farmers of Canada should succumb to the temptation to seek higher duties on their own products we would immediately be met by demands from all other quarters for the .raising of the tariff on their products, and our last state would be worse than the first.
We are asked to look to the United States. Well, let us look. For over a century the farmers of the United States have been responding to the cry for higher and higher protection. They have followed in the trend of the protected manufacturer. What is the meaning of this cry for farm relief? No expression was heard more frequently during the last election in the United States than that demand for farm relief. I had hoped a year or two ago that the farmers of the United States had seen the folly of their position. I had hoped that they had seen that it was not possible in the final

analysis to protect them by means of tariff, and that they were seeking relief along other lines, by such bills as the McNary-Haugen bill. Not that I care to endorse that as economically sound, but I had hoped that they had found out that the farmers cannot be protected by tariffs. But it does seem that they have gone back to their old position and are now asking for higher tariffs on their products. It may injure us if these are granted, but it will be of no benefit to themselves, for the reason that their imports from Canada form an infinitesimal portion of their total production and consumption. The probability is that it will not affect their prices in the slightest degree.
I wish to direct my attention now to some of the articles that have been mentioned on which it is urged that higher duties should be placed. I shall not deal with the question of wheat. I do not think it requires any argument to convince hon. members that a duty on wheat would be of no value to the Canadian producer of wheat. We might make the duty five dollars a bushel and it would not affect our market price in the slightest degree. In a large measure, the same can be said of oats and barley. I want to come, however, to another of our products to which a great deal of attention has been directed. I refer to butter. It has been urged upon us that the dairy industry is suffering because of a large importation of butter. In my judgment, the dairy industry is one of the most prosperous industries in the country to-day. Protectionists make the mistake, whether deliberately or otherwise, of fixing their attention entirely upon one article, taking into account only one phase of the question; whereas we should look at the dairy industry in all its aspects and from a broad standpoint. As reported at page 792 of Hansard the hon. member for South Wellington -I think he was referring to last year'- said that we imported milk and milk products, exclusive of butter, amounting in value to $2,370,000. I do not think there was any intention to mislead as regards the figures, but I cannot understand where the hon. gentleman got those figures.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: From the trade and commerce report for 1928.


John Livingstone Brown: I have here from the Bureau of Statistics figures of our imports of milk and its products. These are for the calendar year 1928.


Hugh Guthrie: Mine were for the fiscal year as published by the department.


John Livingstone Brown: Even for the fiscal year I am inclined to believe there must be some

The Budget-Mr. Brown
discrepancy, as I will show. For the calendar year 1927 our imports were $676,629, and for 1926 they were $533,957. So even if we take the fiscal year to March, 1928, we could not reach the figures that he has given. However, that is not the important part, of my argument.


Hugh Guthrie: I will get the report.


John Livingstone Brown: I am going to take the figures for the calendar year 1928 which I have received from the Bureau of Statistics, $643,745-


Mr. STEVENS:: What classification does that give?


John Livingstone Brown: This gives all the milk products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does it include condensed milk?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, milk and cream, fresh, butter, casein, cheese, condensed milk. I want the house to notice, however, that of this $600,000 odd, $544,373 represents our imports of cheese. The great bulk of these imports comes from European countries and undoubtedly is made up of varieties of cheese that we do not produce in Canada, and therefore such cheese cannot in any real sense come into competition with our own product. I ask hon. members to keep that half million dollars in mind. Now let us turn to our exports of cheese. In the calendar year 1928 we exported to the value of $25,467,642. That is, on cheese alone we have an excess of exports over imports of $25,000,000. I turn to butter. According to this same schedule we imported $5,937,170 worth of butter, most of which of course came from New Zealand; but we also exported during the year $805,055 worth; that is, there is an excess of imports over exports of $5,132,115. But that does not tell the whole story of the dairy industry. We exported a number of other milk products in large quantities, for instance:
Milk powder	 $ 541,064
Condensed milk	 2,324,044
Evaporated milk	 598,601
Casein	 33,892
Cream	 5,593,399
Milk, fresh	 866,920
A total of $9,957,920. That is, apart from cheese and butter we exported milk and milk products to the value of almost ten million dollars, nearly double our importation of butter. So the total excess of our exports of dairy products over our imports comes very close to thirty million dollars. Under such conditions as those it does not seem to me that the dairy industry is really declining. I have not been able to get the production figures of
butter for 1928, but I have the figures for
1926	and 1927. They are given as $90,000,000 for 1926, and $96,000,000 for 1927. Then it is urged on every hand, and we believe it is true, that the home consumption of dairy products has very greatly increased during the last year or two. It is reasonable to suppose that that would be the case. We are told that the American tourist traffic means about $246,000,000 to Canada every year, and naturally dairy products would form a very large proportion of that total.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He maintains that in the last year or two, to go no further back, there has been an increase in the amount of milk used in the production of butter and cheese. Was there an increase in the amount of milk used in the production of butter and cheese in 1928 as compared with
1927	or 1926?


John Livingstone Brown: I cannot answer that question. It is not always possible to state the exact amount of milk that was used in the production of those commodities. What is the value of our production of them must necessarily be a matter of estimate, especially in the case of butter produced on the farms, but it seems to be the general opinion that the consumption has very substantially increased in Canada. There is good warrant for that belief. As I have said already, the American tourist traffic is said to be worth $246,000,000 to Canada annually, and in the very nature of the case we would expect a large amount of that to be represented by dairy products. Then we know there has been a great development in the mining industry, and in fact all along the line. Take the one item of ice cream, everybody knows that the manufacture and consumption of ice cream has increased enormously in the last year or two.


Peter McGibbon: Might I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not know that the production of butter fat, the basis of the whole thing, has decreased in the last few years?


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. gentleman may make that statement if he likes, but he should not ask me to say if I do not know. I wish to read a brief extract from the report of the Manitoba Cooperative Dairy that I received last night-


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


John Livingstone Brown: I am not averse to answering. but I have only a limited time in which to speak and therefore I do not care to be
The Budget-Mr. Brown

interrupted. I was about to say that I happened to be a small shareholder in the Manitoba Cooperative Dairy, and the following is a passage in a letter they have sent out: Dear Shareholder:
We are pleased to report the past year as the most successful in the history of our association; as you will note from the enclosed financial statement, 1928 shows a net surplus of $36,545.12; this is the largest surplus we have recorded in any year;
There is another matter with which I wish to deal, because of an incident that occurred in this house last year. During a debate at that time I interjected the remark that we did not import hay into Canada. When I made that statement I did not intend it to be taken quite literally, for I knew that we did bring in some hay; I was aware of that fact, as I had pointed out on a former occasion, in 1926, when I spoke on the same subject. I did mean, however, that our imports of hay as compared with our exports were almost negligible. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) was good enough to tell me that I did not know what I was talking about.


Alexander McKay Edwards: The hon.
gentleman has just admitted that he did not.


John Livingstone Brown: But I did know; I have
admitted nothing of the kind. I knew quite well. At any rate, I know now exactly what I am talking about, if the statistics are to be relied upon. I have the figures in this case for the fiscal years from 1923 to 1928, inclusively. I shall not give the value but simply the number of tons imported and exported. The table is as follows:
Year	Imports	Exports
tons	tons
1923	 37,040	58,300
Evidently 1923 was a bad year for hay in Canada, for the exports were the smallest of any of the six years for which I have the record, while our imports in that year were larger than the total for the four succeeding years. To continue:
Year	Imports	Exports
	tons	tons
1924	.. .. 13,870	332,2931925	.. .. 10,282	225,4031926	.. . . 8,493	368,7871927	.. .. 5,464	321,7331928	. . . . 8,484	171,164
In both cases trading was done chiefly with the United States, with Great Britain second. That is to say, for these six years, the proportion of exports to imports varied all the way from 20 to 1 to 60 to 1. Under such circumstances, will anyone seriously contend that an import duty, if it were raised to $4 a ton,

as advocated, following the United States, would be of any value to the Canadian farmer? And remember that when we export hay the average price is in the neighbourhood of 810 a ton, whereas when we import it the price is about 815 a ton. So that it would mean an additional tax of about 82 a ton upon hay.
Let me now refer to the question of hides and skins. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) quoted figures to show that we were importing $14,000,000 worth of hides, 810,000,000 being from the United States, while we were exporting about a similar amount; and he indicated something to the effect that these were simply cross entries and that we might wipe the whole thing off the slate and use our own hides instead of importing from the United States.
If the hon. member had taken more than a superficial view of the question he would not have assumed that position. It is true that we import hides to the value of $14,000,000 odd, from the United States SI 1,164,668, while we export to the United States $11,266,660 worth of this product. But there is this point to which I would call the attention of the house: That class of hides which forms the great bulk of our imports and exports consists of raw cattle skins, that is, the heavier hides. Now, on the hides we imported we paid a little more than 23 cents, and for the hides we exported we received 19 cents. Someone may say, "That is bad business; why export hides at 19 cents and import at 23 cents?" But a little close thought will surely convince anyone that there is a reason for this. The Canadian tanner is surely a business man . who can be trusted to buy what suits him, and therefore he pays that 23 cents for the class of hides he wants because he cannot get them in Canada. When I made a similar statement three years ago it was absolutely endorsed by Colonel Mullins, of Marquette, wh'o has bad a large experience in the cattle business and is faimiiloar wilth the fanning industry. He absolutely endorsed the statement that, the class of hides-or a-t least a large proportion of the hides-which the Canadian tanner requires cannot be obtained in Canada, so that he is obliged to go elsewhere for them. But we cannot consider this question of hides by itself; we must take into account the whole business of buying and selling hides and tanning them into leather, and also the selling of the leather. I notice that we sell to the United States such grades of leather as harness, sole leather, upper leather, with a very small quantity of other feathers, the total being $7,682,521. That is the country with which we cannot compete in these mat-

The Budget-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
ters. So that the total figures would indicate a situation something like this: Our excess of exports of hides and unmanufactured leather, so far as the United States are concerned, gives us a favourable balance-to use the term which is commonly employed-of something over $3,000,000; and taking our total exports into account we have a favourable balance of about $1,500,000. Now, if by one stroke of the pen a duty is imposed on hides, what do we do? We simply make it so much more difficult for the manufacturer, the tanner, to obtain his raw product, and we strike at this very profitable business which he is carrying on with the United States and other countries, securing no benefit for ourselves. The probability is that if we insisted on handicapping the manufacturer of leather in that way we should put him in the position where he would not be able to pay as good a price for that proportion of our own hides which he now uses.
I think I have shown that on some of our major products a protective tariff would not only do no good but would in some cases be actually harmful. If, however, it is decided that the people of Canada should not eat foreign produce, then I want to go the whole distance and not part of the distance. If we should not be eating fresh fruits and vegetables from the United States, then let us put on an absolute embargo. I do not propose to take the position which will make it. possible for those who live at the Chateau and at high class clubs, or in wealthy homes, to obtain these products, while the poorer people who are now using them in large quantities shall be deprived of the privilege. I wish to see us all on the same basis.
Now, Mr. Speaker, from the standpoint of the ordinary consumer I confess that there is not a very great deal in this budget; it does not contain much meat, of course, but we may be glad that it does not contain any poison. I am firmly convinced that the greatest danger to be faced by the Canadian producer to-day is that propaganda which will be carried on throughout the country to induce him to accept the principle of higher protection for his own products. I am sufficiently human to feel that if a man hits me I would like to hit him back; I am not defending that attitude but am simply making a confession, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said the other day. We can understand that attitude-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a reservation for
self defence.


John Livingstone Brown: I heard it put this way the
other day, so it is not original with me: We
can understand a man, when he is struck on his right cheek, striking the other fellow on the left cheek; that may nolt be a very admirable disposition, but we can understand that feeling. Perhaps we can even understand the Christian doctrine, even though we do not practise it, that when a man strikes you on the right cheek you should also turn to him the left, but the one thing we cannot understand is the man who, being struck on his right cheek, strikes himself a blow on his left cheek. That is very similar to the Japanese revenging himself upon his enemy by committing suicide upon his enemy's doorstep.
It would be most regrettable, Mr. Speaker, if we should engage in anything of the nature of a tariff war, by rvhich we would hurt ourselves and do no one any good. It is generally conceded now that nobody wins in war; everyone loses. We may appear to win for a time, but ultimately everyone loses and that is equally true in a tariff war. As I have said already, the United States may hurt us with their tariffs but they cannot do themselves any good, and ultimately they will find that to be true; they may appear to enjoy some benefit when the tariff is first raised, but matters will readjust themselves in a short time and they will find themselves in the same relative position.
For the reasons I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled on this and on every other occasion to oppose the principle of increased tariffs on farm produce as a means of maintaining the prosperity of the farmer. Relief must be sought along other lines; we must seek it by reducing rather than by increasing the farmer's cost of production.


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat was generous in his opening remarks in congratulating various hon. members of this house. I think one may very fittingly congratulate the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) in turn because, while one may find much with which to disagree in what he said, the hon. member has offered the first attempt at serious criticism to come from hon. gentlemen opposite, so far as I have heard, with regard to the speech, delivered by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) the other day, a speech which will be so long remembered by everyone who heard it. With the exception of the arguments presented by my hon. friend from Lisgar this afternoon the house has heard no serious attempt to deal with any of the propositions then advanced by the hon. member for South Wellington. It is quite

The Budget-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
true that we had the privilege, which we should have missed had we been deprived of it, of hearing once again from the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin); it is quite true thait we were regaled by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). in his own inimitable way, but until we heard from the hon. member for Lisgar this afternoon there had been, I repeat, no serious attempt to deal with, to meet or to criticize in any way those figures, facts and conclusions placed before the house the other day by the hon. member for South Wellington.
Instead of any serious attempt at argument we have been met with the reiteration of that platitude-for in reality it is only a platitude after all-which has been so widely broadcast throughout this country that we are enjoying a great and unexampled prosperity. This was the key note of the entire budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance this year; this was the key note which he emphasized last year, and one might say it was introduced as a counter-irritant, much as a dentist tells you that what he is about to do is not really going to hurt and that you must keep your mind fixed on something else. As I have said, the Minister of Finance stressed this prosperity as the key note of his budget speech last year. In presenting his budget, on February 16, 1928, he said:
. . . . seldom have the annual statements from leaders of finance and industry throughout Canada so generally reflected such progress and prosperity as that of the year 1927.
Will the house mark these words, that the test is the annual statements from the leaders of finance and industry. In presenting his budget this year, the Minister of Finance said:
Canadians to-day are prospering. Employment is at a high level.
I know of but one true test of prosperity, Mr. Speaker: What are the working and living conditions of the wage earners, whether they be upon the farm or in the city? What are the conditions of the men and women who labour with their hands, the makers and the keepers of small homes? Wb heard from the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) in the very able speech he made the other' day; we heard from the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) only last evening, and we heard from the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) to-day as to the condition in which the farming community finds itself at present. But some wull say, "There is prosperity in the larger cities; your own people will tell you so and the leaders of finance and industry will assure you of it," tMr. C. W. Bell.]
It is because that has been so stressed; it is because it has been put forward as an excuse for all the deficiencies and wants of this budget, and the course pursued by the government, that I propose to address myself in the time at my disposal to a consideration of how far this alleged prosperity actually exists in those same large cities.
As an example, I will take the largest, richest city in the province of Ontario, the city of Toronto, and in order that I may not be accused of bias, I will refer to two great Liberal journals; to the two great pillars of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario- the Toronto Globe, pillar of cloud by day, and the Toronto Daily Star, pillar of fire by night. I will refer particularly to the pages of the Toronto Daily Star, that paper whose slogan is: Enterprise, efficiency and accuracy. We should expect authentic information from this paper, and in going hack to that period of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) speaks I notice an article in that paper of August 30, 1927, at the time of the bountiful harvest of that year, which graphically describes the condition of thousands of wage-earners in the city of Toronto. The Star refers to the condition of one family, which it says is typical of many, and headlines the article thus:
Brave family to end of their resources
Child breaks down through malnutrition. Father out of work for a year.
The article continues:
They stuck to it through thick and thin until at last one of the children broke down under the strain. Malnutrition in reality, starvation, pure and unadulterated.
The article goes on to say that while some people were making money at that time this was the condition of over a thousand such families in Toronto, living in utter destitution, and who came through the last long winter no one knows bow and whose only outlook was to face another such experience. Such was the prosperity of thousands of city wage-earners under the Robb budget during the time of the bountiful harvest of 1927. Someone might say that 'that condition was only temporary, and to refute that argument I turn to the Toronto Star of December 7, 1927, which describes bow scores of wage-earners and workers were living in Toronto at that time. The Star speaks in particular of a deserted woman who was struggling to keep six little children alive, and to use its own words:
Here the deserted mother eked out an existence upon city allowance in one of a score of dens similarly inhabited and brushed by the pestilential blow of poverty.

The Budget-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
The article goes on:
The street was a mere tunnel through rotten houses. . . . shacks and dens where women live and children play-and die.
A pleasant picture of prosperity in Canada during the year of grace, 1927. Let us take the year 1928, when we had 'the greatest of all crops and the greatest possibility for national wealth, impeded as those chances were by some reasons which have already been given to the house. In the Toronto Star of August 10, 1928, we read of yet another typical, large city family. The article describes a man and wife with five children, the man left without a position through an illness of three weeks. He was without employment for one solid year although he had sought for any job that would keep body and soul together. But the level of employment was so high that he could not reach any of it, and so he went down and out. He had never learned how prosperous he was; he had never read the statements of the leaders of finance and industry. We shall hear presently from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) and he will probably tell us a great deal about seasonal employment. May I respectfully suggest that when the hon. minister approaches the house with his arguments on the question of seasonal employment, he will explain just what particular season would have been open to these unfortunate people when they sought work without return day after day, week after -week, month after month for years at a time.
Coming a little nearer to the present season, I read in the Toronto Globe of Wednesday, November 14, 1928, of a soldier who had served his country well but was forced to leave it. The article reads in part:
A decorated ex-aviator, artillery officer and British secret service operative, with high educational qualifications and impressive military recommendations, and with seven years, continuous service to his credit, is to be Canada's loss and the United States' gain as a result of his inability, in spite of two years' effort, to find suitable employment in the Dominion.
There were others who could not go; there were others who had to remain, and I see, by reference to the Toronto Star of December 18, 1928, how some of them were found at that time working their way around by singing and playing musical instruments in the streets. The article continues:
The men satisfied Chief Draper, through references from well known firms, that they were employed through no fault of their own. The chief sent for Captain Charles Nash, secretary of the Toronto and District Council of the Canadian Legion, who informed him that he could do'little toward finding work for the two and who added that dozens of members of tlie legion are unemployed.
"I feel it is a disgrace that men like these should have to stoop to what is only one stage removed from begging to provide for their families," the chief declared.
In the Toronto Globe of January 5, of this year the following article appears:
Long Bread Line For Midday Meal Yonge Street Mission Fed 350 Hungry Men *	Yesterday
Evidence of need and hunger has been manifest at the Yonge Street Mission during the past few weeks and Mr. Davis yesterday told the Globe that although the twice-weekly free meals are only beginning this week, from 100 to 150 lunches have been daily handed out to men who in many instances have been eager for even dried crusts of bread.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I come to March 2, 1929, the day after the Minister of Finance delivered his budget speech in the house. On page 4 of the Toronto Daily Star of that day the following streamer appears:
Hon. James Robb's Tax Reductions Reflect Canada's Prosperity
But on turning to page 2 of that same issue, I find the following heading over a photograph of a long line-up of destitute men on Yonge street:
Staff of Life for the Hungry
Underneath the photograph, we find the following:
Here is surprising confirmation of numberless hungry months and tight belts that stalk abroad within the limits of the city of Toronto during the cold, cheerless months of winter. These are the "rank and file" of the "legion of the unemployed". Yesterday 3.500 beef sandwiches and 100 gallons of coffee were distributed to the "wanting".
How that line-up of cold and hungry men must have felt a warming glow, if any of them possessed the two cents to purchase a paper, after reading about the Minister of Finance's tax reduction. Imagine a settlement worker entering one of those homes which the Star describes so graphically; he sees the condition of the shivering inhabitants of the "shack", as the Star calls it, and his heart is wrung with .pity. But he says to them, "We would like to do much for you but unfortunately the demands upon us from the thousands of unemployed in this city are so great that we are not able to do half of what we would like to do. We are short on clothes; we have not very much food to give you, but there is one thing I would like you to appreciate: Do you realize that the net debt reduction of the fiscal year of 1927-28 was $30,948,137.17?" The man looks up from his miserable pallet which, according to the Star, serves as his only bed, and a new light
874	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
comes into his eyes as he says: "What, Sir, is it really true? Was the actual net debt reduction for the fiscal year of 1927-28, $50,948,137.17?" The visitor replies: "Yes, my poor fellow, I do assure you that the actual net debt reduction for the fiscal year of 1927-28 was $50,948,137.17." "Then" comes the answer, "I starve in peace." How can we ever be sufficiently grateful for the real information, given us by these two great Liberal journals about the actual position of affairs in our large Canadian cities? Shall we not be full of gratitude to both these pillars of the Liberal party that makes us so aware of the full measure of our mercies and, particularly, to the Toronto Daily Star, that journal of enterprise, efficiency and accuracy? How far that little candle throws its beam across our prosperous province!
I notice that if we pass from the ranks of those who toil with their hands and come to another numerous class, we have those who are spoken of as the " white collar " workers, many of them in the employ of this government, such as postal clerks, letter carriers, civil service employees generally. How they must have thrilled to learn that the government shows a total revenue of $454,942,000; that the government proposes to pay out of surplus revenue the $60,000,000 loan maturing August first next, and to realize that meanwhile in the employ of the government are scores of married men with families who are working for the magnificent sum of $65 a month, or $20 a month less than the amount officially stated in the government's own publication to be requisite to purchase the bare necessities of life. If there is any greater reproach to be laid at the doors of any English-speaking government anywhere, I thank heaven I do not know of it.
Elsewhere in the budget we read that the estimated total expenditures are $385,160,000, out of which not one cent is to be expended on technical education, which doubtless takes its place beside old age pensions as an exemplification, in the eyes of the government, of a vicious principle.
But I started by saying that I too was anxious to congratulate where congratulations are possible, and I venture to extend my congratulations not only to the Minister of Finance but to other hon. gentlemen on that side of the house. For example, I desire to congratulate the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke). True it is that the results in his department show that last year was the leanest and poorest for many years in this country; but when we consider the blessed state of the workmen, as revealed by the Globe and the Star, and when we appreciate

what the Robb budgets have been doing for those men, let us congratulate the Minister of Immigration that there is any immigration at all.
I desire to congratulate my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) who was successful, either personally or by deputy, only about ten days ago in settling the strike of the textile workers in the city of Hamilton. What had caused that strike, by the way? It had been caused by the fact that the action of the government, following the budget of last year, had been such that the workers were compelled to take on much additional work, many longer hours, at the same pay which they had been receiving theretofore, or the works would have had to close down. They rebelled against that; they struck. The conditions were investigated. It was claimed that the manufacturer, a wolf in sheep's clothing, was trying to grind his men, but it was discovered upon investigation that the budget of 1928 had left those workers in such a position'that they would either have to accept added work, added hours, without any more pay, or go without a living at all. Therefore they went back to work and I congratulate the Minister of Labour upon that discovery.
I desire to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon a very recent conversion. About a year ago when the estimates were up in the house, I pleaded with him to have the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) permitted something more than the magnificent sum of $31,000 for widening and deepening the Burlington channel, a work which the Minister of Public Works agreed was absolutely necessary and the cost of which the engineers of his department had placed at $1,500,000. The Minister of Finance chided me severely for advancing the ridiculous proposition that more than $31,000 should be devoted to that work, but I see in the estimates which are brought down this year that there is to be allotted to that work one-third of the $1,500,000 which the engineers declared necessary. I congratulate the Minister of Finance upon- his conversion and I give him my honest assurance that I propose to watch very carefully the coming of the other $1,000,000 and to congratulate him when it comes along.


Mr. BOURASSA:: And then will the hon.
member vote for the government?


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: No, because, unlike some hon. gentlemen, I preserve my principles whether I get anything or not. I congratulate, too, the government as a whole, although I did not agree with it in the least,

The Budget-Mr. Verville
because it succeeded in killing the proposition for the national highways. I congratulate the government on its success in that regard because, if that plan had ever gone through, it would have gone a long way towards revealing to all people, not only residents of this country but those who visit it from time to time, the true extent of the depletion that is going on in our forests and mines to the effect that United States workmen may be enriched and receive the wages that should go to the Canadian people.
Last, but by no means least, I venture to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), although he is not present at the moment. When I came to this house in 1926, on my first excursion into politics, I did not appreciate him. I had not the faintest conception of what the words " masterly inactivity " could ever mean. I had not the faintest conception of how a more homely phrase " safety first " could be put beside the words " masterly inactivity." But I know now. I have seen during the time that I have spent in Ottawa masterly inactivity brought to a pitch of perfection that I should never have believed possible. I have seen the right hon. gentleman with that grip upon office for which he has become so famous employ to the very, very best possible extent his policy of masterly inactivity which has lulled the Canadian people to sleep, which has made Canada the Rip-van-Winkle of the Rockies. The Prime Minister only a few days ago in this house sat opposite my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion), and when my hon. friend from Fort William made one of the most patriotic suggestions that this house has had the pleasure of listening to for many a day, and when in connection therewith he used the expression " red-blooded " the Prime Minister was only able to see amusement in it. Will the country care? Perhaps. Not long ago the right hon. the Prime Minister declared that he had discovered the necessity for a provincial conference in respect to the waterways question. Does anybody seriously believe for one moment that the Prime Minister sought in that conference anything but an evasion and a postponement of a decision on that question, a question that is pressing in this country at this hour? Do the people really care? May be. There are signs that there is somewhere an awakening actually beginning. There are signs that on the waterways problem, as on the power question, and in many other directions, the people at last are beginning to waken up to the fact that " do nothing " may be a good means of retaining office but it is very bad policy for the country.
We have had various opinions expressed in the course of this debate about the attitude which it would be proper and prudent for Canada to adopt if higher tariffs are enacted against us in the United States by the government of Mr. Hoover. But surely there can be no one found to say that the ideal behaviour for Canada, or the attitude for Canada to take would be to do nothing at all. And that has been the policy of this government under the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, if that is to continue to be the policy of this government, if the indifference of the people is to be counted on, relied upon, and exploited, then it cannot be long before the public will assert itself and will insist that others shall take the seats of those who now occupy the place of office in this land. Until then we have little to hope for, because the policy of " do nothing " has been so successful, from this government's point of view. But if the authorities in charge of the tariff proposals on the other side shall injuriously affect this country by the enactment of higher tariffs against us, we know of one party anyway that will insist that the only stand to be taken by this country shall be to say to our neighbours to the south, "We are most friendly to you, we want to be your friends now and always; we are willing to be conciliatory to every reasonable degree, but if our interests continue to be adversely affected then we will stand up for every one of our rights, positive, firm and unafraid. And, sir, if we cannot get that from the present incumbent of the Prime Minister's chair then it will be the duty of this country to assist us to go out and take it, in order that the interests of the country may be served, in order that its former high estate may be restored, and in order that those hopes that we have entertained for Canada- the hopes of our fathers and the hopes that have come down to us-shall once again stand a reasonable prospect of realization.


Mr. J. A. VERVILLE (Lotbiniere) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, a number of speakers who have preceded me in this debate have taken a delight in praising the Divine Providence for the numerous favours with which it has overwhelmed the people of Canada under the present administration, especially during the last fiscal year. Some have even asserted-and it is my opinion- that we have a providential government, highly assisted by Providence above.
The hon. Minister of Finance, in introducing his budget on March the first last, apprised us that the finances of the country were in a healthy state, and that the period of surpluses is continuing in a most eneourag-
The Budget-Mr. VervUle

ing manner. This management of the public funds is of a nature, to my mind, to foster industry, trade, even agriculture, and to considerably increase in the minds of this people their confidence and trust in the future.
While heartily acknowledging the favours as stated in the budget speech, there are some for which, I think, we must thank both Providence and the government. I feel at liberty, sir, to make certain comments that in no way would I wish to be interpreted as reflecting on the present administration, but I deem it my duty to openly make them, trusting they may serve public interests and also those of the constituents that I have the honour of representing in this house.
The prosperity enjoyed by this country has been vaunted in every possible way. It is even stated that this prosperity is felt in every field of activity and throughout the Dominion. Like others I can see this prosperity, I acknowledge it and rejoice at it; nevertheless you will allow me to point out that the farmers, in certain parts of this country are not entirely wrong in complaining of the conditions prevalent at present, or rather are nearer the truth in complaining of their lot. By no means do I agree with the conclusions of the amendment, as set forth by the hon. acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), when I express such views, because I think that this unfavourable situation of the farmers, in certain parts of the country, is due to certain causes or reasons, none of which can be imputed solely to the acts of the government. This unfavourable situation is brought about by numerous and various causes, some of which are traced to the farmers themselves-as it was so clearly pointed out on Thursday last by my hon. friend 1he member for Matane (Mr. Dionnel- others are traced to climatic or other conditions, and I am happy to acknowledge that the government is doing its utmost to help and encourage the farming class, yet I respectfully submit that it is in its power to do more. In certain sections of the country, our farmers have seen their work crowned with success. They received for their farm products top prices; however, I assert that, although this may be generally the case, there are nevertheless and very unfortunately-exceptions and that in certain sections of the country such are not the conditions prevailing.
I trust that no one will begrudge me the few minutes that I shall take to glance over Quebec. I may say, sir, that the farmers of certain parts of my province situated on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, where the county of Lotbiniere lies, have not been, this year, very fortunate as regards their crops and

are feeling the pinch of rather hard times. They are forced to seek elsewhere their seed grain and fertilzers of which they are absolutely in need; they are obliged to purchase those articles at top prices and must further pay excessive rates for freight. They are not so fortunate as the hon. Minister of Finance is in balancing his budget by surpluses; but like the governments which have preceded the present administration, they are in the sad plight of acknowledging at the end of each year, deficit after deficit.
Again, in no way do I wish to place the responsibility on the government's shoulders for this exceptional situation nor in any way blame them, but seeing that the budget brought down in the house, this year, informs us that the finances of the country are more than ample, I wish to take advantage of it by requesting the government to help, if possible, the farmers who might find themselves in the exceptional situation that I have just brought to your notice, and for which I request government assistance. I would therefore ask the government to grant the farmers which are in a precarious situation, what is granted elsewhere for other industries and in other sections of the country: a special rate, a reduction in freight rates for the shipment of goods of which these farmers are absolutely in need to maintain their land in good farming condition.
There is another feature to which I would like to draw the attention of the house: the budget makes no mention of changes in the income tax and I think on this score the government is worthy of praise. Unfortunately I cannot say as much with reference to the methods used in enforcing the Income tax act, especially in connection with our rural population, our farmers, the small land owners and the labourers of our countryside. These people with very few exceptions cannot pay this tax, simply because their revenue is only sufficient to keep their families in a decent manner. Nevertheless they are sent letters warning them that they have neglected to send in their statements, and must file same immediately if they do not wish to be dragged before the courts. These letters have attached to them a form which perhaps is quite the correct thing for accounting purposes but is a Chinese puzzle to those who receive them. These people are most of the time unable to fill in such forms; they are just as intelligent as city people or others, but this form is so complicated that they are unable to fill it in unless they can afford paying for a secretary or an accountant. This does not only apply to my riding but also to other sections. I do not

The Budget-Mr. Verville
wish, sir, to leave you under the Impression that no one, among our rural population, pays the Income tax; on the contrary; I am simply mentioning the fact that the forms as printed and sent to our people are too complicated. When parliament enaots a measure and puts it into force, why not use a simple method which our people can readily understand and willingly submit to? When such an act is surrounded with too much and difficult formalities, it is open to criticism by the ratepayers and they, by all possible means, try to avoid the law.. Let us place at the disposal of our people a simple form which the ratepayers will be able to fill in, they will then respectfully submit to the measures we enact.
With reference to the sales tax, I must say that the means applied in the enforcement of the act are entirely disgraceful, and let me, Sir, cite an example: here is small rural manufacturer who is sued for having neglected to make a statement of his sales during two months, and simply for the reason that during that period he had not worked his factory. Previous to that time, he had always sent in his statements monthly. During those two months he was not producing nor making sales, he therefore made no report; the man is sued without being given any preliminary notice and forced to pay considerable costs. I respectfully submli't, sir, that if a business firm, bank or any commercial institution adopted this method of suing its clients out of pure whim, without preliminary notice, I respectfully submit, sir, that these clients would be forced to close their doors, and this, under very short notice. Why should what exists in the business world not occur also in the intercourse between the government and the people? Why should the former not adopt the same methods?
These few comments are suggested to me by my sense of duty, not with a view to criticism but simply with the hope that the government, while endeavouring as in the past to improve the lot of our people, may give consideration to these few suggestions in order to alter somewhat the forms in use and thereby help our people as it is done in other business occupations.
I do not wish to close my remarks, sir, without performing a duty dear to me, that is to thank the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) for having been kind enough to extend some consideration to the province of Quebec in the distribution of railway lines. The county of Lotbiniere which I represent should have had 75 years ago a railway crossing it, which is so very necessary for the population of that county as a whole, but
especially for six or seven parishes on the south shore which are pressingly in need of such a railway.


Mr. RINFRET:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Achille Verville: I hear the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) saying:
" Hear, hear! " His uncle, Dr. Rinfret, of Sainte-Croix, promised this railway to his constituents for 20 years, when he was member for the riding of Lotbiniere, relying, of course, on the promises made to him by the cabinet ministers of that day, promises like those which were made to me for some time past in connection with further extending the railway line.
I wish to thank the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) for the purchase he made, only I do not wish to be too enthusiastic in my thanks and praises fearing that, with the recollection of a promise 60 to 75 years old, I might be obliged to make another which might last a further 25 to 30 years.
A bill was introduced in the house on March the 1st last, and received its first and second reading. This measure enables the present government to purchase the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway. The hon. minister in introducing this bill, gave us the cost per mile for the construction which remains to be done. He informed us that there remained 20 miles to be built at an estimated cost of $40,000 per mile. Must we not infer from the figures he gave the house that he intends to do everything possible, as I surmise, to push this railway line through and locate the terminus at Quebec instead of Fortiervielle, in the county of Lotbiniere. He further added that this railway would serve to relieve the congestion of the Levis division, the third in importance on the Canadian National Railways which also contributed to the extent of $150,000 per year to the assets of the state railways. I assert that our national railway system will realize quite a profit, providing that they complete this railway just acquired-for its purchase is now a foregone conclusion

I was present in the railway committee room this morning, and the committee unanimously decided to adopt this bill, and I feel confident the government will sanction it.
I am here to look after the interests of my constituents, and I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that at present we are a a disadvanage as regards to railways. When I was praising, a few moments ago, the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), because he remembered the province of Quebec in the distribution of railway lines this
The Budget-Mr. Verville

year, I had also intended to place before the house certain statistics with which you are as familiar as I am; these statistics are very accurate, establishing the fact that we have not been unreasonable in our requests, moreover that we were absolutely within our rights in obtaining what was granted to us. The distribution of railways at present, in proportion to the population, is as follows: in the west the ratio is 1 mile to every 125 people; in Ontario 1 mile to every 250 people, and in Quebec, 1 mile to every 500 people. Our request was therefore not unreasonable, and if I have complimented the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), he deserved it, but he will prove himself more worthy of praise if he could double the railway lines of the province of Quebec, so as to establish the same proportion between the western lines and those of the east.
I truist, sir, that the period cf promises has come to an end, and that we are to live in the realm of realities so far as the railways we have been discussing are concerned. This line crosses the most beautiful part of my county, the oldest parishes on the south shore, pioneer parishes, not only of the county of Lotbiniere, but along the whole of the south shore, for it is from these places that sprung the population which settled all the south shore parishes; they are the most beautiful and prosperous in that part of the county and it is my opinion that the government by extending the railway just purchased will not only be helping a large population which is absolutely in need of this public service, but will considerably increase our national inheritance.
Before resuming my seat, sir, I wish to state that I am satisfied with the budget brought down, first, because it gives us surpluses; secondly, because it leads us to hope that the lot of our rural population will greatly improve inasmuch as the public funds will permit. I shall therefore cast my vote in favour of the budget and against the amendment moved by the hon. acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie).


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the debate on the budget having proceeded so far it is not now necessary to pay any further compliments to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), particularly as he is not in his place at the moment.
I have no present intention of discussing the fiscal questions involved in income, expenditure, surplus or debt reduction matters referred to in the budget speech of the Finance minister, but prefer to review the proposals of the minister for the most part as

they effect my constituents; or from the point of view of those of us here who represent the eastern counties of Nova Scotia, interested as we necessarily are in the coal and steel industries.
The minister stated that, as to the tariff board, the impartiality of the board had created a favourable impression among the Canadian people. May I say to the minister that the impression among the people of my native province is one of distrust as to the purpose for which it was created and contempt as to its accomplishments during the nearly three years of its apparently useless existence.
Another gem I quote from the budget speech:
In accordance with the traditional policy of assisting the development of our basic industries, the rates of duty on certain machinery and equipment used in the mining industry have been reduced.
Here is another:
There have been various references before the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation of interest to those engaged in the fishing industry and it is proposed to assist that industry further by placing certain articles on the free list.
Now let us see what the traditional policy of assistance to basic industry a la Hon. James Robb really means. In reply to these questions asked by me:
Coal Mining Machinery-Imports
Mr. Cantley:	.
1.	What was the value of all coal mining machinery other than stone dusting equipment imported into Nova Scotia during the calendar year 1927?
2.	What was the value of such machinery which was duty free?
3.	What was the value on which duty was paid?
4.	What was the total duty paid on such machinery?
5.	What was the value of all stone dusting equipment imported into Nova Scotia during the same period?
6.	What was the total duty paid on said stone dusting machinery?
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) on Thursday last-I quote from page 737 of Hansard-answered:
Mr. Euler:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Imports of "Percussion coal cutters, coal augers and rotary coal drills and complete parts." entered for consumption in the province of Nova Scotia in the calender year 1927, amounted in value to $1,170, and the import duty collected was $234.
This is the only coal mining machinery and equipment which is separately classified for statistics, and the department has no record of the separate value of other machinery of this class imported or of the duties collected on such imports.

The Budget-Mr. Cantley
Therefore, it should seem that the traditional policy of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, so eloquently referred to will, perchance, assist the basic industry of coal mining by $234 yearly. Now I challenge the Minister of Finance to show from the records of the Department of National Revenue that the proposal I have read gives any greater relief to the coal mining industry than the figures I have just quoted as supplied by the minister of that department.
But, Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry was also to partake of the benefits of the traditional policy of assisting basic industries. The following articles are in part placed on the free list:
632c. Specially designed needles of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use only in repairing fish nets, when such nets are used exclusively for the fisheries, but not for use in repairing nets for sportsmen-Free, Free. Free.
682b. Metal swivels, of a class or kind not made in Canada, when used exclusively for the fisheries, not to include swivels for sportsmen's use-Free, Free, Free.
689b. Equipment, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and integral parts thereof, for distributing stone dust in mines-Free, 5 p.c., 10 P-c.
Stone dusting machinery, now used extensively in all our gassy coal mines to prevent coal dust explosions, which are extremely violent and disastrous in their effect, is still dutiable at 10 per cent in the general list.
Even among the friends of the government in their stronghold of the province of Quebec, no enthusiasm is shown for this budget. Let me instance that Liberal journal, the Montreal Daily Herald, where on page four, of its issue of March 4, the Monday following the budget speech of the Finance minister, I read:
A Colourless Budget
No one looking through the budget presented by the Hon. James A. Robb will doubt that Premier King was perfectly sincere when he told parliament a few days ago that the government does not contemplate holding a general election this year. It is true that when Mr. King made that statement he added that the government would of course reserve the right to call an election should unforeseen events make such a course advisable, but the possibility of such events occurring must be very remote in the view of the government, or they would never have brought down what is the most colourless and most disappointing budget which the present administration has yet submitted to the house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to the Nova Scotia press and quote from the Halifax Herald:
Mr. Robb yesterday opened the most colourless -and least satisfying-budget of his career as Minister of Finance. His speech told of gratifying Canadian progress and bounding federal revenues, but the public at large will find in the
tariff and taxation proposals of the present session little to promote more than passing attention.
So far as Nova Scotia is concerned, it is what the budget does not contain that will provoke comment and dissatisfaction. Proposals to aid the coal-steel industry, long delayed, have not materialized, at least, not in this budget.
Tariff changes are anything but "sensational".
There is nothing to offset the effect of the drawback item which remits the duty on bituminous coal imported for use in Canadian coking plants-an item which almost completely nullifies the provisions of The Domestic Fuel Act based upon a major recommendation of the Duncan commission. There is no inducement to use domestic coal in Canada coking plants with that drawback item in the tariff schedules. Either the item should have been removed or other provision made to counteract its serious and detrimental effect upon our own coal industry.
Similarly, there is nothing to offset the drawback of duty on bituminous coal imported for metallurgical purposes. Here again a direct recommendation of the Duncan commission is ignored.
The reduction of duty on certain types of mining machinery and equipment, welcome as they will be in proportion to their extent and value, form no adequate substitute for the direct recommendations of the Duncan commission which are entirely ignored. These reductions will help the coal industry a little, perhaps, and the steel industry not at all.
It may be that something will be done for the coal-steel industry before the house prorogues. It is earnestly to be hoped so. But the absence from the budget announcements of any mention of real aid is disappointing to the Nova Scotia people.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the latest Robb budget has really no tariff changes worth mentioning; knitting needles, brass swivels for fishing lines, eye dusting machinery, coeoanuts -goods never made or produced in Canada, of little importance in two of the major industries of Nova Scotia-fishing and mining; a gesture, only a gesture, small, cheap and of value comparative with its cost to the giver.
Next year the minister will, parad venture, make a gesture of assistance to our two basic industries-a matter which overshadows all other questions in eastern Nova Scotia. We have now waited two years, and another soon closes, without any suggestion of that relief recommended by the commission appointed by this government and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) two years ago promised would be implemented practically in its entirety; which definite promise has not been honoured by the Prime Minister or by his Minister of Finance.
We apprehend .that, next session, in anticipation of an appeal to the country, some election bait will be 'thrown to us by way of long delayed coal and steel tariff readjustment. It will then be a case of "needis must when the Diel drives" and fully understood as such.
sso
The Budget-Mr. Cantley

That other ambassador of empire-.the honourable the Minister of Mines (Mr. Steiwart), built on generous and substantial dead weight lines, while on pleasure bent last summer was reported by the British press as having been right royally entertained in the great metropolis, when, after dining-let us assume wisely and well-he took occasion to advise the British coal masters to look alive and arrange to ship more of their coal to Montreal, where a great market awaited .them, or words to that effect. Such, Mr. Speaker, are some of the efforts of a minister of this government whose duty is to aid, foster, protect and extend the Canadian mining industry. Mention peat, and the minister is alert-ready bo spend forty, fifty, sixty thousand dollars in any year at that sink hole, the Alfred peat bog, into which we have already thrown $335,408.92, with no practical result worth mentioning or in prospect.
Canadians had recently the experience of seeing in action our lately created ambassador to Washington. What, Mr. Speaker, was his first diplomatic problem?-what the first great Canadian or international question to be discussed with our adequately protected friends of the United States? Simply this, Mr. Speaker, an abject appeal for charity; an appeal to the United States to allow some thousands of our Canadian citizens to enter that country and obtain from their manufacturers the employment denied them in their own country. Surely every Canadian worthy of the name was ashamed and felt humiliated by the thought that our country's accredited representative should approach our rich and powerful neighbour with so contemptible a request, and hang around the door of the Washington minister for a week or more reiterating his request that our people should be given an opportunity to work in American factories to produce, in many cases, goods which were afterwards exported to this country. Surely, Mr. Speaker, a national policy is needed, and a government that will provide it.
Now, we have the product of Soviet Russia pouring into the cities of Quebec and Ontario -coal mined under Soviet conditions of virtual serfdom in the Donetz basin, and sent here to buy food for their rationed miners who must work for a- dog biscuit bread ticket. This coal, on which the railway freight from the mines to the sea is absorbed by the so-called government of Russia, freighted six thousand odd miles through the sea of Azof, the Black sea, the Dardanelles, the whole length of the Mediterranean across the Atlantic to Portland, and thence nearly 250 miles

to Montreal, is then admitted duty free into Canada in competition with the labour of our Nova Scotians and Alberta miners. I would point out that the first cargo of this coal that came across the Atlantic was destined for and went to the port of New York. It was not allowed to be landed because the government imposed a duty of $3.42 per ton on it. The ship was turned around and sent up the St. Lawrence to Montreal, and there the cargo was discharged, and no duty paid.
A few days ago I asked the Minister of Mines a question regarding the quantity of Russian coal that had come in. He gave me some figures which I do not think are reliable, because my information is that the tonnage particularly the quantity which entered the port of Montreal is more indeed nearly 50 per cent greater than the figures he gave me. Be that as it may, the fact is that a large quantity of that coal has come into the country. The other day I saw a letter to a coal dealer from one of the prominent coal importers in Montreal, in which he pointed out that he was handling this coal and that he could assure the dealer that he would be in a position to supply it regularly throughout the entire coming season. Is this government to sit still; are all the resources of this government of no avail to deal with this matter? Canada is said to possess one-tenth of the total coal resources of the world, yet with many of our coal miners idle to-day our beneficent government allows coal to come into Canada from a Soviet-controlled country, transported over a distance of about 6,000 miles to enter into competition with Canadian coal, in direct disregard of all business economic principles. I appealed to the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Customs, and was told that the government is powerless. Each appeared quite unconcerned; they could not or they would not act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did you try the Minister of Agriculture?


Thomas Cantley: No, I did not. I exempt the Minister of Finance from criticism; for he did exhibit some interest, some concern, and I think he will make some inqui^ into the facts. As for the others, they are hopeless.	. .
Now, Mr. Speaker, I point out that no tariff consideration is given the Canadian coal and steel industry. The excuse of the Minister of Finance for ignoring applications from other Canadian producers for adequate protection is the thread-bare assertion that they are still being considered by the tariff

The Budget-Mr. Canlley
advisory board. So far as the coal and steel industry is concerned, he is so contemptuous of it and of those interested in it that he does not even trouble to make this paltry excuse. One remark he does make, doubtless intended for the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) or those few who hold similar opinions; he says that the policy of this administration is not a high tariff policy but a low tariff policy; its policy is to eucourage production at home and the marketir g of our excessive production abroad. We see how a low tariff policy, with respect to iron and steel, not only encourages but has actually ensured the marketing in Canada last year of about $300,000,000 worth of American iron and steel, at least 75 per cent of which could and should be made in this country with enormous economic advantage to the steel and coal industry, the transport workers and other associated spheres of activity. During recent years the government, when giving consideration to the tariff, have paid no attention whatever to the interests of the Canadian coal miners or steel workers. The tariff tinkering of the past few years has clearly demonstrated that the tariff advisory board is an effective obstacle to any upward readjustment of the tariff, while the minister holds himself quite free to decree, and does decree, a downward revision of the tariff on his own initiative or perhaps at the solicitation of party friends. We had an instance of this last year in the boast of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he boasted that he had induced the minister to reduce the duty on coal for the sake of some of his friends, who, he admitted, had not asked for the favour.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there is no sign from this government of any intention to comply with the recommendations of the Duncan report with respect to the coal and steel industry. The budget recently presented by the Minister of Finance does not even make a pretence to protect this industry and, so far as tariff relief is concerned, those interested either by way of occupation or investment may take what comfort they can from the knowledge that the present ministry have definitely turned a deaf ear to all their representations and requests for safeguarding protection or relief. The subvention of 50 cents per ton on native coal used in the Nova Scotia steel industry is ignored by the government and is still denied us, in spite of the findings made nearly three years ago by a royal commisison created by this government and notwithstanding the fact that three sessions of this parliament have been held since the commission completed its work on 78594-56
maritime claims. Not only have these remedial recommendations made by the royal commission been entirely ignored, but other recommendations are also treated as scraps of paper.
Just here I would like to refer for a moment to the coke oven bonus introduced by the Minister of Mines in April, 1927. I pointed out then to the minister that his proposal would be of absolutely no value to the Nova Scotia industry, and now I want to point out to the Minister of Finance and to the house that although that policy has been in force for two years not one dollar has been expended or claimed by way of bonus on Canadian coal used in the coke ovens of this country. The only report made so far is one as to about 15,000 tons used in Halifax in a small plant which was built to replace an antiquated city gas installation built some fifty years ago. Some of the friends of the government had under consideration, at the time this bill was passed, the location of coke ovens for the production of coke and gas in Montreal. They knew the provisions of the proposed act before the act was voted on, and before the plant location was decided on, and I want to point out to the house that they deliberately built their ovens alongside the Lachine canal. Why did they do that? They decided upon that location because they had no intention of using a ton of Nova Scotia or other Canadian coal in that enterprise. If they had so intended they would have located their plant down at the lower end of Montreal harbour, where Nova Scotia coal could have been unloaded direct into their storage bins fy-om the colliers. They decided upon their present location in order that American coal could be transferred direct from the holds of the steamers to the bins of the plant, and that is being done, therefore if they now for any reason should wish to take advantage of the bonus as to Canadian coal they would have to tranship the coal into lighters or by rail at a cost of from 50 cents to one dollar per ton, in order to get it to their plant, this due to its location. They knew what the proposals of the government would be and they simply ignored them. I do not know whether or not the government really knew how little value these proposals had; my impression is they did not care; they constituted a gesture. At all events the Minister of Mines gave us a gold brick, to use ordinary parlance.
I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his seat; I should now like to put a few plain questions to him. I ask the Prime Minister if he is determined to continue to dishonour the findings of his own royal commission,



The Budget-Mr. Cemtley

the recommendations of which he said on August 30, 1926, speaking at Windsor, Nova Scotia, would have great weight in parliament. What did he mean when, from his place in this house on March 18, 1927, he stated:
The government hopes that by accepting as we have the recommendations of the royal commission on maritime claims virtually in their entirety, parliament and the country will recognize in the attitude of the government a wish to remove this great question as largely as possible from the arena of sectional discord and party strife.
Does the government's inaction and failure to implement an important portion of the Prime Minister's promise mean that his cabinet is divided on the question and that he is delaying and denying justice to Nova Scotia rather than grapple man-fashion with the reactionaries within the cabinet? Whatever the causes may be, the failure of the government to carry out the promise of the Prime Minister is producing an effect on the steel and coal situation in my native province and developing a state of feeling among those dependent on these two basic industries which bodes no good to the government and has checked and arrested plans of reorganization, extension and betterment of the industry, and we in this house, representing the counties primarily interested in and, to a very great extent, absolutely dependent upon the prosperity of these industries, demand a declaration of the policy of the government in regard to the carrying out of the recommendations of the Duncan commission in the matter of these two outstanding major industries of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I take it that each member of this house is the representative of the electors of his constituency .and, as such, should by right support in the debates of the house those principles and ideas clearly expressed by the majority of those who sent them here. In my case, I have no shadow of doubt as to the views and wishes of my constituents on the matter of the implementing of those recommendations of the Duncan commission not yet acted on by the government. May I remind the house that less than a year ago, or to be exact on May 22nd last the Finance minister, in a moment of irritation characterized the expressions of dissatisfaction of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) and myself, as " whining." Again, during the debate of some few days ago, namely, on February 26 last, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), twice in one speech referred to what he called " continual harping " on the questions raised by the Duncan report and later in the same 
speech referred to what he called the " doleful wails " which come from time to time from those on this side of the house representing the province of Nova Scotia. These wholly uncalled for and most offensive gibes we hurl back at the authors of them, in entire justification of our attitude and discontent as to the measure in which the Duncan commission's recommendations have been implemented. I want to tell my worthy friends that so long as the rights of the province of Nova Scotia as I see them remain unredressed and so long as I can obtain sufficient oatmeal to supply my internal combustion engine, I will offer protests in this house on every fitting opportunity.
I now draw the attention of the house and the Prime Minister to some features of the Nova Scotia case and point out that a certified copy of a report of the committee of the Privy Council on April 17, 1926, to be found on page 6 of the report of the royal commission on maritime claims, reads as follows:
The Prime Minister is also advised that on the 12th day of March, 1926, the Premier of the province of Nova Scotia presented to the legislative assembly a resolution to the effect that his government is engaged in preparing a memorandum setting forth in detail the claims of that province with the object in view of seeking such adequate redress as will insure a return of contentment and prosperity to the people of that province.
The report continues:
The Prime Minister observes that it is most undesirable that any section of the people of the maritime provinces should entertain the opinion that their interests are being knowingly prejudiced, and that the public interest requires that every occasion for the existence of a feeling of grievance should, if possible, be removed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of the foregoing-declaration of the Prime Minister that the public interests require that every occasion for the existence of a feeling of grievance should, if possible, be removed, it surely was incumbent upon the Prime Minister to make every possible effort to that end notwithstanding which the undeniable fact is that no action has been taken by his government on two of the most important recommendations of the Duncan commission-recommendations accepted by him. I refer to their evasion of and deliberate refusal to implement the recommendation of the commission as to the two basic products of the maritime provinces which, he admitted, lie at the very foundation of the economic prosperity of those provinces. The Prime Minister, speaking in this chamber on the subject of the Duncan commission report on maritime claims on March 18th, 1927, said:

The Budget-Mr. Deslauriers
With reference to the natural basic products of the maritime provinces, namely, agriculture, fish, timber and coal, the government shares the view expressed by the commission that aspects that arise from the character of these natural basic products of the maritime provinces "lie at the very foundation of the economic prosperity of these provinces," and that, as respects these subject matters, "no greater dis-service could be done than to evade deliberate decision."
With regard to the question of coking plants, the commission's recommendation that immediate practical steps be taken, has been accepted and a bill will be introduced at the present session of parliament respecting the establishment of coking plants at convenient centres in Canada under government assistance, along lines approved by the special committee of the House of Commons, which dealt with the fuel question last year.
I submit that nothing more farcical has ever been put upon the statute books of Canada than the legislation arising out of that promise of the Prime Minister. Hundreds of coke ovens have been built and not one dollar has been paid by way of bounty, nor will it be. The Prime Minister continues:
The recommendation of the commission that the tariff advisory board should be asked to give immediate consideration to the customs tariff in its relation to coal, anthracite and coke, has been met. The matter is now before the tariff advisory board.
How long will it be there?


An hon. MEMBER:: Twenty-five years.


Thomas Cantley: If the board lasts so long, but I submit such will not be the case, due to an impending change of government. The Prime Minister continued:
The question of protection on the primary products of iron and steel was, as stated in the report, under the consideration of the tariff advisory board at the time of the commission's investigation. Owing to the existing uncertainty of conditions surrounding the iron and steel industry in the maritimes, the government does not feel in a position to make at present any pronouncement with respect to the commission's recommendation of a renewal of the system of granting bounties with respect to steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture.
I submit that if the industry was in such bad shape surely that was the time when the government should have exhibited some interest and come to its assistance. In conclusion he says:
In concluding this statement, may I say that the government hopes that, by accepting as we have, the recommendations of the royal commission on maritime claims, virtually in their entirety, parliament and the country will recognize in the attitude of the government a wish to remove this great question as largely as possible from the arena of sectional discord and party strife, and a desire to give to our Dominion in the sixtieth anniversary of its founding, a renewed expression of the spirit V8594-S6J
which animated the fathers of confederation in their efforts to construct out of British North America a federal union under a system of government devised "to protect the diversified interests of the several provinces and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the union."
God save the king!
Mr. Speaker, two full years have passed since the Prime Minister made these important declarations as to the policy of the government as regards matters which, he then rightly stated, lie at the very foundation of the economic prosperity of the maritime provinces. Two years have passed-two years of, for the most part, trial and stress for coal and steel-the two basic industries of Nova Scotia-as to which the Prime Minister stated no greater dis-service could be rendered than to evade deliberate decision thereon.
Now. Mr. Speaker, I charge the Prime Minister, his Minister of Finance, and the government with evasion of-to use his own words- "deliberate decision" on the vital matter of protection of these two natural, basic products of my native province.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Might I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, my first duty
is to congratulate the government for the admirable skill shown in the administration of the affairs of this country. Our friends m the opposition seem to have agreed among themselves to deny all credit to the government for the good this administration has accomplished, attributing everything to Providence. We readily admit as they do, that nothing on earth happens without Providence's kind intervention; however, the government's followers and the people of Canada as a whole must rejoice in the fact that the administration of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King has been found worthy of the kindness and generosity of Divine Providence, as this never happens when our opponents are in power. Hence, we are led to believe that the people of Canada will for a long time trust this administration which is so favoured by heaven, and that they will for as long a time withhold from the fateful hand the management of our affairs.
In my brief remarks, sir, I wife to particularly draw the attention of the government to the rights and the future of a class of people that are entitled to all their consideration; I mean the labouring people including every class. Within the last few years, we read in both the Canadian and European press, article after article expressing
The Budget-Mr. Dexlaurieri

the views of certain people on the so called necessary immigration to Canada; we have had the visit of distinguished Lords who came to submit immigration schemes, and on August 30, 1928, in these parliament buildings, the British Parliamentary Association held a meeting where the delegates of all the sister nations were present in numbers. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, India, the Island of Malta, Southern Rhodesia and Canada took part in the proceedings. The agenda was as follows:
Trade and economic development particularly from the viewpoint of markets within the empire, and the immigration problem.
As a result of this conference, we may conclude that the majority of these states regretted that they were unable to admit any more immigrants owing to the large number of unemployed in their respective countries. All agreed with the fact that Canada had an immense space to fill up and that Great Britain had a choice in material to send over.
Expressing my own personal views, I put to myself the following question: have we in Canada, at present, and for years to come, a real problem of immigration to solve or inaugurate with whomsoever it may be? According to certain newspapers' reports, 1,500,000 British people without work and unsuited to farming would immediately be dumped into this country, this would simply increase the number of those at present out of work, [DOT]create a problem of unemployment, cause misery and reduce the wages of our excellent workers or replace them as the thing too often happens. Indeed, we sympathize with those [DOT]unfortunate unemployed of the motherland, but not to the extent of shouldering their burden. We may thank Lord Lovat for the great interest he takes in the development of Canada, but we would prefer that he exerted his energy in solving the problem of his country, and this on his own soil. We consider it too dangerous to allow waves of immigration like those of 1815 when Great Britain which had thousands and thousands of unemployed soldiers threatening to stir trouble, sent us thousands of them to found a military colony in the neighbourhood of Perth, soldiers with no other training than that of camp life or of factory work in Glasgow's spinning mills. Again, in 1823, to relieve Ireland of its unrest, poverty and misery, the Ramsay district, near Perth was invaded by hundreds of these poor Irishmen; and again in 1825, the district of Peterborough, on the river Trent, admitted thousands of unemployed that the mother country sent. Furthermore, weighing the

words, I think, of Mr. Chamberlain, addressed to the British Labour party with reference to the approaching general elections, in England, I state that at present Canada does not desire immigrants, with a revolutionary and subversive turn of mind to disturb the peace of this country. Shall we be so unfortunate as to have an immigration problem because our country, of all those that took part in the last war, is recovering more rapidly and marvellously from the disastrous effects of that war? Or will it be because, besides meeting our current expenditure, we are yearly redeeming our debt by 50 to 60 million dollars? Does danger threaten because we are the foremost nation of the world in the production of nickle, asbestos, paper, water-powers and agricultural cooperation? . Or because Canada stands foremost as a producer of gold, silver, copper and all metals even coal, or again because statistics place us in the forerank in regard to construction, automobile industry and tourist trade?
Is it a calamity for our people to be assessed by banks at 8225 per capita and that our dollar by its purchasing power is worth more than the par value of all countries in the world? Were we wrong in ranking ourselves the second nation in exports, per capita; are we in danger because out of a total of 15,000,000 h.-p. we develop at present 5,000,000 h.-p., and because prosperity is at its peak in all fields of activity: insurance, banking and industry especially the wheat industry which has given Canada the surname of granary of the Empire?
What in the world is there to induce us to create here a problem of subsidized immigration? I cannot see why we should solve the problems of others at our expense and at the risk of the worst consequences. The problem we have to deal with in Canada is one of moderate and careful settlement, that of stemming the emigration of our people in order to keep up farming activities in those parts already cleared, and then opening new districts giving preference to the native sons of Canada, or later to an immigration of farmers coming from a country where the climate is similar to ours and where the people are accustomed to economic and strenuous farming life.
I shall not refer to the vastness of our country or of our national resources whose development is in its infancy, I shall even acknowledge that agriculture, trade and industry can absorb a certain number of chosen immigrants. However, if the reports of the Labour Gazette on unemployment are consulted, the government will not allow any-

Private Bills
one to immigrate here unless they are assured that these immigrants will not be a charge to the state or that they will not deprive our people of their right to existence by replacing them or reducing the salaries of our workers. In the course of last summer, while on a trip to the west, I was somewhat astonished to read in local newspapers that a congress was being held in Winnipeg with the object of fixing the number of harvesters that the various western provinces could absorb during the crop season, in view of the scheme planned to import miners from Europe.
With the knowledge that modern machinery, to-day, forcibly creates unemployment, it seems to me that we should be able to pick up here all the hand labour which we need, on condition that the workers be reasonably remunerated, humanely treated and that the rates of transportation do not deprive them of most of their savings; unfortunately these conditions seem to be entirely lacking. If we are allowed to draw a conclusion from the importation of 8,500 miners who came to us during the harvest season to work on the land, it cannot be very flattering to us since a very small number settled here and the remainder returned home more or less satisfied, finding no attraction here-another proof that we cannot make a farmer out of everybody.	[DOT]	,
An imipontian't fact not to be lost sight of, is that last year 5,000,000 bushels of wheat remained in the elevators, having found no favourable market, and owing to this fact, the price of wheat was considerably depressed. When I find that wheat growers' associations want to prevent the presidents of railways, Mr. Beatty and Sir Henry Thornton, from publishing bulletins on crop outlooks, pleading that truth hurts their interests, I think I have a right to conclude that although our western plains are able to absorb many more farmers, we should regulate their development, bearing in mind the markets actually at our disposal and capable of absorbing our production. And what is true for agriculture is also true for all industries.
Immigration must not be a question of sympathy but one of business. What is the use of transferring hardships from one locality to another or else increase it? Each country should have sufficient patriotism and self sacrifice to solve their own problem of unemployment and not seek to add exile to their unhappiness. If we wish to attract farm settlers to this country we must revert to the liberal policy in force between 1896 and 1910, under the direction of the Hon. Clifford Sif-ton, when the west made extraordinary
strides. It is an error to set aside the continental immigration or to neglect, in a continental country like ours, people that are trained to farm life, thrifty, hardy and steady, living in a climate similar to that of Canada.
Is it not a fact that years ago no Canadian settler wanted that swampy land to the east of Winnipeg and back of the Riviere Rouge, yet, to-day, it is the most fertile land of Manitoba, it was drained by a settlement of Galicians hailing from the Carpathian mountains, without any government assistance, they but asked the privilege of working in peace? To-day they are good British Canadian citizens, happy, contented and respected.
Was it not so for the western part of lake Winnipegosis where continental people, without any aid, made a success of that district? Such was also the case with a settlement of Hungarians who, with no assistance, took up land back of lake Manitoba, to the east of Neepawa. and made a success of life. Furthermore, we find continental immigrants settling the arid lands along the Rosthern railway, from Regina to Prince Rupert, digging wells, irrigating the land and making of this district one of the most productive in the west.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 74, respecting The Premier Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Lawson.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 27, to incorporate Barclays Bank (Canada).-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 30, respecting the Protective Association of Canada.-Mr. Boivin.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 28, respecting the Pension Fund Society of the Bank of Montreal, the Molsons Bank Pension Fund, and the Merchants' Bank of Canada Pension Fund-Mr. Guerin-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Merchants' Bank pension fund repealed.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the provision
with respect to the time the act shall come into force?
8S6
Private Bills


Mr. GUERIN:: It is to come into force
immediately on its sanction. As the hon. member is no doubt aware-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know what it is; that is not the point. I want to know if there is any date fixed for it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 41, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Kellner-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-lines of railway authorized. Subsections 2 (a) to (h) inclusive agreed to. On subsection (i)-Hazeldine-Cold Lake.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, it is very
difficult indeed to know exactly where you are in connection with this bill. I heard you refer to subsection (a) but I did not hear you refer to any other part of the section. I would like to know exactly what has been done so far.


John Frederick Johnston: I called the subsections down to subsection (i), Hazeldine-Cold Lake.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Have you passed all the
other subsections?


John Frederick Johnston: There were no objections.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There was one subsection of which the committee did not approve.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has been stricken
out.


John Frederick Johnston: Subsection (e), Suther-land-Melfort, has been stricken out. I did not call that.


Edward Joseph Garland: All the
others stand?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.
Subsections (i) to (m) agreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7.	.


John Frederick Johnston: Section 7 seems to be a new section, different from the printed bill. Probably I had better read it:
The directors of the company may from time to time enter into any agreements or arrangements with the Canadian National Railway 
Company or any other company owning, controlling or operating any railway comprised in its system for selling, conveying or leasing by one to the other of the whole or an undivided joint right, title and interest in and to the whole or any portion of any line or lines of railway or other property, for the granting by one to the other for a fixed period or in perpetuity of such rights and privileges as the directors may see fit, whether by way of joint operation of any line or lines of railway, or the running of the trains of one company over the tracks of the other, or otherwise howsoever in respect of the lines, tracks, terminal facilities and appurtenances of either company; such agreements or arrangements to be subject to the like consent of the shareholders, the sanction of the governor in council upon the recommendation of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, application, notices and filing provided for in sections 151 and 154 of the Railway Act, whichever may be applicable.
Section 7 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.



WA WAN ESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 31, to incorporate the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company-Mr. Thorson.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-Applications before commencing business.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This has been approved by the Superintendent of Insurance, I understand.


John Frederick Johnston: By the committee. Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On section 17-Acquisition of rights and property of provincial company, etc.


Mr. THORSON:: Section 17 was amended.


John Frederick Johnston: By adding after the word "acquire" in the first line the words "by agreement to insure or otherwise."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hewitt Bostock: Private bills having been
disposed of, the house will revert to consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance,

The Budget-Mr. Deslauriers
that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.


Mr. GEARY:: Will not Your Honour go
into public bills and orders?


Hewitt Bostock: I am afraid not. In the case of a special order which takes precedence over public business, Rourinot says:
The hour for private bills is not interfered with when precedence is given to a particular order, but sometimes they are not called in order to meet the general convenience of the house, and its desire to conclude a debate. In such cases, this is a matter of arrangement with the members in charge of private bills.
It appears therefore that while an exception is made in respect to private bills, the special order takes precedence over public bills and orders. In this instance, the special order for consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance does not exclude private bills.


Hermas Deslauriers: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock, I had begun to enumerate a number of localities in the western provinces where the labour of the continental immigrants had accomplished marvels and to whom, perhaps, we owe to a great extent the prosperity of the west. Are not the prosperous districts located to the west of Swift Current the fruit of the labours of the Mennonites? Yet, in days gone by this territory was known as the " American desert."
To whom belongs the credit of having transformed in prosperous districts the land situated to the west of Dauphin, after this land had been refused by everybody? To the Galicians again, and this without any assistance.
Sir Clifford Sifton placed no faith in the immigrant who required assistance. All those brought over here by him are to-day among the most prosperous, the most contented and they make excellent citizens; these people immigrated to this country because they were tired of the continuous European wars, the vexing taxation and the ruinous legislation they had to put up with; they came to Canada to enjoy freedom and peace and they were not disappointed. They show themselves equally worthy in industrial life; their honesty rapidly promotes them to the management of affairs; their honesty, I say, is proverbial, they have no debts, their obligations are duly met; even the rare instances of government loans for digging wells and for irrigation have been faithfully met to the very last cent, a thing quite exceptional, it seems, when the government is the creditor.
We have no immigration problem in Canada, our financial situation does not require it and the markets at our disposal are ample for the rapid development of our country. It would be folly to risk creating here the problem of unemployment such as it exists in Europe, simply for the satisfaction of relieving others of their troubles. The cooperation of the various members of the Empire seeking to spread prosperity, is certainly an excellent thing, but not to the extent of burdening ourselves with the economic difficulties of others, created by the designs of their financiers; the solution of our own difficulties should suffice.
Notwithstanding all these considerations, I admit that we could allow certain classes of immigrants to come and settle on our vacant lands; however, on the other hand I strongly side with the views of Sir Clifford Sifton who had very little faith in the assisted immigrant, preferring greatly the individual coming from the farm and going to the farm without assistance, fortified by his pluck and determination to work and seconded by both his knowledge and practice of rural thrift, essential conditions to success, as the Abbe Bilodeau points out in his treatise on the emigration of our own people.
I have no faith in the system in which the British immigrant receives $45 for himself, $18.25 for his wife and his children under 17 years old, and $15 for every girl or woman coming to this country as a domestic. Endeavouring to place on the land people who have not thrifty habits, is fruitless; the whole federal treasury would be necessary to cater to their wants and then it would all end in failure. It is a serious problem to bring over to this country immigrants whose sole aim is to obtain credit here and there and on the slightest pretext, to be in everybody's debt and repay nobody; to insist on rural and bank loans, state insurance, tax exemption and railway stations at their door. I state that such immigration should not be encouraged, because those people will never be happy and always be very indifferent Canadians. It is not good policy to bring over in large numbers the unemployed of other countries, British or not, at the risk of seeing the salaries of our workers decrease to the extent of their not being able to meet the demands of the cost of living; no more than it is good policy to seek overproduction without having, first, the markets to dispose of such products.
The only problem that should need our attention is that of the emigration of our people and the settlement of our land by the native sons of Canada. In order to solve this

The Budget-Mr. Deslauriers
difficult ploblem, the agricultural education of our people should be the main plank of our program; we should train our citizens to cooperate among themselves so as to develop their farms; the superiority of farm life compared with that of industry should be taught in schools, rural taxation reduced to its simplest form, every farmer's son not needed on the farm should at all times benefit by special transportation rates, in order that travelling expenses do not absorb the greatest part of his savings; a propaganda should be organized against this tendency for luxuries and easy life which is the first and perhaps the only reason for the emigration of our people; we must convince our people that, this leads to poverty and the source of all evils. In a word, we must make the farmer happy and confident.
While on the subject, I think I should draw the attention of the government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to the methods used in establishing restricted areas throughout the provinces. All that has been done up to date is of a nature to discourage, ruin the farmer and force him to desert his farm. According to veterinary experts such as Mr. Hilton, the tuberculin test on cattle is not conclusive. That is why we should not follow the same course as in the past spreading error and destruction in the farmer's home, in a too positive and sometimes too arbitrary way. It is a crying injustice towards the farmer to have him winter his cattle, then come to him in June and condemn them with more or less a reason, or to keep them in quarantine part of the summer, having previously slaughtered a number of them, thus depriving the farmer of revenue during summer, when he is already poor, or to further oblige him to purchase more cattle coming out of winter quarters when prices are up, furthermore adding to all this considerable expenses for disinfection; and, all this trouble for a minimum assistance on the part of the government. The result of this innovation seems to me disastrous and we should proceed otherwise to avoid discouraging the farmer and inducing him to desert the farm.
Since 1881, and especially since 1910, the Canadian Pacific railway has spent $70,000,000 in settling people and has taken care that these settlers were provided with a certain number of acres of land under culture, building them a house and barn and providing them with a good water supply in view of sparing them the hardships to which the pioneer is exposed, and thereby giving them the opportunity of starting work immediately.

I understand that the Canadian Pacific railway has made arrangements to settle in this manner, within three years, 1,000 families, according to an agreement concluded with the Empire Colonization Bureau. Indeed, that is a praiseworthy act on the part of that company, 'but what would still be more practical and patriotic on their part would be to grant this same privilege first to the native sons of Canada, thus cooperating with the Dominion and provincial governments.
If a private concern can do such praiseworthy acts, may we not inquire if our national associations, such as the St. Jean Baptiste Society, Artisans, Caisse Nationaio d'Economie and PAlliance Nationale could not take an interest in our problem with their large funds available each year and under the guarantee of the Dominion government as it was done in France, when the Credit Foncier was founded. Could not some sort of an experiment be carried out?
All citizens, whether Canadian born or naturalized must, as their first duty, work for the development of their native or adopted country as the case may be. We are aware, however, that money is every day sent out to foreign countries in order to provide for a brother or a sister. Such things are possible under our Immigration Act drawn up and enforced in such a manner as to allow this state of affairs. The Canadian naturalized citizen should have the privilege to gather around him in Canada the members of his. family, a very humane thing since the natural law compels the children to look after their father, mother, brothers and sisters and such is the case in all civilized nations; thus, it is; an anomaly of our Immigration Act to allow a brother to bring over his brother providing he is not married. Is not the aim of immigration to increase the population? This young man will in time found a home, become naturalized, yet the law denies him the right to bring over his future wife. This seems tome to have no sense. The fear that these young people will become a charge on the State does not seem to me admissible. It is clearly proven that the spirit, family education and the economic life of these people make this impossible-that these people become a charge on public charity-thrift among them seems to be a family virtue.
I had the opportunity to verify in my ownriding, where five or six churches have been erected by these various nationalities, the strength of their respective organizations, their proverbial honesty, their punctuality to-meet their obligations and this without exception. All this tends to prove that they have the true conception of the principles of

The Budget-Mr. Adshead
justice toward society, and which must naturally bind them first to their parents. Observe that they are noted for their powerful associations and the care they give to the education of their children who rank at the head of their classes in our English and French institutions. For the present, sir, we may disregard immigration as a problem, and we must condemn this present system wanting us to accept: an intensive immigration under false colours, the real aim of which is to rid the motherland of its problem of unemployment and bring on a peace without sacrifice to its millionaires. We are in duty bound to safeguard the rights of our working class to a living and at a reasonable salary. Already our unemployed are sufficiently numerous in our towns, and we are not anxious to see a renewal of the scenes, troubles and hardships of 1913, when, without any consideration whatsoever, we attracted to our shores large waves of immigrants. Moreover, there is nothing to hurry us to over-populate our country and find ourselves facing the same problem as in the United States which to-day are forced to enact quota legislation. In Italy, Germany and Japan overpopulation of a restricted territory is a source of much trouble. Let the motherland preach the spirit of sacrifice and patriotism to her millionUaires in order to better the lot of the people.
Canada is prosperous in all fields of activity, it behooves us to have an eye to its development, which may be slow if necessary, but sure, in such a way as to have this desirable state last as long as possible, and to guarantee to our people that life of freedom, peace and happiness that all nations seek.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate it seems to have become a custom to say something about those who first dealt with the issues which arise in connection with the budget. I do not propose, as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said, to toss many bouquets, but I think it only just to say with regard to the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) that we were extremely pleased with his excellent presentation of his case, and I think perhaps it is not out of the way to say that it was one of the best speeches he has ever delievered in this house. However, while I admire the manner in which he presented his arguments I cannot say that I entirely agree with them.
Having said that, I want to add that one of the things which has struck me as rather remarkable in this house during the last few years is that during the whole session those who sit to the right of the Speaker almost
always adulate and praise the government in power of the day, seldom finding anyhing in their actions to criticize, while those who sit to the left of the Speaker almost invariably find fault with the government. Their very name, " the opposition," signifies that they are here to oppose, and this session the highest point of opposition was reached in the statement of the acting leader of the opposition that the present government had reached a carnival of extravagance through taxes wrung from the people. I think that was the height of the condemnation of the present government. However, there are evidences that the country at large is getting rather tired of this partisan state of affairs and this method of dealing with the business of Canada, the public takes with a grain of salt what may be said from the right of the Speaker in praise of the government or what may be said from the left of the Speaker in condemnation of the government. I was rather struck with an article appearing the other day in no less a Liberal paper than the Calgary Albertan, which is a strong supporter of the government. Dealing 'with this very question of partisan speeches, the article says:
Twice in the present session of the House of Commons members have been privileged to witness the rather unusual spectacle of members voting strictly according to conscience without reference to party.
I wonder if there could be a more striking condemnation of our partisan system than the statement that it is a most unusual thing to see members of the House of Commons voting according to their conscience. Then the article goes on to say that whether satisfactory results were achieved in these two deliberations during which members voted according to their conscience-
A tendency to independent thought in parliament is something to be welcomed. It encourages the hope that in Canada the day is coming when it may be no longer true that, as Gilbert said of the parliament at Westminster:
"When members of the house divide,
If they've got brains and cerebellum too, They have to leave their brains outside And vote just as their parties tell 'em to."
I was rather struck this afternoon with the remarks of the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). He took up the cudgels of the unemployed and spoke of poverty and sorrow in the city of Toronto; in fact I told him he would make a very good labour man and asked him why he did not sit in this corner with the representatives of labour.


Peter McGibbon: You must remember
that he is opposing the government.

The Budget-Mr. Adshead


Herbert Bealey Adshead: 
An hon. MEMBER:: You mean your
friends to your right.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The Budget-Mr. Adshead

to-day as they were then, because two and two will always make four and that is true of what he said with regard to economics.
But I want to follow up the reasoning of my hon. friend. He said: "The amount of taxation is the great thing. Who cares for the rate?" After that statement my hon. friend should come over to this corner of the house. I turn to the public accounts and I find that the amount of income tax collected, when the rate was five per cent was $47,386,000. When the rate was reduced to four and one-half per cent, the income tax collection increased to $55,571,000, and upon being reduced to four per cent, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance the expected income tax receipts for this year will amount to $58,000,000. My hon. friend says we are burdened with taxation, and asks: "Who cares for the rate so long as the amount of taxation is reduced?" So we know that he is opposed to the income tax levy and will join with us in asking the Minister of Finance to raise the rate of the income tax to five per cent, because, if the rate is raised, the collections will be less than before.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: What about the double taxation of income?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not know that that applies to the question at issue. That is another matter which might very well be considered. If it comes to an extreme condition of affairs like that-who cares about the rate so long as the amount of taxation is decreased?-my hon. friend will be a free trader by and by, because who cares about the rates if we can only get less taxes collected under the tariff?
I come now to a statement made by my hon. friend in connection with the Australian treaty. Last year I had something to say about that treaty; the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) and I had a few words, and I stated in the house that if the farmers of the west could not meet the competition of our confreres of the British Empire 10,000 miles away over the equator in connection, with butter, they had better learn the dairying business or go out of business altogether. I was chided by somebody for making a rather radical, rash statement. I took up the question immediately on my return to Calgary. That statement had preceded me, and the dairymen who were making butter but not milking cows took good care to spread the report throughout my district, where there are a large number of dairymen who milk cows. I was

called to a large meeting in one of the rural districts where they have a big hall, and some of my friends who make butter but do not milk cows sent their agents there. The community hall was full, ladies and representatives of the United Farmers of Alberta being present, and I was asked to speak. I said:
" I have come to render an account of my stewardship; what shall I speak about?" Immediately people in the audience cried out: " The Australian treaty." The only thing I did was to take the Hansard report of what I said in the house and read it to those present. I said: "By that statement. I stand. What have you got to say about it?" I said: " Do you want me to go to the House of Commons and be an advocate of free trade and lower tariff in regard to the things you want to buy and then be a protectionist in regard to the things you want to sell?-because if you do, you had better get somebody else to take my place." I discussed the matter at some length, and when the meeting closed I received from that large audience in the community hall a standing vote of confidence. I was instructed to come down to the House of Commons and say that at least the dairymen in my constituency were not opposed to the Australian treaty, and they were not going to be free traders in those things they wanted to buy and then turn around and be protectionists in regard to the things they wanted to sell, and thus be caught in the meshes of my protectionist friends to my right.
In January, 1923, there was a dairymen's conference in the city of Winnipeg and the report, as given by Miss Cora Hind, of the Manitoba Free Press, makes this statement:
He deplored the faet that there had been, during the year a falling off in total production due to some extent to the high prices on feed in the spring of 1928 and the high prices offered by American buyers for dairy cows. The high price of cheese too had been a factor in the reduction of the butter output. He stressed the growing home market and warned the members that if they were not prepared to produce enough to supply home demand they could not find fault if it wras brought in from other countries.
I also had some kind friend who sent me a statement from the Saskatoon Star and Pheonix, giving a report of the cooperative dairymen's association showing the events of the year, showing how much butter they had made and -what their success was. In reading over this cooperative dairymen's report I find this statement:
That Saskatchewan products and particularly those of the districts adjacent to Saskatoon are finding a demand and a popularity abroad is evidenced by the ship-

The Budget-Mr. Adshead
ments of creamery butter that are sent not only to eastern Canada and the United States but to the British Isles as well. The proof that these products are of first rate quality is seen in their demand in countries where world competition is unusually keen. The British markets receive goods from New Zealand and the Netherlands to say nothing of other lands noted for their fine dairy products. Saskatoon products measure up well to the high standards set in the world markets.
Our Saskatchewan friends mention specially the Australian butter which they have met in competition in the British markets, and they say that if they can meet the competition in England they are not afraid to meet the competition in Canada.
There was one more statement which my hon. friend made. He said that the Australian treaty was a gold brick. And then he made the statement 'that we had imported from Australia and New Zealand no less than $6,000,000 worth of butter during the year 1928. I have the returns. My hon. friend is right; it is not quite $6,000,000, but that is near enough for all practical purposes. The actual amount of Australian and New Zealand butter imported into Canada during the year 1928, to December 31. was $5,937,170. There my hon. friend was right. But as to the Australian treaty being a gold brick that is another matter. My hon. friend gave only half the truth; he gave only half the facts.
I wonder why he did not give the other side of the question as well as this. What is the other side of the question? It is that the farmers in Quebec and Ontario found it far more profitable to ship their milk, cream and cheese and other products into the United States-


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: My hon. friend says,
no. Very good. I have the figures here to show exactly what I am talking about. I am not making the statement without knowing what the facts are. In the year 1928 the farmers of Quebec and Ontario, finding it more profitable to ship their milk and cream and cheese, and send their milk to the condensed milk factories and evaporated milk factories, shipped to the United States no less than $8,749,932 worth of milk, cream and cheese and evaporated milk and condensed milk. Now, you cannot have milk and sell it; you cannot have cream and sell it and have butter too. For that $6,000,000 worth of butter which we imported from Australia these men sold their products of milk and cheese, and those other products I have named, to the United States-I am not quite certain of this figure-for about 60 cents a pound.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	May I ask my hon.
friend a question?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Is he not aware of the fact that the butter fat has been decreased in every province in the Dominion except British Columbia? That is a matter of record, not a matter of opinion.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Well, supposing it has.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Butter fat is not the
basis.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It does not alter the fact that those farmers in Quebec and Ontario chose to ship their milk and cream to the United States, cream to the extent of $5,591,816; milk to the extent of $866,920, and cheese to the extent of $1,841,874, and so on, the total amount being $8,749,932. That comes to about 60 cents a pound for their butter. And they bought the Australian butter themselves to take home instead of making their own butter. So that out of that $6,000,000 of imported butter they received themselves SS,-749,932, or a difference between the two in their favour of $2,833,263. That is a difference of over $2,000,000 which my hon. friend says is a gold brick.


Mr. RENNIE:: May I ask a question of
my hon. friend? Does he admit or not that our dairy herds have decreased in Canada in the last twelve months?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What I read a minute ago clears that up. It says that that was due in 1928 to the scarcity of feed and also to the high price paid by American buyers for Canadian cows.


Peter McGibbon: But the fact is that they have decreased.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Supposing they have?
They still have this $2,000,000. You will find when you start to scratch beneath that gold brick that instead of being a gold brick it is a brick of gold.


Peter McGibbon: Go and tell the farmers
that.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have told them.
Mr. MoGIBBON: They would not believe you.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: They believed me to this extent, that they have sent me back with that message to this house. That is exactly, Mr. Speaker, why I am so firm in that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not in the next
election.
The Budget-Mr. Adshead


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I shall be glad to meet
my hon. friend any time on that question. I will give him the privilege of the platform any time he desires.
There is a part, however, of the statement of the acting leader of the opposition with which I fully agree. That is when he quoted the Australian treaty as regards raisins. I stand with him there. I do not believe there should have been any tax upon Australian raisins coming into Canada.


Peter McGibbon: That is part of the Australian treaty.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I know that, but I do not approve of it. I agree with the hon. gentleman who spoke for the leader of the opposition. He stated that as Canada does not produce raisins we should bring them into Canada as free as possible. Those were his words. Does my hon. friend agree?


Peter McGibbon: He denounced the
treaty.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Not in whole; in part.
Does my hon. friend think that because we accept one part we must necessarily disregard the whole? But I agree with my hon. friend that because we do not produce those things in Canada they ought to come in free of duty. That is his statement. Very good. Then my hon. friend will go a step further. We do not produce tea in Canada, but it bears a duty of ten cents a pound. So I am sure he will go with us to the Finance minister and request him to take off that duty simply because tea is not grown in this country. Then we do not produce coffee, and yet it is subject to a tariff only of from 2J to 3 cents a pound.


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. member
think that that duty destroys any industry in Canada?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: No; that is what my
ion. friend said about the duty on raisins, .hat because Canada does not produce raisins no Canadian industry w'ould be destroyed if they were allowed to come in free. That is perfectly logical. But if it is logical in regard to raisins, it is also logical in regard to tea and coffee.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about butter?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Yes, if you like; we will go that far because we are not afraid of competition. As my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) said this afternoon, what would happen if the farmers asked for protection?
I told the farmers of my constituency: If the protectionists on the right of the Speaker
[Mr Adshead.]
and on the left-they are on both sides; no question about that-could get the farmer to accept protection of three or four cents a pound on butter, those protectionists . would almost howl for joy, for there would be no occasion then for the farmers to send representatives to parliament to express views similar to mine.


Peter McGibbon: The farmer is asking
for protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Then the protectionists
would ask for increased duties on everything that the farmer has to buy, they would increase the tariff on rakes, mowers, binders, trucks, and so forth.


Mr. DICKIE:: Oh, no.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why not? In the past
they have been asked by the manufacturers to do so, and will be asked again. Therefore the farmer would stand to lose in the game. I am glad to say that my constituents have sent me here with the same message which I brought last session: that we are not going to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds-we are not going to be free-traders with respect to all those things we want to buy and protectionists with respect to all those things we want to sell.


Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has presented six budgets to this house, and this, his most recent presentation, has been commendable for the same lucid and dignified manner that has always characterized his activities in parliament.
The Robb budget, as it is called on the street, has been the annual business menu of Canada for the past six years. Budgets are usually of great national concern, but this one comes as a shadow only of something better to be expected at a more opportune time. Of the past, it is a glittering jubilee of power; of the future, it is more conspicuous for the provisions that are absent than for the minor changes it contains. It is undoubtedly the most colourless of all the budgets presented by the hon. minister. Surely it is an indication of an election in 1930. It plucks credit from the bed of providential roses for past prosperity, and vainly assumes that optimism for the future is born of this government's administration. It is like the old maid, who when told by a friend that the announcement of her engagement had appeared in the paper, was agreeably surprised and answered: It is not a fact, but I thank God for the rumour


The Budget-Mr. Rowe
It is indeed of interest, Mr. Speaker, to review the record of these apostles of economy. We have heard their heralded reduction of our national debt, and we have listened to the applause of their supporters as the minister removed the nuisance taxes from the rich and left the sales tax on the necessities of the poor at over four dollars for every man, woman and child in Canada. Every year we listen to the estimated debt reduction and relief of taxation, but it is noteworthy when one takes the government's own figures from Hansard of 1922 to find our net debt of $2,340,000,000 on March 31 of that year, reduced to $2,296,000,000 on March 31 of 1928. That is a reduction in six years of $44,000,000. During the same period the government guaranteed railway bonds to the amount of $253,000,000. So they have reduced the first mortgage on our estate and increased the chattel mortgage by six times as much as the first reduction on our holdings.
The war long since over, the government now propose to reduce in part only the taxation which the people have borne with great patience year after year, hoping for its total removal. I might ask, to whom will such relief be of most benefit? Surely not to the labour man or farmer on the rare occasions when he travels by train. He will save five cents on his ticket; while his wealthy friend who travels often and can afford a chair car and sleeper will save twenty-five cents. And if his wealthy friend seeks recreation in an overseas tour the government propose to save him five dollars on his ticket and three cents every time he cables or sends a telegram to his friends while en route; but the poor man will still pay two dollars sales tax on every one hundred dollars of his wages spent for the everyday necessities of his family. When the capitalist wishes to invest in the highnpriced stocks he will pay less than the former tax, while the small investor in penny stocks will pay a tax of fifty per cent or more. As a result the small corporations will be retarded in their development accordingly.
It is therefore little wonder that the minister hesitated to call this a poor man's budget. It is perhaips for this reason that a private resolution was offered for the young and strong, by which families of five or more might be fed by the state; and for those seeking employment an unemployment insurance scheme to provide what is known in Great Britain as "the dole" has also been privately proposed. To the great basic industry, agriculture, relief will be offered by long-term government loans. To those toil-worn in cheap labour and with hopes undone by the years that are passing
under this regime of unfair competition, the old age pension will be ready waiting. Is this the essence of unprecedented prosperity so glibly referred to, or is it a preparation for a less prosperous future ensured by present policies? It is indeed true that there are signs of prosperity in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and other cities. The optimism of the Canadian people in our great natural endowments of mineral wealth has been responsible for much prosperity through speculation on the stock market, associated with the appreciation of a great heritage together with bountiful harvests of wheat in recent years. But, Mr. Speaker, with our hon. friends to your right rests the trusteeship of this estate. It is, therefore, to them the Canadian people have looked-but in vain- for leadership, for some sign of statecraft in business policy in keeping with these bountiful years of natural blessings, some direction toward an equalization of conditions whereby this so-called prosperity might reflect more reasonable recompense for the individual endeavour of all classes of our people.
Since tins government has been in power we have seen the individual crowded out of business by the highly organized corporation. Individual business men in every section of the Dominion have been driven out of business by the' chain organizations of big interests. The identity of the family name is no longer preserved on the window of the thrifty country stores, but is now replaced by the large corporation name most suitable for advertisement and mail order influence. It is pleasing, however, for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Finance to refer to the reports of the presidents of such organizations speaking at their respective annual meetings, of the prosperity they are enjoying through these amalgamated forces of commerce. It seems to me therefore that the government have listened to too much of the reports of presidents and heads of different highly organized forces of industry. The Prime Minister has quoted reports of different institutions, but in my opinion what we need is more of an outlook with the interests of the Canadian people as a whole in view. Since this government came into power we have seen a gradual increase in the imports of manufactured goods. In 1928 we purchased
5400.000.	000 more than we did in 1922, and $78,000,000 more than in 1927, while we exported $17,000,000 less, notwithstanding the fact that we had an increased export of wheat of $46,000,000. Thus we find ourselves in the position of a country with a population of
9.000.	000 purchasing about $350,000,000 more
'The Budget-Mr. Rowe.

than we sell to a country with a population of
120.000,000. It is difficult to see wherein there is sound economic management when such a situation is brought about. Since this government's latest inoculation with the free trade virus from the west, we have witnessed a gradual increase in the importation of manufactured goods, and the effect upon the consumer calls for serious consideration.
In 1925 the government reduced the tariff on automobiles. What has been the result? From 1925 to 1928 there has been an increase in importations of 260 per cent. And what has been the effect of the change from the standpoint of the consumer? From 1922 to 1925 the prices of automobiles declined 33 per cent, whilst in the period from 1925 to 1928, after this government reduced the tariff on cars, the consumer has benefited by reduction of only 9 per cent in price. We can therefore easily perceive the fallacy of the free trade idea in this connection.
The same thing is true with respect to farm implements. This government in 1922 reduced the tariff on farm implements 2| per cent, while they tinkered with the sales tax, making a reduction of li per cent; and they provided for drawbacks of 30, 40 and 99 per cent in respect to different articles of manufacture, giving the farmers to understand that they would have cheaper implements. I submit however, as one who has purchased these implements in all these years, that the farmer has not benefited one dollar. I have heard the Prime Minister make the statement that the unprecedented prosperity of the farmers was due to the reduction in the duty on the tools of production. I will ask any farmer in this house, or any member of the government, to show me wherein, taking a $2,500 set of farm implements, the reduction in the tariff since it was put into force has resulted in a sufficient reduction in price to enable the farmer to buy his boy a toy wheel-barrow. We know quite well that the increase in importations has been enormous. Every year since the government reduced the tariff on farm implements there has been a gradual increase in importations, according to the statistics we have before us. In 1924 the government reduced the tariff on farm implements 4 per cent. What has been the result? The United States papers tell us how many boys and girls have emigrated from Canada to that country since that time; every year we have seen a marked increase in the exodus. In 1928 we had $11,000,000 more of importations in farm implements than in 1927; and in the first nine months of the present fiscal year Canada has been importing from the United States over $30,000,000 worth

of .these implements, and exporting from $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 less. The fact is that the Prime Minister has not effected a reduction in the price of the tools of production which the farmer uses. And if he has not brought about a reduction in price-and I maintain that he has not-surely $30,000,000 spent in 1929 for farm implements of United States manufacture, if spent in Canada, would fosteT the industrial life of Canada and represent something substantial in the way of home markets in this country.
Let us take the two items, automobiles and farm implements. Last year we imported upwards of $100,000,000 under these two heads. I think it is reasonable to assume that $60,000,000 of that would represent labour, which would have maintained 300,000 more men, women and children in the Dominion. This is not the only evidence of fiscal instability on the part of this government, who have shown no evidence of a desire to preserve our markets either for Canadian industrialists or for Canadian farmers. We feel satisfied that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) might find some solution of the all-important question of labour by recommending to his leader and colleagues a fiscal change whereby diversified labour might be reasonably recompensed by the manufacture of our own requirements in this country. The minister scoured the whole European continent to bring immigrants to Canada as fast as our own Canadian boys and girls were leaving the country. In five years of his administration he brought into Canada 518,000 immigrants, while he watched 556,000 of our own Canadian boys and girls leave the Dominion. But, I would point out, these 556,000 Canadians needed nothing in the way of assimilation; they did not need to be taught our language. On the other hand, of the 518,000 who came into the country, 35 per cent could not speak the language and therefore had to be taught it before the process of assimilation could begin. These immigrants came to Canada at a cost of $32 per capita, and anyone who can see sound economic business in the Immigration Department, with such a situation existing, must certainly have the free trade obsession. We find the Minister of Immigration floundering as hopelessly as ever in the free trade tanglefoot. However, while he may never unravel the problem he has helped to tangle, the Canadian people will find in this, and this alone, at least the beginning of an immigration policy for Canada when next they have an opportunity to express themselves.
In view of the fact that I have the honour to represent a riding engaged chiefly in agri-

The Budget-Mr. Rowe
culture-I might say, intensive mixed farming for which the fertile lands of Dufferin-Simcoe are favourably adapted, and in which I am also personally engaged-it comes to me as a thrill of inspiration when the Prime Minister, general managers of banks, presidents of highly organized companies, and heads of the different commercial interests all emphasize the significance of our enterprise as the great basic industry-agriculture. Surely we have a right to expect consideration by this government; but to the surprise of everyone who understands rural activities, and to the disappointment of those so engaged, who have knocked at the door of the government for protection against unfair foreign produce, no relief is forthcoming. We have in the present cabinet four farmers, who have been listening to the representatives of agriculture, from one end of the Dominion to the other. Dairymen from every association in every province have been appealing to the government-what for? Only to be allowed to maintain their own markets for their own products. Vegetable growers all along the southern line, and fruit growers east and west, have also been making their appeal. And what has been the result? These four members of the cabinet from the agricultural vocation say to the farmers of Canada: "Surely you farmers will not be benefited by protection. We were only farmers and immigrants ourselves, and now look at us, almost intoxicated with unprecedented prosperity." It does seem to me that if agriculture is our great basic industry some of these ministers should assume the responsibility of speaking for their vocation. Where have these champions of farmers' rights disappeared to? Those hon. gentlemen who crossed the floor of this house to the larger party did so ostensibly to devote themselves to the interests of the farmers. What are they doing now? Do they realize that over 18,000,000 pounds of dairy products are coming into the country from New Zealand and other places? Surely the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) should give this matter his attention; he should consider mixed farming as the groundwork of this great basic industry. Because, while wheat growing from the virgin soil of the Dominion is an important industry in which as Canadians we all take pride, I submit-and I know that every agriculturist in this house will agree with me-that we cannot go on forever with this form of soil mining. When we produce $100 worth of wheat on the farm we sap the soil of its productive value to the extent of S18; that is, it takes approximately $18 worth of phosphoric acid, nitrogen and potash from the virgin soil, but when we produce $100 worth of dairy products the 78594-57
fertility of the soil is renewed by approximately $30 worth of these materials. Therefore I submit that this government's policy is undermining the very basis of this great basic industry of the Dominion. We must remember also that in the production of pork to the value of $100, according to scientific analysis $23 worth of phosphoric acid, nitrogen and potash are returned to the soil. Even the production of $100 worth of eggs or poultry, of which this government make it their business to import, returns to the soil from $12 to $15 worth of these materials; the production of $100 worth of mutton returns an approximate value of $20 to the soil. Why, Mr. Speaker, who is there among the farmer members of this house that can say for one moment that we are putting agriculture on a sound economic basis? Who is so optimistic as to say that we can develop agriculture in this country under these conditions? I say this government have done much to undermine that most important industry.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I endeavoured last year to take this up more fully, but I know even the wheat growers are becoming convinced when we find such authorities as Doctor Saunders, who developed the marquis wheat known the world over, and from whose wheat the western provinces produced their millions of bushels in recent years, stating in a speech not long ago that he felt the western wheat exporter was too intelligent to increase very much his wheat exports but looked forward to the day when wheat exports would be less important and replaced to a great degree by the production of beef, mutton, pork, dairy products, et cetera, for export. We know very well that the farmers throughout Canada are not satisfied, and I submit that no farmers' party to-day speaks for all the farmers of Canada; I believe the farmers are anything but satisfied. They are dissatisfied with the absolute neglect of this government. They realize that the government have spent about $800,000 to establish foreign embassies, to sweeten international relationships and to help develop foreign markets for our products, while they have refused to take care of the home market. On the other hand we find the Minister of Agriculture and all the other farmer members who sit around the cabinet table doing nothing in response to these appeals during the last two years. Did they crawl under the table when these appeals came before them? For years the Minister of Agriculture has turned his deaf ear to these requests, and during the past summer, when the farmers of this country were toiling from early morning till late at night, the minister

The Budget-Mr. Rowe

was doing nothing for them. They will look through this budget in vain for anything which will help them; they may even search for that old slogan which was formerly a feature of the Robb budgets, "Work harder and spend less," but they will not find even that. I believe the farmers from one end of this country to the other realize that this government have shown very little interest in agriculture except to make boastful references to it. The Minister of Finance continues to preach economy, retrenchment and thrift to our farmers, but the farmers know that he has collected from the people in taxes during 5 years of 1922-27 $259,000,000 more than 'his predecessors collected during the five yearn from 1917 to 1922 while part time engaged in the war. Yet the minister tells the farmers that the government cannot afford to continue the agricultural grants to the provinces, which were discontinued a long time ago; that they cannot continue the grants for technical education, and that they cannot consider for a moment granting money for a highway proposal which would be of great benefit to the rural districts of Canada.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the other side of the question. According to the Auditor General's report the government spent $542,000 for automobiles for the use of the various ministers and their departments, and now the government propose to expend $3,000,000 to destroy valuable buildings in Ottawa so that these high-powered machines may have room in which to operate, and also I may say in order to beautify the view of the parliament buildings so that, this will be the show window of Canada's great prosperity. These farmers who work so hard and who were toiling under the hot sun all last summer realize quite clearly that while they were toiling the Minister of Agriculture drove his high-powered automobile on board a steamship and toured the countries of Europe as a testimonial to the unprecedented prosperity of the Canadian people.
I do not wish to detain the house at any great length, but I think the farmers of Canada might well stop and think who are their friends, when the government turn a deaf ear to the needs of the great basic industry of agriculture and when we find even the minister taking no great interest in it. Apparently the sweets of office have so satisfied him that he has forgotten he was once a farmer, because there is not one phase of agricultural activity which has been promoted by any policy brought in by his government.
I believe the people of Canada have watched and waited all in vain for some move by way

of retaliation in connection with the proposed tariff of the United States. From one end of Canada to the other the farmers are viewing with alarm the proposed policy of the president of the United States, and they view with equal disappointment and regret the attitude of the present government of Canada. We admit that the United States is a nation very friendly to us, but I submit that it is up to the Canadian government at least to look after our own interests. It does seem to me that when anyone from this side of the house even suggest that Canadians should look after their own interests in a bold and sincere fashion the Prime Minister is going too far when he suggests that this is a dangerous thing to say because it might endanger our friendly relationship with the United States. The United States are quite capable of looking after their own interests. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said the other day that we should look after Canada's interests in a red-blooded fashion; I submit that the president of the United States certainly will look after the interests of his country in that way, and I say it is the duty of Canadians to look after our own business.
This government is drawing near to that famous ten year mark; we have had almost ten years of this weak and extravagant administration, and when the government appeal to the country they will be considered by a cool and calm electorate who will have at heart the interests of all classes of Canada. The electors will consider the free trade policy of this government, which has been thrown out the back door of every other nation of the world, even including Great Britain, the greatest free trade nation of the world. How this government cling to those dusty old doctrines of free trade! But when the government go to the country the Canadian people will say, "We are no longer in doubt as to the fiscal policy of the government; no longer will we be fooled by the tariff board because it costs $120,000 a year." They will say, " We must look past this scare-orow of government protection," and when this stage curtain is removed and the ministers of the crown are revealed behind it the Canadian public will ask, "Why have 750,000 Canadian boys and girls of the old stock left Canada since you have taken charge of affairs? You have talked about unprecedented prosperity while our sons and daughters have sought foreign lands for opportunities to earn a living." They will also ask why our imports have increased until now they have reached the huge total of over $2,000,000 per

The Budget-Mr. Jenkins
day. They will ask, "Why did we purchase over $400,000,000 more in 1928 than we did in 1922?" They will ask why we imported $72,000,000 of shipbuilding since this government has been in power. The total imports if manufactured in Canada would have provided sufficient work to enable 2,000,000 to be added to our population. The government flounders around wondering how to inaugurate an immigration policy, but the people of Canada will soon consider that it is their duty to look after Canada first and have Canada for the Canadians. Unless conditions change materially the Canadian public will desire the inauguration of a national policy, a policy whereby Canadians will have work within their own country, a policy which will permit expansion from within rather than induce contraction from without. Surely this is the way the pioneers of upper and lower Canada intended that we should proceed, so that the descendants of those two great races, our original and foundation stock, should find employment within their country and not be so alienated from their own estate as to have to seek employment in foreign countries by such a policy of unfair foreign competition as at present exists.


Mr. R. H. JENKINS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, the important duty of any government is the administration of the affairs of the country in the most economical and efficient manner possible. The spending of large sums of money does not necessarily mean extravagance, because it resolves itself down to what you really get in return for the money expended. It may be possible to curtail a great many items in the estimates, but it might not be wise to do so. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) receives considerable free advice, and there is a great variety in opinion as to the items which might be reduced or altogether eliminated. Some of our friends would eliminate a large proportion of the estimates of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), but there are others in the house who consider the expenditure is not large enough. Differences of opinion exist as to the vote for immigration, and the same applies to nearly every department of the civil government. We believe that the estimates which have been tabled have been very carefully prepared considering the vast country to be served and the needs to be attended to. If in a desire to pay off the debt of the country we neglect public services and allow them to become impaired, we are practising false economy and it would mean disaster in the end. The govern-78594-57*
ment is not only attending to the business of the country, but it is also making substantial reductions in the public debt. Some of our newspapers find fault with this policy; they object to the government applying such large sums to debt reduction and state that it might give a little more consideration to the needs of the moment and of the immediate future and let posterity have a chance to carry some of the burden assumed by this generation in the name of prosperity. The Financial Post of Toronto states that any government does a fine thing in steadily reducing the burden of the national debt. It further points out that if circumstances arose which made large borrowings essential at any time in the future the task would bo made easier by the debt reductions of today.
A large amount of the present expenditure is due to the Great War; that goes without saying. No government can be blamed for this heavy drain upon our revenues. Roughly speaking, about $160,000,000 is spent each year in paying interest and other charges on this liability. It would therefore appear that it will be necessary to move very cautiously and carefully in the way of reducing taxation. If we keep on eating away at our heavy debt it will only be a question of time before we can appreciably lighten the burden of taxation. Despite the war the growth of our country has been so phenomenal that we may confidently look forward with faith in the future.
Not only have the revenues of our country been buoyant but business in nearly all lines of commercial activity is marching forward.. Carefully managed companies which have-issued reports for 1928 show a healthy position. I emphasize the word "carefully" because we have heard in speeches in this house of the hard times certain companies are facing. I contend that no matter what government may be in power there will always be corporations and individuals who will find it hard to get along. It is generally their own fault, through inefficiency or lack of service. The Bell Telephone Company shows a substantial increase in the amount invested in plant, an increase of over $1,000,000 in surplus account; and it has also made larger appropriations for depreciatiom. In 1927 it employed 14,899 people, and in 1928 that number had risen to 16,240. The power companies operating in the Dominion have in every instance, in the balance sheets which I have had the opportunity to examine, made progress and in nearly every case are issuing new stock to provide for increasing business.
The Budget.-Mr. Jenkins

The textile companies have had a good year. Penman's Limited, one of the largest operators, show sales of $7,122,264; quite a substantial increase over the previous year. Stanfield's Limited, the largest company in this line in the line in the maritimes, report an excellent year. In order to show the situation at a glance, I desire to place on Hansard a statement issued by the Financial Post, probably the most influential paper of its kind in Canada. This article reads as follows:	[DOT]
Background of Business Canada
Commodity prices:
Steady at present; may be lower.
Iron and steel:
Good business on hand; more in sight. Building:
Off to a good start, should be big year. Foreign trade:
Aggregate greater. Farm products feature exports. Industry importing heavily. Employment:
Best in years. Seasonal adjustments less violent. Much new work in sight.
Car loadings:
Grain movement less; other loadings well maintained.
Stock market:
Growing more selective; reaction has provided some bargains.
Credit:
Abundant for business. Banks withhold further credit for stock speculations.
Agriculture:
Farmers in good financial position. Perhaps larger acreage this year. Better quality crop desirable. Dairying fair; live stock much better. Trend:
Further acceleration expected in all areas. Consumption keeps pace with increased production, Newsprint revenues will be lower; flour milling is improving; lumberir^ slightly better; power output gains; automobile output grows; small firms suffer from competition.
Anyone engaged in business to-day knows that the larger firms are coming along at a very rapid pace and making it very difficult for the small man in business. Mr. L. W. Simms, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, states:
The year 1928 has seen Canada producing more kinds of goods of a greater volume and a higher quality for the consumption of her own people and those of other lands than ever before in her history or the history of any people of like population. The year 1928 has seen a deeper appreciation of and regard for the productive efforts of each section and group in Canada by every other section and group than ever before.
The tourist revenue of Canada -has gone up of late years by leaps and bounds, and the year 1928 was the best of all. In that year tourist automobiles to the number of 3,645,455, as compared with 3,153,800 in the preceding year, entered Canada from the

United States. This number was over fifteen times as great as that of ten years ago. In advance of the official computation of the value of tourist, traffic to Canada in 1928, the figures would seem to indicate an increase of probably $35,000,000 for reported tourist travel alone over the $161,418,000 reported in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimate for 1927, bringing the total estimated expenditure in 1928 by tourists entering Canada via ocean ports and from the United States by automobile, rail and steamer, to the sum of $242,754,000. In our province we have a live publicity and tourist association doing a fine piece of work. A large quantity of literature is distributed each year and the men who are connected with the association serve without remuneration, the only expense in- this regard being a small amount paid to an energetic lady secretary.
The widely prevalent belief that our country is entirely dependent upon the bringing in of capital from outside sources in order to finance her development is rather rudely shattered by the information disclosed that Canada is sending out of the country more money than she is bringing in and has been doing so for the past four years. We have always had considerable investments abroad in the form of banking balances in London and New York, railway lines in the United States, and investments in foreign securities by banks and insurance companies as well as private individuals who require diversified lists of securities. A rising Canadian prosperity with a greater volume of funds seeking investment outlet has resulted in a situation where the capital leaving the country exceeds by a substantial margin that coming in.
Based on figures issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics covering the situation as at January 1, 1927, careful estimates made upon information from most reliable sources by the same authority give the total of Canadian investments abroad on January 1, 1928, at $1,514,500,000 and on January 1, 1929, at $1,672,000,000. Thus the aggregate of Canadian investments in other countries represents more than 50 per cent of what other countries have invested, in Canada. Of this total at the opening of the present year Canada had $939,000,000 invested in the United States, $112,500,000 in the United Kingdom, and $620,500,000 in other countries. Investments by Canadian insurance companies in diversified foreign securities continue to increase rapidly with the development of both their domestic and foreign business. Direct Canadian investments in branch plants in the United States commercial field and elsewhere

The Budget-Mr. Jenkins
are growing steadily. Canadian holdings of New York stocks and of European and South American government bonds have increased enormously. Altogether the record testifies most eloquently to Canadian prosperity and world1 progress.
May I say at this point that I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is to be complimented on raising the tax a little on those penny mining stocks, because I verily believe many people in Canada to-day are losing a great deal of money by investing in stocks which are absolutely worthless. I do not say that all mining stocks are worthless, but many of the mines listed on our boards at the present time are practically holes in the ground and will never amount to anything.
I am only too pleased to see the minister impose an increased rate of taxation on this kind of stock gambling, and, in fact, I would, if anything, rather see it higher.
Only a few years ago, Mr. Speaker, eveiy taxpayer in the country feared that disaster would overtake the Canadian National Railways. It was with a sense of foreboding and increasing fear that heavier burdens were in store for us in the future that the report of the operations of the system was received. Admittedly the operation of this road had placed an enormous burden on the people of Canada and some of the enemies of national ownership predicted disaster. In 1920 the loss in operation was over $30,000,000. We are apt to forget these things; we sometimes forget the days that are gone by. To-day the surplus on operation is over $58,000,000, an improvement of approximately $88,000,000. This has been brought about largely through the management of Sir Henry Thornton and his associates. The present Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) is also responsible in no small measure for the continued building up of the system. A much better feeling has been created in the minds of the public generally towards the road and the fine cooperation of the employees has added much to the improvement of conditions. Railway progress and especially car loadings constitute one of the best indexes we have of national prosperity, and the great Canadian National Railways is doing much for the advertising of Canada and the increasing stability of the country.
Applications by the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific for branch line extensions totalling approximately 1,800 miles of new road form a most encouraging feature of this year's railway program. The extensions will represent an addition of nearly 5 per cent to the total railway mileage of Canada. This new building program serves to show the importance of the new era of railway building in Canada and is one of the most favourable factors in our economic situation. Not only does it mean extra work for construction companies and companies furnishing raw materials, as well as labourers, but it will do much in the development of the country at large and give added work to those who will be employed on the new lines. By the building and operating of such new lines we hope that population as well as production will materially increase.
I wish to say a few words about the fishing industry, in which we in our part of the maritimes are particularly interested. Conditions in the fishing industry in Canada were generally better in 1928 than they had been in 1927, as regards both fishing and marketing, and there was an increase in fishery production of approximately $4,503,000. With the final revision of the year's figures still to be completed, the Fisheries branch puts the total production for 1928 at $54,000,000 as compared with $49,497,038 in 1927. There was an increased production on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. As a matter of fact, not only were conditions generally better in the industry in 1928 than they had been in 1927, but last year saw the industry more successful and prosperous than in any year save 1926, since the introduction of the Ford-ney tariff in the United States. In 1926 exceptionally favourable conditions for fishing enabled fishermen to make unusually large catches and greatly increase production. In. that year the value of the fishery production of Canada reached $56,360,633, so that production for 1928 was only some $2,300,000 less than for the exceptional year 1926. As compared with 1923 there was increase in the production in 1928 of approximately $11,400,000.
The sea fisheries of the Atlantic coast- that is, the maritime provinces and Quebec- are estimated to have had a production last year valued at $20,750,000. The Pacific Coast production reached approximately $26,250,000 and the value of the production of inland waters was about $7,000,000. In the case of Prince Edward Island there were increases in several of the catches, as, for instance, lobsters (an increase of 1,674 hundredweight to 64,474 hundredweight); oysters (an increase of 685 barrels to 4,756 barrels); scallops, which increased from 96 barrels in 1927 to 320 barrels, and clams and quahaugs, which totalled 2,552 barrels as compared with 1,174 barrels in 1927. On the other hand, there were decreases in such catches as cod, herring and smelt.
The Budget-Mr. Jenkins

The oyster catch in Canada totalled 21,366 barrels as compared with 21,285 barrels in 1927, but there was a decline in the scallop catch from 38,530 barrels in 1927 to 25,834 barrels last year-a condition attributable chiefly to a lower price level. Exploratory and observational work in connection with scallop and oyster resources were carried on in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia during the present year by officers of the fisheries branch. At the Halifax experimental station experiments in connection with the rapid freezing process were carried on and the results are such that it is confidently believed that the use of this process will greatly increase the success and prosperity of Atlantic coast fishermen and serve as well the interests of the consumer in the inland areas of Canada.
Departmental broadcasting of weather, ice and bait reports continued to be of great value to the fishermen. Extension of the fish collection service of the branch on certain parts of the Atlantic coast proved very helpful to the fishermen in ensuring them a steady and immediate market for their fish and in enabling them to have more time to devote to the actual process of fishing.
We sincerely hope the government may see its way clear to assist the fishermen in our province in the same way as other parts of the maritimes.
Speaking particularly of our own province we may state that conditions have been moderately good and business fairly well maintained. Our farmers received somewhat of a set-back owing to the low price of potatoes. To those who have the faith and courage to stand up in the face of adversity, however, we have no doubt that over a period of three or four years they will be able to market their crops at an average price. Our farmers are hard working, systematic and energetic and are not easily discouraged.
The citizens of my province are deeply grateful to the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) and his very efficient associates for the carrying on of an air mail service between Moncton and Charlottetown for some time past. Weather conditions are sometimes very trying. I understand the company operating gives an excellent service.
The Canadian National railway line to Murray harbour is being standardized this year and in order to complete the necessary work without interfering with traffic, a connecting link will be built from a point on this particular line to another point on what is known as the eastern line. We have been asking for standardization of the road for some

years past. It is the only remaining portion of narrow gauge road on the system and we are naturally pleased to see the improvement made. This will not mean any increase in freight rates owing to the longer haul, because the rate will be given on the shortest distance between any two given points. In our province several short branch lines have been asked for and we hope when the system is completely standardized and other necessary work completed that these requests may be given favourable consideration. I shall call this to the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) when the estimates are up for discussion.
Fox farming, as you are all aware, is a profitable industry in our particular province and' brings in a very large revenue. I have not the exact figures for 1928, but the net results would compare favourably, I think, with those of any previous year. Our pelts command the highest prices in the markets of the world, and breeding stock is shipped to many countries. To show the superior value of our silver black foxes one has only to read the last issue of the American magazine containing an article on fox ranching, in which it is.stated that the injection of new blood from Prince Edward Island ranches has been a very important factor in the building up of a better quality of foxes in the American ranches.
A large amount of money has been brought into the province due to the export of butter, cheese and eggs, and in the latter line we are very fortunate in having a splendid cooperative company in the province, operated by the farmers themselves. This company has had a very successful season and is doing exceptionally fine work in increasing not only the quantity but the quality of the product as well.
I would1 like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to one further matter before I take my seat. There is in our opinion a splendid opening for the building of a new hotel in Charlottetown, the capital of the province. The largest hotel at this particular point was burned early in the year. It is understood that Sir Henry Thornton has asked an expert to go over the situation and bring in a report. We sincerely hope it may be favourable. There is every opportunity to make such a hotel pay because we have the climate which is suitable for tourist business. There is splendid sea and surf bathing, good fishing, plenty of sunshine, no fog-with rare exceptions-and in fact everything conducive to the building up of perfect health. There is no place to be

The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
found in the maritimes to excel our province, and we confidently hope and expect to see a Canadian National railway hotel located at this particular point, because we feel it will not only help the province but be profitable to the railway as well.
I have spoken, Mr. Speaker, of the wonderful progress being made in Canada in various ways. I am sure that as Canadians we ought to be proud of our country, but I am afraid we sometimes fail to realize just what a wonderful country we have, and in it there is no fairer gem than the little island which I have the honour to represent.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind attention.


Mr. D. B. PLUNKETT (Victoria, B.C.):: May I offer my congratulations, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the services he rendered this country at the signing of the Peace treaty? On that occasion he not only honoured this Dominion, but brought great credit to himself as our representative. And may I convey to the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Lavigueur) my thanks for his kindly greeting upon my entry to this house?
I can assure the hon. member that British Columbia values such courtesy, coming as it does from a representative of the historic province of Quebec.
I am sorry that neither in the speech from the throne nor in the budget as submitted by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was there any specific relief or indication of help for the agricultural interests and working people of this country.
In regard to the prosperity to which the hon. ministers are continually referring to glorify their administration and to distract the attention of the people from the real issue of the day, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that having by force of circumstances been compelled to seek a constituency in the wheat belt, he should visit his constituents occasionally and talk with them. Had he done so I feel sure there would not have been such a tendency on his part to force this myth of prosperity upon the citizens of Canada, and particularly upon those engaged in agricultural pursuits. It is therefore difficult for me to give any further credit to the present government, especially for the budget introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance. I select this sentence from the minister's budget speech:
The administration, will refuse to support any extravagance in the spending of the taxpayers' money.
What hypocrisy and cheap political propaganda that sentence contains! Think of the cost of the trips taken and the time spent by cabinet ministers coming to my constituency in Victoria. I did not have the pleasure of speaking with them on the same platform in Victoria, but I am glad to meet them tonight, for I have a few stories to tell them of what they said on that occasion to the people of the city of Victoria, and I am going to ask them now' to make good what they then promised or implied. I would suggest to the hon. members on my left that if they wish to get anything for their constituents they should resign. Then in the ensuing by-elections they will get wonderful promises, but they will have to wait for results.
Before the Prime Minister could become familiar with the plan of campaign of his party managers in Victoria, he sent the following telegram to the Liberal candidate, as it appeared in the Victoria Daily Times ol Wednesday, October 31, 1928:
I am delighted to learn that you have received and accepted the unanimous nomination of the Liberals of Victoria to contest the constituency in the interests of our party in the approaching federal by-election.
That was the only time that the interests of the party were ever mentioned. Presumably the Prime Minister had not yet had an opportunity of consulting his colleagues and did not know the plan of campaign that they had laid down. As I say, that was the only time that " the interests of our party " were mentioned. We were told in Victoria that the issue was local and was being fought by the Liberal party in the interests of our city. But let me proceed with the telegram:
Your presence in the House of Commons would be of the greatest advantage to the government in every way, but especially in relation to all matters pertaining to the interests of the province of British Columbia.
The Prime Minister has on several occasions lectured the opposition for, as he alleged, preaching sectionalism and dividing east and west. But is it a good thing to favour one province as against the others, as this telegram implies? It might be good tactics at -a byelection, but the people of Victoria did not think so; they exercised good judgment. The telegram continues:
I cannot therefore express too sincerely my hope that in the general interest you may be returned as federal member for Victoria.
During the by-election I had hoped that we would have the presence of the Prime Minister. However, he did not visit us. But perhaps he thought it safer to send telegrams than to lose his political prestige by visiting
The Budget-Mr. Plunkett

us and learning at first sight some of the great needs of the Pacific coast, of which needs some of his federal ministers became convinced while with us. We did not have to wait for those ministers to reach Victoria to promise anything and everything; they started to do so even when they were at Vancouver, eighty miles from us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Double-headers.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: I am quoting now from the Victoria Times:
Expansion-New Steamer Service for B.C. Shippers. Hon. James Malcolm, federal Minister of Trade, tells delegation in Vancouver announcement coming on new link with Mexico and South America, and that request for subsidized service to Australia will have Ottawa's consideration at once.
That is what I want for British Columbia, this subsidized service. I will refer to it again later on. This is what the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
"I hope within a few days to make an announcement that will be in line with your wishes in regard to trade from British Columbia ports to Mexico and other southern ports," declared Hon. James Malcolm, federal Minister of Trade and Commerce, to a delegation of lumber men who waited upon him shortly after his arrival in tlie city this forenoon, and asked a subsidy for shipping to aid the British Columbia lumber market in Australia.
In the course of my address I shall have occasion to refer again to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now let me give another quotation respecting what this minister promised to do for Victoria:
On November 26 last at a meeting in the Capitol theatre, Victoria, B.C., in the interests of Dr. MacLean, Liberal candidate, the honourable Minister of Trade and Commerce made this further statement: "British Columbia with its world of resources and its strategic position for world trade, will and must benefit to a greater degree through an aggressive trade policy than any other part of this Dominion, and conversely would suffer more through a restricted trade policy than any other part of the Dominion."
I would ask hon. members to listen to what follows:
In succeeding Dr. Tolmie as your representative at Ottawa, Dr. MacLean will possess the added advantage of supporting the government in power, an advantage so obvious that I do not need to labour it to an intelligent audience.


Mr. GOTT:: The old stuff.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: 
Mr. BRADY:: What have they done so
far?


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: I believe there have
been three or four boat loads. The elevator was finished in the summer. There is another telegram:
Montreal, June 30/27.
President,
Victoria Chamber of Commerce,
Victoria, B.C.
Delighted to learn that satisfactory financial [DOT] arrangements have been made with respect to the construction of a grain elevator. The passage of the elevator by-law by the people of Victoria will establish your city as a permanent grain port. We have assured you the application of the Vancouver grain rate to Victoria thus placing Victoria on an equal basis with other Canadian Pacific ports. Will be glad to receive advice from you directly the by-law has been passed so that steps may be taken to provide for necessary facilities for the handling of the grain to Victoria.
Henry W. Thornton.
I have read these telegrams to show the members of this house what the citizens of Victoria took on, and the extent to which they were willing to pledge their money to make the port of Victoria and the whole Pacific coast fit for working people, and in the interests of the Dominion as a whole. It was not a selfish action on their part, for what they build will be in the interest of Canada at large. A coal storage plant to help the fishing and agricultural industries was also built at a cost of about $650,000, and the city guaranteed the company's earnings on $500,000 at 7 per cent for a period of ten years, which amounted to a pledged maximum amount of $35,000 per year. The British Columbia worsted mills was another plant which was endorsed by the city, and the bonds of this company were guaranteed to a total of $125,000, as to principal and interest at 5 per cent. The city also granted to the company the lands upon which the mills were built. With these industries Victoria taxpayers stand pledged to guarantee interest on bonds to the extent of $1,125,000.
Now what was the attitude of this federal government towards this woollen industry? In February, 1928, they removed the 12J per cent duty on weaving yarns, which meant that 32 employees, mostly women, were thrown out of employment, as since the removal of this duty not a single pound of yarn has been made for the weaving trade, and the machinery for this line is now standing idle and is useless as a paying unit of this plant. This is the policy of this government. The Victoria taxpayers can put their hands into their pockets and pay out anything, and this government by legislation will nullify all their efforts. What a situation this is for the Victoria taxpayers to face when, after assisting in furnishing the capital to build industries for the Dominion, this government, as led by the right hon. the Prime Minister, immediately brings in legislation which ruins such endeavours for progress and prosperity.
I am now going to speak of the lumber business in British Columbia, and I will show that this government have utterly failed to develop the manufactured lumber industry of the Pacific ocean covering the orient, Mexico, South America, Australia and New Zealand. Australia alone uses about 700,000,000 feet of timber a year and receives 350,000,000 feet from Scandinavia, 300,000,000 feet from the United States, and 50,000,000 feet from Canada. As recently as 1921, about the time the present government of this country came into power, Canada supplied Australia with 42 per cent of the lumber which came from
The Budget-Mr. Plunkett

this continent, and last year only 13 per cent was supplied by us; and as our shipments decreased the shipments from the United States have increased. Let there be no misunderstanding. I want the hon. members of this house to know that lumber is not included in the Australian treaty, and if this government were desirous of extending empire trade, why has not a treaty been negotiated with Australia to this end, or an effort made by the government to amend the present treaty so as to include manufactured lumber? A tariff revision was made by the Australian government in 1927. Among other things affected at that time were some items of lumber. Prior to this the Australian tariff board gave the lumber situation careful consideration, and after listening to all phases of the question recommended to their government a revision of the tariff on lumber and lumber products, giving a British and intermediate preference on all items. Unfortunately, this recommendation was not acted upon, but instead tariff changes were adopted with the lower schedules for British preference and with intermediate tariffs eliminated, with the result that lumber produets entering Australia from Canada are just where they have always been, on the same basis as the products of the United States or Sweden. American lines of steamships runniilg to Australia and New Zealand are now drawing direct subsidies totalling $1,058,700. I hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) will note this, and will try to keep the promise he made in Vancouver, of subsidizing the vessels on the Pacific coast. The British Columbia lumber industry, as distinct from the pulp and paper industry, consists of over 1,000 firms employing over 28,000 men, with an annual pay-roll of over $34,000,000. There is no industry in the province which is of such great importance to the public, and the lumber mills are also the greatest buyers of machinery and supplies. To-day the United States, under the cloak of mail subsidies, is building up and developing a great export trade in timber and other commodities. If the government of this country withdraw the Canadian National steamships from this service, as was intimated by the Minister of Railways according to Hansard of May 20 last, will the freight rates on the Pacific be lowered? Is it not more likely that American ship owners will raise their rates and that the ultimate result will be the complete extinction of our export trade in lumber and many other lines? Should it not be the duty of this government to meet the subsidized competition of the United States ships by taking immediate action to retain this 
trade, which is the largest in pay-rolls and money invested of all the industries of British Columbia, Vancouver Island alone having 25 per cent of the merchantable timber of Canada?
Now let us take up a concrete example of the inefficiency and lack of detail of the present government with regard to any action for the benefit or convenience of the people. Consider our currency; for over six years we have had the insufferable nuisance of two one-cent pieces and two five-cent pieces, and whom does this affect the most? It has a direct effect on the poor people of this country, and how much longer is this burden to be placed upon them? I suppose when the ministers are travelling around the country they do not bother with pennies or five-cent pieces, but the poor people have them and have had them now for over six years. I would like to ask the responsible minister why these old coins are not called in.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I would say to my hon. friend that the people will have money of all kinds so long as this government remains in office.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: There may be money of all kinds but it is very hard for the people to get their hands on it.
Now-a-days we do not hear very much about the reform of the senate, do we? We used to hear rumours of that in British Columbia and I expected to see all young fellows there.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is reformed now.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: Perhaps so. Surely it cannot be that the Prime Minister, in view of coming events, has thoughts of the red chamber himself; surely not.
Then there is one other matter in which the government have fallen down; they always avoid any talk of the fiscal trade policy of Canada. They do not want that brought up, but I am going to bring it up to-night even though some hon. members never heard of it before. I would like the government, if they believe in the policy of free trade, to inaugurate that policy and make a test of it. The people of Canada are weary of talking about it, and as I look back over the history of the Liberal party in Canada it seems to me like Joseph's coat; it is of many colours in regard to a tariff policy. I remember them talking about free trade, then reciprocity, then commercial union and then restricted reciprocity; they ran short of names and had to start over again, but they never carry their policies into effect. They have lived under

Questions
protection and are living under it to-day, 'I snipping off a bit here and there in order to ' keep bon. members to my left in line but not doing the effective work they should be doing and which the people expect them to do.
There is one other matter I must bring up, but about which I must be very careful;
I refer to the position taken by the Prime Minister on every occasion. I wonder if he can be smoked out of his position of splendid isolation or whether he is going to wait for coming events to cast their shadows before, as he has done in the past. I do not know just what position he takes, as a matter of fact; it has become a by-word all over Canada. If I were asked to describe his policy I could do so in four words, " dally, linger and wait." This government dally along the highway of opportunity; they linger as Mr. Micawber did in David Copperfield, in the hope that something will turn up, and they wait as they have done in the past to take advantage of the Conservative party when they initiate and develop a policy for the benefit and progress of this country. If the Liberal party would put in a policy of their own they would not require the services of whips as they have needed them during the last three weeks in this house; their supporters would follow the policy even if they did not follow the leader and there would be more jobs open to the whips.
I had intended to take up two or three other matters having to do with the Pacific coast, but I see that Victoria has been granted 146,000 in the estimates. When I go back I will have to tell my people that I do not know just how I will explain it, because when I left Victoria they were speaking of getting $546,000 according to the promises made them.
I will go back and do the best I can; I will have to accept the $46,000.


Mr. SPOTTON:: And see that it is expended.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: Surely they always
spend it.


George Spotton: No, they do not.


John Campbell Elliott: That is a suggestion for
the riding of North Huron.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: Now I wish to take
up a suggestion which was made by the leader of the opposition and which, to my mind, will do more for the benefit and progress of this Dominion and the empire than any other matter before us to-day. If the United States tariff is raised as I hope it will not be, I believe, as an hon. member said the other day, that there is enough red blood in this nation to resent that action, and then perhaps
we will do something in regard to our own tariff. I believe if the suggestion made by my leader were put into effect the United States would be very careful as to what they did in relation to this country; I refer to the suggestion that the Prime Minister should call an economic conference of all the dominions of the British commonwealth of nations, to be held in the city of Ottawa. This suggestion was put forward by the leader of the opposition in his speech on the address, but no notice has been taken of it and I suppose the same "dally, linger and wait' policy will be followed in this connection. As we read the press despatches from the motherland, telling of the search of our king and emperor for a sunny clime where he may restore his worn body after years of care and service to the empire. I feel that rays of sunshine and gladness would enter his soul if the news were brought to him that Canada has said, in Kipling's words:
Daughter am I in my mother's house
But mistress in my own-
-and that this same daughter had decided to assume her proper place as the oldest of the self-governing dominions and take the lead in settling the economic problems of this great empire. I believe the king would welcome this suggestion and perhaps Britain's greatest ambassador, the Prince of Wales, who has visited every British dominion, might be sent by the king to open such a conference. Has the Prime Minister of this Dominion the courage and vision to grasp this opportunity?
On motion of Mr. Ladner the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Wednesday, March 13, 1929